Is the Philippine judiciary dispensing justice as it should... or has politics and corruption gotten in the way?

It cannot be denied, IMO, that in some (if not most) cases, justice in the Philippines has a corresponding price tag, be it favors or cash. I believe, however, that there is still hope for our judiciary and that the Supreme Court leadership is indeed sincere in cleaning up its backyard.

The esteemed Justice Cruz, gives us aa bite of reality with the following article:

The myth of the perfect Supreme Court
By Isagani A. Cruz
Philippine Daily Inquirer (http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080531-140006/The-myth-of-the-perfect-Supreme-Court)
First Posted 22:46:00 05/31/2008

ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF Republicanism in this country is the aloofness of the Supreme Court from the political departments and its superior respectability compared to the accommodating availability of the President of the Philippines and Congress to the importunate electorate and their dependence on its capricious goodwill.


To the majority of our people, the Supreme Court should be regarded with special deference and even near reverence, removed from the bickerings and even cheapness of the political departments with their gaudy courtship of partisan applause and, especially now, the vulgarity, corruption, and idiocy as well, of some of their members.


You do not see Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno eating without spoon and fork at a barangay lunch like Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo demonstrating democratic equality in the rural hustings or Senate President Manuel Villar and his colleagues like Manuel Roxas II, Loren Legarda, and Panfilo Lacson advertising commercial products (and principally themselves) on television and probably receiving talent fees like Manny Pacquiao.


Ramon Revilla starring in an action movie or Lito Lapid relaxing in the Senate lounge instead of engaging in a parliamentary debate is now acceptable conduct among lawmakers even as the House of Representatives remains the kennel of GMA lapdogs under her former lieutenant, Jose de Venecia, and now under his former lieutenant, Prospero Nograles.


By contrast, the Supreme Court is properly reserved and often ignored save for occasional hallelujahs from retired Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban in his column on the other page, except when his former colleagues offer their obeisance to their other more powerful chief in Malacañang to whom they owe an obsequious gratitude more demanding than mere camaraderie with him.


The Supreme Court, as many ignorant observers suppose, is like some unapproachable Mount Olympus inhabited by demigods defining with finality the norms of conduct lesser mortals must obey. The decisions they make, as if proclaimed by Zeus with his mighty thunderbolts, cannot be reversed even if erroneous or dishonest because the Supreme Court is, according to the Constitution, supreme.


I had a colleague on the Court who during the more than eight years I sat there did not utter a single word in our deliberations en banc and consistently concurred with another member who was obviously his idol and dictator. In an unguarded moment, this taciturn justice’s wife revealed that all he did was sign (probably without even reading) the opinions prepared for him by his anonymous researchers. He subsequently retired with full honors and a generous pension for his exemplary career.


The Supreme Court of the Philippines usually dances to the music of its counterpart in the United States and dutifully embellishes its decisions with American jurisprudence not necessarily relevant or even logical. That model, for all its great traditions, is hardly flawless. In 1857, the US Supreme Court pronounced the horrendous Dred Scott doctrine that Negroes were mere chattel owned by their white masters. Even as late as in 2004, its Republican members decided the Florida electoral returns in favor of George W. Bush to defeat Al Gore, his Democratic opponent, who had won the popular vote.


The US Supreme Court sustained the forced segregation of American niseis as security risks during World War II, to its subsequent regret and repentance. But it never acted as shamelessly as our Supreme Court during the Marcos despotism when martial law reduced its members to plastic flunkies remote-controlled from Malacañang. Intimidated and bribed with ridiculous ease, they “legitimized” every wrong the dictator committed. Their cringing genuflection was unbelievable. Their cowardice and avarice indelibly blemished the sterling record of our judiciary, as enriched before and after their disgraceful stint, by the legal and moral qualities of their worthy peers.


The Supreme Court is no longer the idealized bastion of truth and justice the people could look up to before for the protection of their rights under the Rule of Law. Our liberty was more valiant yesterday, is in serious jeopardy today, and may be tomorrow only a vanished value. Many fear—and there are thousands, nay, millions of us who do—that we are now under what is deplored and detested as the perilous Rule of Arroyo. How do the honorable justices stand?


Now at least, the less impressionable among us can look at the present Supreme Court not with the old adulation and even fear before it lost its virginal rectitude. Albeit with “neither sword nor purse,” it still has the ultimate power and duty to check the abuses of the president and Congress and uphold the rights of every individual with the cold neutrality of the fearless judge.


But will it? Regretfully, we can no longer confidently predict, as during its innocent days, that its decisions will be bold and just. I hope for the best, being an optimist, but prepare for the worst, to be realistic. The Neri decision is like an apparition in the dark.

Its Just Tiis System. :lol:

this thread is important,i hope more youth will get involved!!

is our justice system broken?

does the good people of this divided country cares?

LIFE.......LIBERTY.......JUSTICE FOR THE FEW RICH?


the media dont talk much about our supreme court justices.

what's going on......WAKE UP FILIPINOS!!!!!!

Its Just Tiis System. :lol:

I had to think hard on that one, Louie. But when I got it.... :rofl:

I'd rather talk about the general justice system than the Supreme Court. Independence of the SC is debatable. It's an "if-you're-not-with-us-then-you're-against-us" attitude.

^^ the intention of the thread is indeed to discuss RP's justice system in general and not just the Supreme Court :)

is our justice system broken?

i don't think so. it has its flaws, yes, but i belive it is still functioning as it should :)

does the good people of this divided country cares?i sure hope so.


i noticed that some people who fear that they would not get a fair day in court because of an influential adversary resort to seeking media coverage in the hope that the public's eye on the case would deter any hanky-panky.

not every case, however, will get the media's attention... and there is just something wrong in the belief that one can only get a fair trial with the media's help :ohno:

do you have faith in the jury system?

what's your position on this

do believe that the court should interpret the constitution and not legislate social policy?

The government that we get is the government we deserve.

Ask any Filipino his opinion on this real-life situation:

its 8am on a workday on a busy makati street. A lady screams and is slammed to the pavement by a man trying to snatch her bag. What will YOU do?

its 7pm on a street in manila. a guy tries to grab your phone. What do YOU do?

Not surprisingly, most people i ask say the same thing: pabayaan mo na baka madamay ka pa. baka masaktan ka pa. baka may kasama.

i think it's sad. Filipinos admired for valor and bravery during World War II by winston churchill have become...yellow. No wonder goons thrive in this country because they know Filipinos will not lift a finger...always afraid.

We should cut our national anthem's last lines for it no longer applies: Aming ligaya na pag may nang-aapi, ang MAMATAY NG DAHIL SA 'YO!

Today's enemies are no longer the Spaniards, the Japanese, nor the Americans. Our enemies today are our own selves.

Marami talagang problema sa ating bayan bukod sa mga salbahi nating government officials, meron ding mga rebeldeng muslim at komunista, pati mga ibang pulis at mga dating pulis din na natutuksong lumabag sa ating mga batas! Lahat na ng klaseng pinoy kriminal ata nasa pilipinas na!

Cops who are guilty of kidnappings:
http://www.gmanews.tv/largevideo/related/19844/NBI-nabs-kidnappers-after-rescuing-victim

Cops kill 6 suspected carjackers (former cops), kidnappers in QC
http://www.gmanews.tv/largevideo/related/16437/Cops-kill-6-suspected-carjackers-kidnappers-in-QC

Saksi: Gangs shift from kidnapping to bank robbery - anti-crime group
http://www.gmanews.tv/largevideo/related/22985/Saksi-Gangs-shift-from-kidnapping-to-bank-robbery---anti-crime-group

What can we do to make our justice & laws to become stronger? Since the DNA sample tests are available in the philippines, so why not as well BRING back the death penalty NOW!

:bash: :ohno:

The Philippine justice system stinks. It is politicized starting form the law enforcement up to the Supreme, uhurrmm excuse me, supreme court. Yeah there's no need to capitalize it anymore since this institution who is supposed dispense justice equally without fear or fervor has lost its dignity and has become the obstruction itself. I'm sorry.:gaah:

Philippine Justice System? ..... meron po ba? :) :cheers:

Hustisya sa Pilipinas...
parang nagtapon ka ng karayom(needle) sa mga tumpok ng dayami at ipahahanap sayo sa loob ng isang oras...

It's just too much bad cops in the philippines.

Here is another video about a bad cop who were escorting a convoy of cargo trucks w/ suspected smuggled goods, and when apprehended by an MMDA Traffic enforcer, the cop even punched him and shot at him. This cop should be charged for attempted murder.

http://www.gmanews.tv/largevideo/latest/23606/Cop-accused-of-attacking-MMDA-traffic-enforcer

The thread was meant to discuss the ins and outs, pros and cons, etc. of RP’s present judiciary. It seems “The Philippine Justice System” is too broad for this thread :nuts:
“The Philippine Judiciary” might be more apt ;)

Anyways…
at least i can see that the Judiciary leadership is doing something to clean up its backyard...


Court Cleansing: SC Dismisses Judge, Three Personnel; Disciplines Six Others (http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/publications/benchmark/2008/04/040802.php)
By Anna Katrina M. Martinez

For committing various administrative offenses which run counter to the standards of competence, integrity, and diligence in public service, a first-level court judge and three court employees were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

In a 12-page per curiam decision, Judge Maxwell S. Rosete of the Metropolitan Trial Circuit Court, Branch 2, Santiago City, Isabela, was dismissed from service for dishonesty and gross misconduct. The Court found that Rosete had misappropriated the amount of PhP15,000, received from an accused in a criminal case as payment of the premium of the said accused’s bail bond.

The Court stressed that it was not the first time that Rosete had been made to account for his administrative offenses. Rosete had been previously fined PhP2,000 by the Court for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority and/or discretion, and incompetence, and, in another case, PhP5,000 for dishonesty. Rosete had likewise been reprimanded for violating Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code (usurpation of authority or official functions), and had been suspended for four months for violating RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

“A judge who has habitually flouted judicial ethics and betrayed judicial standards does not deserve the honor of his office,” said the Court. “To him should be meted the severest of administrative penalties.”

Also dismissed from service was Maria Algabre Chico, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga, for gross dishonesty and malversation of public funds. The High Court also ordered the Civil Service Commission to cancel Chico’s civil service eligibility, if any, and directed the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to file criminal charges against Chico before the appropriate court.

In a financial audit conducted by the OCA in the MCTC of Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga, Chico was found to have incurred cash accountabilities related to her duties as collecting officer amounting to PhP391,100 (PhP380,000 representing refunded cash bonds and PhP11,100 representing marriage solemnization fees).

In finding Chico guilty of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct, the Court emphasized that the safeguarding of funds and collections, the submission to the Court of a monthly report of collections for all funds, and the proper issuance of official receipts for collections are essential to an orderly administration of justice. Chico admitted that she used some of the court’s collections to pay for her personal expenses and confessed her failure to duly collect solemnization fees and to immediately deposit the cash bonds received by the court. She likewise admitted that she gave the court’s junior process server cash allowances without the necessary papers for travel expenses in the service of summons.

The Court found that Chico did not issue an official receipt for the amount of PhP8,000 she had received in connection with a criminal case. Neither did Chico detail in her monthly report of collections and deposits all true and correct cash transactions of the court, in violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 32-93. Likewise, the Court found that Chico falsely reported that certain withdrawals had been duly acknowledged by their respective claimants by means of signatures which Chico herself had forged.

In another per curiam case, the High Court also dismissed a court stenographer who consistently refused to transcribe the stenographic notes taken by her.

Ruby B. Hechanova, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, Silay City, Negros Occidental, was found guilty of gross neglect of duty. Hechanova was charged by Judge Felipe G. Banzon of the same branch of court with continued refusal to transcribe stenographic notes, alleging that Hechanova still refused to perform her duties despite the memoranda and orders issued by him directing her to transcribe her stenographic notes, with a warning that she shall be held in contempt and ordered arrested should she fail to comply.

In finding Hechanova guilty of gross neglect of duty, the Court held that as a stenographer, she should have realized “that the performance of her duty is essential to the prompt and proper administration of justice, and her inaction hampers the administration of justice and erodes public faith in the Judiciary.”

Likewise dismissed from service was Crisanto T. Flora, Sheriff IV of the RTC, Office of the Clerk of Court, Baguio City, for gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct.

In a 13-page per curiam resolution, the High Court found that Flora asked for PhP5,000 from the complainants in a civil case for the enforcement of a writ of execution dated February 20, 2001 issued by Branch 4 of the RTC of Baguio City, without issuing a receipt. However, Flora submitted to the court the sheriff’s return, dated June 15, 2001, only on May 27, 2005, after the branch clerk of court had inquired about it in March 2005.

Flora claimed that he was not able to implement the writ of execution because he was suspended from office from August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002. The Court, however, rejected his argument, stressing that the writ of execution was issued and assigned to Flora more than five months before his suspension.

The Court also found dubious the sheriff’s return submitted by Flora. “The return was supposedly dated June 15, 2001 yet it never occurred to him to submit it immediately thereafter,” said the Court. “By his own admission, the submission came only after the branch clerk of court inquired about it… It now appears that the return was ante-dated and the submission a mere afterthought.”

The other Judiciary employees who were administratively sanctioned by the High Court were Atty. Ma. Victoria A. Acidera, Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 13 of Laoag City, who was fined PhP10,000 for gross ignorance of the law for allowing the filing of motions that do not strictly conform with the Rules of Court, the same not having been addressed to all parties concerned; Remedios Base, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Brooke’s Point, Palawan, who was fined in an amount equivalent to her salary for two months for simple misconduct for issuing an order committing an accused in a criminal case to the Chief of Police of Brooke’s Point, thereby arrogating upon herself a judicial function; Reynaldo O. Girado, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 33 of Davao City, who was fined in an amount equivalent to his salary for one month for simple neglect of duty when he failed to implement the alias writ of execution and submit a sheriff’s return on execution relative to a civil case; Eriberto Sabas, former Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff of the MTC of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, who was also fined in an amount equivalent to his salary for one month, to be deducted from his retirement pay, after he was found guilty of simple neglect of duty for executing a demolition order relative to a civil case which entailed the destruction of a property belonging to a person not a party to the said case; Eugenio Taguba, Process Server, MTCC, Branch 2 of Santiago City, who was fined PhP2,000 after he was found guilty of simple misconduct for having prepared an acknowledgment receipt for the amount of PhP15,000 received and misappropriated by the dismissed Judge Rosete, and for having offered the varying amounts to the complainants in the administrative case against him and Judge Rosete in exchange for the withdrawal of the complaint; and Dominador Monesit Sr., Court Interpreter, MTC, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, who was reprimanded after he was found guilty of willful failure to pay a just debt. (AM No. MTJ-08-1702, Lacanilao v. Rosete, April 8, 2008; AM No. 08-1-30-MCTC, Re: Financial Report on the Audit Conducted in the MCTC, Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga, April 10, 2008; AM No. P-04-1765, Banzon v. Hechanova, April 8, 2008; AM No. P-06-2169, Urbanozo v. Flora, March 28, 2008; AM No. P-08-2442, Obrero v. Acidera, March 28, 2008; AM No. P-08-2440, Carandang v. Base, March 28, 2008; AM No. P-06-2250, Estoque v. Girado, March 24, 2008; AM No. P-06-2257, Stilgrove v. Sabas, March 28, 2008; and AM No. P-08-2447, Rosales v. Monesit, Sr., April 10, 2008.)


so, instead of merely yakking about it, those who had not so good experiences with our judiciary could help by filing administrative complaints against the erring public servants (be it a judge, prosecutor, a.k.a. fix-cal :D, or any court personnel for that matter)

I don't know where to post this:D

Arroyo critic jailed for libel in Philippines: court official
A Philippine newspaper editor and critic of President Gloria Arroyo was convicted of libel and sentenced to almost two years in jail on Thursday, court officials said.

Ninez Olivarez, editor of the Daily Tribune newspaper, said she expected the verdict but would appeal and has asked to be granted provisional liberty.

Olivarez was convicted for alleging in a 2003 article that a prominent law firm had tried to use political connections and bribes on behalf of its client in a suit over a mothballed airport terminal in Manila, court records show.

The law firm, Carpio Villaraza Cruz, charged that the article was unfounded and that it had been maligned by her article.

But Olivarez said the story was based on reliable sources. She also argued that the article is of "grave public importance" and that the Tribune had a duty to act as a media watchdog of the government.

The court however found the article to be "derogatory" adding that Olivarez "failed to exert efforts to verify the truth of the statements" against the complainants.

Aside from the jail sentence, Olivarez was also required to pay five million pesos (114,419 dollars) in damages.

"I expected to be convicted," she told AFP. "What can you do? There are so many powerful people."

She expressed determination to fight the case, vowing to take the law firm all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, even if it took 20 years.

"Probably, in those 20 years, I will have died already," she said.

Olivarez has long been a critic of Arroyo and her presumed allies and in 2006, government troops raided her newspaper on suspicion that she was involved with military coup plotters trying to overthrow the president.

b'z2;21392194"]The thread was meant to discuss the ins and outs, pros and cons, etc. of RP’s present judiciary. It seems “The Philippine Justice System” is too broad for this thread :nuts:
“The Philippine Judiciary” might be more apt ;)



Were you been replying to my last post? Kasi di ako naglagay ng post nayan dito, si moderator natin.

I originally started a separate thread for it (videos & photos), just to let u know in case u really replied to my post.

^^ it was a general observation :cheers2:
obviously a mod did a merge thread here :)

... dapat i merge to sa "Corruption in the Philippines" thread o kaya sa "HUMOR" thread ... :D

do we know our supreme court justices?

we need to tracked down their views and important rulings that affect our way of life

supreme court rulings are public records

WOULD SOMEONE POST,SUPREME COURT RULINGS

THE GOOD...THE BAD....AND THE UGLY { PLEASE LANG}

^^ full text of decisions are not that short but i could post excerpts of some significant rulings from time to time :)

in the meantime, here's a link (http://http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/index.php) to the Supreme Court website...
should anybody want to know answers to academic (:)) questions like these:

IS the president of a state university outside the reach of the disciplinary jurisdiction constitutionally granted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) over all civil servants and officials?

Does the assumption by the CSC of jurisdiction over a president of a state university violate academic freedom?

btw, the Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative in this May 2008 case (http://http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/may2008/168766.htm) :cheers2:

b'z2;21290392"]Is the Philippine judiciary dispensing justice as it should... or has politics and corruption gotten in the way?

It cannot be denied, IMO, that in some (if not most) cases, justice in the Philippines has a corresponding price tag, be it favors or cash. I believe, however, that there is still hope for our judiciary and that the Supreme Court leadership is indeed sincere in cleaning up its backyard.

The esteemed Justice Cruz, gives us aa bite of reality with the following article:

Former Justice Cruz may be esteemed in law circles but he is definitely not impartial. He should take a page from the book of former Chief Justice Davide, who encouraged the public to respect the decisions of the Supreme Court and not only when the decision suits their own views or agenda. This is his duty as a lawyer and an officer of the court--to uphold respect for the decisions of the high court.

Cruz is a known critic of PGMA and his words should be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes he gets carried away with his personal views. Even his books on Constitutional Law are filled with his own disgust for Marcos and servility to Cory Aquino.

The Philippine justice system stinks. It is politicized starting form the law enforcement up to the Supreme, uhurrmm excuse me, supreme court. Yeah there's no need to capitalize it anymore since this institution who is supposed dispense justice equally without fear or fervor has lost its dignity and has become the obstruction itself. I'm sorry.:gaah:

Please back up your claims. How has the Supreme Court "become the obstruction itself"? As long as the Supreme Court issued decisions against the administration, critics of the administration praised the Supreme Court to the skies. But make a few decisions in favor of the administration, never mind the sound constitutional basis of the decision, suddenly you're denounced by the self-righteous hypocrites.

thank you for the link,big O

SC grants amparo petition of lawyer vs MILF

By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view/20080623-144331/SC-grants-amparo-petition-of-lawyer-vs-MILF)
First Posted 19:01:00 06/23/2008

MANILA, Philippines -- The Supreme Court has ordered the Court of Appeals to hear the petition for a writ of amparo and protection order sought by a Shariah court lawyer against officials of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

In its four-page resolution, the high court resolved to "issue a writ of amparo, refer the petition to the Presiding Justice of the [Court of Appeals], order the respondents to make a verified return of the writ of amparo before the [appeals court], Manila, within five working days of the receipt of the writ and direct the [appellate court] to hear the petition on June 25 at 10 am and decide on the case within ten days after its submission for decision."

Lawyer Abdallah Casar sought the writ of amparo and protection order after a client, Disomangcop Polayagan, was kidnapped on May 24, 2007 in Marawi City by alleged MILF members.

The respondents include MILF chairman Ebrahim Murad, spokesman Eid Kabalu, Abdulrahman Macapaar, alias Commander Bravo; Aleem Abo Hanif Salindawan, chairman of the MILF Ad-Hoc Shariah; Abdul Pangandag, Amer Debarosan, alias Alan Bangcola; Nasser Abbas, and Jamel Mangandang, barangay (village) captain of Bito, Marawi City.

Casar said three unidentified members of the MILF, with Debarosan and Abdullah Pangandag, brother of Abdul, acting as lookouts, abducted his client.

The lawyer said he was representing Polayagan in a land dispute which was decided in favor of his client by the Shariah District Court of Marawi City. The respondents in the case were relatives of the MILF officers.

The defeated respondents then filed a case against Polayagan before the MILF Ad-Hoc Committee.

Casar told Polayagan not to appear since the case had already been decided before the proper court.

Because of this, the MILF issued a warrant of arrest against Polayagan.

Casar said the MILF detained his client at their detention center in Nusa Island, Wato, Lanao del Sur but released him that same day.

But when he filed kidnapping charges before the Marawi prosecutor’s office, he was again allegedly abducted, this time with his five sons, until he dropped the charges and accepted the MILF court's decision on the land case.

But when they were released, Casar said Polayagan and his sons signed another affidavit saying they were withdrawing their signatures from the decision of the MILF Shariah Committee.

It was after this, Casar said, that Abbas came to his office and told him to stop representing Polayagan.

"Th[ese] words and [a] letter coming straight from the MILF directly addressed to me as a lawyer who is only giving [sic] legal assistance to his clients, seriously threatened me and my family, my right to life, liberty, and security," Casar said.


^^ What is the writ of amparo?

It is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

Source (http://jlp-law.com/blog/writ-of-amparo-questions-and-answers/)

this thread is important,i hope more youth will get involved!!

is our justice system broken?

does the good people of this divided country cares?

LIFE.......LIBERTY.......JUSTICE FOR THE FEW RICH?


the media dont talk much about our supreme court justices.

what's going on......WAKE UP FILIPINOS!!!!!!

liberty will not be secured unless criminals lose their heads. :cheers:

SC junks Trillanes dream to attend Senate hearings
June 28, 2008 02:19:00
Kristine L. Alave
Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines-The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the dream of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, who is on trial for coup d'etat against the Arroyo administration, to discharge his legislative duties on the Senate floor.

In a unanimous 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, the high court en banc has barred Trillanes from attending Senate hearings while he has pending cases, affirming the decision of Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 148 Judge Oscar Pimentel Sr.

In his petition to overturn Pimentel's ruling, which was issued on July 2007, Trillanes reiterated his request to be allowed to attend all Senate functions, to have an office in his detention cell at the Marine Brig, Fort Bonifacio, and to receive members of his staff in his detention office.

He stressed that ex-Armed Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon Jr. did not overrule the Marine Brig's decision allowing him to participate in the Senate sessions.

He also asked the court's permission to give interviews and statements to the media.

As a detainee who has yet to be convicted of coup d'etat and rebellion charges before the civilian and military courts, Trillanes said he should enjoy civil and political rights.

He added that there were enough precedents allowing liberal treatment of detainees, citing the cases of deposed President Joseph Estrada and former Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Gov. Nur Misuari.

Read on (http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/makatistandoff/view.php?db=1&article=20080628-145247)

Source (http://www.chanrobles.com/courtsinthephilippines.htm)

The Constitution

The Constitution of the Philippines ordains that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. [Section 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).

The Law

Under Philippine laws [Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas Pambansa Bilang 129) which took effect on January 18, 1983 and other laws] the Philippine judicial system consists of the following courts:

Lower Courts

I. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Every municipality in the Philippines has its own Municipal Trial Court. It is referred to as such if it covers only one municipality; otherwise, it is called Municipal Circuit Trial Court if it covers two or more municipalities.

II. Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities

Municipal Trial Courts in the towns and cities in the Metropolitan Manila area, as distinguished from the other political subdivisions in the Philippines, are referred to as Metropolitan Trial Courts.

In cities outside Metropolitan Manila, the equivalent of the Municipal Trial Courts are referred to as Municipal Trial Courts in Cities.

III. Regional Trial Courts

Regional Trial Courts were established among the thirteen regions in the Philippines consisting of Regions I to XII and the National Capital Region (NCR). There are as many Regional Trial Courts in each region as the law mandates.

IV. Shari'a Courts

Equivalent to the Regional Trial Courts in rank are the Shari'a District Courts which were established in certain specified provinces in Mindanao where the Muslim Code on Personal Laws is being enforced.

Equivalent to the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are the Shari'a Circuit Courts which were established in certain municipalities in Mindanao.

There are five Shari'a District Courts and fifty one Shari'a Circuit Courts in existence.

V. Court of Tax Appeals

A special court, the Court of Tax Appeals, composed of a Presiding Judge and two Associate Judges, is vested with the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs on certain specific issues.

VI. Sandiganbayan

A special court, the Sandiganbayan, composed of a Presiding Justice and eight Associate Justices, has exclusive jurisdiction over violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act [Republic Act No. 3019], the Unexplained Wealth Act [Republic Act No. 1379] and other crimes or felonies committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office, including those employees in government-owned or controlled corporations.

VII. Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, composed of one Presiding Justice and sixty eight Associate Justices is vested with jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of the Regional Trial Courts and certain quasi-judicial agencies, boards or commissions.

The Highest Court - Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest Court in the Philippines. There is only one Supreme Court composed of one Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It is the final arbiter of any and all judicial issues. When so deciding, it may sit en banc or in divisions of three, five or seven members.

DOJ probes waiver row at Sulpicio compound
07/02/2008 | 05:22 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday started an investigation into a row involving the signing of waivers for compensation by kin of victims of the capsized MV Princess of the Stars.

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez warned Sulpicio Lines Inc., owner of the capsized vessel, that it may face sanctions for violating legal ethics if proven that it was involved.

“They may not be committing any crime but it can aggravate their situation because that shows they are in bad faith. If they are in bad faith then that should mean something if the case is filed already in court,” he said.

Gonzalez also stressed the special power of attorney (SPA) documents will be deemed invalid if they did not specify the name of the lawyer who will be granted such powers.

“The families of victims should be cautioned from dealing with these people. If there is any doubt on their part, they can seek the assistance of the Public Attorneys’ Office. Read and inquire first before they do any signing,” he said.

Earlier, PAO chief Persida Acosta said victims' relatives are being made to sign waivers where they risk giving up even their right to claim a P200,000 settlement.

Interviewed on dzBB radio, Acosta said the signing went on during the last two days when PAO lawyers were kept out of the premises of Sulpicio Lines Inc. in Port Area in Manila.

Acosta said the SPA would have allowed the unnamed attorney-in-fact to receive money, encash checks, and execute documents on behalf of the relatives who signed them.

"Paano hahabulin kung di kilala? Baka fixer ang nagpapapirma sa kanila (How will they go after the person who took their money? This looks like a fixer's racket)," she said. - GMANews.TV (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/104629/DOJ-probes-waiver-row-at-Sulpicio-compound)

SC, Manila Gov’t Team Up in Increasing Access to Justice
for the Poor (http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2008/07/07090801.php)
Posted: July 9, 2008

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and Manila City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, spearheading the Supreme Court and the City Government of Manila, today teamed up to facilitate the release of inmates from the Manila City Jail and youth offenders from the Manila Youth Reception Center (MYRC) to decongest the jail.

The release came only over a week following the two-day Forum on Increasing Access to Justice held simultaneously in the cities of Manila, Cebu, and Cagayan on June 30 to July 1, 2008.

Chief Justice Puno and Mayor Lim, the first local government chief to respond to the Judiciary’s call for concerted efforts to bring justice closer to the people, led Manila Executive Judges Reynaldo G. Ros and Roslyn R. Tria and Presiding Judges Wilhelmina M. Arcega and Cielito Mindaro-Grulla in conducting hearings inside the Justice on Wheels mobile court which had visited the Manila City Jail and the Manila Youth Reception Center, at 8:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., respectively.

The hearings resulted in the recommended release of four inmates who were being held for offenses including theft, slight physical injuries, and violation of BP 6

An inmate suffering from elephantiasis, who is being detained also for theft, was referred for immediate confinement and operation at the Philippine General Hospital.

Another was referred to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) psychiatrist for a series of test and evaluation.

Three MYRC detainees were released and they included an accused for attempted robbery, qualified theft, and theft.

The Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) have recommended the release of more inmates.

“We should be sensitive to the plight of these people… You should consider their situation,” Chief Justice Puno stressed among the judges who witnessed the jail decongestion activity. He reminded judges to avoid postponement of cases, particular of those who had been languishing in jail beyond the imposable penalty for their alleged offenses.

“Yung iba, mahigit 70, mahigit 80 hindi naman kabigatan yung mga pinapasan nilang asunto pero nandiyan pa rin. Andaming maysakit (Others are more than 70 or 80 years old who have been accused of not-so-heavy charges, yet they are still (in jail). Many are suffering from illnesses,” Chief Justice Puno said.

“There result shocks the conscience; shocks the court. I don’t know what stronger word to use. It is shocking lalung-lalo na sa ating namamahala sa administration of justice (especially to use who are managing the administration of justice),” the Chief Justice pointed out, describing past visits he, together with the Office of the Court Administrator, made to jail houses.

The Chief Justice thus urged all the pillars of the justice system to establish a mechanism to more effectively address the speedy disposition of cases, as a means of increasing access to justice.

“After the Forum, we have three months to deliver,” Chief Justice Puno said. “This is part of the process.”

At least 10 youth offenders are expected to be released at the MYRC this afternoon.

The jail decongestion activity, a joint project of the Supreme Court and the Manila City Government, marked the beginning of the High Court’s implementation of its Increasing Access to Justice by the Poor Program, which aims to respond to the difficulties under the justice system that limit the poor from seeking redress from the courts.

The Court held a two-day multi-sectoral forum dubbed as Forum on Increasing Access to Justice (Forum) on June 30 – July 1, 2008, which had gathered stakeholders in identifying problems and drawing up proposals to improve the justice system. Chief Justice Puno has assured that the Forum would not simply be an “idle talk-fest” and vowed that SC would immediately work on the recommendations of the Forum participants.
Statistics show there are 4,602 inmates at the MCJ.


*** *** ***


PCGG loses “behest loans" case before Supreme Court
07/09/2008 | 07:29 PM

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed the Ombudsman’s dismissal of graft charges against officers of the Philippine National Bank and Development Bank of the Philippines accused of granting behest loans to a coconut oil manufacturer and the Philippine Journalists Inc. (PJI), respectively.

The high court’s Third Division dismissed for lack of merit the consolidated petitions filed by the Presidential Ad-Hoc Committee on Behest Loans and the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against the state-owned financial institutions and the private corporations.

The Ad Hoc committee sought to stop the Ombudsman’s August 12, 1997 order of Ombudsman Aniano Desierto dismissing its complaint for graft against private respondents Ulpiano Tabasondra, Enrique Herbosa, Zosimo Malabanan, Arsenio Lopez, Romeo Reyes, Heradeo Cuballa, Nilo Roa, Benigno del Rio and Juan Trivino.

On the other hand, the PCGG sought a reversal of the Ombudsman’s November 28, 1997 order dismissing two graft complaints filed against private respondents Placido Mapa, Jose Tengco, Rafael Sison, Alejandro Melchor, Rosario Olivares, Alejandro Maramag, Evelyn Nicasio, Tuynita Soriano, Jose Abundo, Caridad Orpiada and Benjamin Romualdez, brother-in-law of the late President Ferdinand Marcos.

But the high court ruled that it is within the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine whether a criminal case should be filed or not.

“We find that the petition miserably fails to show that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion so as to call for the exercise of our supervisory powers over him. As long as there is substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsman’s decision, that decision will be overturned," the high court ruled.

Read full story here (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/106000/PCGG-loses-behest-loans-case-before-Supreme-Court)

SC probes threats on Sulpicio judge - report
07/09/2008 | 07:46 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court is now investigating the alleged threats received by a judge handling the petition of Sulpicio Lines Inc., owner of the ill-fated MV Princess of the Stars, to stop the investigation of the tragedy by the Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI).

Radio dzRH reported Wednesday evening that the high court ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to look into the supposed threat against Manila Judge Silvino Pampilo Jr.

Pampilo allegedly received a note left on his vehicle that read "Papatayin kita at itutumba kita (I'll kill you)."

Aside from the Sulpicio case, Pampilo also handles high-profiled cases involving First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo and retired military General Jovito Palparan Jr. - GMANews.TV (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/106002/SC-probes-threats-on-Sulpicio-judge---report)

Mobile courts value more on PR, says DOJ chief
07/10/2008 | 08:35 AM

MANILA, Philippines - The value of the Supreme Court's mobile courts may be more on public relations, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said Thursday.

Gonzalez admitted in a radio interview he still has doubts on how far the courts-on-wheels can go in dispensing justice, saying they are likely to handle relatively "small" cases.

"These are good innovations on the part of the Supreme Court, but how much coverage these mobile courts have remains to be seen. I'm not really very much convinced about these mobile courts," he said in an interview on dwIZ radio.

When told that the mobile courts managed to resolve 20 cases in a day, he said, "Well, siyempre may ano yan, may PR aspect yan (well, you know, it has a PR aspect)."

But he said he will encourage these mobile courts as they still help expedite cases.

"We should not discourage these practices on the part of the court. Kung maka-expedite ng kaso yan, that would be very, very good in our system (If they can help expedite cases, they would be very, very good in our system). Justice delayed is justice denied," he said. - GMANews.TV (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/106112/Mobile-courts-value-more-on-PR-says-DOJ-chief)



Mobile court resolves 20 cases in one day

July 10, 2008 05:52:00
Leila Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines—The decisions came down swiftly Wednesday from judges presiding at the first hearings of a justice-on-wheels program outside the packed Manila City Jail.

In less than 15 minutes, the charge of robbery-holdup against Aldrich dela Cruz, 20, was provisionally dismissed by Judge Reynaldo Ros after the accuser failed to heed repeated summonses to appear in court since the alleged crime happened in December 2007.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim were present during the initial proceedings inside a bus that was converted into a courtroom, marking the launching of the mobile court program in Metro Manila.

The mop-haired Dela Cruz, wearing the usual yellow T-shirt of a detainee, got some words of wisdom later from Puno and Lim, who told him that he should shape up from now on and he would get all the help that he needed if he decided to put his life in order.

All told during the daylong hearings conducted by Ros and three other judges on the bus, 20 cases were resolved and the inmates got either temporary or permanent freedom from various crimes, mostly against property, for which they had been charged.

Read full story here (http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/thegoodnews/view.php?db=1&article=20080710-147513)

^^ That's a very good move by the justice court. It will speed up the legal process but not sure if it will free up the jails.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080709/i/r2827599723.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080709/i/r3207431090.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080709/i/r3489042654.jpg
A detainee enters a courtroom inside a bus turned into a court
called Justice on Wheels, in Manila July 9, 2008. Courts has
brought judges closer to the community to speed up the legal
process and decongest jails.

madali talagang ma-congest ang mga kulungan natin... mataas ang crime rate plus the 'snail' factor ng judicial system natin.

ang alam ko nga may thief lang ang kaso pero nakakulung pa rin hanggang ngayon for almost 10 years na.

^^ There was a documentary about Philippine Jail sytem dito sa US. It showed young kids crowded altogether with the convicted adults.

^^The mobile courts can help expedite small cases, particularly those involving petty crimes. It will help spare the litigants from the financial and emotional toll involved in prosecuting or defending cases that could drag on for years due to the heavy backlogs in our courts. But I think that the Supreme Court should also work harder in implementing permanent solutions, in improving its capacity and that of lower courts to handle cases expeditiously. The SC should fully utilize the talents of the hundreds of lawyers who take their oaths every year.

b'z2;22092820"]SC junks Trillanes dream to attend Senate hearings
June 28, 2008 02:19:00
Kristine L. Alave
Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines-The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the dream of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, who is on trial for coup d'etat against the Arroyo administration, to discharge his legislative duties on the Senate floor.

In a unanimous 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, the high court en banc has barred Trillanes from attending Senate hearings while he has pending cases, affirming the decision of Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 148 Judge Oscar Pimentel Sr.

In his petition to overturn Pimentel's ruling, which was issued on July 2007, Trillanes reiterated his request to be allowed to attend all Senate functions, to have an office in his detention cell at the Marine Brig, Fort Bonifacio, and to receive members of his staff in his detention office.
...

Read on (http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/makatistandoff/view.php?db=1&article=20080628-145247)

I agree with the Supreme Court ruling on Trillanes. I think though, that the law should go further and prohibit those in similar circumstances as Trillanes from running for public office, particularly on the national level. Political adventurism, especially those involving the military, should be discouraged by rendering its prospects unprofitable for its proponents.

^^ There was a documentary about Philippine Jail sytem dito sa US. It showed young kids crowded altogether with the convicted adults.

may version din ata nito ang probe o imbestigador. kawawa talaga ang makulong lalo na kung hindi ka pa proven guilty. ang alam ko yung mga batang nakukulong e nire-rape pa daw sa loob ng kulungan o ibinubugaw sa mga taga labas.

dapat talaga e pagtuunang pansin ng ating gobyerno ang problemang ito. Modernization is the solution to this problem. We should also relocate (if ever) the new 'National Correctional Building' far from MM area - yung malayo sa kabihasnan....tipong isang isla na nasa gitna ng lawa na puno ng buwaya.

PUNO ON THE WARPATH OVER PRISON CONDITIONS (http://www.pr-inside.com/puno-on-the-warpath-over-prison-r696070.htm)

2008-07-10 14:02:51 - Manila City Jail becomes the pilot project of Justice on Wheels

Manila

www.balitapinoy.net

The City of Manila became the pilot project of the Justice on Wheels (JOW) project of Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno, which is designed to improve the access to justice of those who could least afford it; those who are 70 years old and above; and detainees whose cases have been pending longer than the prescribed detention period for their cases.

The project is also intended to declog the overcrowded city jail and other holding facilities of the city.

The P8-million truck which served as the court sala for the SC's JOW Project was ridden by Chief Justice Puno with a judge, full court retinue and several lawyers going to the Manila City Jail along Lope de Vega Street in the morning and at the Manila Youth Reception Center in the afternoon of Wednesday.

Manila Mayor Alfredo S. Lim led city officials in participating in the JOC project. The City Legal Office, headed by Atty. Renato de la Cruz, sent two lawyers and clerical staff aside from coordinating the activity among the Supreme Court, the City of Manila and the Manila City Jail and MYRC.

On hand to try cases that have been pending for several years were Regional Trial Court Judge Reynaldo Ros and Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Roslyn Tria. Two cases of inmates who are old enough to continue staying in jail and whose case has remained unresolved for so long were dismissed on the spot by the attending judges.

Chief Justice Puno took the opportunity to meet all 50 Regional and Metropolitan Trial Judges where he stressed that the Justice on Wheels Project is aimed at improving the access to justice by the poor.

He said what he saw at the City Jail 'strikes the conscience. This does not just happen in Manila but all over the Philippines,' Puno added.

Puno directed all the judges to 'go to the City Jail and look into the plight of our inmates.' He also raised his concern about the rampant planting of evidence, especially of drugs, by members of the police.

He ordered the judges assembled to work out a faster dispensation of justice in Manila. 'Where Manila goes, the entire nation goes. We will start here,' Puno said.

He told Mayor Lim that if last year, the concern was on extra judicial killings 'this year, let us shift our focus on the socio economic rights of the poor and increase their access to justice.'

Two inmates were released Tuesday and the cases of several other inmates were dismissed on the spot.

The Manila City Jail holds 4,602 male inmates of which 268 are Muslims (when its capacity is only 2,500) and 912 female inmates (when the capacity is only 30 female inmates).

The Justice on Wheels will be operating in the city for the next three months, or the time needed to decongest the City Jail and MYRC.

Puno asked the judges to speed up the trial of cases because inmates who stay longer at the detention centers become 'victims of injustice,' a view which Mayor Lim deeply shares since justice is one of his priority agenda.

The Mayor said three minors - ages 16 and 17 coming from Iligan and Lanao del Sur - were maids of two employers who escaped last June since they were not being paid their wages but were arrested after reaching Manila by bus.

The Mayor sent a lawyer from the City Legal Office and Manila Department of Social Welfare OIC Jay de la Pena to Cavite to demand the pay of these maids.

City Legal Office Chief, Atty. Renato de la Cruz said from hereon his office will contribute actively to the conversion of cases and the representation of detainees without counsel to hasten the release especially of those who have overstayed.

Elements of presidential communications privilege:

1) The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.”

2) The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.

3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.

Source: Neri vs. Senate (http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643.htm)


Recently decided cases:

SC Upholds Claim of Executive Privilege in Senate
ZTE/NBN Inquiry
By Gleo Sp. Guerra

The Supreme Court recently upheld the claim of executive privilege over communications between former Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Romulo L. Neri and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo elicited by three questions in the Senate inquiry regarding the aborted US$329,481,290 contract entered into by the Government and Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) of the People’s Republic of China for the National Broadband Network (NBN) Project.

The Court thus granted Neri’s petition and nullified the January 30, 2008 Order of the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee), Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, holding Neri in contempt and ordering his arrest and detention for his non-appearance in the Senate hearing on November 20, 2007.

The three questions with regard to which executive privilege was invoked are (a) whether President Arroyo followed up the NBN Project, (b) whether she directed him to prioritize it, and (c) whether she directed him to approve. The Senate investigation was prompted by allegations of bribery, corruption, and overpricing in the NBN Project. At the same time, the investigation was alleged to be in consideration of the following pending Senate bills: (1) Senate Bill No. 1793 amending RA 9184, The Government Procurement Reform Act, (2) Senate Bill No. 1794 amending RA 8182, The Official Development Assistance Act of 1996, and (3) Senate Bill No. 1317 mandating concurrence to international agreements and executive agreements.

In a 35-page decision penned by Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643.htm), the Court held that (1) the communications elicited by the three questions are covered by executive privilege, specifically the presidential communications privilege since (a) the same relate to the “quintessential and non-delegable power” of the President to enter into executive agreements with other countries, (b) petitioner Neri under the “operational proximity” test can be considered as a close advisor of the President being a member of her Cabinet, and (c) there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority; (2) the claim of executive privilege was properly invoked in the letter dated November 15, 2007 of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita wherein he requested respondents to dispense with petitioner Neri’s testimony scheduled on November 20 on the ground of executive privilege as “the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China,” the said reason being “precise and certain…as not to leave respondent Committees in the dark on how the requested information could be classified as privileged”; and (3) respondent Senate Committees committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Order because (a) of the legitimate claim of executive privilege; (b) they did not comply with the requirement in Senate v. Ermita that the invitations should contain the “possible needed statute which prompted the need for inquiry along with the usual indication of the subject of the inquiry and questions relative to and in furtherance thereof,” (c) the lack of the required majority of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in the deliberation of the Order, (d) the lack of duly published rules of procedure as required by Art. VI, §21 of the Constitution, and (e) their failure to first pass upon Neri’s invocation of executive privilege and inform Neri of their ruling.

The vote was 9-6 in favor of the invocation of executive privilege. Joining Justice de Castro in the majority are Senior Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Justice Renato C. Corona, Justice Dante O. Tinga, Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Justice Ruben T. Reyes, and Justice Arturo D. Brion. Dissenting were Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, and Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna.

Here (http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/publications/benchmark/2008/03/030802.php)


SC junks petition vs Philippine-Japan trade pact

By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080716-148806/SC-junks-petition-vs-Philippine-Japan-trade-pact)
First Posted 14:04:00 07/16/2008

MANILA, Philippines -- The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition filed by militant groups, led by Akbayan partylist, for a copy of the full text of the controversial trade agreement between the Philippines and Japan.

The high court also turned down the groups’ demand for copies of documents containing the offers made to each other by the two countries during their negotiations.

In a 51-page decision, the high tribunal said the demand to be given a copy of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement was “moot and academic” because this had been accessible to the public since Sept. 11, 2006.

At the same time, the court upheld the Philippine government’s claim of “executive privilege” in refusing to release documents of the negotiations.

^^let me guess, they would surely be questioning the independence of the SC again.

^^ who are they? Akbayan, et al.? :)

^^and the opposition.

^^ :hm: i guess the present opposition could derive some ;) benefit by utilizing each and every available opportunity to :bash: the GMA administration :D

Woman gets life for illegal recruitment

By Tina Santos
Philippine Daily Inquirer (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20080722-150073/Woman-gets-life-for-illegal-recruitment)
First Posted 21:48:00 07/22/2008

MANILA, Philippines—A judge on Tuesday sentenced a woman to life imprisonment for enticing job applicants to nonexistent jobs in the United Kingdom five years ago.

Judge Amor Reyes of the Manila regional trial court Branch 40, sentenced accused Isabel Abedes, 51, president of Justin Manpower Services, to suffer reclusion perpetua and additional 20 years imprisonment after she found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment and estafa.

The judge also ordered Abedes to indemnify each of the five complainants P60,000, or a total of P300,000.

Court records showed that between July 8 and August 13, 2003, Abedes and three others, Amilo Pabon, Leah Jensen and Fatima Garcia, represented themselves as having the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad.

Abedes and her alleged cohorts recruited and promised employment to the complainants as overseas workers in the United Kingdom. They demanded and received P60,000 as processing fees from the complainants but failed to deploy them.


^^ always glad to hear news of convictions like this one :okay:
mad at Pinoys who scam their fellow Pinoys :bash:
sad that there are still those who fell victims to these recruitment scams :ohno:

Dual citizen can’t run for public office (http://www.tempo.com.ph/news.php?aid=39519) – SC

"A Filipino-American or any dual citizen can not run for any elective public position in the Philippines unless he or she personally swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the time of the filing of candidacy."

Having ruled in this wise, the Supreme Court (SC) in an en banc resolution penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes said the Commission on Elections did not abuse its discretion when it disqualified Eusebio Eugenio K. Lopez from assuming the office of Barangay Chairman of Bagacay in San Dionisio, Iloilo City.

Lopez won in the synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections held last October 29, 2007.

"While it is true that petitioner won the elections, took his oath and began to discharge the functions of Barangay Chairman, his victory can not cure the defect of his candidacy. Garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election of a disqualified candidate because the application of the constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity," the SC said.

Lopez was born a Filipino but sought American citizenship and renounced his Filipino Citizenship. He later became a dual citizen by re-acquiring Filipino citizenship.

Four days before the election, one Tessie P. Villanueva filed a petition before the Comelec, claiming Lopez is an American citizen and ineligible to run for any public office.

The Comelec granted Villanueva’s petition, saying Lopez was not able to regain his Filipino citizenship in the manner provided by law.

The Comelec decision, which was affirmed by the High Court, noted that while respondent was able to regain his Filipino citizenship by virtue of the Dual Citizenship Law when he took his oath of allegiance before the Vice Consul General’s Office in Los Angeles, California, the same is not enough to allow him to run for a public office.

Judicial reform: A call to action (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=126225)

OPINION
By ANTONIO EDUARDO NACHURA
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/other/nachuracolumnpix.jpg

We bask in the privilege of the title ‘attorney,’ ‘judge,’ or ‘justice’ because we feel we have earned it. But when we succumb to the lure of fortune and power; we cease to be the law’s ministers and become unworthy of our respective titles.

A Ramon Magsaysay awardee once remarked: "When people go hungry, it is not food but justice that is in short supply."

Everyone, especially the marginalized and the disadvantaged, genuinely hopes that he can obtain prompt justice in his own country, and that justice is not a commodity available only to the rich and influential. That the thirst for justice remains, for many, merely an aspiration is reason enough for judicial reforms.

In 2005,the ratio of cases disposed of by all courts in relation to the total cases filed, or the total court-case disposition rate of all the courts in the Philippines— from the Shari’a Circuit Courts and the Municipal Trial Courts to the Supreme Court— as determined by the National Statistical Coordination Boards, was only 0.83. This translated into a steady increase in the backlog of cases in all courts.

The total case load of the judiciary as of 2007 was estimated at 700,789 cases. In the Supreme Court alone, we had an accumulated backlog of 3,201 cases as of last year. Now, our pending cases are estimated at 9,000. With the average case inflow of 4,500 petitions and the Court’s ability to promulgate signed decisions at only an average of 1,000 cases a year, it is difficult to imagine how and when the backlog will be wiped out.

The backlog accounts in large measure for the delay in the disposition of cases in courts, a problem— aside from corruption and incompetence— sought to be addressed the Court’s Action Program for Judicial Reform or the APJR. Among the identified causes of case congestion and delay are:

1. The loopholes in the Rules of Court that are taken advantage of by parties to obtain postponements, extensions of processing time and drawn-out procedures.

2. Inadequate case management systems.

3. The lack of judges, public prosecutors and public attorneys.

4. The severe budgetary, physical and technological resource deficiencies.

5. The weak system of accountability at various levels accompanied by a deficient performance management system.

6. The low renumeration of judges and court personnel.

7. The weakness in the investigative and apprehension agencies of the government.

Incompetence and corruption

The three major concerns of judicial reform— delay in the adjudication of cases, corruption and incompetence— are interrelated. Incompetence in the management and resolution of cases leads to delay in the delivery of justice. Case congestion and delay make the justice system vulnerable to corruption, as litigants and lawyers resort to bribery for the prioritization and facilitation of their cases. Corruption, in turn, breeds incompetence and delay, as losing cases are prolonged to favor the losing party. This is really a vicious cycle.

The court designed the APJR to focus on four major reform areas, namely: judicial systems and procedures; institutions development; human resources development; and reform support systems.

The projects that focus on fostering, learning, computerization and training are designed to reduce, if not totally eradicate, the problem of incompetence and congestion of cases. The continuing education and training of magistrates, court personnel and members of the Bar is expected to give them the required degree of exercise to handle and resolve complex cases and proceedings, and thus, case court dockets.

To guard against judicial excesses of abuses, we have the New Code of Judicial Conduct, patterned after the UN-endorsed Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, and we have also promulgated the Code of Conduct for Judicial Personnel. And, if only to stress the seriousness of this part of the judicial reform agenda, the Court has dismissed from the service, suspended, censured, fined, reprimanded, admonished, forfeited the benefits of, and stricken from the roll, a sizable number of justices, judges, lawyers, court officials and employees.

All these judicial reforms have but a single objective, capsulized by former Chief Justice Davide as "a judiciary that is independent, effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence; and a legal profession that provides quality, ethical, accessible and cost-effective legal service to our people and willing and able to answer the call to public service."

Lawyers as leaders

The objective cannot be attained— indeed; the entire judicial reform agenda would be ineffective— without the indispensable cooperation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). We cannot overemphasize the vital role of the members of the legal profession in this colossal undertaking.

The IBP and its members must continue to play a vital role in the areas of judicial reform where they can be most effective; say, in lobbying for legislation which will ensure full judicial autonomy;

The effective discharge of the Bar’s public responsibility, however, must devolve upon the individual lawyers. It may be well to remember that the ministry of the law is a ministry of leadership.

As leaders, we must have the courage of our conviction, stand up to and denounce wrongdoing by any magistrate or government official, or even those committed by our brethren in the profession. This we must do if we are to erase the culture of corruption that is perceived to pervade our society and our body politic.

I am reminded of the principle in Oriental philosophy on "rectification of names". We bask in the privilege of the title "attorney," "judge," or "justice," because we feel we have earned it. But when we succumb to the lure of fortune and power; when we yield to the presence of patronage and partisanship when we subvert the rule of law by our less than ethical conduct, we cease to be the law’s ministers and become unworthy of our respective titles.

These are excerpts from the keynote address delivered by Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Southern Luzon Regional Convention, held in Makati on July 18, 2008.

philippine justice system! sucks! sinong kokontra!

^^oh and so? If you keep saying that without thinking of something to reverse the trend, then what's the use. You're part of that system, anyway. Therefore, you also suck.

^^oh and so? If you keep saying that without thinking of something to reverse the trend, then what's the use. You're part of that system, anyway. Therefore, you also suck.

oh so you know what im thinking? ur a "madame auring"?

oh so you know what im thinking? ur a "madame auring"?No. I'm using your post as a reference. Why should I know what you're thinking when you didn't elaborate what you said, right?

philippine justice system! sucks! sinong kokontra!

this is obviously true, the actions of the "system" define what they really are.

and what do you want to do about it?

^^ if @marxman would kindly elaborate on his reasons for saying that our justice system sucks, maybe we can have a healthy discussion about this.

it's just disheartening to hear one say that something sucks without offering a take on how to improve/make it better :ohno:

"Dual citizen can’t run for public office – SC"

this one sucks too hehe

^^ Let's see the SC decision. I want to read it.

There was this doctor guy who went back to run for office in the Philippines right?

I thought he had his heart and head in the right places then. Oh well.

^^ here's the full resolution of the Lopez vs. Villanueva (http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/july2008/182701.htm) case promulgated July 23, 2008 :):

R E S O L U T I O N

REYES, R.T., J.:

A Filipino-American or any dual citizen cannot run for any elective public position in the Philippines unless he or she personally swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy.

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64 of the Rules on Civil Procedure assailing the (1) Resolution[1] and (2) Omnibus Order[2] of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Second Division, disqualifying petitioner from running as Barangay Chairman.

Petitioner Eusebio Eugenio K. Lopez was a candidate for the position of Chairman of Barangay Bagacay, San Dionisio, Iloilo City in the synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections held on October 29, 2007.

On October 25, 2007, respondent Tessie P. Villanueva filed a petition[3] before the Provincial Election Supervisor of the Province of Iloilo, praying for the disqualification of petitioner on the ground that he is an American citizen, hence, ineligible from running for any public office. In his Answer,[4] petitioner argued that he is a dual citizen, a Filipino and at the same time an American, by virtue of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003.[5] He returned to the Philippines and resided in Barangay Bagacay. Thus, he said, he possessed all the qualifications to run for Barangay Chairman.

After the votes for Barangay Chairman were canvassed, petitioner emerged as the winner.[6]

On February 6, 2008, COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution granting the petition for disqualification, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Disqualification is GRANTED and respondent Eusebio Eugenio K. Lopez is DISQUALIFIED from running as Barangay Chairman of Barangay Bagacay, San Dionisio, Iloilo.

SO ORDERED.[7]

In ruling against petitioner, the COMELEC found that he was not able to regain his Filipino citizenship in the manner provided by law. According to the poll body, to be able to qualify as a candidate in the elections, petitioner should have made a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship. This, petitioner failed to do.

His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner resorted to the present petition, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC for disqualifying him from running and assuming the office of Barangay Chairman.

We dismiss the petition.

Relying on Valles v. Commission on Elections,[8] petitioner argues that his filing of a certificate of candidacy operated as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.

We note, however, that the operative facts that led to this Court’s ruling in Valles are substantially different from the present case. In Valles, the candidate, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, was a dual citizen by accident of birth on foreign soil.[9] Lopez was born of Filipino parents in Australia, a country which follows the principle of jus soli. As a result, she acquired Australian citizenship by operation of Australian law, but she was also considered a Filipino citizen under Philippine law. She did not perform any act to swear allegiance to a country other than the Philippines.

In contrast, petitioner was born a Filipino but he deliberately sought American citizenship and renounced his Filipino citizenship. He later on became a dual citizen by re-acquiring Filipino citizenship.

More importantly, the Court’s 2000 ruling in Valles has been superseded by the enactment of R.A. No. 9225[10] in 2003. R.A. No. 9225 expressly provides for the conditions before those who re-acquired Filipino citizenship may run for a public office in the Philippines. Section 5 of the said law states:

Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. – Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

x x x x

(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. (Emphasis added)

Petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the cited law. This new law explicitly provides that should one seek elective public office, he should first “make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.”

Petitioner failed to comply with this requirement. We quote with approval the COMELEC observation on this point:

While respondent was able to regain his Filipino Citizenship by virtue of the Dual Citizenship Law when he took his oath of allegiance before the Vice Consul of the Philippine Consulate General’s Office in Los Angeles, California, the same is not enough to allow him to run for a public office. The above-quoted provision of law mandates that a candidate with dual citizenship must make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. There is no evidence presented that will show that respondent complied with the provision of R.A. No. 9225. Absent such proof we cannot allow respondent to run for Barangay Chairman of Barangay Bagacay.

For the renunciation to be valid, it must be contained in an affidavit duly executed before an officer of law who is authorized to administer an oath. The affiant must state in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship for it to be effective. In the instant case, respondent Lopez’s failure to renounce his American citizenship as proven by the absence of an affidavit that will prove the contrary leads this Commission to believe that he failed to comply with the positive mandate of law. For failure of respondent to prove that he abandoned his allegiance to the United States, this Commission holds him disqualified from running for an elective position in the Philippines.[11] (Emphasis added)

While it is true that petitioner won the elections, took his oath and began to discharge the functions of Barangay Chairman, his victory can not cure the defect of his candidacy. Garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election of a disqualified candidate because the application of the constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity.[12]

In sum, the COMELEC committed no grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner as candidate for Chairman in the Barangay elections of 2007.

^^ Oh okay. I see it is qualified. If the person makes a personal renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship under oath, then that person can run for public office in the Philippines.

Thanks for posting that @red_jasper.

I guess, the person cannot have his cake and eat it, too.

Wala lang.... Judicial courts famous term to hold some legal agreement or decision is :

TRO [temporary restraining order] ... TRO dito, TRO duon.. TRO diyan... lahat na lang may TRO.... :lol:


Anak ng pitong gatang... can they just make the righful decision asap?


(asa pa ako... ganyan na yan since kopong kopong days) :nuts:

Support widens for ‘green courts’ (http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics6_aug12_2008)

Environment Secretary Joselito Atienza expressed confidence of speedier prosecution of cases involving environmental criminals even as Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez pledged to attend with dispatch to cases involving violations of the environment law.

“Effective prosecution is the best deterrent against environmental crimes. Sending the environmental criminals to jail would send a strong message to those who intend to violate our environmental laws,” Atienza said.

The intensified prosecution of violators of environmental laws was highlighted yesterday during the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Atienza and Sherween Jerry Paul Saquing, executive vice president of the Association of Law Students of the Philippines, a group of 60 organizations of law students throughout the country, that has taken up Atienza’s call among legal circles to strengthen the government’s efforts to prosecute violators of environmental laws. The event coincided with Atienza’s 67th birthday celebration.

“This is injecting fresh blood and youthful idealism in our crusade to effect sustained enforcement of environmental laws in the country. We cannot have an effective enforcement of these laws without an effective prosecution of those who violate environmental laws,” Atienza said.

Earlier, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez joined Atienza, along with environment ombudsman Mark Jalondoni, in inaugurating the Hearing Room which will be the permanent venue for the adjudication of pollution cases filed with the Pollution Adjudication Board and the Mining Adjudication Board.

Gutierrez said ALSP is a big boost for the environment department’s push to sharpen its legal teeth, noting that the department is tasked as the lead implementor of 12 of the 14 Philippine environmental laws.

Undersecretary Mary Ann Lucille Sering said the record of the environment department in not having won a single case against environmental criminals will now change for the better.

Under the agreement, the ALSP will commit its members follow-up cases on environmental cases filed in the courts and monitor the status of these cases.

Saquing noted that resolution of environmental cases filed with the regular courts need to be regularly monitored for their timely resolution if the government wants to send a strong signal that it is serious in enforcing environmental laws.

“We want to make a sound contribution to this effort by helping the DENR monitor cases and give voluntary paralegal and research services to help DENR lawyer come up with water-tight cases against violators,” Saquing said.

Saquing explained that the gesture is their way of filling up the department’s need to deepen its legal bench and of advancing environmental lawyering in the country.

Atienza’s effort to strengthen his agency’s legal muscle compliments ALSP agenda which includes the promotion of environmental lawyering as an important aspect in the country’s lawyering profession.

Although there have been too many statements on the Philippine Justice System, I still believe in it. Corruption issues will always be there, no matter what. We can always question people but if we question the very institution itself, we will be doomed. After all, the judiciary is supposed to be the interpreters of the law. With that, we could only expect justice and fairness to our own justice system.

It is elementary rule in law that the one who allege has the burden of proof. We could not allege and at the same time put the burden on proving their innocence on the suspect. As such, before we believe that there is corruption, we must determine first the truthfulness of the allegations. But of course, the idea of one offering a bribe is not new. But it does not necessarily mean that one accepted the offer.

philippine justice system! sucks! sinong kokontra!

personal experience ko with our justice system is really bad (and I come from a family of lawyers, am not one though)...and I agree with marxman, our justice system really sucks...

1st, madaming judges daig pa mga artista sa pagiging prima donna. magiischedule ng hearing, tapos di naman sisiput...ano sila? anak ng hari? wala ba silang calendaryo? nag leave po kami sa mga trabaho namin para magkipaghearing sa inyo... are you freaking deaf mr. judge? S.A.H...meron din naman ok najudges (disclaimer lang hahahaha)

kaya nga one time, napostpone ung hearing na inattend ko dahil absent nga daw ang judge...I went ballistic, I demand they pay the appearance fee of my lawyer, the security threatened to apprehend me and kakasuhan daw ako!!!...sabi ko, ok lang hindi ako takot, malamang absent din ang judge sa hearing ko!!! nyahahaha...j/k

2nd, well, tambak din naman ang dami ng kaso ng mga judges...dahil din siguro sa kakaabsent nila...nyahahaha..

3rd, sobra ang palakasan ng systema natin, kapag big time malaki ang chance na lusot (factors included: influence, money, and more money to hire the best counselors)... but it also cuts both ways din naman, depende sa ihip ng hangin...kasi naman minsan, to show na hindi malakas ang "malakas", pag involved ang isang big name sa kaso, lalo dinidiin just so the perception can be somewhat "balanced." kawawa ang innocent, pati na din ang victim.

4th, kulang sa mga lawyers ang prosecutors office...well, can't blame the lawyers..my sis is a lawyer, tried to practice with the gov't, pro di talga kaya, it's a thankless job, maliit pa ang sweldo. imagine, almost 8-10 years ang career na 'to, depende sa 1st course, and our gov't is giving these professional crumbs...kaya ayun, most lawyers would rather practice privately or with corporations.

5th, being a judge is a very risky job. one person having to decide the fate of individuals/corporations is too big a task. madami nang namatay na judges...and meron pang hostage takings na nanyari.. last year di ba sa taguig (?)...i think we should try out the jury system...pra naman di ganun ka delikado for the judge and his family.

6th...ambagal ng ating justice system...kwawa ang mga innocente na nakakulong, kawawa ang mga biktima. snail paced ang ating justice system, daig p ang post office sa bagal...just tiis system nga naman daw.

7th, our local enforcement (w/c is part of our justice system) and our jail system...we are familiar with our local enforcement...ang guilty nakakatakas, ang mga warrant hindi nasiserve...tapos, meron pang fall guys...pag walang kang influence, di na papansinin ung kaso mo...hay naku...tsk tsk tsk...ung jails naman natin eh gusto na atang pataying ang mga inmates...imbes na ma-reformed sila, eh nagiging lalong brutal pa...the living conditions are worst than most dogs have...at least ang mga pet na aso, pinapakain ng mga dicalibreng dog food, ang mga inmates di madescribe ang pagkain..hehehe...lalo tuloy nakakaisip ng mga masasamang gawain...if we want these people to be reformed, then we should treat them as people first.

^^ those are very valid observations @sandman :yes:

Pinoys are well aware of how our present justice system works (or not :))
that's why it is imperative for those indviduals who have these kind of bad experiences re: our justice system to not merely stand by and allow such things to happen. there is a process for disciplining errant court officers and personnel. some people might think this is a waste of time, effort and money---but if none of us will keep trying, we will not have the reforms that we want :ohno:

as to your personal experience with an absentee judge... if that was already "habitual" without any valid excuse, that is a real cause for disciplinary action.

i am quite familiar with the judicial process myself and my experiences with judges have been generally good (lucky me :lol:). there is this particular young judge in Makati whose attitude in court really impressed me. he starts his hearings on time and he asks such relevant questions that makes it evident that he actually studies the cases set for hearing on that day--- may his tribe increase :cheers2:

Judge rules to inhibit self from John-John’s drug case

By Carine M. Asutilla
Cebu Daily News (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/news/view/20080814-154576/Judge-rules-to-inhibit-self-from-John-Johns-drug-case)
First Posted 11:30:00 08/14/2008

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Meinrado Paredes yesterday inhibited himself from handling the drug case against former vice governor John Gregory “John-John” Osmeña.

Paredes of RTC Branch 13 issued the ruling even as he reiterated that Manila-based prosecutors “misunderstood” him when he sought additional evidence against the former vice governor.

Osmeña is accused of allegedly attempting to facilitate the release of pseudoephedrine to a suspected Australian drug dealer.

Taguig prosecutor Archimedes Manabat and State Prosecutors Irwin Maraya and Juan Pedro Navarra signed the motion while State Prosecutor Llena Ipong and Assistant City Prosecutor Nathaniel Andal declined to sign the motion.

The motion was filed after Judge Paredes asked the prosecution panel to submit more evidences against Osmeña.

The prosecution filed the motion, claiming that Judge Paredes was biased.

Paredes, however, said the court did not dismiss the case but only wanted the prosecution to establish probable cause and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The judge said it was the Manila-based prosecutors who misunderstood him.

Judge Paredes said he has “upheld and exemplified judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects” as shown in his profile in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in the Cebu City and Cebu Province chapters.

The judge said the prosecutors’ lack of trust and respect is not well-grounded and thus left him no choice but to inhibit the case.

Ipong said she and Andal did not sign the motion out of respect for Paredes.

She said that since the judge inhibited himself from the case, they have to start the case anew.

The case will be re-raffled to other judges.

^^ i consider this a good move for the judge---whether or not there is truth to the charges of bias against him. indeed, why insist on handling a case where relations between certain parties and the judge are already showing signs of becoming strained...

Wala lang.... Judicial courts famous term to hold some legal agreement or decision is :

TRO [temporary restraining order] ... TRO dito, TRO duon.. TRO diyan... lahat na lang may TRO.... :lol:


Anak ng pitong gatang... can they just make the righful decision asap?


(asa pa ako... ganyan na yan since kopong kopong days) :nuts:

One notable feature of Just Tiis system :lol:

(UPDATE) First anti-corruption center to be built in RP

Country now ‘controlling corruption’--Gutierrez
By Abigail Kwok
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 12:18:00 08/27/2008

MANILA, Philippines -- The first ever institution in Asia that will focus on the study and prevention of corruption will be built here in the Philippines, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez announced on Wednesday.

Gutierrez led the signing of the memorandum of understanding, which will pave the way for the establishment of the Center for Asian Integrity (CAI) that would focus on the study of corruption through three approaches:

• incorporating the Ombudsman's training center, which will train trainers, investigators, and prosecutors on integrity. Gutierrez also said that the Ombudsman Academy, currently housed at the Office of the Ombudsman at Quezon City, will eventually be transferred to the CAI;

• incorporating a research program to provide qualitative and quantitative research on corruption using international methodologies. This will entail the creation of a “virtual library” for researchers, scholars, and other interested individuals to access information about corruption; and,

• providing curriculum design and course development on "integrity courses" accredited by the University of the Philippines. Interested individuals may also enrol in courses that will major in integrity and ethical standards.

Gutierrez said the establishment of the CAI here was an “indicator” that the country was “controlling corruption” since international standards had to be met before the center could be built.

This indicator, Gutierrez said, was based on “quantifiable and not just perceptive methods” that the country was able to control corruption.

Meanwhile, Professor Charles Sampford from the Institute of Ethics, Governance, and Law (IEGL) said that the creation of CAI would help tackle the issue of corruption in a “calculated and coordinated way.”

Sampford, who witnessed the signing of the MoU, admitted that corruption could not be solved but that the question to be asked is “how do we deal with corruption?”

“Officials and institutions are given powers but there is an inherent danger to these powers to be abused and misused...there is a need for coordination of strategies and the need for research,” he added.

CAI will be funded by the Millennium Challenge Corporation-Philippine Threshhold Program through the Asia Foundation.

The signing, held at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC), was witnessed by foreign anti-corruption groups including Brunei, Cambodia, and Thailand, capping the two-day Ombudsman meet against corruption.

^^ Where is Joc-Joc? :lol:

There really are many valid complaints regarding our courts and its members. The dockets are increasing but the disposed cases are very few. Some judges are lazy others are ignorant of the law kaya naman halos lahat ng decision ng trial judges ay nagiging useless lalo na pag nireverse ng SC ang decision. But we are lucky not to have judicial elections in the country. Otherwise napulitika na rin for sure ang ating justice system. Imbes na magconcentrate sa pagdedesisyon sa mga nakatambak na kaso ay magiging busy pa ang mga huwes sa pangangampanya.

Ang Supreme Court naman natin, mga respetadong tao ang nakaupo doon. Kaya kung ano man ang desisyon nila ay dapat respetuhin. May ilang private groups at politicians ng oposisyon ang madalas hindi marunong tumanggap ng desisyon. Laging may reklamo. Siyempre madalas yung talo magrereklamo. Pero pag ang administrasyon ang natalo maluwag na tinatanggap ang desisyon at kasunod na apela na lang isusunod hindi reklamo.

Food for thought:

Gayness not reason to annul marriage -- Supreme Court

By Jerome Aning
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 19:44:00 08/30/2008

MANILA, Philippines -- Being gay is not a valid ground to have one's marriage annulled; hiding such a fact is.

The Supreme Court made this ruling as it reversed a decision by the Las Piñas City Regional Trial Court to annul a couple's 11-year marriage after the wife claimed her husband was a homosexual.

In a 21-page ruling dated August 28, the Court's 3rd Division said the lower court erred in declaring the marriage void from the start because it took into account solely the husband's alleged homosexuality per se without being presented with proof that he had concealed it from his wife.

In restoring the marriage of the couple (whose identities the Inquirer is withholding for the sake of their minor children), the Court said the lower court misinterpreted Article 46 of the Family Code of the Philippines that allows annulment when the consent of either party is obtained by fraud, such as concealment of homosexuality.

“Nowhere in the [RTC's] decision was it proven by preponderance of evidence that [the husband] was homosexual at the onset of his marriage and that he deliberately hid such a fact from his wife. It is the concealment that vitiates the consent of the innocent party [and] presupposes bad faith and intent to defraud the other party in giving consent to the marriage,” said the Supreme Court’s ruling, written by Justice Ruben Reyes.

Full article here (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080830-157753/Gayness-not-reason-to-annul-marriage----Supreme-Court)

^^ I guess it really depends on the judges and justices that one encounters. Being a part of the judiciary is not an easy job. In fact, considering the two other co-equal and independent branches of the government, I would always give my utmost respect to the judiciary for being less politicized than the other two.

For justice to be served in the Philippines, we must have patience. Judges are not really capricious but it will be time-consuming with the fact that they have to follow what the rules say. And may I add that since the Supreme Court is always the last resort, I'd like to think justice is served to those who find it.

US appeals court junks Jocjoc asylum petition (http://www.philstar.com/index.php?Headlines&p=49&type=2&sec=24&aid=20080902135)

Former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante is facing immediate deportation after the US Court of Appeals denied his bid for political asylum.

According to University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque, the US Court of Appeals has turned down Bolante’s petition for asylum for failure to support his claim of political persecution in the Philippines.

Roque, the lawyer who opposed the application for asylum, said he received information that Bolante is planning to elevate his petition to the US Supreme Court in a bid to delay his impending deportation to the Philippines.

“Although he (Bolante) is entitled to go further and appeal to the Supreme Court, it is highly unlikely that the highest court of the US will overturn the denial by the Chicago Immigration Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals and the US Court of Appeals,” Roque said.

Roque revealed the decisions of the US immigration authorities on Bolante while attending the Assembly of State Parties of the International Criminal Court at the United Nations in New York last year.

Roque disclosed the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago turned down Bolante’s petition for review of his asylum bid.

In a nine-page decision by Judge William Bauer on Aug. 27, the court ruled that Bolante “cannot meet his burden of proof on his asylum claim,” pointing out the former agriculture official failed to support his claim of political persecution if he goes back to the Philippines.

“Bolante may be correct that he is but a pawn in the opposition party’s efforts to oust President Arroyo. But if he concurrently acted to further a scheme to defraud the Philippine public trust and divert funds to a political campaign – activity that would certainly be illegal under our own laws – then facing prosecution for his acts would not be ground for asylum,” the ruling said.

“A more fundamental problem for Bolante is that he does not presently face prosecution. No charges have been filed against him,” it added.

The US appellate court sustained the previous ruling on the issue.

“In short, the record does not establish that any harm will come to Bolante on his return; it is not even certain that he will face arrest or have to testify before the Senate Committee, given that Bolante has contested the validity of both,” it stressed.

Although the Philippine Senate had recommended charges against Bolante and Agriculture Undersecretary Felix Montes, who had testified for him, they both had not faced prosecution or were unjustly prosecuted and physically harmed along with the other officials of the Arroyo administration involved in the scam, the US court said.

Even the supposed bounty of P200,000 raised by the Philippine Senate for Bolante’s capture was not accepted by the US court as basis for his fear and that of his witnesses that he would be harmed once in the Philippines.

“Even if the bounty still exists, it does not show any threat of long-term harm to Bolante; the sole purpose of the bounty is to secure Bolante’s testimony before the Senate committee,” the court said.

The main architect
The appellate court sustained the ruling of US immigration officials that Bolante had failed to prove that he would be politically persecuted if he ever returns to the Philippines.

The Philippine Senate is seeking Bolante to testify on the fertilizer fund scam, where he was tagged as the “main architect” of the plan to divert fertilizer subsidy funds to finance President Arroyo’s presidential campaign in 2004.

The Chicago Immigration Court and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) earlier denied Bolante’s petitions for asylum even though his son Owen, Undersecretary Montes and retired general Rodolfo Estrellado testified on his behalf.

The BIA, in its June 25 decision, said there was no evidence that the former Philippine agriculture official was harmed and criminally charged as a result of the Senate investigation into the controversy.

Bolante is currently detained in Kenosha County Detention Center in Wisconsin, awaiting the final ruling on his petition for asylum.

Bolante was arrested and jailed in the US after he tried to enter Los Angeles, California on July 7, 2006 when his non-immigrant visa had already been revoked by the US State Department.

Bolante ignored four subpoenas from the Senate and was eventually issued an arrest warrant in 2005.

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez earlier said the US government would have no other choice but to deport Bolante after his request for political asylum has been denied.

Gonzalez said the Philippine government could only take action against Bolante once he returns home.

“If he will be deported, he will be back in our jurisdiction. That is the time we will probably take steps on what action to take against Mr. Bolante. At this time I am not aware of any case that has been decided against him. Except that the Senate has requested that he be arrested,” he said.

Senate President Manuel Villar Jr. said it would be up to the committee that handled the fertilizer fund scam to reopen the case once Bolante is back.

Villar said Bolante’s refusal to appear before the Senate and fear of political persecution is baseless.

The US Embassy in Manila was reportedly behind Bolante’s visa cancellation and arrest. The diplomatic mission reportedly requested the US immigration authorities to cancel his visa.

A senior official of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), on the other hand, disclosed plans of Bolante to go to Indonesia.

The official, however, expressed doubts about Bolante’s plan to go to Indonesia since Jakarta has an extradition treaty with the Philippines.

The official explained Bolante may choose to go to Indonesia if he would ask for voluntary deportation. Bolante could only remain in an Asian country without a visa for 21 days, the official explained.

He said Bolante would have to move to another Asian country to avoid arrest.

“The no-visa is good for 21 days but after that he’ll go to another Asian country. You think they’ll be willing to be an accomplice?” the official added.

Foreign countries, the official said, would not want to host a person like Bolante because of his involvement in a plunder case and the cancellation of his US visa.

Bolante was reportedly suffering from certain medical conditions that required urgent and specialized medical attention that might not be available at his US detention.

In February 2007, the Philippine Embassy in Washington DC reported to the DFA that Bolante’s family and lawyer made separate requests to the diplomatic mission for humanitarian assistance, claiming the former agriculture official is suffering from an unknown ailment.

The DFA, however, did not indicate the specific health problem affecting Bolante. – With Aurea Calica and Pia Lee-Brago

tsk tsk kailangan kaya makukuha yung ninakaw nyan

tsk tsk kailangan kaya makukuha yung ninakaw nyan

Wala yung pangalan niya sa jail roster. Baka naka bail :D

http://www.kccjs.org/jail/inmate_search/display_roster.php

There really are many valid complaints regarding our courts and its members. The dockets are increasing but the disposed cases are very few. Some judges are lazy others are ignorant of the law kaya naman halos lahat ng decision ng trial judges ay nagiging useless lalo na pag nireverse ng SC ang decision. But we are lucky not to have judicial elections in the country. Otherwise napulitika na rin for sure ang ating justice system. Imbes na magconcentrate sa pagdedesisyon sa mga nakatambak na kaso ay magiging busy pa ang mga huwes sa pangangampanya.

I agree. Judges should be neutral and apolitical. That is what sets the judiciary apart from the two political branches, the executive and the legislative.

Sadly there are many lazy and ignorant judges who do not do their jobs well, thus forcing litigants into more expenses in appeals or petitions and adding to the already crowded dockets of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

It's ridiculous for the opposition to accuse the Supreme Court of being biased in favor of the President when it issues a ruling apparently favoring the administration, linking the favorable ruling to the fact that most of the justices are appointees of GMA. They seem to forget this fact when the high court issues a ruling favorable to them.

^^ They might be engaged in another dilemma now that the Supreme Court reaffirmed its stand on privilege communication of cabinet members with regard to the recent Neri decision. The opposition might as well use this issue again and again to say that the Supreme Court is favoring the president.

They might as well reconsider their thoughts before saying pronouncements in public. After all, the judiciary is much more respectable than them, if ever they would find any credibility within themselves.

Food for thought:



Full article here (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080830-157753/Gayness-not-reason-to-annul-marriage----Supreme-Court)

What about absence of consortium?

This latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court affirming its earlier decision regarding the doctrine of executive privilege should serve as a lesson learned for the members of the opposition. They had their day in court. They were heard. They were allowed to present all their arguments. Judgment has been rendered in March. It is finally affirmed in the motion for reconsideration. Neri validly invoked executive privilege. There's nothing more to argue about. The decision of the Supreme Court is final. The Senators and the opposition must respect it.

^^ They might be engaged in another dilemma now that the Supreme Court reaffirmed its stand on privilege communication of cabinet members with regard to the recent Neri decision. The opposition might as well use this issue again and again to say that the Supreme Court is favoring the president.

They might as well reconsider their thoughts before saying pronouncements in public. After all, the judiciary is much more respectable than them, if ever they would find any credibility within themselves.

I agree with the Supreme Court ruling on executive privilege. Dapat lang talaga iyon in order to preserve the separation of powers between the executive and legislative. Unfortunately many Filipinos are not aware of the very basic importance of executive privilege.

What about absence of consortium?


:yes: VVV

TSOI vs. COURT OF APPEALS (http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/119190.htm), January 16, 1997:

Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is "To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage." Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

(UPDATE) Sandigan convicts 2 solons of graft

Lawmaker says he’s innocent

By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view/20080909-159523/UPDATE-Sandigan-convicts-2-solons-of-graft)
First Posted 10:43:00 09/09/2008

MANILA, Philippines -- Two congressmen from the province of Oriental Mindoro have been convicted by an anti-graft court for illegally diverting government funds meant for calamity victims.

In its decision released Tuesday, the Sandiganbayan fourth division found Representatives Alfonso Umali Jr. (2nd District) and Rodolfo Valencia (1st District) guilty of channeling P2.5 million in public funds for other purposes.

The anti-graft court sentenced Umali and Valencia from 6-10 years imprisonment and dismissal from public office.

Both lawmakers failed to attend the sentencing.

Associate Justice Gregory Ong gave the two lawmakers 16 days to surrender and explain their absence in the promulgation of the case.

Sandiganbayan Sheriff Ed Urieta said they were awaiting the arrest order from the court.

"We are still waiting for further instructions from the court regarding the arrest of these two," Urieta said.

The two committed the offense in 1994 when Valencia was then Oriental Mindoro governor Umali, provincial administrator.

Maintaining his innocence, Umali said he would post bail and file a motion for reconsideration before the anti-graft court.

Asked if no money from the calamity fund was diverted for other purpose, he said, "Maski singkong duling wala [Not a single centavo]."

"I just followed a legal order from the Sanggunian as provincial administrator, which is ministerial to me, and signed a request for obligation of allotment," he said in a text message.

Valencia could not be contacted for his comment.

CA justice sacked, 4 others chastised over bribery case
MARK MERUEÑAS, GMANews.TV (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/119152/CA-justice-sacked-4-others-chastised-over-bribery-case)
09/09/2008 | 06:47 PM

MANILA, Philippines - A Court of Appeals justice was dismissed Tuesday while four others were sanctioned by the Supreme Court in connection with the alleged improprieties and bribery attending the disposition of the ownership case of the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco).

Voting 12-1, the SC ordered the relief of CA Associate Justice Vicente Roxas after he was found guilty of multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service.

"Indeed, the fabrications and falsehoods that Justice Roxas blithely proffered to the panel in explanation./justification of his questioned handling of the Meralco case demonstrated that he lacks the qualification of integrity and honesty expected of a magistrate and a member f the appellate court," the high court said in its 58-page per curiam decision.

Roxas penned the controversial July 23 decision stating that the Securities and Exchange Commission has no jurisdiction to validate the proxy votes counted in favor of the Lopez-bloc of the Meralco.

The high court likewise voted to forfeit all of Roxas' benefits, except accrued leave credits if any, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or service of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Aside from Roxas, also sanctioned by the high court were Jose Sabio Jr., Bienvenido Reyes, Conrado Vasquez, and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal.

Sabio, who had exposed a P10-million bribe offer on him to inhibit from the Meralco-GSIS case, was slapped with a two-month suspension after he was found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a justice of the CA.

Sabio admitted during the panel hearings that his brother, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) chairman Camilo Sabio, called him up twice to influence him on the position of the Government Service Insurance System, which has a big stake in Meralco.

SC spokesman Midas Marquez said that 10 justices voted for the Sabio’s suspension without pay. One justice voted for the associate justice’s dismissal while another one said Sabio should only be reprimanded to credit his role as a “whistleblower.”

On the other hand, Vasquez was being “severely reprimanded for his failure to act promptly and decisively in order to avert the incidence that damaged the image of the Court of Appeals.”

Meanwhile, Reyes was found guilty of “simple misconduct with mitigating circumstance.”

Vasquez and Reyes were also given a stern warning that the repetition of the same or a similar act may warrant more severe penalty.

The court also found Vidal guilty of conduct unbecoming of a justice of the appellate court for being “too complaint” when she allowed herself to sign the decision without reading the parties’ memorandum.

“(She) is admonished to be more circumspect in the discharge of her judicial duty,” Marguez.

The panel also recommended that businessman Francis de Borja, who allegedly bribed Sabio, undergo a preliminary investigation by the Department of Justice since he is a private individual.

The panel also referred the case of PCGG's Sabio to the Bar confidante since he is a lawyer.

“PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio’s acts to influence the judgment of a member of the judiciary is hereby referred to the Bar confidante for appropriate action,” the high court said.

Marquez clarified that while the five justices could move for a reconsideration of the court decision, the sanctions would immediately take effect.

“They can still file a motion for reconsideration but in cases like this, this is immediately executory,” Marquez said.

The sanctions were based on the recommendation submitted by the three-man panel created by the SC to look into the reported irregularities and bribery attempt within the CA in connection with the Meralco-GSIS case. The panel was composed of retired SC justices Carolina Grino-Aquino, Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo.

Roxas was unavailable for comment as of press time, but his staff said that the justice has locked himself inside his chambers the whole day and left early after learning from the media about his dismissal.

Sabio, who also could not be reached for comment, was in Bohol for an official leave, but his staff said that he was to return to Manila late in the afternoon as he still has classes at the Ateneo Law School in the evening.

Roxas not the first to be dismissed

Philippine Daily Inquirer (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080910-159720/Roxas-not-the-first-to-be-dismissed)
First Posted 06:56:00 09/10/2008

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court dismissed Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio Demetria Demetria, a member of the CA Special Third Division, on March 27, 2001 for interfering in a case involving drug queen Yu Yuk Lai.

The tribunal found Demetria liable for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct for asking state prosecutors to go slow on Yu.

Yu and her nephew, Kenneth Moncada, were sentenced to life imprisonment on Sept. 25, 2001 for selling three kilos of shabu in 1998.

In March last year, the Supreme Court sacked former Court of Appeals Justice Elvi John Asuncion, who chaired the 11th Division, “for gross ignorance of the law.”

Asuncion was not only dismissed from the service, his retirement benefits were also forfeited. In addition, he was slapped a three-month suspension without pay for “intolerable inaction” on motions for reconsideration in several cases he was handling.

Asuncion’s woes stemmed from two complaints. The first complaint came in the form of an unsigned letter claiming the 55-year-old Asuncion sat on motions for reconsideration for six months to more than a year unless the parties “come across.”

The second complaint was filed by Roberto Padilla and charged Asuncion with dereliction of duty, malicious delay in the administration of justice and gross ignorance of the law in the case of Erlinda Archinas, a Philippine National Bank (PNB) employee who was seeking reinstatement.

Since 1986, the Supreme Court has penalized more than 500 judges for unethical conduct.

Well, the sacking of the Court of Appeals Justice and the suspension and reprimand of the others are court matters which should serve as lesson to their other colleagues and even judges of the lower courts. Some litigants have suffered so much because of erring members of the bench and the bar. It is time that the high tribunal remind these officers of the court to observe honesty and good faith in their judicial functions.

The GSIS and Meralco case may not be finally be resolved by this decision. If so then the Lopezes should watch out because their bribery attempts might be exposed once more.

In light of the recent developments, I think the Court of Appeals 8th Division's judgment against the SEC should be vacated, and a new ruling issued. The ruling is tainted with anomalies surrounding the dismissal of the ponente, Justice Roxas. The Lopezes' fingerprints are all over the ponencia.

Voting 12-1, the SC ordered the relief of CA Associate Justice Vicente Roxas after he was found guilty of multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service.

"Indeed, the fabrications and falsehoods that Justice Roxas blithely proffered to the panel in explanation/justification of his questioned handling of the Meralco case demonstrated that he lacks the qualification of integrity and honesty expected of a magistrate and a member of the appellate court," the high court said in its 58-page per curiam decision. Roxas penned the controversial July 23 decision stating that the Securities and Exchange Commission has no jurisdiction to validate the proxy votes counted in favor of the Lopez-bloc of the Meralco.

The high court likewise voted to forfeit all of Roxas' benefits, except accrued leave credits if any, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or service of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations.link (http://ph.news.yahoo.com/gma/20080909/tph-ca-justice-sacked-4-others-chastised-d6cd5cf.html)

With the dismissal of Justice Roxas, it does not carry with it the implication that the ruling is erroneous and should be vacated. The Supreme Court said that the ruling stays as it is still on appeal and only the SC can finally have a word that the ruling is wrong. In fairness, corporation laws and doctrine support the ruling. In all instances it's wrong to deviate from LAW in an attempt to discredit a personality. That's an opposition-style of playing legal matters. The SC had made a decision as regards the justices but not yet with the appeal of the ruling itself. The rule of law should prevail.

^^ I don't think there's any question as to the ruling of the case with regard to the jurisdiction of SEC. The legal community has no question whatsoever to the decision penned by Justice Roxas, even Justice Sabio could not question the reason behind such decision.

Maybe we should distinguish as between the ruling itself and the alleged bribery for they are two different things. The Supreme Court is still waiting for the pleadings of both parties before they decide on the matter. As of now, the ruling of the Court of Appeals stays.

Wait, may hustisya pa ba sa pinas?

oo naman :yes:
kung wala eh di...
'ala na sana'ng 'Pinas ;)

VV sana hindi ningas-kogon :)


Philippines Court Of Appeals Signs Covenant For Reforms, Following Bribery Scandal That Rocked Nation (http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3170:philippines-court-of-appeals-signs-covenant-for-reforms-following-bribery-scandal-that-rocked-nation&catid=66:philippines&Itemid=142)
Written by ANC News

Monday, 15 September 2008 14:50
Philippines

Manila, Philippines - Justices of the Court of Appeals today signed a covenant for reforms, following the bribery scandal that rocked the institution.

Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez says the reforms aim to restore the credibility and integrity of the Court of Appeals. Court employees also came in full force for the covenant's signing that was witnessed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno.

The Supreme Court had sanctioned 5 Court of Appeals justices for their handling of the GSIS-Meralco case.

Justice Vicente Roxas was dealt the biggest blow--- he was dismissed from office.

Justice Jose Sabio, who accused a businessman of offering him 10 million pesos to drop the case was suspended for 2 months, while the rest were reprimanded.

Now, a bit of good news. Philippines ranks no. 6, score of 6.10, with the best judicial system in ASIA. We beat Malaysia, India, Thailand, China, Vietnam, and Indonesia which got the worst score of 8.26.

SINGAPORE (AFP) - Regional financial centres Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst, a survey of expatriate business executives showed.

The judiciary "is one of Indonesia's weakest and most controversial institutions, and many consider the poor enforcement of laws to be the country's number one problem," said the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).

Some court rulings in Indonesia have been "so controversial that they have seriously hurt confidence of foreign companies," said PERC, without giving specific examples.

In the PERC survey, Hong Kong's judicial system topped the vote with a score of 1.45 on a scale that has zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst.

Regional rival Singapore was in second place with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93) and the Philippines (6.10).

Malaysia was in seventh place with a grade of 6.47, followed by India (6.50), Thailand (7.00) and China (7.25). Indonesia got the worst score of 8.26 after Vietnam's 8.10.

The Hong Kong-based consultancy said 1,537 corporate executives working in Asia were asked to rate the judicial systems in the countries where they reside, using such variables as the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and corruption.

Transparency, enforcement of laws, freedom from political interference and the experience and educational standards of lawyers and judges were also considered.

"Year after year our perception surveys show a close correlation between how expatriates rate judicial systems and how they rate the openness of a particular economy," PERC said.

"Better judicial systems are associated with better IPR protection, lower corruption and wealthier economies."

The less favourable perception of China's and Vietnam's judicial systems are rooted in political interference, PERC said, adding that the Communist Party "is above the law in both countries."

Malaysia's judicial system has suffered a "serious reputation damage due to political interference," while expatriates in Thailand "have serious doubts" that moves to expand the judiciary's powers will be good for the country, it said.

PERC noted the survey involved expatriate business executives, not political activists, so criteria like contracts and IPR protection were given more weight.

"This bias is possibly most obvious in Singapore," it said, noting that the city-state's top rating in the survey is not shared by political activists, who have criticised the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) for using the judiciary to silence critics.

"In Singapore, the general perception of expatriates is that local politics has not compromised the way commercial and criminal law is conducted," PERC said.

^^ di naman pala ganun ka-bulok judicial system natin compared to some of our Asian neighbors :lol:
mas maigi kung tatas pa rating natin in the future :D
huwag naman sana bumaba :ohno:

nice find@RonnieR :okay:

^^ There is a tendency for Filipinos to shoot down and hurt themselves. :) that's why they like to magnify the worst cases.

SC ruling: 27-year-old ‘woman’ is ‘male’
09/16/2008 | 07:11 PM

MANILA, Philippines - For proving that her body is manifesting natural occurring male characteristics, a 27-year-old woman was allowed by the Supreme Court to change her name and gender entries in her birth certificate.

The high court ruled that Jennifer Cagandahan has congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a rare condition that could cause early or “inappropriate" appearance of male characteristics and produces too much androgen, a male hormone, and involves intersex anatomy.

"Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex, the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex," the Court said in its 13-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing.

"Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male," the Court added.

Concurring in the ruling were Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, Dante Tinga, Presbiterio Velasco Jr. and Arturo Brion.

Court records showed that on December 11, 2003, Cagandahan filed a petition for correction of entries in birth certificate before the RTC, as to her name from "Jennifer" to "Jeff," and gender from female to male.

In her petition, she alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered as a female in her certificate of birth, but while growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to have CAH, a condition where persons afflicted possess both male and female characteristics.

The SC ruling also denied the petition for review filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines, questioning the January 12, 2005 decision of a regional trial court of Siniloan, Laguna that allowed Cagandahan to correct the name and gender entries in her birth certificate.

The trial court likewise ordered that Cagandahan's school records, voter's registry, baptismal certificate and other pertinent records amended to conform with the corrected data after acknowledging that she has CAH.

The SC, in its decision, pointed out that in the 20th century, medicine adopted the term "intersexuality" to apply to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female, or a state of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia and secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male or female.

"In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for recognition of various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial," the Court ruled.

The high court further said that while the current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a female, it is not controlled by mere appearances "when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification." - GMANews.TV (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/120751/SC-ruling-27-year-old-woman-is-male)

Philippine High Court upholds guilty verdict against columnist
21 September 2008
Source: CMFR

The Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 16 affirmed the guilty verdict on a 1999 libel case filed by a customs official against a columnist, three editors, and the publisher of a local tabloid. Libel is a criminal offense punishable with jail terms in the Philippines.

The Court’s Second Division denied on 16 September 2008 the petitions filed by columnist and broadcaster Erwin Tulfo, editors Susan Cambri, Rey Salao, Jocelyn Barlizo, and Carlo Publishing House Inc. president Philip Pichay asking for the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding their conviction for the libel case filed by lawyer Carlos So. So was an official of the Bureau of Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport.

So filed a libel case after Tulfo accused him of corruption and extortion several times in his "Direct Hit" column in the tabloid "Remate" in 1999.

On November 17, 2000, the Pasay City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 112 found Tulfo, Cambri, Salao, Barlizo, and Pichay guilty of four counts of libel.

The group appealed the decision before the Court of Appeals. But the Court denied their appeal on June 17, 2003 as well as their motions for reconsideration on December 11, 2003. They then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Tulfo and the other defendants argued in their separate petitions that both the appellate court and the Pasay City RTC "erred" in their decision holding them liable of criminal libel. Tulfo argued that the RTC should have classified his articles under "qualified privileged communication" since So is a public official, while the editors and Pichay questioned their inclusion in the case.

The Supreme Court in its 31-page decision penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. explained the articles "cannot be considered as qualified privileged communication" since it did not meet the standard under the second paragraph of Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.

"The articles clearly are not the fair and true reports contemplated by the provision. They provide no details of the acts committed by the subject, Atty. So. They are plain and simple baseless accusations, backed up by the word of one unnamed source. Good faith is lacking, as Tulfo failed to substantiate or even attempt to verify his story before publication. Tulfo goes even further to attack the character of the subject…even calling him a disgrace to his religion and the legal profession," the decision said.

The Court also said that "(t)his is no case of mere error or honest mistake, but a case of a journalist abdicating his responsibility to verify his story and instead misinforming the public."

Journalists are "reporters of facts, not fiction, and must be able to back up their stories with solid research. The power of the press and the corresponding duty to exercise that power judiciously cannot be understated," the decision said.

However, the Court amended the earlier penalties imposed by the Pasay City RTC on the defendants. The RTC had earlier ordered the defendants to pay P800,000 in actual damages, P1 million in moral damages, and an additional P500,000 in exemplary damages. They were also sentenced to serve six months to four years and two months in prison for each count of libel.

"Though we find petitioners guilty of the crime charged, the punishment must still be tempered with justice…. Freedom of expression as well as freedom of the press may not be unrestrained, but neither reined in too harshly. In light of this, considering the necessity of a free press balanced with the necessity of a responsible press, the penalty of a fine of P6,000 for each count of libel, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, should suffice."

It said that the provision for actual damages has no basis. "There was no showing of any pecuniary loss suffered by the complainant Atty. So. Without proof of actual loss that can be measured, the award of actual damages cannot stand." The fine for exemplary damages is also "not justified," it added.

Read full story here (http://www.seapabkk.org/newdesign/newsdetail.php?No=961)

With the dismissal of Justice Roxas, it does not carry with it the implication that the ruling is erroneous and should be vacated. The Supreme Court said that the ruling stays as it is still on appeal and only the SC can finally have a word that the ruling is wrong. In fairness, corporation laws and doctrine support the ruling. In all instances it's wrong to deviate from LAW in an attempt to discredit a personality. That's an opposition-style of playing legal matters. The SC had made a decision as regards the justices but not yet with the appeal of the ruling itself. The rule of law should prevail.

The GSIS has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to vacate the ruling. According to the Supreme Court spokesman, the findings of the SC panel against Roxas do cast a cloud of doubt on the validity of the ruling. I did not dispute the fact that the ruling stays unless reversed by the Supreme Court. I merely offered an opinion that I think the ruling should be vacated. It's only fanaticism that cannot accept a contrary opinion without accusing the other party of deviating from the law or not giving respect to the position of the SC. That's the fanaticism of the obstructionists.

Now, a bit of good news. Philippines ranks no. 6, score of 6.10, with the best judicial system in ASIA. We beat Malaysia, India, Thailand, China, Vietnam, and Indonesia which got the worst score of 8.26.



That shows that our judicial system is not as bad as some claim it is. We still have many competent judges and lawyers. Some of us can see no merit at all in our country and even uphold perceptions of its being "most corrupt".

^^ I don't think there's any question as to the ruling of the case with regard to the jurisdiction of SEC. The legal community has no question whatsoever to the decision penned by Justice Roxas, even Justice Sabio could not question the reason behind such decision.

Maybe we should distinguish as between the ruling itself and the alleged bribery for they are two different things. The Supreme Court is still waiting for the pleadings of both parties before they decide on the matter. As of now, the ruling of the Court of Appeals stays.

Yes, the ruling itself and the alleged bribery are indeed two different things. We should indeed distinguish between the two and refrain from accusing others who criticize the ruling as just "trying to discredit personalities". We should also distinguish between disrespecting the Supreme Court and having one's own opinion.

CA stops murder trial of tortured pastor

By Leila Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080929-163493/CA-stops-murder-trial-of-tortured-pastor)
First Posted 02:33:00 09/29/2008

MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals (CA) has stopped the murder trial of a pastor of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines and ordered the dismissal of the case against him after he was abducted, detained and tortured by his police captors.

Noting the judiciary’s “renewed vigilance” in the face of an upsurge in human rights violations, the CA ordered Bacoor Regional Trial Court Judge Matias Garcia to dismiss the charge against pastor Berlin Guerrero for the 1990 murder of Noli Yatco.

It criticized Carmona Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Myrna Lim-Verano, who handled the preliminary investigation, for not giving Guerrero the chance to defend himself and allowing the case to proceed despite weak evidence.

The appellate court also pointed out that Guerrero had been living normally and publicly as pastor when the charge was revived after 15 years and the pastor was abducted by police, tortured, interrogated and accused of being a communist.

Initial inquiries into the gun-slaying of Yatco was conducted in 1991 and 1992, but no action was taken on Guerrerro.

“The court cannot condone such injustice and travesty of the rights of an ordinary citizen charged with a serious crime during and after preliminary investigation when the information based on an invalid proceeding had been filed in court,” the appellate court said.

“The patent disregard of the laws and rules in the conduct of preliminary investigation by the investigating judge clearly constitutes grave abuse of discretion that warrants the exercise of this Court’s corrective power,” it said in a Sept. 23 ruling.

The CA decision, penned by Justice Martin Villarama Jr. and concurred in by Justices Noel Tijam and Arturo Tayag of the Third Division, came after it ordered Guerrero’s provisional release to former Sen. Jovito Salonga and his lawyer Emilio Capulong earlier this month.

Guerrero had been in detention for more than a year following his May 2007 arrest. He subsequently accused his police captors of torturing him as they interrogated him and forced him to give information on labor and peasant groups.

Guerrero had asked the Supreme Court for help after Garcia refused to junk the case, which was elevated to the Court of Appeals.

The appellate court said Verano violated the 1985 Rules of Procedure when she failed to subpoena Guerrero so that he could study the case and refute the allegations against him.

Such action, it said, betrayed Verano’s “disregard of the accused’s basic right to due process, which is particularly appalling considering her awareness of the weak evidentiary basis for probable cause against accused Berlin Guerrero.”

What was “worse” was that Verano had accepted the witness’ sworn statement as sufficient to proceed with the case against Guerrero, even though she said the witness should be brought before her, it added.

The appellate court also cited the Supreme Court decision that earlier dismissed the government’s rebellion cases against militant lawmakers because political considerations had tainted the Department of Justice’s preliminary investigation of the complaints.

It said the ruling stressed that procedures for preliminary investigations should be followed scrupulously to protect the people’s rights.

The court further said that though generally, criminal proceedings could not be stopped, exceptions were allowed when the proceedings turned into a case of prosecution.

“The foregoing applies with equal significance to the present case at a time when the judiciary leadership was impelled into action by taking more concrete measures in response to the recent emergence of human rights violations committed in the course of anti-insurgency operations by the military and often involving or carried out with the cooperation of police authorities,” it said.

Supreme Court launches system of faster litigation (http://www.bworldonline.com/BW100108/content.php?id=073)

THE SUPREME COURT yesterday launched a system to hasten litigation and give greater judicial access to poor.

The scheme will expedite so-called small claims which will be handled by 24 first-level courts nationwide starting today.

Small claims refer to civil cases involving payment or reimbursement of a sum not exceeding P100,000. Typical claims include actual damages to vehicles, property, or person; money owed under a contract; and payment for bounced check.

Under the system, litigation will be similar to a mediation process without need for lawyers. The case should be resolved within the day. While the decisions are final, these will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the high court cases of grave abuse of discretion.

Under the rules issued and published by the high court, judges from these first-level courts will transform "from that of passive referees to interventionist umpires, but without removing their neutrality."

"For so long a time, we have sat on our hands in the face of the urgent need to widen our poor people’s access to justice. Social justice is a buzz word in other countries, but inaction in our jurisdiction has made it a boo word [With such reforms] we have shortened the distance between our dream of justice for the poor and the cruel reality on ground," Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno said at the launch of the Small Claims Court Pilot Project at the Supreme Court yesterday.

"Statistics show that most of the poor get involved in civil litigations in amounts no more than P100,000. Hence, we targeted these cases. The objectives are clear-cut: resolve the cases of the poor at the quickest time; cut their cost of litigation; and widen their access to courts," he added.

In a separate presentation, Court Administrator Jose P. Perez said the process will help decongest court dockets. In the National Capital Region alone, 70% of cases revolve around small claims, he added.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission Director Jon Lindborg said the program will introduce a bigger reform to the system.

"The people and the judiciary will more likely observe their legal obligations, the Judiciary will become thus more efficient," he said. The small claims project is in partnership with USAID and the American Bar Association.

^^ This is really good. Less access to lawyers and shorter litigation would mean less expenses! That's justice.

'Justice on Wheels' mobile court frees 25 QC inmates
10/11/2008 | 07:19 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court's mobile court called Justice on Wheels (JOW) on Saturday released 25 inmates from the Quezon City Jail, radio DZBB reported.

The report said that in the absence of Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Regional Trial Court Judge Thelma A. Ponferrada presided over the activities of the JOW program. JOW also gave medical and dental services to 200 others in the Quezon City Jail.

The mobile court, which has become a vehicle for justice, is the centerpiece of the Court's Increasing Access to Justice by the Poor Program.

Reporter Tuesday Tavares said one of the aims of the JOW program is to relieve the worsening problem of overcrowding in Philippine jails.

She said the QC Jail currently houses 2,800 inmates although its holding capacity should only be 100.

For the past weeks, several inmates from jails have been released following hearings conducted inside the JOW mobile court. The criminal cases against those inmates were provisionally dismissed for failure of the prosecution to present its witnesses.

Last August 4, as many as 39 inmates from the Caloocan City Jail were released because of the hearings held inside the JOW mobile court.

On July 9 and 25, four inmates from the Manila City Jail and five from the Manila Youth Reception Center; and seven inmates, including a female detainee, from the MCJ were released following hearings inside the JOW mobile court. On Friday morning, four inmates from the MCJ were released after hearings held inside the mobile court.

Earlier in July, the mobile court also recently visited Kalibo in Aklan province to hear pending cases following the destruction of the Kalibo Hall of Justice.

The mobile court, which is under the Committee on the JOW Project chaired by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, with newly appointed Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Viches as vice chairperson, is set to visit Cebu and Davao.

GMANews.TV (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/126508/Justice-on-Wheels-mobile-court-frees-25-QC-inmates)

Supreme Court rules domain agreement ‘unconstitutional’
10/14/2008 | 03:44 PM

(Updated 3:50 p.m.) MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared the ancestral domain agreement between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as “unconstitutional."

The Supreme Court voted 8-7 against the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), which was opposed by several local government officials in Mindanao led by North Cotabato Vice-Governor Emmanuel Piñol.

“The failure of the respondents to consult the local government units or communities affected constitutes a departure by respondents from their mandate under E.O. [Executive Order] No. 3," the 90-page decision penned by Justice Conchito Carpio-Morales stated.

“Moreover, respondents exceeded their authority by the mere act of guaranteeing amendments to the Constitution," it added.

Aside from Morales, those who opined the memorandum to be unconstitutional are Chief Justice Reynato Puno, and Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio Carpio, Adolfo Azcuna, and Ruben Reyes. Also joining the majority are Senior Justice Leonardo Quisumbing and Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez.

In its ruling, the High Court also stressed that any alleged violation of the Constitution by any branch of government should be subjected under judicial review.

The remaining seven justices, meanwhile, said that the petitions against the MOA-AD should be dismissed because the agreement is already considered moot after the government withdrew from it.

The seven magistrates from the minority position included Justices Dante Tinga, Minita Chico-Nazario, Presbitero Velasco Jr, Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, and Renato Corona.

The decision directed the respondents to conduct public consultations first as prescribed by the people’s right to information.

“Respondents and their agents are enjoined from signing and executing the same or similar agreements, in accordance with the discussions embodied in the decision," the ruling added.

To recall, the MOA-AD signing was scheduled on August 5, 2008 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, but the court issued a stay order a day before the event based on a petition by Piñol.

The North Cotabato governor, along with the other petitioners, questioned the lack of disclosure and public consultation on the deal prior to the scheduled signing.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said the government will no longer sign the domain deal, in light of the series of attacks staged by suspected MILF elements in a number of Mindanao provinces last month.

The atrocities were allegedly triggered after the Supreme Court ordered a temporary restraining order against the signing of the homeland pact.

Peace talks in Mindanao were also threatened after the government dissolved its peace panel following the hostilities in southern Philippines and the brouhaha that surrounded the botched signing of the MOA-AD. - Carlo Lorenzo, Mark Merueñas, GMANews.TV (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/126956/Supreme-Court-rules-domain-agreement-unconstitutional)

My Step-Sister with un-born BABY on her womb together with her SON all died in NPA ambuscades in Bicol. Whatever type of murder anyone inflict on innocent civilians is a crime. There must be justice for all this type of Blood Bath, even for what they used to call revolutionary justice.

The decision if respected by the government. I saw news that the President says she respects the decision of the Supreme Court and stressed what she has always said before that the government will not sign the MOA-AD in whatever form. The issue in the petition is moot and academic. Thus, the SC decision will just serve as a reminder for future actions that the government may take to achieve peace in Mindanao. Those who crafted the MOA may have learned their lesson in this decision. The deciding votes were so close too that is why I think the issue remains open for a lot of views.

Govt exploiting justice system to persecute dissenters, says lawmaker
D'JAY LAZARO, GMANews.TV
10/24/2008 | 02:40 PM

MANILA, Philippines — A lawmaker on Friday accused the Arroyo government of “exploiting the justice system" to persecute political dissenters.

Anakpawis party-list Rep. Rafael Mariano said the latest victim of such tactic is labor lawyer Remigio "Meng " Saladero Jr., the chief legal counsel of militant labor group Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) and also a lawyer of Anakpawis.

Saladero was arrested Thursday afternoon in Antipolo by combined elements of the Antipolo Police and Military Intelligence Group 4A of the Intelligence Service of the AFP (ISAFP).

Mariano said Saladero was arrested on the strength of a warrant issued by a court in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro where he was charged with multiple murder, frustrated murder with no bail recommended.

Saladero was detained at Camp Vicente Lim in Laguna until Thursday morning and was “hurriedly transferred" to Mindoro for a hearing on the cases against him, said Mariano.

Saladero, along with 26 other leaders and members of local peasant, fisherfolk, workers and urban poor organizations in Southern Tagalog were also implicated in the torching of a Globe cellsite in Lemery, Batangas last August 2.

The accused activists collectively known as the ‘Globe 27’ were charged with arson, inciting to commit rebellion and destruction of property by Globe Telecoms and the Philippine National Police (PNP).

“The charges against the ‘Globe 27’ are weak and baseless so the PNP and AFP concocted other cases to pin down Saladero. The latest murder charges against Saladero are fabricated. Accusing a fulltime lawyer of bombing a cell site and murder is simply preposterous," Mariano said.

Mariano said Saladero, who co-founded Anakpawis in 2003, was helping him in studying the proposed House Bill on Labor Code Amendments and other legislative matters.

The 49-year-old lawyer have expressed concern over Saladero’s arrest because he has heart and diabetic conditions.

Despite his health problems, he reportedl handles more than 700 labor cases.

Full story (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/129171/Govt-exploiting-justice-system-to-persecute-dissenters-says-lawmaker)

Solgen twits high court’s MOA-AD ruling

By Norman Bordadora
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 07:07:00 11/06/2008

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court “encroached” on the powers of the Executive Branch when it declared unconstitutional the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain (MOA-AD) with the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the government’s chief counsel said.

In a manifestation filed before the high court, Solicitor-General Agnes Devanadera said the ruling crossed “the thin line between the judicial and executive powers” and expressed apprehension over its implications.

The high tribunal on Oct. 15 decided with finality that the provisional agreement between the government and the MILF that would have expanded the autonomous area for Muslims to be administered by the MILF was illegal and unconstitutional.

Read full story (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081106-170526/Solgen-twits-high-courts-MOA-AD-ruling)

PDEA to appeal SC ruling on mandatory drug testing
11/06/2008 | 11:07 AM

MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) will ask the Supreme Court to reverse its ruling declaring mandatory drug tests for public office candidates and people facing criminal charges "unconstitutional."

A report over radio dzBB quoted the PDEA as saying they will file the appeal saying the High Court's ruling which was issued Monday will weaken the agency's campaign against the use of illegal drug.

Three out of four crimes in the country are drug-related, and scrapping mandatory testing for suspected criminals will undermine arguments on the negative effects of illegal drug use, PDEA said.

In its 23-page en banc decision on Monday, the High Court declared as unconstitutional a provision in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 requiring mandatory drug testing to all candidates for public office and people facing criminal charges.

The Supreme Court said it found no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes, as required by sec. 36(f) of the law, as a mandatory drug testing in the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor's office "can never be random or suspicionless."

"When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will," said the Court.

"To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a person's right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves," it added. - Johanna Camille Sisante, GMANews.TV (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/131762/PDEA-to-appeal-SC-ruling-on-mandatory-drug-testing)

Solgen twits high court’s MOA-AD ruling

By Norman Bordadora
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 07:07:00 11/06/2008

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court “encroached” on the powers of the Executive Branch when it declared unconstitutional the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain (MOA-AD) with the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the government’s chief counsel said.

In a manifestation filed before the high court, Solicitor-General Agnes Devanadera said the ruling crossed “the thin line between the judicial and executive powers” and expressed apprehension over its implications.

The high tribunal on Oct. 15 decided with finality that the provisional agreement between the government and the MILF that would have expanded the autonomous area for Muslims to be administered by the MILF was illegal and unconstitutional.

Read full story (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081106-170526/Solgen-twits-high-courts-MOA-AD-ruling)

the court merely exercised its expanded powers given by it by the constitution especially in this case that the executive made a flagrant violation of the constitution.

Wait, May hustisya pa ba sa pinas?

^^ depende kung sino kilala mo, o kung magkano nasa bulsa mo. :colgate:

Groups launch campaign for vigilance in selection of new SC justices
By Mike Frialde Updated November 18, 2008 12:00 AM


A coalition of legal, academic and business groups was launched yesterday to help raise public awareness and vigilance on the selection of new justices of the Supreme Court.

The “Bantay Korte Suprema” signed a memorandum of understanding for the launching of a massive information campaign to drum up greater public participation in the selection of SC justices by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

In the MOA, the groups also pushed for amendments to the current JBC selection process to ensure transparency and accountability of its members.

The Bantay Korte Suprema also vowed to provide the JBC with information on the competence, integrity and independence of nominees to the SC posts.

The signatories to the MOA were Vince Lazatin of the Transparency and Action Network; Rodolfo Urbiztondo of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; Alberto Lim, executive director of the Makati Business Club; University of the Philippines College of Law Dean Marvic Leonen; former Senate president Jovito Salonga, former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban; retired Justice Vicente Mendoza; Bobby Parel of the Philippine Bar Association; Emil Capulong, and JBC member Sen. Francis Pangilinan.

The JBC, created by the 1987 Constitution, is tasked with screening candidates to the judiciary and to the Office of the Ombudsman.

After screening the candidates, the JBC submits a shortlist of three candidates to the President, who ultimately makes the decision.

“According to our Constitution, the one that screens the members of the Supreme Court for appointment by the president is the JBC based on a list of at least three nominees for every vacancy,” Salonga said.

“Under the 1987 constitution, the appointment by the president, in this case GMA, needs no confirmation. There are seven justices of the Supreme Court who will retire within one year, beginning January 2009 until December 2009,” he said.

“The people really need to closely watch the selection process. I hope it will not be tainted by political considerations or personal interests,” he said in Filipino.

Salonga said he has received information that President Arroyo is keen on appointing Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera as replacement of Associate Justice Ruben Reyes, who will retire on Jan. 3, 2009.

“We call on the JBC members and the president of the Philippines to be true statespersons and patriots. The quality of the rule of law depends on the quality of the minds of the justices that are appointed, their integrity and their independence, even from the very appointing power that put them into power. Go beyond parochial concerns,” UP’s Leonen said.

Pangilinan, meanwhile, defended his participation in Bantay Korte Suprema despite his being a member of the JBC.

“We have to be open to undertaking new approaches. We have to be open to ‘outside of the box’ thinking. I happen to believe that my position at the JBC as member is strengthened by this effort,” he said.

Pangilinan also said that while Bantay Korte Suprema could not put pressure on the JBC, it could “appeal” to the JBC to carefully screen the candidates.

“I would like to think that when you use the word pressure, it becomes confrontational,” he said.

Pangilinan also said that he is supportive of the proposal of fellow JBC member Conrado Castro to make the results of the voting of JBC members public.

“His proposal is to make the votes public. So that if I voted for three candidates, it should be made known. I support that,” he said.

The JBC is headed by Chief Justice Reynato Puno as ex-officio chairman, and is composed of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, Sen. Pangilinan and House Rep. Matias Defensor as ex-officio members. Regular members are retired SC Justice Regino Hermosisima, Dean Amado Dimayuga (representing the academe), Justice Aurora Lagman (representing the private sector), and Conrado Castro.

Pangilinan said the JBC is set to start its series of interviews of candidates who will replace SC Justice Reyes. Pangilinan said the JBC could come out with its shortlist of three candidates to replace Reyes by the second week of next month. He also called on the public to help the JBC in its screening by attending the public hearings.

“We need to participate in terms of being vigilant to ensure that the process is safeguarded and that only those truly deserving will make it to the shortlist of three,” he said.

Meanwhile, former Chief Justice Panganiban said an SC dominated by Arroyo-appointees could lead to Charter change.

Panganiban also echoed the call of the Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW) to make transparent the voting of the JBC members.

The other Supreme Court justices who will be retiring next year are Justices Adolfo Azcuna (Feb. 16), Dante Tiñga (May 11), Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Oct. 5), Leonardo Quisumbing (Nov. 6), Minita Chico-Nazario (Dec. 5) and Ma. Alicia Martinez who will retire in April or earlier than her official retirement on Dec.19.

Close to GMA

One year ago, Rodolfo Robles, a mild-mannered lawyer with a successful property business, entertained the thought of becoming an SC justice. It happened by chance. He was the emcee and an awardee at the 55th anniversary of the San Beda Law College, where an old family friend, President Arroyo, was the guest speaker. It was during this event that one of his colleagues mentioned to the President that Robles, a bar topnotcher with 25 years of practice behind him, was good material for the Supreme Court.

The entry of seven new justices next year – all appointed by President Arroyo – has raised concerns about the independence of the highest court in the land.

Disbarment case vs Devanadera revealed in JBC interview
Written by Purple S. Romero
Wednesday, 19 November 2008

http://newsbreak.com.ph/images/stories/zoom/govtofficials/justices/std_SC%20oral%20arguments.jpg

Pending cases hovered over the first batch of nominees to the Supreme Court interviewed Wednesday by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

The JBC rules stipulate that nominees facing administrative and criminal charges could face disqualification.

Reported SC frontrunner Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera has been charged with a fresh disbarment case, which increased the number of pending cases filed against her to three.

Lawyer Fidela Vargas sought the disbarment of Devanadera in a complaint she filed at the Supreme Court on October 15, 2008 after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) allegedly failed to add parties in the motion for intervention it filed in representation of the Department of Education (Deped).

Deped has moved for the intervention because its school buildings stood on a portion of land in Sorsogon which is being claimed by Vargas’s client.

“She accused me of being ineffective,” Devanadera told Abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak.

Devanadera was initially charged with plunder in 2006 by Ilocos Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson for her reported failure to nullify the Poro Point Seaport development contract between the Bases Conversion Development Act and Bulk Handlers Inc.

On the other hand, the government lawyer said that the disbarment case filed against her by labor leader Henaro Bautista has been referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,which is yet to issue a resolution.

Bautista demanded P300 million worth of cost of living allowance from the MWSS, which was not been approved by the government body.

When asked however if the new case could be a stumbling block to her appointment at the High Tribunal, Devanadera said that the ball is now in the court of the JBC. “I submit to them,” she said.

Supreme Court Appointments Watch convenor Vincent Lazatin said that the JBC should “issue a categorical statement regarding the implementation of their rule regarding pending cases.”

Collection trouble

Three pending cases related to his functions as former Bureau of Internal Revenue commissioner haunt now private practitioner Jose Buñag. He has pending administrative and criminal cases at the Tanodbayan.

However, Buñag expressed hope that the cases--which have to do with an informer of the BIR collecting his fees-- will be rendered moot and academic because the complainant passed away in 2006. “The complainant passed away in the two cases,” he said.

However, Chief Justice Reynato Puno, JBC chairman and ex-oficio member, pointed out that the above cases have not been “dismissed outrightly.” He asked Buñag to follow-up on the resolution of the charges before the JBC comes up with its shortlist of nominees.

“You are aware of our rule on the disqualification of nominees with pending cases,” he said.

Buñag said that he would press for the expeditious resolution of the cases, and added that the Ombudsman is “reviewing” them.

Meanwhile, Buñag said that another case against him was recently dismissed.

The Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office junked the charges filed against him by BIR professional informer Danilo Lihay-lihay.

Lihay-lihay demanded P42 billion-worth of payment from the BIR, which is 25 percent of the P162 billion worth of taxes that the BIR collected in 2007. Lihay-lihay claimed that he had a hand in the said collection of such amount, and is therefore entitled to the said payment.

Corporate background

Buñag’s expertise in corporate law could be a disadvantage, however, as Puno zeroed in on his lack of experience in handling cases involving other fields of law.

“Social justice is about tackling the rights of the people, not of corporations,” he said.

Buñag worked for the legal arm of the Araneta Group of Companies, the ACRRA law firm, and the Roco Buñag firm where he mostly handled corporate disputes.

He was also assailed for not laying down a clear judicial philosophy. “I could not make heads or tails of your judicial philosophy,” Puno said.

Buñag dilly-dallied on two issues – on his stance on the activism of the court, and on the supremacy of the individual rights over the protection of the state.

JBC member Dean Amado Dimayuga asked Buñag if he is an activist or a passive justice, to which Buñag replied by saying that his decisions would be shaped by the 1987 Constitution which is “dynamic, not static.”

However, when Justice Sec. Raul Gonzalez asked him if the protection of the state should be put foremost over the consideration of individual rights, Buñag answered in the affirmative, only to waiver when Puno brought up the same subject.

“The 1987 Constitution is biased for individual rights,” Puno said.

Disagreement with Teves

On the other hand, appellate court Justice Aurora Lagman, another JBC member, focused on Buñag’s recent resignation at the BIR.

Buñag handed his walking papers to Malacañang in 2007 after he was reportedly hit for failing to meet collection targets.

“I resigned because of policy disagreement with [Finance Secretary Margarito] Teves on the setting of targets for the Bureau,” he said.

He said that the targets are supported heavily by economic data that centered on macro, not micro planning.

He also defended his record, and added that “no commissioner has met the target for 30 years.”

On the other hand, Justice Mariano Del Castillo informed the JBC that his sister-in-law recently filed an administrative complaint against him, though the case is still in the informal preliminary investigation stage.

“It’s about a homicide case,” he said, but did not elaborate on the details. (abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak (http://newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5600&Itemid=88889051))

These are excerpts from the 2007 and 2008 Judicial and Bar Council public interviews with Sandiganbayan Justice Francisco Villaruz who is shortlisted for the Supreme Court. We relied on the notes of the Supreme Court Appointments Watch for the 2007 interview and on the notes of our researcher, Purple Romero, for the 2008 interview.

2007 Interview

JBC: [What are your] views on criticisms that the JBC lacks independence?

Villaruz: The JBC is independent.

What are needed improvements in the judiciary?

Villaruz: Improvement of the judge is the first or primordial concern that needs to be addressed. The temptation for graft and corruption is still high because of low income. The Action Program for Judicial Reform has partially addressed it but it's not enough. Financial security of judges is important

Assuming you become associate justice of the Supreme Court then you are nominated for the chief justice position, will you subject yourself to public interviews?

Villaruz: I do not claim to be an exception. Public office is a public trust. The public is entitled to access to information.

Are you in favor of lifestyle check of judges/ justices?

Villaruz: Yes. In light of the fact that the Constitution provides that public office is a public trust and that as public officials, we should lead modest lives.

What are your comments on the fact that you’re not yet a chair of a division and are already aspiring for the Supreme Court?

Villaruz: I do not see that being a chair should be a qualification to be a member of the SC. I believe that I possess the qualifications. I am familiar with general laws and special laws.

How do we improve the process of bar examinations?

Villaruz: There should be a permanent committee of bar examiners so that corrections would be more or less uniform

Tell us about your judicial record.

Villaruz: I have penned approximately 30 decisions in 4 1/2 years.

2008 Interview

JBC: What should be the manner of amending the Constitution?

Villaruz: I believe that Charter change should now be adopted. There are a number of provisions that should be reviewed. The matter of the power of the Congress to conduct investigation should be circumscribed. If we interpret the Constitution on its face, Congress should vote as one. But if we base it on the intent, voting of Congress is required separately.

Which form of government best suits the country?

Villaruz: A unitary form of government. It would be cheaper, there would be less harassment, more efficiency. There would be no need for the concurrence of the Senate.

Source (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/12/23/08/villaruz-charter-change-should-be-adopted-now)

These are excerpts from our interview with Court of Appeals Justice Martin Villarama Jr., the leading contender to the Supreme Court. Our researchers, Purple S. Romero, conducted the interview in October.

You are said to be the civil society’s bet for the next Supreme Court justice. Why do you think you enjoy their trust?

Villarama: It must be because of the recent high-profile cases I’ve decided on. My decisions on the Guerrero, Meralco and Salapuddin cases have all been splashed in the papers. In the Guerrero case, I ruled that the information case was filed without proper preliminary investigation.

(Note: The Guerrero case was about Berlin Guerrero, Protestant pastor at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. Accused of murder, he was reportedly abducted and tortured by the Philippine National Police. Guerrero’s lawyers were former Sen. Jovito Salonga and Emilio Capulong)

I was reversed by the Supreme Court in the Meralco case. I ruled that Meralco should first undergo a penal audit before the ERC (Energy Regulatory Commission) approves an increase in rates. Two years after, on December 6, 2006, the Supreme Court reversed my decision. (Note: Justice Minita Chico-Nazario penned the decision) But look at what’s happening now, the Supreme Court is looking at the books of Meralco as a result of the Meralco-GSIS case.

Secretary [Raul] Gonzalez reversed the recommendations of Zuño which pushed for the filing of a case against [former Basilan Rep. Gerry] Salapuddin in connection with the death of [Wahab] Akbar. I granted the petition to re-file the case of murder against Salapuddin

I granted the writ of amparo in the cases of [Romulos] Robiños and [Ryan] Supan. But up until now they couldn’t be found. Karapatan rejoiced in my decision.

Before you joined the Court of Appeals, what position did you hold? Did you ever join private practice?

Villarama: I was executive judge of Pasig RTC. I decided the case of Abet Antonio, who was accused of killing basketball player Tuadles. I said it was a case of murder. The SC downgraded it to homicide, but Puno and Davide said in their opinion that it was murder.

I was there for more than 11 years. I also taught law at MLQ (Manuel L. Quezon University) and CCP (City Colleges of the Philippines.)

And now you’re aiming to be the next Supreme Court justice.

Villarama: Well, it’s a policy that the five most senior CA justices would be asked if they would like to apply for the Supreme Court. The most senior is PJ Vasquez, but he begged off. He’s due to retire on January 6, 2010. I am the third most senior.

Just in case you become the next Supreme Court justice and the first case that will be handed to you is a political case, would you participate in it? Would you consider inhibiting?

Villarama: Inhibitions are personal decisions. I would first study the case, but if I feel I cannot bring justice to my fellowmen, when I can't sleep, when I have stomach spasms, I would not participate in the case.

Utang na loob is a very Filipino trait. Wouldn’t anyone be a little pressured to pay their debt of gratitude to the one who appointed them at the Supreme Court?

Villarama: I wouldn’t be pressured. I’ve been here for 22 years. I could retire tomorrow with full benefits. Besides, history will judge you.

The following are excerpts from the Judicial and Bar Council public interview with Villarama conducted in early December.

What can you contribute to the Court? How will you improve the judiciary?

Villarama: The appointment of SC justices should be lodged in the Supreme Court. The SC by 2/3 of the vote should determine the choice of justices...Implement small-claims courts nationwide and strengthen adjudication in barangay level.

How do you intend to meet pressures?

Villarama: There will always be requests but as long as you don’t succumb to them, it would be okay. In the end, I’ll decide on my own.

There’s a growing sentiment to amend the Constitution. Will you recommend amendment of provisions on the economy?

Villarama: The government should always be there [in ownership of public utilities and utilization of natural resources]. The suggested amendment is not urgent at this point.

Are you in favor of the revival of death penalty?

Villarama: I am in favor of the restoration of death penalty. Anyway, the powers of the president are there—commutation, reprieve.

What should be the manner of amending the Constitution?

Villarama: I prefer voting separately in a constituent assembly. I also do not want any Charter change before 2010.

Source (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/12/23/08/villarama-i-do-not-want-charter-change-2010)

These are excerpts from interviews with Court of Appeals Justice Portia Hormachuelos, who is shortlisted for the Supreme Court. One was conducted by our researcher, Purple Romero, in October, and the two others, by the Judicial and Bar Council, in November 2008 and in 2007. We relied on the notes of the Supreme Court Appointments Watch for the 2007 interview. Romero took notes during the most recent JBC interview.

abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak interview

Have you spent your life largely working in the courts?

Hormachuelos: Yes, before I was appointed as a CA justice I worked from 1987-1995 at the Cebu RTC. Before that I was a fiscal. I was also a probationary officer for one year.

Where did you take up law?

Hormachuelos: I'm from Cebu. I finished law at the University of Visayas but I took up Public Administration at UP.

Do you think that the rest of the 7 justices who will be appointed to the SC, which may include you, are obliged to give some sort of payback to the appointing power?

Hormachuelos: I don’t owe anyone anything. I have no backing. I’ve been nominated to the Supreme Court five times already but up to now, I've not bee chosen.

When were you first nominated?

Hormachuelos: A long time ago. (laughs). Year 2000, I think. But if I’m not selected again this time, I can still apply for the next vacancy. The six new justices will be selected in more or less a year’s time.

Do you think 2010 would be a test of independence for the Supreme Court?

Hormachuelos: The Supreme Court should always decide on the correctness of the case. It is a bulwark of democracy. If it loses its independence, where would the country be going to?

If the justice is convinced, if he believes that the executive is doing correctly, he will vote for the executive. But only if he believes in its correctness. The decisions of the Supreme Court are published. It will be in the books. I don’t think a Supreme Court justice would gamble for his decision just for posterity.

How would the new Court, with you as one of its probable members, keep its independence?

Hormachuelos: The events will speak for themselves.

How important is public sentiment in deciding a case?

Hormachuelos: We should listen to the voice of the people. That's the public, the country. But sometimes, the people could be also wrong. The Supreme Court should know when it (the public) is right or wrong.

What could we expect from you as a Supreme Court justice?

Hormachuelos: My decisions will be predictable, transparent.

2007 JBC interview

How do you reduce the caseload in the Supreme Court?

Hormachuelos: Transfer the cases on heinous crimes for intermediate appeal to the Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court should focus on national cases with transcendental importance. The SC can adopt discretionary appeal, which will require an amendment in the Constitution.

[What are your] views on judicial legislation?

Hormachuelos: The judiciary is called upon on justiciable issues or when the question of grave abuse of discretion is raised. It cannot avoid ruling on these issues as it is its duty.

What are your views on criticism that the JBC lacks independence?

Hormachuelos: I disagree [that JBC lacks independence]. The best proof of that is the present hearing or interview session of the JBC with the applicants. This shows JBC's performance of its duty - to screen nominees.

What is the form of government that is good for the judicial system?

Hormachuelos: I have no opinion on this. I leave it to the wise minds of the people studying the issue. On the federal system, it will give the LGUs more say on their affairs and be less dependent on the national government.

Do the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (and other religious groups) commit acts that violate [the separation between] church and state?

Hormachuelos: The constituents or members of the CBCP are citizens who are entitled to speak their mind but their opinions will not constitute coercion or a matter that will shape the decision of the executive.

Assuming you become associate justice of the Supreme Court, then you are nominated for the chief justice position, will you subject yourself to public interviews?

Hormachuelos: The justice is entitled to speak his mind if he wishes to be interviewed but there should be no coercion and that no derogatory comments should be made of him if he declines.

Should cases be raffled to divisions or to individual justices?

Hormachuelos: In accordance with justice and fair play, the cases should be raffled to individuals.

What are your thoughts on en banc decision-making vs. division decision-making?

Hormachuelos: En banc decision-making is not conducive to the speedy disposition of cases in the Supreme Court. While it should cater to uniformity of decision, with the technological advancements, non-uniformity should not be the usual matter to expect.

[Are you} in favor of special division in the CA on labor cases?

Hormachuelos: Yes, specialization would result in more speedy resolution of cases.

2008 JBC interview

What would you suggest to JBC to help it weed out unworthy applicants?

Hormachuelos: Scrutinize decisions of nominees from the judiciary, and writings of those who are not from the judiciary.

How many of your decisions have been reversed by the SC?

Hormachuelos: I have 99 percent affirmation rate.

Source (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/12/23/08/hormachuelos-i-don%E2%80%99t-owe-anyone-anything-i-have-no-backing)

...
Corporate background

Buñag’s expertise in corporate law could be a disadvantage, however, as Puno zeroed in on his lack of experience in handling cases involving other fields of law.

“Social justice is about tackling the rights of the people, not of corporations,” he said.

Wasn't this the same criticism made against the nomination of Monsod to the Comelec? The constitutional requirement is for the nominee to have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Monsod has been criticized as not having stepped inside a courtroom. But the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court, but that a person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:

...for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.

Based on jurisprudence, can the JBC rightly hold Buñag's corporate background against him?

However, when Justice Sec. Raul Gonzalez asked him if the protection of the state should be put foremost over the consideration of individual rights, Buñag answered in the affirmative, only to waiver when Puno brought up the same subject.

“The 1987 Constitution is biased for individual rights,” Puno said.

But isn't the very essence of constitutional law the balancing of the interests of the State and that of the individual's? For the Constitution to biased for either would tilt the balance in favor of either tyranny or anarchy.

Court finds ex-Batangas gov Leviste guilty of homicide
S. DEDACE, M. MERUEñAS, GMANews.TV
01/14/2009 | 09:33 AM

(Updated 10:15 a.m.) MANILA, Philippines – The Makati regional trial court on Wednesday found former Batangas governor Jose Antonio Leviste guilty of homicide in the death of his longtime aide Rafael de las Alas in January 2007.

In a 38-page decision penned by RTC Brach 150 Judge Elmo Alameda, the court handed down its verdict and meted Leviste the penalty of reclusion temporal or 6 to 12 years imprisonment. Leviste was also ordered to indemnify the de las Alas family of P50,000 and an additional P50,000 in moral damages.

"[The] accused failed to satisfy the requirements of self-defense to justify shooting the victim [de las Alas]," part of the decision said as read by the clerk of court.

Alameda also took note of the five gunshot wounds sustained by de las Alas, saying, “It did not support the argument of self-defense. One shot would have been enough to immobilize the victim. He did not need to shoot him four more times."

But in a statement, Leviste insisted that he is innocent.

“The court has judged the way it sees it. But my conscience is clear and I am innocent. It behooves me therefore to file an appeal and get complete vindication for the sake of my family. I have nothing more to say. I leave my faith to God," Leviste said.

The former governor was given 15 days to appeal the ruling before the Court of Appeals (CA).

Alameda also said that because Leviste is already convicted, any motion for bail bond should be filed at the appellate court and not before his sala anymore.

“Any motion for bail at this point could not be entertained by this court but such motion should be filed at the Court of Appeals," Alameda said, adding that Leviste’s conviction cancels the standing bail bond that he currently is in.

Leviste was fetched by Senior Superintendent Gilbert Cruz, Makati police chief, to be brought to the Makati City jail, pending transfer to the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.

Leviste is accused of killing de las Alas on Jan. 12, 2007 although he maintained to have shot him in self defense. The two had engaged in a heated argument inside Leviste's office at the LPL Tower in Makati City.

But the prosecution had argued that all the elements of murder – treachery, cruelty and evident premeditation – were present in the crime.

On Tuesday, Leviste expressed confidence that he would be acquitted of the murder charge.

"My family and I are continuing to pray. Together with my legal counsel, we have proven a strong case throughout the two-year trial and now I leave my fate in God's hand," Leviste said. - GMANews.TV (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/144125/Court-finds-ex-Batangas-gov-Leviste-guilty-of-homicide)

ESTRADA ‘PLUNDER JUDGE’
Arroyo appoints Sandigan chief to SC

By Christian V. Esguerra
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:11:00 01/15/2009

MANILA, Philippines—A magistrate with a reputation for being a “guillotine judge” who convicted former President Joseph Estrada of plunder is the newest member of the Supreme Court.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the main beneficiary of Estrada’s ouster in 2001, announced on Wednesday the appointment of Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Diosdado Peralta as associate justice of the 15-member high tribunal.

Peralta, 56, will replace Associate Justice Ruben Reyes who reached the mandatory retirement age of 70 on Jan. 3.

Malacañang immediately sought to quash suspicions that the appointment might be connected to the supposed plan to extend Ms Arroyo’s term by revising the 1987 Constitution.

“Every time there’s an appointment, news like this comes out … then the next question will be about Cha-cha (Charter change), that she was to stay on as president,” Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita told reporters in Filipino.

Full story (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090115-183419/Arroyo-appoints-Sandigan-chief-to-SC)

Whoever sits as President, his or her actions will not be acceptable to all groups and individuals in this country. There will always be oppositions and accusations of unfairness or errors in judgments. The appointment of members of the government is not an exception. With the recent elevation of Justice Diosdado Peralta to the Supreme Court, various reasons for his appointment come out. But whatever it is, the critics can just talk and do nothing because they are not the President. Peralta was among those shortlisted by the JBC so there should not be any questions anymore. The President exercised her discretion in appointing the new SC Justice.

ang Gobyerno din ang dahilan kung bakit na-papraning o very speculative ang masa sa mga nagiging action ng pamahalaan. Ikaw ba naman ang pakainin ng Edsa I, Edsa II, Edsa III, tapos andyan pa ang mga coup attempt ng mga iba't-ibang grupo mula sa militar at hindi mabilang na scandals mula sa mga opisyales ng ating pamahalaan..

sapalagay mo ba walang epekto ito, MERON at malaki...at habang dumadami paang mga kabalbalan ng gobyerno...lalong lumalala ang sakit ng taong-bayan.

kaya ang maipapayo ko lang sa mga kagalang-galang nating opisyales...tigilan na ang mga katiwalian at hindi produktibong mga proyekto na nauuwi sa walang katapusang imbestigasyon.

SC upholds VFA; Smith to stay at US embassy (http://http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/10/09/sc-upholds-vfa-smith-stay-us-embassy)
By Aries C. Rufo, abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak | 02/10/2009 1:31 PM


The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Philippines-US Visiting Forces Agreement, allowing convicted rapist Lance Corporal Daniel Smith to remain at the custody of the US embassy.

Voting 9-4, the Tribunal junked the petition of former Senators Jovito Salonga and Wigberto Tanada to declare the VFA unconstitutional on the ground that it supposedly derogates on the exclusive power of the SC to promulgate rules of procedure in courts.

Those in the minority were Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Justices Antonio Carpio, Alicia Austria-Martinez and Conchita Carpio-Morales.

In upholding the VFA, the magistrates sustained the Court of Appeals ruling allowing Smith to be detained nside the US embassy. The CA argued that the courts “may not directly intervene in the exercise of diplomacy by the appropriate political organ of the government.”

The petitioners included retired CA Justice Jose dela Rama, lawyers Romeo Capulong, Hary Roque and Florin Hilbay and Makati Regional Trial Court Benjamin Pozon, who convicted Smith. Smith was found guilty of raping a 23-year-old woman at the Subic Bay Free Port on Nov. 2005. His case is on appeal at the CA.

The Court resolved two principal issues on the petitions namely:

whether the right to custody of Smith during the pendency of his appeal belongs to the Philippine government or the US authorities and
whether there was contempt of court committed in the transfer of accused Daniel Smith from the custody of the court to that of the US authorities pending appeal.

Former Lucio Tan counsel leads new Supreme Court aspirants (http://http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/11/09/former-lucio-tan-counsel-leads-new-supreme-court-aspirants)

By PURPLE S. ROMERO, abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak | 02/11/2009 9:23 AM


A legal counsel in a case which has recently threatened the leadership of Chief Justice Reynato Puno is one of the six new aspirants to the Supreme Court.

Roberto Abad, dean of the University of Sto. Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, is one of the six additional contenders in the race for the SC seat to be vacated by Justice Adolfo Azcuna on February 16.

The other new aspirants are: Justice Ernesto Acosta, presiding justice of the Court of Tax Appeals; Court of Appeals Justices Lucas Bersamin, Amelita Tolentino, Japar Dimaampao, Hakim Abdulwahid, and human rights lawyer Pablito Sanidad

Abad represented Olivia Paras in the oral arguments on a disqualification case against her rival Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong, whose victory in the 2007 local elections is on the line following questions over her citizenship.

Abad and Puno, however, worked together in the Office of the Solicitor General when Estelito Mendoza was still the lead government counsel. Abad served as assistant solicitor general from 1985-1986, while Puno was solicitor general from 1974-1982.

Ties to Mendoza

Abad and Mendoza, meanwhile, worked together as private counsels of Lucio Tan in a P25 billion-tax evasion case filed against the business mogul in 1993.

Tan’s name came up in the case after his company, Fortune Tobacco, allegedly dodged taxes through dummy corporations. The case was later dismissed.

Abad assisted Puno when the former was still a solicitor in a number of cases, one of which includes a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Ramon Bernal, whose son was detained on charges of subversion, against then Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, Gen. Fabian Ver and commanding generals of the Philippine Constabulary.

Limkaichong case

Abad represented Paras, who lost to Limkaichong by 7,000 votes. Paras sought the disqualification of her opponent on the ground that the latter is not a natural-born Filipino citizen. Louis Biraogo and Renald Villando, who also ran against but lost to Limkaichong in the last elections, filed similar petitions.

A leaked draft of the Supreme Court decision on the case triggered talks of an impeachment move against Puno. Biraogo got hold of the unpromulgated decision dated July 15, 2008, which had the signatures of all 14 justices except Puno.

The SC decision, penned by now retired Justice Ruben Reyes, upheld Limkaichong’s disqualification.

Biraogo accused Puno of sitting on the case, eventually sparking calls for Puno’s impeachment. Puno called for deliberations on the decision after majority of the justices concurred only with the result, but not with the arguments, of the decision.

Abad has his own law firm, Abad & Associates. One of the prominent cases it handled includes Francisco Chavez v. National Housing Authority, where Chavez questioned the authority of the National Housing Authority to reclaim and develop the lands of Smokey Mountain for its housing project.

Abad stood as counsel for the NHA, which won the case in the Supreme Court in 2007.

A graduate of Ateneo de Manila University, Abad became a trial attorney in the Jose W. Diokno Law Office, a law clerk for Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro and staff editor for Supreme Court Reports Annotated.

JBC scraps age limit for Supreme Court applicants (http://http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/11/09/jbc-scraps-age-limit-supreme-court-applicants)
By Purple S. Romero, abs-cbnNEWS.com, Newsbreak | 02/11/2009 1:19 PM

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) scrapped the age cap of applicants to the Supreme Court in its en banc meeting held recently, opening the race to SC hopefuls who are more than 65 years old.

Rep. Matias Defensor of Quezon City, JBC ex-oficio member, said that the body voted to make its age qualification flexible as applicants should be considered more based on their “competence.”

“The vote was unanimous,” he told Abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak in a phone interview.

This eliminates a huge obstacle for Rodolfo Robles, lawyer and president of real estate company Landphil Corp., who was cut from the list of nominees last year because he is 65 years and 4 months old.

Robles, whose father is a friend of the Arroyo patriarch, former Pres. Diosdado Macapagal, was touted as one of Malacañang’s top picks to replace Justice Ruben Reyes, who hang his robe on January 3.

Robles was however taken out of the running as Rule 8.2 of the internal rules of the JBC cites that non-career applicants must serve the SC for “at least five years” to “discourage” short-lived appointments.

Last Monday, however, the JBC aligned its age qualification on the constitutional requirements for SC contenders following “letters from some people” which purportedly questioned the current guidelines.

'Discourage,' not mandate

Rule 8.7 of the 1987 Constitution stipulates that an SC magistrate must be at least 40 years of age, and must have been a judge or a private practitioner for 15 years.

Defensor said that Justices Leonardo Quisumbing and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, both JBC consultants, read the letters and decided that the JBC would not violate any constitutional rules if it allows applicants to the High Court who are older than 65.

Defensor said that the JBC, after all, could only “discourage” the appointment of people who would not be able to serve in the High Tribunal for a “reasonably sufficient time.”

He explained that this does not provide the JBC the authority to discriminate against applicants who may be older than 65. “The JBC rules are not mandatory in nature,” he added.

He explained that various opinions from constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Ret. Justice Isagani Cruz were also noted in their deliberations.

“Consider, however, that the constitutional age requirement of Supreme Court justices is that they must not be more than 70 years old. Moreover, unlike in the case of justices and judges of lower courts, not even Congress is allowed to add to the constitutionally enumerated qualifications. It would seem to me that by enacting a rule which automatically excludes a non-career person who is 65 years old or a career person in the judiciary who is 68 years old the JBC has effectively amended the

Constitution. We know that the JBC has no authority to do that,” Bernas wrote in his Dec. 15 column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Welcomed decision

Aside from Robles, those who would also benefit from JBC’s decision include former Bureau of Internal Revenue commissioner Jose Mario Buñag.
Buñag also tried for Reyes’s post, but failed to make the shortlist.

Pablito Sanidad, who was earlier reported to be 65, said he is not yet affected by the JBC’s rule on age qualification because he is just 64 years old. He would turn 65 on April 25.

Sanidad is one of the hopefuls vying for the seat of Justice Adolfo Azcuna, who is set to retire on February 16.

Defensor said that even if Robles and Buñag would stay less than five years in the SC if ever they get appointed, they seemed to possess the competence necessary to dispose cases in two years, the standard period for SC justices in clearing their caseload.

“Robles is a bar topnotcher while Bunag is a valedictorian of the Ateneo Law,” he said.

Robles welcomed JBC’s decision, saying that “it is good news.”

Sanidad expressed similar sentiments, saying that it “widens the field.”

Justice Azcuna retires today from Supreme Court
(http://http://www.mb.com.ph/MAIN20090213148007.html)
Rey G. Panaligan

Supreme Court (SC) Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna — who introduced into the country’s legal system the Writ of Amparo that protects citizens from threats and violations of their right to life, liberty, and security not only from the government, itself, but also from private individuals — retires today.


It was Justice Azcuna who included in his questionnaire to aspiring lawyers the Writ of Amparo in the 1991 bar examinations. He was then a bar examiner.

Justice Azcuna later became chairman of the bar examinations committee in 2007, five years after his appointment to the SC on Oct. 17, 2002.

On Oct. 16, 2007, the SC formally adopted the Rule on the Writ Amparo, now the citizens’ legal weapon against extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

A year later in 2008, the SC handed down a precedent-setting ruling that granted two suspected communist sympathizers a Writ of Amparo that would protect them from harassment and arrest by the military in a decision written by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.

With every Writ of Amparo issued by the courts — to free citizens from illegal arrest and detention and to protect them from harassments and threats — Justice Azcuna would be remembered.

Retirement ceremonies in honor of Justice Azcuna would be held today starting at 4 p.m. at the SC session hall. A reception thereafter would be held at the Fiesta Pavilion of the historic landmark Manila Hotel.

On Monday, Justice Azcuna turns 70, the retirement age for members of the judiciary.

He was born in Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte on Feb. 16, 1939 to Felipe B. Azcuna and Carmen S. Sevilla. He finished law, cum laude, at the Ateneo de Manila University in 1962 and fourth placer in the 1962 bar examinations.

From 1967 to 1986, Justice Azcuna taught International Law at AdeMU. In between his teaching profession, he completed post-graduate studies in International Law at the Salzburg University in Austria.

He was elected member of the 1971 Constitutional Convention and was appointed member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.

During the term of former President Corazon C. Aquino, Justice Azcuna held several positions — first as Presidential Legal Counsel, then as Press Secretary and subsequently as Presidential Spokesperson.

He was chairman of the Philippine National Bank when President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed him SC justice on Oct. 17, 2002.

Justice Azcuna is married to Maria Asuncio Aunario, dean of arts and sciences of St. Scholastica’s College. They have four children — Anna Maria, Ma. Beatriz, Ma. Margarita, and Miguel Enrique.

In his foreword to the compilation of Justice Azcuna’s decisions, separate opinions, and speeches, Chief Justice Puno said:

"Reading through this compilation of Justice Azcuna’s work leaves no doubt about his stature as one of the greatest legal minds of our country. But more than a lawyer and Justice, Justice Azcuna is also a great human being."

"This we can see from his assessment of the legal profession: ‘The profession of law is the most human of all professions. The priest is called upon to minister to the needs of the soul. The doctor is called upon to treat the ailments of the body. The engineer deals with machines. The lawyer, however, is called upon to respond to the exigencies of the human as human, a person of body and soul together, that is, with full range of human activities, from personal relations to contracts, from torts to criminal acts, from happiness to love. Being the most human, it is also the most difficult of all professions. For it demands from your the readiness to respond to the needs of your fellow humans in the most awesome of diversity and in the most trying of intensity.’"

According to Puno, the responsibility cited by Justice Azcuna "is even heavier for the members of the judiciary."

"It is a responsibility that Justice Azcuna embraced from the time he was appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on October 17, 2002," he said.

Bill seeks incentives to attract permanent judges in Sulu (http://http://www.gmanews.tv/story/148658/Bill-seeks-incentives-to-attract-permanent-judges-in-Sulu)
02/13/2009 | 01:12 PM

MANILA, Philippines — Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. has proposed a law granting a set of incentives to attract qualified judges to accept permanent appointments in the island province of Sulu.

Senate Bill 3062 seeks to double the salaries, emoluments, allowances and perks for judges assigned to Sulu and other equally hazardous areas.

In addition, the judges would be provided security detail of not less than five but not more than seven police officers or elements of the armed forces.
Pimentel said the incentives are necessary as not a single municipal trial court is operating in the l8 municipalities of Sulu.
“Although Sulu is entitled to four regional trial courts, not one is sitting in the multi-island province on a regular basis," Pimentel said.“The judges, more often than not, hold sessions in Zamboanga City in the main island of Mindanao .

The judges are afraid to hold office and conduct trials in Sulu due to the unstable law and order situation there, he said .

Without any courts operating in Sulu, Pimentel said there is no effective judicial remedy to redress the grievances of the people of Sulu.

“Without trial courts to arbitrate grievances according to the Rule of Law, the Rule of the Gun will prevail as it seems to prevail today in the province. Serious threats to the security and the safety of the populace of Sulu, including kidnappings, abductions, ambuscades and outright killings, appear to be horrendously common place in the province."

The minority leader said that the incentives should also cover court employees and the prosecutors concerned.

The costs of maintaining the security detail shall be shared in equal amounts by and shall be taken from the budgets of the judicial department and the province concerned in the case of the Regional Trial Courts.

However, the bill provides that the judges of all levels of trial courts assigned to Sulu and other local government units with similar security problems shall be entitled to the package of incentives only if they sit and hold regular court sessions in their places of assignment.

In the event that the judges so assigned to these perilous posts get killed in the line of duty, the bill provides that their heirs shall receive double the benefits that the heirs of judges who are assigned in other places are entitled to under the law.

The appalling absence of trial courts in Sulu and its municipalities bespeaks the troublous times besetting Sulu," the senator from Mindanao said.

Senate Bill 3062 also states that judges who are assigned in Sulu and other hazardous areas may not be temporarily detailed or permanently transferred elsewhere without the consent of the judges and the LGUs concerned. - D’Jay Lazaro, GMANews.TV

Justice Azcuna ends stint at the Supreme Court (http://http://www.gmanews.tv/story/148976/Justice-Azcuna-ends-stint-at-the-Supreme-Court)
02/16/2009 | 01:35 PM

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court associate justice who penned the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) hung his robe on Monday.

Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, whose retirement ceremonies occurred Friday last week, reached the mandatory requirement age of 70 on Monday.

Eighteen are vying for Azcuna’s newly vacated position.

These include Roberto Abad, dean of the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justices Hakim Abdulwahid, Lucas Bersamin, Japar Dimaampao, and Amelita Tolentino, Court of Tax appeals presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta, and human rights laywer Pablito Sanidad.

Also taking another chance at an SC post include former Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) commissioner Jose Mario Buñag, CA Associate Justices Martin Villarama, Juan Enriquez, Remedios Salazar-Fernando, Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Andres Reyes, Sandiganbayan Justices Edilberto Sandoval and Francisco Villaruz, lawyer Rodolfo Robles, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera, and Ateneo Law School dean Cesar Villanueva.

The eleven contenders previously sought to occupy the post left by retired SC Associate Justice Ruben Reyes, who hung his robe last January 3. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed Sandiganbayan presiding justice Diosdado Peralta as Reyes’ replacement.

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the constitutionally created body that screens and recommends to President Arroyo the appointees to SC vacancies, will start the public interviews for the new contenders on February 25.

Aside from Reyes and Azcuna, associate justices Dante Tinga, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Leonardo Quisumbing, Minita Chico-Nazario, and Alicia Austria-Martinez are set to retire in 2009.

Before President Arroyo bows out of office in 2010, she would have appointed 14 of the 15-member Supreme Court bench. Only Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who was appointed by President Fidel Ramos in 1993, will be the remaining non-Arroyo appointee in 2010. - Sophia Dedace and Carlo Lorenzo, GMANews.TV

Judicial and Bar Council sets interviews for Azcuna replacement (http://http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=441097&publicationSubCategoryId=63)
By Edu Punay Updated February 17, 2009 12:00 AM


MANILA, Philippines - The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has set the public interviews of aspirants for the seat at the Supreme Court (SC) vacated by Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, who retired from the judiciary yesterday.

The JBC announced that the interviews of seven candidates have been set on Feb. 25 and 26. The schedule of interviews was based on the alphabetical order of surnames of the applicants.

First to face the panel at 9 a.m. next Wednesday is University of Santo Tomas law school dean Robert Abad, followed by Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice Hakim Abdulwahid.

In the afternoon, Court of Tax Appeals Presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta and CA justice Lucas Bersamin would have their turn before the JBC.

On Thursday morning, the JBC would interview CA justice Japar Dimaampao and human rights lawyer Pablito Sanidad. CA Justice Amelita Tolentino will complete the interviewees in the afternoon.

After the interview, the JBC will submit a shortlist of candidates most qualified for the vacant post – usually composed of five names – to President Arroyo, who will then decide on who will take the SC position.

Abad was reportedly an assistant solicitor-general during the time of former solicitor general Estelito Mendoza and also lawyer of business tycoon Lucio Tan. Sanidad, on the other hand, was nominated by the human rights group Free Legal Assistance Group.

Tolentino shot to fame when she convicted Hubert Webb, son of former senator Freddie Webb, for the massacre of the Vizconde family.

Abdulwahid and Dimaampao are two of the highest-ranking Muslims in the judiciary.

The JBC said it would no longer interview 11 other applicants who had previously applied for the post vacated by former SC associate justice Ruben Reyes last Jan. 3, which went to Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Diosdado Peralta.

Two of them, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera and businessman Rodolfo Robles, were delisted from the nominees for the Reyes post due to a pending case before the Ombudsman and “age,” respectively.

They were, however, again nominated for the Azcuna post.

The nine other nominees are: CA Justices Portia Hormachuelos, Martin Villarama, Andres Reyes, Remedios Salazar-Fernando, and Juan Enriquez; Sandiganbayan Justices Edilberto Sandoval and Francisco Villaruz; Ateneo law dean Cesar Villanueva; and former Bureau of Internal Revenue commissioner Jose Buñag.

The JBC is chaired by Chief Justice Reynato Puno.

RP, South Africa SCs Sign Judiciary Cooperation Pact (http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/)

Posted: January 29, 2009
By Jay B. Rempillo

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/images/j.puno.pnghttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/images/CJ%20Langa.jpg


Philippine Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and Chief Justice Pius N. Langa of the Constitutional Court of South Africa today signed a Memorandum on Cooperation (MOC) between their respective Judiciaries in simple ceremonies in Pretoria, South Africa.

The signing took place following the World Conference on Constitutional Justice held on January 23-24, 2009 at Cape Town, South Africa where Chief Justice Puno was among the participants. With the theme “Influential Constitutional Justice: Its Influence on Society and on Developing a Global Human Rights Jurisprudence,” the Conference promoted cooperation between courts engaged in constitutional review and furthered the development of human rights principles. It was attended by representatives from constitutional courts and equivalent bodies throughout the world.

The MOC, consisting of eight articles, is aimed at promoting not only friendly relations between the two countries but also the continuing development of the respective judicial systems of the Philippines and South Africa.

The articles under the MOC state that the respective judiciaries of the Philippines and South Africa shall

1. promote exchanges and cooperation between their respective judiciaries within the framework of friendly relations prevailing between them according to their respective judicial practice;

2. arrange and facilitate visits of the judicial personnel of their respective countries to promote acquisition of knowledge on each judicial system;

3. facilitate meetings between the heads and faculty of their respective judicial education institutes to further promote the sharing of views on curricular offerings and instructional strategies;

4. encourage the attendance of their respective delegations to international conferences or seminars that either of them may host, on issues of regional or international concern that relate to their common interests;

5. endeavor to strengthen their cooperation in the fields of court management and administration, judicial education and training, comparative research on adjudication and judicial reforms, and the sharing of experiences among the local courts of each country;

6. promote the exchanges of information on legal and judicial systems as well as judicial publications;

7. determine, whenever appropriate, the resources that may be required, as well as the undertakings of each party, for the implementation of the MOC; and

8. make the MOC effective upon the latter’s signing. Either party may inform the other, in writing, of the termination of said MOC upon notice given six months in advance prior to the proposed date of termination. The MOC may be modified or amended through mutual agreement.

A similar MOC was signed in November last year between the Philippine Supreme Court and the Supreme People’s Court of China, represented by Chief Justice Puno and President Wang Shengjun, respectively.

DOJ chief: Vague phrase in SC ruling may allow Smith detention in US (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/149534/DOJ-chief-Vague-phrase-in-SC-ruling-may-allow-Smith-detention-in-US)
02/19/2009 | 02:44 PM

MANILA, Philippines - Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez on Thursday claimed that unless the Philippine Supreme Court clarifies a vague phrase in its recent ruling, convicted rapist Lance Corporal Daniel Smith may be detained in the United States.

In his “Brief Resource Paper," Gonzalez said the Supreme Court only ordered the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to negotiate with US representatives toward an agreement on detention facilities for the convicted U.S. serviceman under Philippine authorities.

It would seem that places or facilities in other countries considered as “under Philippine authorities" like Philippine embassies might qualify as possible detention location for Smith, Gonzalez said.

He stated in his resource paper that the phrase “under Philippine authorities" is vague and could mean the location be found “beyond the territorial boundaries of the country or actually within the United States."

He also stated that another provision in the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) prohibits American servicemen from engaging in an offensive in Philippine territory, but the treaty is silent on how American troops should behave when attacked.

“Its silence on the troops’ participation in case of self-defense can be construed as affirmation that it may do so," Gonzalez added.

The High Court last February 11 thumbed down an executive agreement that allowed Smith’s detention at the US Embassy, saying that the deal was violative of the VFA.

The Tribunal ruled that Smith should be detained “under Philippine authorities" as it directed Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and US ambassador Kristie Kenney to “forthwith negotiate" where he should be detained. - C. Lorenzo/S. Dedace, GMANews.TV

Shootout or rubout? (http://abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/02/18/09/3-killed-police-rubout-qc)


Three suspected car thieves were killed in a police operation along EDSA in Quezon City Tuesday night.

ABS-CBN News was able to capture on video the final minutes of the operation, which authorities said began in Mandaluyong City when police spotted and pursued a vehicle reported stolen last month.

Police claimed the suspects opened fire on them forcing them to fire back.

But the footage captured by ABS-CBN shows several policemen firing their weapons inside the suspects' car at close range.

The footage was shown to Human Rights Commissioner Leila de Lima, who said the police violated rules of engagement.

"Jesus Christ!...This is very disturbing and highly questionable in our viewpoint," de Lima said after seeing the footage.

"This is potentially a case of excessive and blatant violation of operational guidelines," she added. "Ano na nangyari sa mga human rights education and training namin all these years for the PNP?"

As of posting, Quezon City police district deputy director for operations Federico Lasiste said they have yet to see the footage.

Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno said it will take several weeks for forensic investigations to be completed, but he stressed it was a legitimate encounter.

Meanwhile, the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) will investigate last night's shootout amid allegations it was a rubout.

"Hindi dapat na mangyari na ang mga tao na nakasakay sa isang kotse, kung yan man ay nanlalaban o ano man ay papuputukan ng point blank na ang ibig sabihin ay hindi lumalaban yung mga nasa loob," said Eduardo Escueta, vice-chairman of the NAPOLCOM, after seeing the footage.

"Hindi maganda ang ating nakita diyan at umpisa pa lang ay maari nating sabihin na hindi ito dapat ginawa ng police officer," he said.

Supreme Court pushes moral renewal (http://http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=442756&publicationSubCategoryId=63)
By Edu Punay Updated February 23, 2009 12:00 AM


MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court is forming an advisory council that will push for the movement toward moral renewal in government, SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said.

Marquez said the members of the advisory council, as proposed by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, would be tasked to promote public awareness and participation on pressing problems, including corruption in government.

“There will be no politicians involved. The council is composed of highly respected individuals who have no political affiliations and are representing different sectors of society,” Marquez said.

He said the council would include credible leaders from “business, church groups, youth and the media,” adding that the composition of the council would be completed this week.

Marquez said the council would “set parameters for the moral force movement with the purpose of making the people aware of what’s been happening and to do something about it.”

Puno has proposed the movement would not be anti-administration or pro-opposition but should be “a positive-neutral constructive.”

“It won’t point an accusing finger to anyone. It’s just to make people aware of rampant corruption in government, and for them to make a stand. It’s not only for the admin but also for opposition,” Marquez explained.

Marquez said the moral force movement spearheaded by Puno would focus on finding solutions specifically to graft and corruption, poverty, and electoral problems.

“Chief Justice Puno does not want to lead the council and only wants to be the catalyst for the movement. He will help expedite the movement. And again, he will not run,” Marquez said.

The head of the judiciary, according to Marquez, has been concerned about the “apparent moral decay” in Philippine society that “may lead to the fall of democracy.”

Marquez admitted that there might be some parties that would misconstrue the effort of the leadership of the judiciary.

“But if it’s a choice between being misconstrued and inaction, we’d rather be misconstrued,” he said.

Marquez assured that the movement would not compromise impartiality of the judicial branch of government.

“The Constitution is based on morals. The court is the ultimate defender of our Constitution, which is based on morals,” he said.

Supreme Court makes it easier to annul marriages (http://http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=442747&publicationSubCategoryId=68)
Updated February 23, 2009 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines - A couple was freed from 13 years of conflict after the Supreme Court (SC) relaxed the guidelines for annulling marriages and declared their union void.

In granting Edward Kenneth Ngo Te’s petition to annul his marriage to Rowena Ong Gutierrez, the high court considered the psychiatric evaluation on the spouses.

Te was diagnosed to be suffering from “dependent personality disorder” while Gutierrez had “antisocial personality disorder.”

They were married on Oct. 23, 1996 and the SC noted the couple were “afflicted with grave, sever and incurable psychological incapacity,” as the SC stated in its ruling.

The SC said “psychological incapacity” as viewed under current jurisprudence is “totally inconsistent” with the way the concept was formulated under the Family Code.

Annulment of marriages, on the other hand, should not be limited to disorders as specified by the SC.

The SC had set the guidelines for courts to declare the nullity of marriages in the landmark case of Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina.

“Far from what was intended by the Court, Molina has become a straitjacket, forcing all sizes to fit and be bound by it. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Court, in conveniently applying Molina, has allowed diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like, to continuously debase and pervert the sanctity of marriage,” the SC stated in the decision.

The SC said that in deciding cases of annulment of marriages subsequent to Molina, courts have applied the standards set in that case without regard to the Family Code’s clear intention that each case must be treated differently.

“Courts should interpret (Article 36 of the Family Code) on a case-to-case basis, guided by findings of experts and researches in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of Church Tribunals,” read the decision.

In the Te ruling, the SC adopted the separate opinion by the late Justice Teodoro Padilla in the Molina case for the judge to determine “psychological incapacity” in each case of annulment based on the facts at hand.

“The Court of Appeals must also avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court,” read the decision, quoting the Padilla opinion.

The SC said the Molina case reflected the deluge of petitions for annulment of marriages and the Office of the Solicitor General’s description of Article 36 of the Family Code as the “most liberal divorce procedure in the world.”

“The intended consequence of Molina, however, has taken its toll on people who have to live with deviant behavior, moral insanity and sociopathic personality anomaly, which, like termites, consume little by little the very foundations of their families, our basic social institution,” read the decision.

In the Molina case, the SC made it hard for couples to have their marriages judicially declared void based on “psychological incapacity” as provided in Article 36 of the Family Code.

In declaring the Te marriage void, the SC has ruled that nullity of marriages based on “psychological incapacity” of either party should be handled on a “case-to-case basis,” not bound by the strict grounds specified in the Molina case.

However, the SC said it has not abandoned the Molina case.

“We simply declare that… there is a need to emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36,” read the decision.

In Molina, the SC ruled that the burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the petitioner.

Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity, the SC added.

In Molina, the SC set out the following as the root cause of “psychological incapacity.”

Among them are grounds that are medically and clinically established, alleged in the complaint, and sufficiently proven by experts.

The decision must clearly state the grounds and the incapacity must be proven to have existed at the time of the marriage.

The SC said there must be evidence to show that the illness existed when the parties got married and the incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.

“Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolute against everyone of the same sex,” the SC said.

The SC stated the illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

Mild character peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes, the SC said.

“The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will,” the high court added.

Other root cause for incapacity must include:

• The essential marital obligations must be embraced by Article 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife, as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code in regard to parents and their children;

• The non-compliance of these marital duties must be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the decision;

• The interpretations of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the Philippines, while not controlling, should be given great weight by the courts;

• The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney and the Solicitor General to appear as Counsel for the State;

• No decision should be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating his reasons for his agreement or opposition to the petition;

• The Solicitor General along with the prosecuting attorney shall submit the certification within 15 days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution by the court.

^^ I wonder how the young adults will take this news again. The Molina ruling has been relaxed to a certain extent but this should not be a reason not to give respect to the sanctity of marriage.

I just could not help but smirk whenever I hear people wanting to have their marriage be annulled because of some minor differences. They should have known from the very start that getting married is not easy. Anyway, the Supreme Court now has ruled that annulment of marriage should be taken from a case to case basis.

Well the courts have been bound by the principle that the State recognizes and protects the sanctity of marriage and shall not grant any petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage based solely on capricious grounds. The Molina ruling further laid down eight rules to support the Family Code provisions on this matter.

However, there is still difficulty in the determination of psychological incapacity to grant such petition. Those intending to marry should not see the latest ruling of the SC as a license to marry and easily annul their marriage anytime they want to and even without good reason. Youngsters should not engage in a marital commitment if they are not yet sure about it.

^^ i'm just wondering why the rule on legal separation should not be amended by having the the marital tie severed as one of the consequences for certain grounds that are serious enough to warrant total severance (not just of bed and board) of the marriage bond:

(a) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;

(b) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;

(c) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;

(d) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned;

(e) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;

(f) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;

(g) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in or outside the Philippines;

(h) Sexual infidelity or perversion of the respondent;

(i) Attempt on the life of petitioner by the respondent; or

(j) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.

imagine, being granted legal separation after proving that one has been repeatedly battered over the years during the marriage but then the marriage bond remains subsisting...

Drug suspects seek review of habeas plea (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090223-190574/Drug-suspects-seek-review-of-habeas-plea)


MANILA, Philippines -- (UPDATE) The three suspects from prominent families tagged in a controversial drug case will file a motion for reconsideration of their habeas corpus petition before the Court of Appeals Monday afternoon, their lawyers Felisberto and Jacqueline Verano said.

The appellate court a few weeks ago dismissed the consolidated habeas corpus petitions seeking the release of Richard Brodett, Jorge Joseph, and Joseph Tecson from the custody of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency PDEA).

The lawyers for the respondents argued that Brodett, Joseph, and Tecson should have been released from PDEA custody after state prosecutors found no probable cause to charge them with drug trafficking as early as December.

Felisberto said the appeals court cannot use the waiver signed by the three allowing for their detention while the case is undergoing preliminary investigation as a justification.

"The moment the case is dismissed, the waiver is no longer in effect," he said.

"[The] waiver is only good the moment the case has been subjected for preliminary investigation," he added.

The appellate court’s Special 13th division said the three suspects failed to establish one of the requisites for habeas corpus to be granted -- illegal detention.

It also said that, even if State Prosecutor John Resado recommended dismissal of the drugs case against the three suspects, this was still subject to automatic review by Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez.

Order scrutiny of books of ‘Big 3’ (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view/20090223-190555/Order-scrutiny-of-books-of-Big-3)


MANILA, Philippines -- The Social Justice Society (SJS) asked the Manila City Regional Trial Court Branch 26 to order the examination of the books of the three largest oil companies in the country -- Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., Chevron (formerly Caltex Philippines Inc.), and Petron Corporation.

SJS told Judge Silvino Pampilo Jr. that the three firms should not be absolved despite the report of the Department of Justice-Department of Energy Task Force clearing them of cartelization.

The task force, in its report said, "Before a case for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8479 is filed in court, there must be a prior determination based on the investigations conducted by the Task Force that indeed, such companies or entities violated the anti-trust provisions of RA No. 8479."

"There is no evidence showing that the oil companies committed a monopoly or a combination in restraint of trade in violation of Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code [RPC]," it also said.

"There is likewise no evidence showing that the oil companies committed cartelization as defined under Section 11 (a) of RA No. 8479," the report also said.

Pampilo told the SJS to submit a motion asking for the opening of the books of the three oil firms.

He also gave the three firms 15 days to comment on the request of SJS.

On March 21, 2003, the SJS filed a petition for declaratory relief with the Manila RTC, naming the three oil companies as respondents.

The SJS raised the issue of whether the oil companies are guilty of cartelization and predatory pricing under Sec. 11 of RA No. 8479, and monopoly and combination in restraint of trade prohibited under Art. 186 of the RPC.

Fisherfolk ask SC to stop demolitions (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view/20090223-190589/Fisherfolk-ask-SC-to-stop-demolitions)


MANILA, Philippines -- Fisherfolk from Manila Bay have asked the Supreme Court to stop the government from demolishing their homes and source of livelihood for the construction of the R-1 Expressway Extension Project.

In their memorandum, the petitioners -- Pambansang Lakas ng mga Mamalakaya ng Pilipinas (Pamalakaya, National Federation of Fisherfolk Organizations), Pamalakaya-Southern Tagalog, Anakpawis (Toiling Masses) party-list, and Samahang Magdaragat Ng (Fisherfolk Association of) Bacoor, Cavite -- said they are worried the high court's December, 2008 order for the cleanup of Manila Bay will be used to justify the demolition of their homes and the destruction of their fish pens, fish cases, and fish and mussel traps.

They said the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the Philippine Reclamation Authority, and UEM-Mara Philippine Corporation used to offer P5,000 to P20,000 compensation to displaced fisherfolk.

But they told the court its decision is being used "to justify the further demolition of the houses of small fishermen and the destruction of the mussel-growing structures, fish traps and fish cages to give way to further reclamation activities in the bay."

"Thus, on the guise of implementing the decision of the Honorable Court for the clean up, protection and rehabilitation of Manila Bay, the DENR has dismantled and will dismantle the structures used by the movants for growing mussels and for catching fish in the Manila Bay," the petitioners said.

They also claimed the real purpose of their demolition is not for the clean up but to allow an unhampered construction of R-1 Expressway Extension Project and reclamation of the portion of the Manila bay which will be used for theme park complex and casinos.

"It must be said then, that the misplaced interpretation…of the decision of the Honorable Court by the petitioners, especially the DENR, will defeat the significance and usefulness of the decision. They have [trained] their sight to the small fishermen, while turning a blind eye to the destructive effect of the conversion and reclamation projects in Manila Bay," petitioners said.

"The massive reclamation, privatization and conversion of the public lands and coastal communities along the Manila Bay should be covered by the decision and continuing mandamus to ensure the complete clean up, rehabilitation and protection of the bay."

Aside from stopping the demolition, petitioners also asked the high court to order the respondents to show proof constructing the R-1 Expressway will not destroy the ecological balance of Manila and, if they cannot, order the project discontinued.

JBC scraps age limit for Supreme Court applicants (http://http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/11/09/jbc-scraps-age-limit-supreme-court-applicants)
...
'Discourage,' not mandate

Rule 8.7 of the 1987 Constitution stipulates that an SC magistrate must be at least 40 years of age, and must have been a judge or a private practitioner for 15 years.

Defensor said that Justices Leonardo Quisumbing and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, both JBC consultants, read the letters and decided that the JBC would not violate any constitutional rules if it allows applicants to the High Court who are older than 65.

Defensor said that the JBC, after all, could only “discourage” the appointment of people who would not be able to serve in the High Tribunal for a “reasonably sufficient time.”

He explained that this does not provide the JBC the authority to discriminate against applicants who may be older than 65. “The JBC rules are not mandatory in nature,” he added.

He explained that various opinions from constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Ret. Justice Isagani Cruz were also noted in their deliberations.

“Consider, however, that the constitutional age requirement of Supreme Court justices is that they must not be more than 70 years old. Moreover, unlike in the case of justices and judges of lower courts, not even Congress is allowed to add to the constitutionally enumerated qualifications. It would seem to me that by enacting a rule which automatically excludes a non-career person who is 65 years old or a career person in the judiciary who is 68 years old the JBC has effectively amended the Constitution. We know that the JBC has no authority to do that,” Bernas wrote in his Dec. 15 column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Indeed, the Judicial and Bar Council does not have the right to change or add to the constitutional requirements. The Constitution does not exclude those above 65 years old from being considered for the Supreme Court. What the Constitution does not exclude, the JBC cannot exclude.

Sa citizenship ng Negros solon: Retired justice kinastigo ng Korte Suprema (http://http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=443311&publicationSubCategoryId=92)
Updated February 25, 2009 12:00 AM


Pinagpapaliwanag ng Korte Suprema si retired Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Ruben Reyes kung bakit hindi siya dapat suspendihin bilang abo*gado dahil sa leakage ng isang unpro*mulgated decision ng SC en banc na ku*muku*wes*tiyon sa citizenship ni Negros Oriental Rep. Jocelyn LImkai*chong.

Pinagbabayad din si Reyes ng P500,000 bi* lang penalty na ang halaga ay babawasin sa retirement benefits nito na nagkaka*halaga ng P4.45 milyon.

Si Limkaichong, ay tu*makbo sa ilalim ng Lakas-CMD, kung saan nanalo ito kay dating Rep. Jerome Paras.

Noong May 17,2007, nag*palabas ng desisyon ang Comelec Second Division na nagdi-diskwa*lipika kay Limkaichong. Inayunan na*man ito ng Comelec en banc noong June 29,2007.

Samantala, nilinaw ni Reyes na pinagbuti niya ang kanyang serbisyo sa loob ng 35 taon na panu*nungkulan sa gobyerno kaya hindi umano siya pa*payag na kahit isang sen*timo ay mabawas sa kan*yang retirement benefit nakanyang pinaghirapan.

Kung kinakailangan umano na maghain ng motion for reconsideration si Reyes ay gagawin nito

PDEA buy-bust operation a farce, says DOJ (http://abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01/06/09/pdea-buy-bust-operation-farce-says-doj)

State prosecutors on Tuesday said anti-narcotics did not conduct a legitimate buy-bust operation against the so-called Alabang Boys whom they arrested in September 2008.

State prosecutors who dismissed the drug case involving Jorge Joseph, Richard Brodett and Joseph Tecson presented their report before the House of Representatives, which is investigating the alleged bribery try on justice and drug enforcement officials.

Senior State Prosecutor Philip Kimpo said there were so many defects in the procedure of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

PDEA Director Dionisio Santiago, however, denied Kimpo's allegation and said the operation was legitimate.

"Our poseur buyer was alone but we had a group on standby that will close in on the quarry upon getting a signal. It was not a single man team. How could we make an arrest when he was talking to two people? He would be overpowered. There was an arresting team with the pusher-buyer," he told congressmen during Tuesday's hearing.

Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez, meanwhile, said the prosecutor's statements that the PDEA operation was a farce is a very serious allegation and implies that the PDEA fabricated its story.

The House is investigating allegations that the families of the "Alabang Boys" bribed prosecutors to dismiss drug charges against them.

The Department of Justice dismissed the case last month, saying there was not enough basis to charge the three who were arrested for carrying Ecstasy and sachets of cocaine and marijuana.

PDEA legal chief Alvaro Lazaro, meanwhile, expressed shock over the resolution released by State Prosecutor dismissing the Alabang Boys' case.

Lazaro refuted Resado's assessment that the buy-bust operation was a farce and the arrest of the drug suspects was illegal.

He also pointed out that Resado assured him that they had a solid case against the Alabang Boys.

DDB conducts own probe

The Dangerous Drugs Board said it is conducting its own investigation of the bribery scandal hounding the Alabang Boys drug case.

DDB chairman Tito Sotto said President Arroyo ordered him to look into the PDEA's allegation that they were offered P50 million to dismiss the case against Brodett, Joseph and Tecson.

"We have to look into the possibility whether the bribery is true or not and who are the people behind it, who should be charged with bribery and things like that. That's about it," he said.

The families of the suspects have accused the PDEA of merely inventing the bribery claim and are filing charges of arbitrary detention and libel against PDEA chief Santiago.

Sotto said lack of coordination between PDEA and the justice department is to blame for the Alabang Boys bribery controversy. He said there is a need to revise the structures of government agencies handling drug cases to improve their coordination.

High court blames leak on ex-justice (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090225-190861/High-court-blames-leak-on-ex-justice)

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court on Tuesday found retired Associate Justice Ruben Reyes liable for leaking an unpromulgated and confidential decision of the en banc on the citizenship of Negros Oriental Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong.

In a unanimous decision, the en banc (full court) found its former member liable for grave misconduct and fined him P500,000 to be charged to his retirement benefits.

The Supreme Court disqualified Reyes from holding office in any government agency, including government corporations.

It also required Reyes to explain in 10 days upon his receipt of the decision why he shouldn’t be disciplined as a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Reacting to the decision, Reyes, who retired on Jan. 2, said he was innocent. “I can’t believe they are holding me responsible,” he told reporters.

Reyes said he did not see any reason why he should be blamed. “I have the least reason to do that and the least motive,” he said.

Reyes said he served the government well for 35 years.

Aside from Reyes, the high court found two members of Reyes’ staff liable for the leakage.

Judicial staff head Rosendo Evangelista and court stenographer Armando del Rosario were both found liable for simple neglect of duty and were fined P10,000 and P5,000, respectively.

The court said the leak could not have come from the offices of the other associate justices, contrary to Justice Reyes’ insinuation.

“An examination of the copy in (Louis) Biraogo’s possession readily shows that every page thereof—pages 1 to 36—contained Justice Reyes’ initials while none of the advance copies furnished to the justices was similarly authenticated,” it said.

Put in bad light

Chief Justice Reynato Puno and the Supreme Court were put in bad light in December last year after Biraogo alleged that Puno had refused to promulgate the decision despite already being signed by all his colleagues.

It was Reyes who penned the draft decision.

Biraogo, a petitioner in the consolidated cases questioning the citizenship and incumbency of Limkaichong, revealed to the media in December that he got hold of a copy of the decision which said that the lawmaker was not a Filipino citizen.

(Limkaichong won by 7,746 votes over Olivia Paras, wife of former Rep. Jacinto “Jing” Paras, in the 2007 congressional elections. The Paras camp had sought to disqualify Limkaichong from being a candidate over questions about her not being supposedly a natural-born Filipino.)

Biraogo questioned why Puno failed to sign and promulgate the document when the 14 other justices had already signed it.

Reports about Puno’s failure to promulgate the decision led to speculations that the Chief Justice was being eased out to pave the way for Charter change.

Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said in December that Biraogo’s copy was only a draft and, thus, still unofficial and confidential despite the 14 signatures of the justices.

Without doctrinal value

Marquez said it was in July 2008 when the justices decided in an en banc session to forego the promulgation of the decision when nine of the justices concurred only in the result, rendering it without doctrinal value.

Months later, Biraogo came up with a copy of the draft decision signed by the 14 justices and questioned the delay in Puno’s promulgation. He said a concerned Supreme Court employee left the document at the gate of his residence in Laguna.

“(The) committee finds that based on the circumstantial evidence … particularly the evident undue interest of Justice Reyes to circulate a draft ponencia of the case soonest even before the memoranda of all the parties fell due … it was Justice Reyes himself who leaked a photocopy thereof,” the court said.

Undue interest

The tribunal’s investigation committee reported to the full court that Reyes withheld information from his staff that the promulgation process had been withheld. Reyes even instructed his staff to proceed and ask for Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura’s signature, the panel said.

“When confronted with the incontrovertible evidence of his undue interest in the case and haste in having the (draft decision) promulgated, Justice Reyes was notably evasive,” the court said, citing the findings of its investigation committee.

Quisumbing panel

The Supreme Court adopted with modification the findings of the committee chaired by Senior Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, with Associate Justices Renato Corona and Conchita Carpio-Morales as members.

The committee recommended that Reyes be found liable for gross misconduct for violating his oath as a member of the bar and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and that he be suspended indefinitely.

It also recommended that he be also found liable for grave misconduct and fined P500,000, to be charged against his retirement benefits.

After deliberations, the full court just found Reyes liable for grave misconduct, fined him P500,000 and asked him to show cause why no further sanctions should be imposed on him.

Retirement benefit: P4.5M

A source told the Supreme Court that a partial calculation of Reyes’ retirement benefits would come up to around P4.5 million.

Reyes, who was appointed to the high court in August 2007, bowed out of the judiciary in December when the Supreme Court went on a Christmas break. His retirement was effective on Jan. 2.

The main case on the legitimacy of Limkaichong’s incumbency and the contempt proceedings against Biraogo for circulating the draft decision remain pending before the high court.

SC asked to probe court over landfill (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090225-191027/SC-asked-to-probe-court-over-landfill)

MANILA, Philippines—An environmental group urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to review the dismissal of the petition for a temporary restraining order against the new San Mateo landfill in Rizal.

Joey Papa of the Bangon Kalikasan (Rise Nature) Movement said Chief Justice Reynato Puno should avoid a miscarriage of justice by reviewing the dismissal of the TRO issued by a San Mateo RTC.

This after, Papa said, the Supreme Court ordered in 2005 the closure of the old San Mateo landfill.

“Supreme Court Justice Reynato Puno should immediately investigate the hasty ruling denying an appeal for temporary restraining order on the operation of what is known as the new San Mateo ‘sanitary landfill,’ after the old one was ordered permanently closed by the Supreme Court in 2005. This is to avoid a miscarriage of justice and violations of human rights,” Papa said in a statement on Wednesday.

He said Judge Manuel Taro of the San Mateo Regional Trial Court Branch 75 denied last February 18, the plea for a TRO filed two days earlier by the EcoWaste Coalition and Filinvest Land, Inc. on the grounds that the “court finds no compelling urgent reason and no threat of irreparable injury to justify the grant of a temporary restraining order.”

Papa also noted that Republic Act 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Act, had deemed as illegal the establishment and operation of so-called "sanitary landfills" and called them “glorified garbage dumps or dumps in disguise.”

The San Mateo Regional Trial Court Branch 75 is one of 117 environmental courts that the Supreme Court designated on January 28, 2008.

“The RTC court is viewing the issue with traditional lenses with which the judicial eye interprets legal provisions and applies them to facts (as these) have become inadequate. These lenses must be readjusted in order to be able to take into account such concepts like environmental economics and sustainable development,” Papa said.

Contrary to Taro’s reason for dismissing the application of a TRO, “the new San Mateo dump will add to the increasing number of glorified dumps or dumps in disguise which are eating up hundreds of hectares of productive land and threatening the ecological balance and the health of the people in these areas.”

Papa also bewailed that the list of applications for the establishment of “sanitary landfills” has been getting longer. There are already dumps in Rodriguez, formerly Montalban, a newly opened dump just beside the closed Cuerpo dump, also in Rizal; San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan; Capas, Tarlac; San Fernando, La Union and several others, he said.

Papa also asked Puno to review other environmental courts to check for their readiness “to appreciate the scope and impact of environmental issues.”

SC affirms decision on malversation (http://www.mb.com.ph/MTNN20090226149072.html)

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed a Sandiganbayan decision that convicted the town treasurer of Banaybanay, Davao Oriental of malversation amounting to R1.7 million.

In a decision written by Justice Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro, the SC denied the petition filed by Narciso C. Loguinsa Jr. who had been sentenced to a maximum of 18 years in jail, ordered to pay a fine of R1.7 million, and directed to indemnify the town government of the amount he malversed.

Loguinsa was originally tried by the regional trial court (RTC) whose decision he appealed to the Sandiganbayan. The anti-graft court affirmed the RTC ruling.

In dismissing Loguinsa’s appeal, the SC ruled that it found no reason to veer away from the facts established by the trial court and affirmed by the Sandiganbayan.

The Chief Justice, Reynato S. Puno and Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Renato C. Corona and Adolfo S. Azcuna concurred in the decision.

Loguinsa was found to have incurred a shortage of R1.7 million when the provincial auditor examined in accountability.

He voluntarily signed the audit report bearing the shortage.

On April 4, 1995, he was formally charged in court.

When the Sandiganbayan affirmed his conviction by the trial court, he elevated the issue before the SC.

SC asked to reconsider ruling on VFA (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090226-191150/SC-asked-to-reconsider-ruling-on-VFA)

MANILA, Philippines – Several cause-oriented groups are asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling affirming the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).

In their motion for reconsideration, they said the validity of the VFA as a treaty remained in question given the existence of a complimentary agreement called VFA 2 which gave Filipino troops visiting the US less rights and privileges than their American counterparts visiting the Philippines.

They also assailed the stand of the government that the detention of convicted rapist Lance Corporal Daniel Smith at the US embassy was valid since the legal proceedings on his case has not ended due to his pending appeal before the Court of Appeals.

Petitioners include the rape victim, identified as “Nicole,” former senators Jovito Salonga and Wigberto Tañada, and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), Bayan Muna, Gabriela, Gabriela Women’s Party, Public Interest Law Center and their counsels, Harry Roque Jr., Evalyn Ursua, and Neri Colmenares.

US report: RP judiciary corrupt, inefficient (http://http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=443961&publicationSubCategoryId=63)
By PIA LEE-BRAGO Updated February 27, 2009 12:00 AM


MANILA, Philippines - A US State Department report said corruption and inefficiency in the judicial system have undermined human rights in the Philippines and caused “widespread skepticism” of due process.

“The law provides for an independent judiciary; however, the judicial system suffered from corruption and inefficiency,” the State Department’s 2008 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in the Philippines released yesterday said.

“Personal ties and sometimes bribery resulted in impunity for some wealthy or influential offenders and contributed to widespread skepticism that the judicial process could ensure due process and equal justice,” the report said.

“Trials were delayed, and procedures were prolonged. Corruption was a problem throughout the criminal justice system,” the report said.

The report also said political killings and disappearances “dropped dramatically” in recent years “following increased domestic and international scrutiny.”

But the report said some members of the security forces continued to abuse detainees physically and psychologically and there were instances of torture.

Prisoners awaiting trial and those already convicted were often held under primitive conditions, the report said.

Leftwing and human rights activists were often subjected to harassment by local security forces. Problems such as violence against women, abuse of children, child prostitution, trafficking in persons, child labor, and ineffective enforcement of workers’ rights were common, the report also said.

The report also cited abuses by the New People’s Army, particularly its liquidation of government officials and perceived civilian enemies.

The rebel group’s recruitment of child soldiers was also noted in the report. The use of children for combat or auxiliary roles was also common in the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and in the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf.

The report also cited inroads in judicial reforms initiated by the Supreme Court.

It mentioned, for example, the dismissal in September of a Court of Appeals justice and the disciplining of four others for their roles in a bribery scandal. In October the high court denied the motions for reconsideration filed by these justices.

The report also said time limits for the resolution of cases appeared ineffective.

The law provides that cases should be resolved within set time limits once submitted for decision – 24 months for the Supreme Court, 12 months for the Court of Appeals and three months for the lower courts.

“However, these time limits were not mandatory and, in effect, there were no time limits for trials. Lengthy pretrial detention remained a problem. Anecdotal evidence suggested that, in practice, trials can take six years or more,” the US report said.

Supreme Court aspirants face Judicial and Bar Council (http://http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=443963&publicationSubCategoryId=63)
Updated February 27, 2009 12:00 AM


MANILA, Philippines - The interview for nominees to the vacant seat in the Supreme Court (SC) continued yesterday with four of seven aspirants vowing to assert their independence once they are appointed to the Court.

This developed as the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) also set the interview of nominees for the replacement of Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Diosdado Peralta, who was appointed to the SC last month.

University of Santo Tomas law school dean Robert Abad, Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justices Hakim Abdulwahid and Lucas Bersamin, and Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta offered different reasons and backgrounds to convince the members of the JBC to recommend them as replacement of SC Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, who retired earlier this month.

During the JBC interview the other day, Abad said he is ready for a seat in the Court. “I’m a result of things I went through. I listen to people. After my wife died, I realized life is a brief journey. What really matters is relationships. My kids have all graduated so I’m not trying to earn anything anymore for anyone.”

He also clarified reports that he was a former lawyer of business tycoon Lucio Tan, saying big companies of Tan hired him because of his competence in handling cases.

Abdulwahid, on the other hand, said he wants to become an SC justice to give representation to Mindanao at the country’s highest court.

He cited his good judicial performance at the CA over the past six years, having disposed of 591 of 600 cases since he was appointed to the appellate court in 2003.

Acosta said he is an expert on tax law. He also stressed that out of 400 cases disposed by CTA under his watch, 70 were raised to the SC and 98 percent of their rulings on those cases were affirmed by the High Court.

Acosta was a nominee in the search for a replacement of SC Justice Ruben Reyes, who retired last Jan.3, but he withdrew his application even before he was interviewed by the JBC late last year for a still undisclosed reason.

Bersamin cited his competence and his independence as his best qualifications to the SC post.

Set to face the JBC today are CA Justice Japar Dimaampao, human rights lawyer Pablito Sanidad and CA Justice Amelita Tolentino.

After the interview, the JBC will submit a shortlist of five candidates to President Arroyo who will appoint the new SC justice.

Abad was a former assistant solicitor-general during the time of former solicitor-general Estelito Mendoza.

The human rights group Free Legal Assistance Group nominated Sanidad.

Tolentino convicted Hubert Webb, son of former senator Freddie Webb, for the massacre of the Vizconde family.

Abdulwahid and Dimaampao are two of the highest-ranking Muslims in the judiciary.

The JBC said it would no longer interview 11 other applicants who had previously applied for Justice Reyes’s position last Jan. 3, which went to Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Peralta.

Solicitor-General Agnes Devanadera was removed from the list of nominees due to a pending case before the Ombudsman, while businessman Rodolfo Robles was not nominated because of his age.

They were, however, again nominated for the Azcuna post.

The other nine nominees are: CA Justices Portia Hormachuelos, Martin Villarama, Andres Reyes, Remedios Salazar-Fernando, and Juan Enriquez; Sandiganbayan Justices Edilberto Sandoval and Francisco Villaruz; Ateneo Law School dean Cesar Villanueva; and former Bureau of Internal Revenue commissioner Jose Buñag.

For the selection of the next Sandiganbayan presiding justice, the JBC has set the public interview of five associate justices of the anti-graft court: Ma. Cristina Cortez, Norberto Geraldez, Gregory Ong,

Edilberto Sandoval and Francisco Villaruz Jr.

In a paid advertisement in the main section of The STAR yesterday, the JBC announced that Cortez and Geraldez would be interviewed in the morning of March 18, with Ong taking his turn in the afternoon. Sandoval and Villaruz would face the council on the morning of March 19.

The interview for nominees for Sandiganbayan presiding justice would also be held at the Division Hearing Room of the New Supreme Court Building along Padre Faura St. in Manila. - Edu Punay, Ma. Lorena Baclagon

SC aspirants defend political connections, charter change stand (http://abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/26/09/sc-aspirants-defend-political-connections-charter-change-stand)

One of those in the running for a slot in the Supreme Court (SC) made no qualms in admitting his friendship with the relatives of the appointing power to the judiciary, President Arroyo.

In the second day of public interviews with aspirants to the SC, appellate court Justice Luis Bersamin, one of the 17 contenders for the SC seat recently vacated by Justice Adolfo Azcuna, confirmed his closeness with Arroyo’s first cousin Erlinda de Leon, and her husband, Carlos de Leon.

The couple work as special assistants of the president and allegedly also “picks” SC hopefuls for the president.

“They are my friends,” Bersamin said of the de Leons, but insisted that he would not “make them intervene” for his possible appointment to the High Court.

The couple is also close to Bersamin’s bosom buddy, newly-appointed SC Justice Diosdado Peralta. The de Leons nominated Peralta for the position of Ombudsman in 2007, but Merceditas Gutierrez, a classmate of First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo, eventually clinched the anti-corruption job.

Peralta made it however, to the SC, and was appointed on January 14. He replaced Justice Ruben Reyes who hung his robe on January 2.

Old friends

It was Bersamin who nominated Peralta to the SC. The new SC justice meanwhile showed his support for Bersamin in today’s public interview of SC aspirants.

He watched the interviews from a projector propped outside the SC training room, constantly referring to Bersamin as “the best.”

The two had known each other way back in 2002, when they were both judges in the Quezon City regional trial court. Peralta was the judge of that lower court’s Branch 95, while Bersamin was judge of Branch 96.

Bersamin alluded to Peralta as his “backer.”

He cleared talks, however, of him emerging as a frontrunner in the race to the SC because of Peralta’s backing. Instead, he harped on his seniority at the Court of Appeals (CA).

“I’m ranked 15th in the CA,” he said, adding that the SC could be a long shot for him if the tradition of appointing more senior justices to the High Court would be observed.

Political family

Aside from his closeness with Peralta and the De Leons, Bersamin’s alignment with the dominant political clan in Bengued in the North Luzon province of Abra, surfaced as a possible threat to his independence.

Bersamin’s brother, Eustaquio “Kit” Bersamin is the current governor of Abra. Another brother and former governor, Lucas, was slain in 2007, allegedly under the orders of political rival Vicente Valera in 2007.

The Judicial and Bar Council, which vets nominees to the judiciary to the president, sounded off on how his exposure to politics could make him vulnerable to outside pressures.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno, JBC ex-oficio chair, inquired how Bersamin would remain impartial as a jurist upon knowing that both of his brothers belonged to Arroyo’s political party, Kabalikat ng Mamamayang Pilipino.

“Your brother belongs to the ruling party,” he said. “Does that not give you a line to the appointing power?”

But Bersamin doubted that his brother’s alliance with the administration would do wonders for his attempt for a seat at the SC. He added that Eustaquio, along with his whole family hardly asked about his work in the judiciary. “They have shied away from me,” he said.

Independence

CA Justice Aurora Lagman also pressed on how he would fend off favors from friends both outside and inside the judiciary.

Bersamin said that he would not “abandon his principles just to accommodate the request of other people.”

He said that he was able to prove this in 1998 when, as a regional trial court judge, he was allegedly promised by then President Joseph Estrada of a promotion to the CA in exchange of a favorable ruling.

Bersamin said the case involved Estrada’s padrino at the Philippine National Police. The retired officer was purportedly considered to head the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, a violation of the condition that a BJMP authority should be active in service at that time.

“I rejected the overtone of my promotion,” he said, and decided against the appointment.

“No matter what you promised me, I will abide by the law,” he said.

Economic matters

On the other hand, tax court Presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta, another SC applicant, expressed his support for amendments in the Constitution to reduce the jurisdiction of the court over cases involving economic matters.

Calls for charter change have recently been revived in the lower house on the premise of economic reforms.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the Court’s expanded jurisdiction required it to look into transactions entered into by the government, including those that are economic in nature.

Acosta said that “The Court should not be involved in decision-making that is purely economics.”

He said that if constitutional violations are palpable in executive agreements, the Court should only look into the probable abuse of discretion of the executive officials involved, but should remain “passive” on factors which may be damaging to investments.

He cited how the Court’s ruling in Garcia v. the Board of Investments disallowing the transfer of a petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas sent investors packing. They eventually moved to Thailand.

“We have to observe and respect our commitments to those foreign investments,” he said.

Labor lawyer seeks SC protection (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view/20090227-191428/Labor-lawyer-seeks-SC-protection)

MANILA, Philippines -- A labor lawyer has sought the Supreme Court’s protection against police and members of the military who are allegedly harassing him

In his petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo, Remigio Saladero Jr. asked the high court to order the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to explain why they are harassing and stalking him.

A writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose rights to life, liberty and security have been violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats.

He also urged the high court to conduct a hearing and order the military and police to return the items confiscated from him when he was arrested in October last year, including a cellular phone, a court calendar, a laptop and desktop computers, and photo albums.

Saladero is the chief legal counsel of the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU, May First Movement), board chairman of the Pro-Labor Legal Assistance Center's (PLACE), legal counsel of the Anakpawis (Toiling Masses) party-list, National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU)-KMU chief legal counsel, and member of the National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL), among others.

He was arrested on Oct. 23, 2008 in his home-cum-law office in Antipolo, Rizal on a warrant of arrest issued against him on frustrated and multiple murder charges filed in Mindoro.

He was brought to Camp Vicente Lim in Laguna and, later, to Calapan City in Oriental Mindoro.

He was released February 5, 2009 on orders of the Calapan Regional Trial Court.

^^ Now that's new, a lawyer being harrassed by the police. :lol:

First Gentleman's petition versus media class suit denied by Court of Appeals (http://http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=444830&publicationSubCategoryId=63)
By Edu Punay Updated March 02, 2009 12:00 AM


MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has denied with finality First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo’s petition seeking to stop the Makati regional trial court (RTC) from hearing a class-action suit filed against him by over 40 journalists and media organizations in December 2006.

In a seven-page decision, the former seventh division of the appellate court denied for lack of merit the motion of Mr. Arroyo seeking reconsideration of its Sept. 22, 2008 decision penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo Cruz and Normandie Pizzaro.

At least 40 journalists and media organizations, “on their own behalf and acting as class suit representatives of fellow members of the Philippine press,” filed a class action suit on Dec. 28, 2006 against President Arroyo’s husband.

The group demanded “the symbolic amount” of at least P12.5 million in damages for “anxiety, loss of income and other inconveniences” caused by the libel suits previously filed against them by the First Gentleman.

The complainants were reporters, columnists, editors and publishers of various publications and media organizations who have been previously sued for libel by Mr. Arroyo since 2003.

Among those who filed the suit were Ellen Tordesillas of Malaya, Ninez Cacho-Olivares of The Daily Tribune, Ricky Carandang of ABS-CBN News, Newsbreak’s Glenda Gloria and Marites Vitug, who is now editor-in-chief of abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak.

The journalists and media organizations asserted that Mr. Arroyo abused his rights and violated freedom of the press in filing the numerous libel cases.

The journalists would later file an amended complaint in early 2007 that also sought to add four more journalists as petitioners.

After the Makati RTC ordered a preliminary hearing on the case on March 16, 2007, Mr. Arroyo filed the petition to the CA to stop the Makati RTC from holding the hearing with amended complaint.

Mr. Arroyo said Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 143 Judge Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles “acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion” after she admitted the amended complaint and said that the RTC did not have jurisdiction on the case due to “the non-payment of the proper docket fees” by the group of journalists.

The CA decision however dismissed the allegation of “grave abuse of discretion” of the Makati RTC judge.

“The alleged grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the Order dated March 16, 3007 is wanting in this case,” said the 23-page CA decision last year.

Mike Arroyo to elevate to SC appeal vs journalists' class suit (http://http://www.gmanews.tv/story/150996/Mike-Arroyo-to-elevate-to-SC-appeal-vs-journalists-class-suit)
MARK MERUEÑAS, GMANews.TV
03/02/2009 | 02:21 PM

MANILA, Philippines – The camp of First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike" Arroyo said they would elevate all the way to the Supreme Court (SC) their petition regarding a class suit filed against him by a group of journalists.

The move came after the Court of Appeals (CA) over the weekend dismissed Mr. Arroyo’s appeal to prevent the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 140 from hearing the P12.5-million suit filed by a group of media practitioners.

The journalists lodged the class suit Dcember 2006 in response to the string of libel cases that the First Gentleman had filed starting 2003.

Lawyer Ruy Rondain, Mr. Arroyo’s legal counsel, said the CA justices “misunderstood" the issue when the Court junked the appeal. Rondain said Mr. Arroyo’s camp was merely asking the appellate court to order the Makati court not to entertain the amendment complaint and instead proceed with the original class suit.

Mr. Arroyo had been insisting that Judge Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles of the Makati RTC Branch 140 could not gain jurisdiction over the case because the group of journalists had allegedly failed to pay the right amount of filing fees.

Based on Mr. Arroyo’s computations, the 39 complainant-journalists and media organizations seeking damages in total of P487.5 million should have posted P9 million in docket fees.

But in its latest ruling, the CA said Mr. Arroyo failed to present new arguments since the ones raised in his motion for reconsideration had already been addressed in the Court’s earlier decision on the matter issued on Sept. 22, 2008.

In the September 2008 ruling, the CA said the Makati court could proceed hearing the class suit filed by the journalists.

The class suit was filed by Ninez Cacho-Olivares, Marites Vitug, Glenda Gloria, Ricky Carandang, Romulo Mariñas, Gina Capili-Inciong, Gerry Baldo, Sherwin Olaes, Lito Tugadi, Jing Santos, Lito Banayo, Maria Concepcion Cruz, Miriam Grace Go, Romina Gonzalez, Gemma Bagayaua, William Esposo, Jose Pavia, Rowena Paraan, Sweet May Cawicaan;

Jofelle Tesorio, Jose Bimbo Santos, Rachel Khan, Ma. Christina Rodriguez, Yvonne Chua, Alcuin Papa, Ramon Tulfo, Erwin Tulfo, Conrado de Quiros, Vergel Santos JP Lopez, Regina Bengco, Minnie Advincula, Ellen Tordesillas, Francisco Tatad, and media organizations Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism Inc. - GMANews.TV

KAT’S EYE | KATRINA LEGARDA, abs-cbnNEWS.com | 03/04/2009 1:59 AM (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/views-and-analysis/03/03/09/scs-mr-clean-retires-%E2%80%93-katrina-legarda)

A presiding judge of a Family Court told us that for a jurist like now-retired Supreme Court Justice Adolfo Azcuna, there should be no mandatory retirement age. I agree. Justice Azcuna was, still is, “Mr. Clean.” How loved he was, even by his colleagues on the Court. Not a single one was absent during his retirement rites and the asalto afterwards.

Justice Consuelo Santiago had the privilege of talking about Justice Azcuna during the ceremony. Justice Azcuna is from Zamboanga del Norte, an a town called Katipunan. Apparently, Justice Azcuna’s hometown was founded by missionaries who belonged to the Franciscan Order – a congregation known for its adherence to radical simplicity and to a life of prayer and of service to the poor and underprivileged. Justice Santiago said that Justice Azcuna had two passions in the law: the passion for the protection of Human Rights and the passion for the Right to be Human.

In the Business Mirror, a columnist remembers that: “The idea of a writ of amparo was first introduced to the Philippines by Delegate Adolfo Azcuna in the 1971 Constitutional Convention and in the 1986 Constitutional Commission. Despite his best efforts, he did not succeed in convincing the two bodies to include in our fundamental law an explicit reference to the writ of amparo.” The columnist, however, adds: “But there is no stopping amparo ... It took the tandem of Justice Adolf Azcuna and Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno for the Supreme Court to trail blaze by adopting the rule on the writ of amparo.”

“What is the writ of amparo?” was the first question asked in the Constitutional Law Bar exams in 1990. Justice Azcuna finally gave the answer in an obiter during his final speech. Obiter because what he said is not in his official speech! He described how the writ had different uses in India, South America, and other countries.

As we all know, the Supreme Court promulgated the rule that placed the constitutional right to life, liberty and security above violation and threats of violation. The rule provides the victims of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances the protection they need and the promise of vindication for their rights. The rule empowers our courts to issue reliefs that may be granted through judicial orders of protection, production, inspection and other relief to safeguard one's life and liberty The writ of amparo holds public authorities, those who took their oath to defend the constitution and enforce our laws, to a high standard of official conduct and hold them accountable to our people.

On a more personal note, Justice Santiago said:

He loves beauty. And he captured it in his photography. He took photos of nature. Of people on the street. Of his colleagues in the Supreme Court and often when we did not know that he was clicking his camera. He enjoyed taking candid shots of us, many times in awkward moments which made us hope that he at least captured our “inner beauty” in those shots.

He loves music.

He actually took voice lessons in order to express his ardent passion for the musical avocation.

He loves good food and loves partaking of gustatory delights. He actually enrolled in cooking classes. And if one thinks Justice Azcuna is an authority in International Law, one must experience his expertise in international cuisine – Chinese and Thai cooking in particular.

He loves the languages and is perhaps one of a few Filipino jurists who are actually fluent in German, French and Spanish.

He loves knowledge and is a voracious reader of books, poetry and magazines.

Justice Azcuna belongs to the vanishing breed of men who still stand up when a lady enters a room; who pulls out the chair for her; who opens car doors for her and closes it gently after.

May we have more men and women in the mold of Justice Azcuna on our Supreme Court.

If you read this, Justice Azcuna, I hope we see you very soon – in the Philippine Judicial Academy perhaps?

Please continue to write through feedback@abs-cbn.com

Arroyo ally, 2 others top picks of SC justices (http://http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/03/09/arroyo-ally-2-others-top-picks-new-sc-justice)

by PURPLE S. ROMERO, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 03/03/2009 7:05 PM


Court of Appeals (CA) Justices Luis Bersamin and Martin Villarama, along with Sandiganbayan Justice Francisco Villaruz, are the top picks of Supreme Court (SC) justices to replace recently-retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna.

The three got nine votes each from the 14 justices of the High Court. This is the second time that Villaruz lorded it over the SC voting; the first was when he edged out 10 other hopefuls for the seat vacated by retired Justice Ruben Reyes on January 3. He was then followed by Villarama.

Surprisingly, the one who bagged the third spot the last time, Ateneo law dean Cesar Villanueva, dropped to last place in today’s voting, getting only two nods along with University of Sto. Tomas law school dean Roberto Abad and CA Justice Japar Dimaampao.

Following a friend

Villaruz is a member of the special division in Sandiganbayan which convicted deposed Pres. Joseph Estrada of plunder in 2007. Two of the division’s members have been appointed to the Supreme Court already.

Justice Teresita de Castro was appointed to the High Tribunal on December 2007 while Justice Diosdado Peralta became an SC jurist last January 15.

Peralta’s friend, Bersamin, may join him soon as he is believed to be Malacañang’s prime choice to replace Azcuna. Bersamin has admitted that he is close to President Arroyo’s first cousin Erlinda de Leon, and her husband, Carlos de Leon.

However, he vowed not to let his closeness with the two impinge on his judicial independence.

Minus one

Meanwhile, Court of Tax Appeals Presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta was next with six votes.

Four of the 17 SC aspirants tied with four votes each--CA justices Hakim Abdulwahid, Remedios Fernando, Portia Hormachuelos, and real estate businessman Rodolfo Robles.

Former Bureau of Internal Revenue commissioner Jose Mario Buñag got three votes.

Prior to this, one of the 18 contenders, CA Justice Mariano del Castillo, dropped out of the race purportedly following the media attention he got on his alleged closeness with the Arroyos.

The members of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which vets nominees for the judiciary to the president, are expected to cast their votes next Monday.

10 Aquino-Galman convicts leave jail (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090304-192228/10-Aquino-Galman-convicts-to-be-freed)
By Marlon Ramos

MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE 2 ) Ten remaining convicted soldiers in the assassinations of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. and the perceived gunman Rolando Galman stepped out of their cells at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City, on Wednesday, after President Macapagal-Arroyo granted them executive clemency.

INQUIRER.net reports that as of posting time, the 10 are having their last lunch together with lawyer Persida Acosta, head of the Public Attorney’s Office.

Acosta and other PAO officials escorted the 10 out of prison at exactly 1:10 p.m. on Wednesday. The 10 were still in prison-issue orange shirts.

Released were Rogelio Moreno, Ruben Aquino, Arnulfo Artates, Romeo Bautista, Jesus Castro, Arnulfo De Mesa, Rodolfo Desolong, Claro Lat, Ernesto Mateo and Filomeno Miranda. Moreno was convicted as the triggerman who killed Aquino on the stairs of the airplane leading to the tarmac of the Manila International Airport on Aug. 21, 1983.

Acosta said Ms Arroyo issued the executive clemency on March 2.

In a phone interview earlier in the day, Acosta said she and other PAO lawyers were facilitating the immediate release of the convicted soldiers from the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) in Muntinlupa City.

"We will be going to the DOJ (Department of Justice) today to deliver a copy of the President's order of executive clemency and to work for the soldiers' release," Acosta told the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

In February, two other comrades of the ex-soldiers convicted of killing Aquino and his alleged gunman, Rolando Lagman, were also freed from the NBP.

The soldiers were among the 16 former members of the Aviation Security Command who were found guilty in the August 21, 1983 assassination of Aquino.

The event sparked the 1986 EDSA People Power revolt that brought down the 20-year dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

SC names 3 candidates to replace Azcuna (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090304-192217/SC-names-3-candidates-to-replace-Azcuna)
By Norman Bordadora, Tetch Torres

The Supreme Court Tuesday recommended two Court of Appeals justices and a Sandiganbayan magistrate for inclusion on the Judicial and Bar Council’s short list of nominees to the tribunal seat vacated by recently retired Justice Adolfo Azcuna.

Appellate court Justices Martin Villarama and Lucas Bersamin, and Sandiganbayan Justice Francisco Villaruz all received nine votes each from the Supreme Court justices who sat in an en banc session Tuesday.

“The JBC rules say the JBC will give due weight to the recommendation of the Supreme Court justices,” said lawyer Jose Midas Marquez, Supreme Court spokesperson and assistant court administrator.

Marquez confirmed that Villarama, Bersamin and Villaruz were the recommended candidates of the Supreme Court in the JBC’s deliberations on who to include on the short list from which the President will choose her next appointee to the tribunal.

Villarama and Villaruz were also among the three choices of Supreme Court justices when the JBC deliberated on the replacement when Justice Ruben Reyes retired on Jan. 2.

The third candidate given the nod by the Supreme Court at that time was Ateneo Law School dean Cesar Villanueva who only received two votes from among the justices this time around.

The JBC also recommended 12 applicants to fill in four vacant positions at the Court of Appeals. Their names will be submitted to Malacañang.

On top of the list of nominees to the appellate court is Judge Adoracion Angeles of Caloocan Regional Trial Court Branch 121, the magistrate who handled the celebrated Lenny Villa case.

Aside from Angeles, other aspirants include Malolos City RTC Branch 19 Judge Francisco Renato; Puerto Princesa City RTC Branch 51 Judge Chito Meregillano; Manila RTC Branch 15 Judge Mercedes Lacap; Guagua, Pampanga RTC Branch 51 Judge Pamela Ann Maxino; Manila RTC Branch 4 Judge Socorro Inting; Manila RTC Branch 54 Judge Manuel Barrios; Pasig City RTC Branch 154 Judge Abraham Borreta; Parañaque RTC Branch 194 Judge Leoncia Dimagiba; Pasig RTC Branch 261 Judge Agnes Carpio; former Laguna Rep. Danton Bueser; Quezon City RTC Branch 223 Judge Ramon Cruz; and Las Piñas RTC Branch 255 Judge Raul Villanueva.

They were chosen by the JBC out of 53 aspirants. Four of them will fill the slots vacated by Justices Enrico Lanzanas, Lucenito Tagle, Austin Dizon and Rodrigo Cosicos.

Angeles, in November 1993, convicted 26 of the 31 members of the Aquila Legis Fraternity in Ateneo Law School for the death of Lenny Villa in a hazing ceremony in 1991.

De Venecia III to appeal CA ruling (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090304-192275/De-Venecia-III-to-appeal-CA-ruling)
By Abigail Kwok

MANILA, Philippines -- Saying “this fight is far from over,” businessman Jose de Venecia III said he would ask the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision dismissing his bid to reopen proceedings on his petition for habeas data.

The businessman, who blew the whistle on the alleged anomalies surrounding the national broadband network (NBN) deal with China’s ZTE Corp., said he felt “sadness and regret” over the appellate court’s decision on his petition, which sought to compel the military and police to produce recordings of his wiretapped phone conversations.

“Under the Arroyo regime, I have completely lost my right to privacy as proven by the wiretapping of my cell phones and landlines. I know this is hard to prove, but I know that it is taking place. My friends, family and business associates know it, too,” De Venecia III said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Court of Appeals decision, released on Tuesday, said De Venecia III failed to provide any substantial evidence to show that his right to privacy was threatened by the respondents, among them former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr., Senator Juan Ponce-Enrile, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Intelligence Services of the AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP).

De Venecia III claimed he and his family continually receive death threats, allegedly from a lieutenant general, forcing him to hire bodyguards. The threats have been reported to the Makati police.

“[President] Gloria [Macapagal]-Arroyo herself admitted to the people that wiretaps of anyone's phone [are] possible when she publicly apologized for the 'Hello, Garci' incident. If her phone could be tapped, what more a private citizen like myself?" De Venecia III said.

“Hello Garci” refers to the leak of purportedly wiretapped phone conversations between Arroyo and former elections commissioner Virgilio Garcillano in which they allegedly discuss cheating in the 2004 elections. When the controversy sparked a political crisis, Arroyo went on nationwide television to apologize for what she described as a “lapse of judgment.”

De Venecia III also claimed his Makati home is constantly under surveillance, a fact he said could be proven by security guards in the village where he lives.

CA: No more freeze on Bolante accounts (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view/20090304-192302/CA-No-more-freeze-on-Bolante-accounts)
By Tetch Torres

MANILA, Philippines -- The Court of Appeals dismissed the bid of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) for another freeze order on the bank accounts of former Agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante.

In a resolution, the appeals court said the 20-day freeze order it issued on Feb. 4 can no longer be extended.

“Petitioner had already been granted the relief prayed for when the former First Division issued a six-month freeze order in C.A. G.R. AMLC No. 00014 which it now seeks to obtain again in the instant petition. Otherwise, stated, the rule against forum shopping finds proper application here since the two cases are based on the same essential facts and circumstances. thereby raising identical causes of action and issues,” the appellate court said..
“Consequently, the acts of petitioner constitutes a clear case of forum shopping, an act of malpractice that is proscribed and condemned as trifling with the court and abusing its processes. It is improper conduct that tends to degrade the administration of justice,” it said.

The accounts and insurance policies of Bolante that government lawyers want frozen for another six months are with Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Citibank, N.A., East-West Bank, Maybank Phils. Inc, Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Philippine National Bank, Insular Life Assurance Company, Pru Life Insurance Corp. of UK, Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., BPI/MS Insurance Corp., Performance Foreign Exchange Corp., Prudential Bank, Bank of the Philippine Islands, Union Bank of the Philippines, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation and Standard Chartered Bank.

Bolante has been accused of masterminding the alleged fertilizer fund scam, in which hundreds of millions of pesos in government money was purportedly diverted to the 2004 election campaign of President Gloria Macpagal-Arroyo.

The government lawyers said they were unable to complete their inquiry into Bolante’s bank accounts, blaming a Supreme Court decision declaring that an application for bank inquiry cannot be obtained ex parte (by one party only).

But the appeals court said the high court’s Feb. 14, 2008 ruling was made almost five months before the filing of the ex parte motion for the extended freeze order on Bolante’s account.

The appeals court said it was the government’s fault it failed to wrap up its investigation into Bolante’s accounts.

“Petitioner should have taken steps to expedite the bank inquiry that it was conducting,” the court said.

Aquino assassination: What went before (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090304-192323/Aquino-assassination-What-went-before)
By Inquirer Research

MANILA, Philippines—On August 21, 1983, moments after alighting from the China Airlines plane that brought him back to the Philippines after a three-year exile in the United States, opposition leader Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. was gunned down on the tarmac of the Manila International Airport.

Also killed was Rolando Galman, who the military claimed had been hired by communists to assassinate the rival of then President Ferdinand Marcos.

Three days after the killings, Marcos formed a fact-finding commission headed by Chief Justice Enrique Fernando to investigate the murder. Fernando, who had close ties with the President, later resigned over questions about his impartiality.

Marcos created another fact-finding commission on October 14, 1983, with former Court of Appeals Justice Corazon Agrava as head.

On October 22, 1984, the commission, with the exception of Agrava, released a report saying that military officers, including then Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Fabian Ver, had conspired to kill Aquino. The report also concluded that the military had framed up Galman as Aquino’s assassin.

Agrava issued a separate report which recommended the filing of charges against seven military men. She did not include Ver in the recommendation, saying he was not part of the assassination plot.

The Supreme Court assigned the case to the Sandiganbayan, which acquitted all the accused on December 2, 1985.

On September 12, 1986, after Aquino’s widow Corazon was installed as president in the aftermath of the People Power Revolution that ousted Marcos earlier in February, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial of the Aquino-Galman case.

Then Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez filed murder charges against 37 military men, including Ver who fled the country with the Marcoses, three civilians and several John Does.

On September 28, 1990, the Sandiganbayan found 16 of the accused guilty of the killings and sentenced them to double life imprisonment. However, no mastermind was named.

Convicted were alleged gunman Constable Rogelio Moreno, Brig. Gen. Luther Custodio, Capt. Romeo Bautista, 2nd Lt. Jesus Castro, C1C Mario Lazaga, A1C Cordova Estelo, A1C Felizardo Taran, M/Sgt. Pablo Martinez, and Sergeants Claro Lat, Arnulfo de Mesa, Filomeno Miranda, Rolando de Guzman, Ernesto Mateo, Rodolfo Desolong, Ruben Aquino and Arnulfo Artates.

Acquitted were Maj. Gen. Prospero Olivas, Colonels Arturo Custodio and Vicente Tigas Jr., Capt. Llewelyn Kavinta, AM Alejandro Febrero, AM Joseph Opilas, A1C Aniceto Acupido, Sergeants Armando de la Cruz, Prospero Bona, Reynaldo Pelias, Eugenio Caliboso, Onofre Danao, Clemente Casta, Tomas Fernandez, Oscar Fabiana, Juan Catador, and Pepito Torio, and civilians Jose Aspiras, Jesus Singson and Hermilo Gosuico.

Capt. Felipe Valerio and civilian Gregorio Cendaña could not be found and were thus not arraigned.

Ver succumbed to a lung ailment in Thailand in 1998. Accused Sgt. Leonardo Mojica died while the case was being tried.

On July 23, 1991, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Through the years, the number of those serving their sentence dwindled because of prison deaths and grants of executive pardon.

Brig. Gen. Luther Custodio, who was afflicted with liver cancer while undergoing trial, died soon after the verdict was handed down. Estelo was stabbed to death in a jail fight in 2005, while Lazaga died in 2008 after suffering a stroke.

In 2007, President Arroyo granted M/Sgt. Pablo Martinez conditional pardon because of his advanced age and good behavior.

In February, Taran and De Guzman, whose sentences were commuted by former President Fidel V. Ramos and President Arroyo respectively, completed their prison terms and were released.

“Under the Arroyo regime, I have completely lost my right to privacy as proven by the wiretapping of my cell phones and landlines. I know this is hard to prove, but I know that it is taking place. My friends, family and business associates know it, too,” De Venecia III said in a statement on Wednesday.

It seems the man is insinuating that the whole world is conspiring to be against him. What on earth does this man wants to prove? He simply wants to run in 2010, hence all this recourse.

There are independent and co- equal branches in the government. If he could not fool any branch of the government with all his media mileage, it would not be the fault of the government. It's just that his allegations are bereft of merit hence the government do not believe him. To make matters worse, the people don't even want to listen to him. I'd like to think he should just live his private life and stop dreaming about holding a public office in 2010.

Palace: ‘Nothing to explain’ on clemency (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090305-192495/Palace-Nothing-to-explain-on-clemency)
By Joel Guinto

MANILA, Philippines -- President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo does not owe the family of former senator Benigno Aquino Jr. an explanation for decision to grant clemency to his convicted killers, Malacañang said Thursday.

Arroyo merely exercised her “ministerial” duty under the Constitution in granting clemency to qualified convicts, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said after Senator Benigno Aquino III and television host Kris Aquino, the former senator’s children, expressed dismay at the clemency given to the 10 remaining convicts in the 1983 assassination of their father.

Two others were pardoned and released in February.

“The President just exercised her authority, and for that matter, you might call it ministerial authority, to grant executive clemency. So I don’t think there’s anything else to explain,” Ermita told reporters at the Palace.

The senator and the TV host said the grant of clemency has not helped bring the case to closure since none of the convicts has named the mastermind behind the killing of Aquino.

But Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said a lack of remorse on the part of the convicts could not disqualify them from the commutation of their sentences.

Gonzalez also said he believes the soldiers have already asked for apology from the Aquino family and that nothing much can be squeezed from them anymore.

Except for former master sergeant Pablo Martinez, Gonzalez said the convicts “never pointed [to any] evidence as to who is the mastermind. They cannot be expected to tell something they may not know.”

And even Martinez, he stressed, only confessed to having knowledge of an assassination plot against Aquino.

Asked if Arroyo had any special considerations when granting clemency in high-profile cases such as the Aquino assassination, Ermita said: “[There are] no special considerations for anybody, for as long as they comply with the criteria.”

“They have served their sentence in accordance with the computation, including the good conduct accreditation that made them eligible for parole with the grant of executive clemency,” Ermita said.

“There should be no malice whatsoever in that exercise of the authority granted by the Constitution upon the President,” he said.

Gonzalez also corrected news reports that referred to the convicts as “Ninoy's [Aquino’s nickname] killers.”

He said he is “one thousand per cent sure” not all of the convicted soldiers killed Aquino.

On August 21, 1983, Aquino, who had just returned from exile, was assassinated as he was being escorted by the convicts, then in the military, from a plane at the Manila International Airport. His alleged assassin, Rolando Galman, was also shot.

The killing sparked a protest movement that subsequently ousted the Marcos dictatorship in 1986 and thrust Aquino’s widow, Corazon, to the presidency.

Mrs. Aquino, who is battling cancer, has declined to comment on the release of her husband’s killers.

In 2005, the former president called on Arroyo to resign over allegations of massive electoral fraud in 2004.

Palace issues new protocol plates (http://http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=445956&publicationSubCategoryId=68)
By Marvin Sy Updated March 06, 2009 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines - As if there weren’t enough special “protocol” plates, Malacañang has decided to issue another one – number 17 – for judges of the metropolitan and municipal trial courts and sharia courts.

Complaints from motorists about the proliferation of vehicles with protocol plates and the abuses committed by the owners of these plates were apparently not enough to warrant an end to the issuance of this type of license plates.

In memorandum order 297 issued by Malacañang last March 2, No. 17 was added to the existing protocol plate numbers for the judges.

Abuses committed by the owners of these license plates have been reported countless times and even caused a word war between the Land Transportation Office and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Allegations of the number “8” protocol plates assigned to members of the House of Representatives being sold and used by unauthorized motorists caused a minor conflict between Speaker Prospero Nograles and then LTO chief Alberto Suansing.

At the time, the LTO even considered bringing back the practice of printing the province and district of the congressmen on the protocol plates for easy identification.

Nograles opposed Suansing’s proposal for security reasons.

Almost all motorists in the country have encountered the abusive behavior of the drivers of vehicles with protocol plates.

Aside from reckless driving, some of these vehicles even use sirens and blinkers to intimidate motorists.

Even more cases were reported about vehicles with protocol plates being driven by people other than the authorized owner.

While most of the protocol plate owners are easily identifiable, the ones used by the members of Congress, justices, associate justices, judges and undersecretaries are more difficult to identify because these are issued to multiple individuals.

Protocol plate 1 is issued to the President, 2 to the Vice President, 3 to the Senate president, 4 to the House speaker, 5 to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (SC), 6 to Cabinet Secretaries, 7 to senators, 8 to congressmen, 9 to associate justices of the SC, 10 to the presiding justice and other justices of the Court of Appeals, 11 to the Commission on Elections chairman, 12 to Cabinet undersecretaries, 13 to the Solicitor General, 14 to the chiefs of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, and 16 to the Regional Trial Court judges.

SC approves early retirement of one of its justices (http://http://www.gmanews.tv/story/152018/SC-approves-early-retirement-of-one-of-its-justices)
03/09/2009 | 11:31 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has approved the application for early retirement of Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez.

Martinez is set to retire April 30 due to unspecified health reasons.

In an en banc resolution, the SC resolved to grant Martinez’s application upon the recommendation of the Office of Administrative Services.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno last September confirmed that Martinez had applied for an early retirement when it was brought up during the high court’s regular en banc session.

Martinez had submitted a letter to Puno indicating her desire to step down 15 months ahead of her compulsory retirement on December 18, 2010 upon reaching the age of 70.

Martinez, who was appointed by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on April 12, 2002, is the fifth most senior among the 15 associate justices of the SC.

With her early retirement, the number of vacancies in the SC this year will reach seven due to the regular retirements of other magistrates.

Among those who are retiring this year are Associate Justices Ruben Reyes and Adolfo Azcuna, who retired January 3 and February 16, respectively; Dante Tinga, May 11; Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, October 5; Leonardo Quisumbing, November 6; and Minita Chico-Nazario, December 5.

Prior to her appointment to the SC, Martinez held various government positions as executive judge of Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, CA division clerk of court and later on, Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals. - GMANews.TV

SC junks KMU lawyer's amparo petition (http://http://www.gmanews.tv/story/152093/SC-junks-KMU-lawyers-amparo-petition)
03/10/2009 | 03:45 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has denied the amparo petition filed by human rights lawyer and suspected communist rebel Remigio Saladero Jr. on the ground that a criminal case has already been filed against him.

“Considering that a criminal action has been commenced against petitioner, the Court resolved to deny the instant petition for non-compliance with the Rule on the writ of amparo,” the court said in its minute resolution.

In the same resolution, the court also turned down Saladero’s request to stop government authorities from arresting him in connection with arson, multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder charges filed against him.

Police arrested Saladero, counsel for the militant labor group Kilusang Mayo Uno, on October 28, 2008 in his Antipolo office on allegations that he was a member of the New People’s Army (NPA) involved in a string of criminal offenses. He was released last February 5.

In his petition before the tribunal, Saladero claimed he has been deprived of due process, liberty and security when law enforcers arrested him based on trumped-up charges.

Named respondents in the suit were Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, National Police chief Director General Jesus Versoza, Armed Forces chief Gen. Alexander Yano, Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Isafp) chief Romeo Prestoza, and Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro Jr.

Also named respondents were Provincial Prosecutors Josephine Caranzo-Olivar of Oriental Mindoro and Edgardo Bautista of Rizal province, who issued an order for his arrest in connection with the cases filed against him. - GMANews.TV

Suspects in Mancao affidavit ‘known publicly’ (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view/20090312-193792/Suspects-in-Mancao-affidavit-known-publicly)
By Thea Alberto

MANILA, Philippines -- The persons implicated by a former police officer who has been linked to the murders of a publicist and his driver almost nine years ago “are known publicly,” the daughter of one the victims told INQUIRER.net Thursday.

"Let's just say, when I saw the names...they are known publicly," Carina Dacer, daughter of the late Salvador “Bubby Dacer,” public relations practitioner, told INQUIRER.net in a phone interview from the United States.

Dacer was referring to the affidavit of ex-senior superintendent Cesar Mancao, one of those charged for the murders of her father and his driver Emmanuel Corbito in 2000.

Dacer, who claims to have a copy of Mancao’s affidavit, said there were also new names but that she has not counted them, which is why she could not confirm Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales's statement that five people are named in the document.

"Instead of getting upset, we take it as it comes. In nine years, almost everyone has been accused already," Dacer added, when asked about her reaction upon seeing the names in the affidavit.

Dacer and Corbito were abducted Nov. 24, 2000, at the boundary of the cities of Makati and Manila, while on their way to the publicist’s office at the Manila Hotel.

The police’s investigation later showed the two were interrogated and tortured in Dasmariñas, Cavite and then taken to nearby Indang where they were strangled to death and their bodies burned.

Former president Joseph Estrada and Senator Panfilo Lacson, then head of the Philippine National Police, were tagged as the masterminds but have repeatedly denied involvement.

Mancao was an aide of Lacson when the senator headed the Philippine National Police during Estrada’s presidency.

Dacer also clarified that there have been no negotiations between their family and the camp of Mancao, belying insinuations the former police officer was pressed to give names to get himself off the hook.

"Between me and his family, none. I only met him [Mancao] recently and I sincerely feel that he made the decision himself," said Dacer.

"I wouldn't say he asked for forgiveness. The first thing he said when he saw me, and kahit hindi ko pa siya kilala [even if I didn’t know him, he said], 'Pasensiya na po [I am sorry],'" added Dacer, recalling her first meeting with Mancao when she visited him in Florida.

Dacer admitted that Mancao's testimony would help find the masterminds of the nine-year old murders.

"It's been a long time. It's unfair for those who have been tasked to carry out the crime to suffer while the masterminds are free," she said.

Mancao and former senior superintendent Glenn Dumlao were arrested last year in Florida and New York, respectively, following an extradition request made by the Philippine government.

Another suspect, former senior superintendent and Lacson aide Michael Ray Aquino, is in a US prison after his conviction for espionage.

Mancao is expected to be back in the country next week.

Dacer said it would also be better if politicians would stop commenting about the affidavit.

"I don't know why people are reacting to a document that hasn't been made public," she said

Jinggoy: ‘Nothing to do with Dacer slay’ (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090313-193884/Jinggoy-Nothing-to-do-with-Dacer-slay)
By Michael Lim Ubac

MANILA, Philippines—For once, the camp of deposed President Joseph Estrada is not crying politics over an action which some see as a Malacañang move against their leader and his then police chief and now Sen. Panfilo Lacson—the kidnapping and murder of publicist Salvador “Bubby” Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito.

At a press conference Thursday, Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said he believed the effort to implicate his father, who was president when the abduction and killing happened in late 2000, was not tainted by politics.

“I don’t think it has anything to do with politics. We have nothing to fear,” said Estrada, who was asked to comment on the homecoming soon of Cesar Mancao, a close aide of Lacson’s in the Philippine National Police and Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and who was one of those charged in the double murder.

‘Let’s just wait’

“Let’s just wait for him (but) we, particularly former President Erap (Estrada), have nothing to do with the abduction and killing of Bubby Dacer and Manuel Corbito,” the senator said.

Estrada made the comments a day after Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said the government was merely helping the courts bring Mancao home from the United States, where he executed an affidavit identifying the mastermind and perpetrators of the abduction and double murder.

The affidavit is in the custody of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, who placed it in a bank vault for safekeeping.

Ermita had said the main concern of the government was that legal procedures be followed in Mancao’s extradition from the US.

No shortcuts

“We just have to follow the rule of law. We cannot go on with shortcuts,” Ermita said.

Mancao, however, is due back in Manila in two weeks after he decided not to contest his extradition in US federal court.

Gonzalez on Tuesday said the contents of the affidavit would be revealed when Mancao returns.

On Thursday, Senator Estrada said, “We’re confident that nothing in the affidavit will link my father – and we really don’t have anything to do with it. It’s not in our character, we don’t have a record (of ordering killings).”

‘Nicole’ left for US ‘for good’—lawyer (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20090317-194579/Nicole-left-for-US-for-goodlawyer)
By Thea Alberto, Erika Tapalla

Counsel’s services terminated

MANILA, Philippines – The Filipina who was raped by a US Marine and who fought to have him convicted and jailed left for the US “for good,” her lawyer revealed Tuesday at the launching of the “Junk VFA Movement.”

Evelyn Ursua also said that her client, who was given the name “Nicole,” also terminated her services.

Quoting “Nicole’s” mother, Ursua said her client left for the US last week and would stay there “for good.”

Ursua said “Nicole’s” mother also explained the reason behind the termination of her services, saying her daughter and the family were “tired of the case and do not want anymore to be bothered by it because 'there is no justice in the Philippines.'"

Ursua has been “Nicole’s” counsel since February 2006, a year after the Filipina accused Lance Corporal Daniel Smith of raping her in Subic, a former American military facility.

Smith was convicted in 2007 and sentenced to up to 40 years in prison. But his detention at the US embassy has sparked controversy and gave rise to calls for the abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement, which the US government has cited in justifying its action.

The VFA governs the conduct of US and Filipino troops in joint exercises dubbed “Balikatan” (shoulder-to-shoulder).

Ursua said “Nicole’s” mother gave her a letter signed by her client informing her that her services were no longer needed and that she wanted "all other cases arising from or related" to the rape case dropped.

Ursua said she tried to call “Nicole” but was inaccessible.

Ursua said she could not confirm the veracity of the contents of the letter, which the lawyer said, also thanked her "for all the time and effort that you have devoted in the prosecution of the case."

"While I have ceased to be Nicole's lawyer, I, as a citizen who loves this country, remain committed to the cause of obtaining justice in Nicole's case and putting an end to the iniquitous Visiting Forces Agreement," said Ursua.

"The 'Nicole' that and the other lawyers represented was beyond the woman that Nicole and her family thought she was. 'Nicole' is every Filipino woman who was and will be raped by American soldiers. ‘Nicole’ can happen again. And so the fight against the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the presence of US troops in the country must continue," Ursua said.

In a press conference, Senator Ana Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal said that “perhaps there was a deal [that was] too good to refuse,” reacting to “Nicole's” decision to terminate her lawyer's services.

Labor center wants human traffickers exposed (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20090318-194739/Labor-center-wants-human-traffickers-exposed)
By Jerome Aning

MANILA, Philippines—A migrants’ rights advocacy group on Tuesday called on legislators to amend the confidentiality clause in the country’s anti-trafficking law, saying the provision is partial to offenders and violates the public’s right to know about human smuggling schemes.
The Blas F. Ople Policy Center said the clause, which stipulates the right to privacy of both the trafficked person and the accused, prevents the victims and nongovernment organizations from seeking media’s help to warn the public about the activities of notorious traffickers.

“We support and firmly believe in the need to protect the identities of the victims, but certainly not the accused, particularly if he or she has a long string of trafficking cases and outstanding warrants of arrest,” the center’s president, Susan Ople, pointed out to reporters.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1365/gen2.jpg

Jalosjos, convicted rapist, walks free (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=449921&publicationSubCategoryId=63)

MANILA, Philippines - Convicted child rapist and former Zamboanga del Norte congressman Romeo Jalosjos is expected to walk out of prison a free man today after completing a commuted 16-year sentence.

“I signed the conformity of the computation of his jail term since he has already completed 16 years of his sentence,” Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez told reporters yesterday.

“It (his release) is now up to Bureau of Corrections director Oscar Calderon,” he said, adding that Jalosjos should have been released last December.

In reality, Jalosjos spent only 11 years in prison after his conviction in 1997 by a Makati City court for two counts of statutory rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code. His victim was an 11-year-old girl.

President Arroyo commuted Jalosjos’ original two life terms on June 13, 2007 to 16 years. In the original sentence, Jalosjos was also ordered to pay P400,000 in civil indemnity and P400,000 in moral damages.

Superintendent Bartolome Bustamante, head executive assistant to Calderon, said Jalosjos’ “good conduct” while serving time at the New Bilibid Prisons has made the former congressman eligible for release.

“After three months of re-evaluation conducted by the DOJ, Secretary Gonzalez finally confirmed in a Memorandum dated March 17, 2009 the grant of colonist status on inmate Jalosjos after having established sufficient factual and documentary proof,” Bartolome said.

“With the computation, Jalosjos has earned additional GCTA of one year, six months, 17 days as of Dec. 16, 2008. By computation, he had already served the maximum sentence of 16 years, three months and three days, as commuted,” he said. GCTA stands for good conduct time allowance.

A prisoner is granted a colonist status for good behavior or if he has not violated any prison regulation.

Gonzalez explained that under the law, a prisoner who has shown good behavior during the period of evaluation would be given GCTA of 15 days per month of his prison term.

Under the Revised Penal Code, Gonzalez said good behavior in the first two years of sentence entitles a convict to five days reduction for every month.

Good behavior from the third to fifth year entitles a prisoner to a reduction of eight days for every month. Good behavior from the sixth to 10th year earns a 10-day reduction for every month. Above that, the reduction is 15 days for every month, he said.

Gonzalez’s approval of the release of Jalosjos was apparently based on the computation of former Bureau of Corrections director Vicente Vinarao, making Jalosjos eligible for release on Dec. 16 last year.

Jalosjos walked out of prison in late December last year after receiving a discharge order and immediately flew to his hometown in Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte on Dec. 22.

That surprised prison officials who were unable to explain how the convict had walked out of prison and flew to Dapitan.

The escapade also cost the job of other prison officials, who were placed under investigation.

Though Jalosjos surrendered to the police a day after his controversial “escape,” he questioned the legality of his arrest and recommitment to San Ramon Penal colony.

Bustamante, meanwhile, said prison authorities would have to complete some paperwork before Jalosjos is allowed to leave the NBP premises.
A recent memorandum addressed to Calderon and signed by Alfredo Benitez, officer-in-charge of the BuCor Administrative Division, said, “The close scrutiny/study on the circumstances and documents on hand, it was established that the grant of colonist status to said inmate passed through the regular process in accordance with the BuCor Operating Manual.”

“It was carefully screened and favorably recommended by the NBP Classification Board and subsequently approved by the Director. It was not a singular act of the then BuCor Director.”

‘Sterling leadership’

Meanwhile, Calderon, in a memorandum to Gonzalez, cited Jalosjos’ “sterling leadership” while in prison as well as his activities aimed at improving the lives of fellow prisoners at the NBP.

“During my stint as director, I have personally observed the active participation of inmate Romeo Jalosjos in multi-faceted rehabilitation/transformation programs of the Bureau of Corrections with the end view of bringing back the dignity of men in prison,” Calderon said.

“His (Jalosjos) sterling leadership has undoubtedly enhanced the inmates’ understanding, cooperation and all-out support of the Bureau’s various programs, projects and activities as shown in the recently concluded National Correctional Consciousness Week celebration last November 2008,” the memorandum read.

“Along with the actual time served and usual/regular GCTA shown in their computation, plus the colonist GCTA credit, is sufficient to cover the commuted sentence of 16 years, three months and three days,” Calderon said, referring to Jalosjos’ case.

From January to February, around 450 inmates of the NBP have reportedly been released, including the 10 soldiers convicted in the Aquino-Galman double murder case.

iba talaga pag malapit sa presidente, kahit rapist na pedophile nakakalaya.
parents lock up your children!

Thats proof na patay na ang hustisya natin. Puro suhulan ang mga tauhan sa DOJ at supreme corrupt court. :ohno:

Ito ang hustisya dito.

Isang Justice secretary nagsu-suggest pa na kasuhan ng perjury kapwa Pinoy nya to appease his masters in the US

Na rape na kasuhan pa perjury.

Bravo-rat ka talaga injustice brenda secretary!!:bash::bash:

Philippine Star

'Nicole' faces perjury raps
By Edu Punay Updated March 19, 2009 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines - Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez believes that “Nicole” and her lawyers could be charged with false testimony and perjury after she backtracked on her complaint that she was raped by US Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Gonzalez said it appeared that “we have been taken for a ride” in the Subic rape case.

“So many problems have been created by this. Foreign policy has been affected,” he said. “So much time has been spent. It has split public opinion and caused a lot of emotional upsurge. So whatever she did has created a lot of problems for us.”

Gonzalez said Nicole’s recantation will have “no bearing” on Smith’s appeal before the Court of Appeals since it is not part of the records of the trial.

“Unless you can convince the court to open the trial to admit the affidavit, this will not pass as newly discovered evidence,” he said.

“Under the Rules of Court, there is such a thing as the court taking judicial knowledge or judicial cognizance of events that take place,” he added.

Gonzalez said the CA justices are aware that Nicole had backtracked on her court testimony through the newspapers.

“That is only where this thing could play some role,” he said. “It is up to the court if the justices subconsciously take cognizance of the affidavit. But technically, it should not be given weight.”

Gonzalez said it is remote that the CA would allow a retrial of the case since Nicole is no longer in the country.

Nicole should not ask the court to reopen the case, he added.

He could not recall any case where recantation of the complainant or witness had been given weight after conviction of the accused, Gonzalez said.

— With Michael Punongbayan, Jess Diaz, Mike Frialde, Perseus Echeminada, Pia Lee-Brago, Evelyn Macairan, Christina Mendez

ito si lolo jaluslos talaga oh , humihirit pa, hindi daw siys pedophile kase hindi 11, kundi 14 yung nirape niya. Hindi na lang magrepent si lolo maniac.

Ano ba ang age of consent diyan sa Pinas? 14 y/o is still pretty much a minor.. Good Lord!

ito si lolo jaluslos talaga oh , humihirit pa, hindi daw siys pedophile kase hindi 11, kundi 14 yung nirape niya. Hindi na lang magrepent si lolo maniac.

Ano ba ang age of consent diyan sa Pinas? 14 y/o is still pretty much a minor.. Good Lord!

He has no remorse of any kind, matindi talaga ang taong ito.

http://images.inquirer.net/media/networkindex/images/pic-03190602300242.jpg

marami nga siyang pinagawa sa bilibid, pero para sa karangyaan naman ng pagtigil niya duon ang mga yun. Pauupahan daw yun sa mga maperang naka-kulong. :lol:

Ano na nangyari talaga sa hustisya ng Pinas?

justice has been served but gloria gave jalosjos a pardon.

^^ Hopefully you can say that to the victims.

Former Zamboanga Del Norte congressman Romeo Jalosjos, now 67 years old, walked out of the National Bilibid Prison in southern metropolitan Manila’s Muntinglupa City today a free man, the beneficiary of executive clemency.

While the wealthy Jalosjos was meted two life terms (equivalent to 80 years imprisonment) for raping an 11 year-old girl he has actually been in jail for 10 or 13 years, depending on what records are followed, and quite several of those years has been spent as a ‘living out prisoner.

This meant he was not really in a penitentiary jail cell but was free to drive around the prison’s sprawling ‘reservation’ in his 8-cylinder Ford Expedition sport utility vehicle.
The National Bilid Prison ‘reservation’ includes its own residential village called Katarungan [Justice].

In Katarungan, erstwhile prisoner Jalosjos bought a house and lot where he has stayed since he became a live-out inmate a few years ago.

Jalosjos financed the construction of a first-class gymnasium inside the maximum prison complex. He hired chefs of two five-star hotels to teach the inmates to bake cakes and pastries. Freed convicts now work as bakers in the three branches of QS Coffee and Bakeshop that Jalosjos owns.

The former congressman also built the Tennis Academy of the Philippines Foundation, an upscale club and resort-bar near his residence in Katarungan Village, located just beside Muntinglupa City’s gated Ayala Alabang Village.

When he was convicted, Jalosjos was ordered to pay his victim a total of 500,000 pesos in damages.

So as far as prison authorities and the rest of the government is concerned, factoring in his generosity an good behavior, Jalosjos has paid his debt to society.

http://midfield.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/convicted-child-rapist-romeo-jalosjos-now-a-free-man/


Public record archives of the justice department reveal that 18-year-old Lucino A. Delostrico was murdered by security guards of Dakak Beach Resort for allegedly throwing stones at the resort’s information office. One Bartolome C. Baguio, an armed security escort of Jalosjos, subscribed to a formal statement testifying before the same Justice Department official that Jalosjos ordered his security guards, which included Agustines Magsalay, Carmelito Tunguia, Elpidio Jumawan, Reynaldo Anggay, Bonifacio Hamac Sr., Nonato Hamac, Sustenes Enoy and Dioscoro Cayongcong “to hurry up in disposing of the body because the sun is almost up.” He was referring to the dying, if not already dead, victim Lucino Delostrico. Baguio also testified that Jalosjos even called for a meeting of all employees of Dakak Beach Resort a few days after the murder, specifically giving instructions to everyone to deny any knowledge of the incident. What is quite clear from the investigating prosecutor’s resolution is his pronouncement that: “Baguio claims that he fears for his and his family’s safety because of the contents of his statement and because he knows that respondent Jalosjos will not hesitate to eliminate him to prevent the truth from coming out.” Baguio’s statements were corroborated by respondent Dioscoro Cayong*cong. Indeed, what kind of a man orders the savage killing of another for simply throwing stones at his office?

After all these years, what happened to the case against Romeo Jalosjos for the homicide of one Lucino Delostrico? What magical event happened that Jalosjos was not subsequently indicted for murder, nor trial apparently not even commenced for the crime of homicide?

While the legal status of the criminal charge against Jalosjos for homicide or murder remains shrouded in mystery, what is not in doubt is that he raped an 11-year-old and ordered her pimping foster father to bring her several times to his condominium unit for his sexual gratification and entertainment. What kind of a man would have multiple sexual relations with numerous minors young enough to be his granddaughters—the kind of a man that an “honorable” justice secretary would bend forward and kneel before in supplication to recommend commutation and absolute pardon for all his heinous crimes for millions of reasons.

Justice officials claim there should be no preferential treatment for legislators facing criminal charges just right after recommending and providing preferential treatment for a pedophile lawmaker convicted of the abominable crime of raping a child. They have absolutely no credibility and no shame. The stench of their hypocrisy is simply overwhelming. Then again, pardoning unremorseful child rapists and perverse pedophiles is just another of the multitudinous aberrations that typify this crippled nation.

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/july/09/yehey/opinion/20070709opi4.html

^^ Hopefully you can say that to the victims.


He was convicted and I really feel that justice was partially given to the victims. It was Gloria who cut it short.

that's why our county is the state it's in, morally bankrupt persons on top.
what happens to the average citizens convicted of rape , Are they pardoned and released having been meted the death penalty or life imprisonment?
Looks like he really suffered in jail ,given the state of his belly.
If you empathize with this pedophile it only proves you're probably a pedophile yourself . His powerful friends are all corrupt criminals themselves, why they would turn a blind eye. Look at who rules and are powerful the very evil, sick society.

^^ Ang matindi pa kasi tungkol dito ay:

Romeo Jalosjos ask President Arroyo to grant him absolute pardon so he could vote and run in next year’s elections.

They might as well throw away the law of perpetual disqualification from public office by a convicted felon. Kung sabagay, maraming government officials, kahit may kaso ay nasa puwesto pa rin.

^^ Ang matindi pa kasi tungkol dito ay:



They might as well throw away the law of perpetual disqualification from public office by a convicted felon. Kung sabagay, maraming government officials, kahit may kaso ay nasa puwesto pa rin.

well wag na kayo magtaka. yang si DOJ secretary (si)raul(o) gonzales ay dati nang nadisbar.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1365/gen2.jpg

Jalosjos, convicted rapist, walks free (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=449921&publicationSubCategoryId=63)

In reality, Jalosjos spent only 11 years in prison after his conviction in 1997 by a Makati City court for two counts of statutory rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code. His victim was an 11-year-old girl.

President Arroyo commuted Jalosjos’ original two life terms on June 13, 2007 to 16 years. In the original sentence, Jalosjos was also ordered to pay P400,000 in civil indemnity and P400,000 in moral damages.I hate this type of penalty. I wish they'd revise the law to make it harder to commute sentences. Imagine, that should be two life terms but was cut short to 11 years! What kind of justice is this?:bash::ohno::nuts:

ito si lolo jaluslos talaga oh , humihirit pa, hindi daw siys pedophile kase hindi 11, kundi 14 yung nirape niya. Hindi na lang magrepent si lolo maniac.
He has no remorse of any kind, matindi talaga ang taong ito.
http://images.inquirer.net/media/networkindex/images/pic-03190602300242.jpg
marami nga siyang pinagawa sa bilibid, pero para sa karangyaan naman ng pagtigil niya duon ang mga yun. Pauupahan daw yun sa mga maperang naka-kulong. :lol:
Ano na nangyari talaga sa hustisya ng Pinas?Nakaka-disappoint na. :no:

He was convicted and I really feel that justice was partially given to the victims. It was Gloria who cut it short.I believe that this would always be the case if they would not change the Revised Penal Code. That law sucks. It is too generous to prisoners, imo.

well wag na kayo magtaka. yang si DOJ secretary (si)raul(o) gonzales ay dati nang nadisbar.:lol: I never knew that he was disbarred. What was the cause?

I hate this type of penalty. I wish they'd revise the law to make it harder to commute sentences. Imagine, that should be two life terms but was cut short to 11 years! What kind of justice is this?:bash::ohno::nuts:


Nakaka-disappoint na. :no:

I believe that this would always be the case if they would not change the Revised Penal Code. That law sucks. It is too generous to prisoners, imo.

:lol: I never knew that he was disbarred. What was the cause?

i forgot the case... but he was readmitted to the bar when he was already a congressman.

saka hindi ko sure yung kay jalosjos ha pero alam ko kaya siguro naging 11 years dahil na rin sa indeterminate sentence law. basta maabutan mo yung minimum period ng sentence mo, eligible ka na for parole. I think the RPC is already good as it is, no need to amend it. the problem is if you have a justice system that is highly favorable to the rich. If jalosjos was a poor minimum wage laborer, you'd never think he'd even get out of prison... ever.

Arroyo appoints CA Justice Bersamin to high court (http://http://www.gmanews.tv/story/155266/Arroyo-appoints-CA-Justice-Bersamin-to-high-court)
04/02/2009 | 12:17 PM

MANILA, Philippines – Court of Appeals Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin was appointed by President Macapagal Arroyo to the Supreme Court seat vacated by retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna.

This was according to SC spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez, who disclosed the information to reporters on Thursday.

Bersamin was among the Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) four nominees for the post left by Azcuna in February. The council is the constitutionally-created body that vets, screens, and recommends to the President appointees to the SC.

Aside from Bersamin, those included in JBC’s shortlist were CA Associate Justices Martin Villarama and Hakim Abdulwahid, and Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Francisco Villaruz Jr.

Bersamin finished law at the University of the East in 1973. He placed ninth at the 1973 Bar examinations. He also served as magistrate at the Quezon City regional trial court in 1986. President Arroyo then appointed him to the appellate court in 2003.

One of the high-profile cases Bersamin handled at the CA include the freezing of the bank accounts of former Agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-Joc" Bolante, allegedly the mastermind in the purported diversion of P728 million fertilizer funds to the campaign kitty of President Arroyo in the 2004 elections. - Sophia Dedace and Carlo Lorenzo, GMANews.TV

Save RP from being pariah in int'l community (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090406-198204/Save-RP-from-being-pariah-in-intl-community)
By Norman Bordadora

MANILA, Philippines— Chief Justice Reynato Puno has warned that corruption in the country has become so bad that the Philippines has been cast as a "moral pariah" in the international community.

Puno made the remarks on Monday, during the launch of the moral force movement by the Manila Episcopal Area of the United Methodist Church in the Philippines.

"We are cast… as a moral pariah. What a tragic social landscape for the only Christian country in southeast Asia," Puno said before the UMCP congregation.

"We can arrest the social decadence through a moral force," said the Chief Justice, a member of the United Methodist Church in the country.

Puno called the country’s level of corruption as "moral decadence" and likened it to the "moral leprosy that afflicted the country like England of old,” when John Wesley founded the Methodist movement in the 1700s.

Puno said corruption in the country has been “deforming all its institutions, undermining our stability and security, and preventing our socio-economic development.”

Other religious groups, including the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, the National Council of Churches in the Philippines, the Philippine Bible Society, and the Ecumenical Bishops Forum, expressed solidarity with the Methodist Church in Manila in its launch.

“They are part of the moral force movement,” Puno said of the Catholic hierarchy. He said there were representatives of the CBCP during the launch.

“However, I expect the CBCP will have its own brand of moral force movement,” he added.

Bishop Lito Cabacungan Tangonan led UMC Manila Episcopal Area’s launch of the moral force at the Central United Methodist Church in Manila.

“We see the moral force as prophets of our time—people who feel the urge to expose and denounce the debilitating ills in our society, especially those generated by the structural system that promotes, breeds, and spawns corruption,” read the UMC-MEA’s handout on its area-wide moral force movement.

Puno said Monday’s activity in Manila was not the first launch of a moral force movement.

He said a core group made up of leaders in the different sectors in society would be made public this week.

Puno called for a moral force movement several months ago as corruption scandals again hit the Arroyo administration, which has also been struggling to protect human rights and address peace and order breakdowns in different parts of the country.

The chief justice also made the call around the time that certain groups moved for his impeachment over a congresswoman's citizenship case. Some political groups believed that certain elements in Malacañang sponsored the move in order to get rid of Puno and ensure a pro-Arroyo Supreme Court that would not block moves to amend the Constitution and extend the President's term, which would expire in 2010.

With the launching of his moral force movement, certain sectors are now looking at Puno as a possible presidential contender next year. But he repeatedly denied that he was interested in an elective post next year.

SC turns down transfer of associate justice (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090406-198202/SC-turns-down-transfer-of-associate-justice)
By Tetch Torres

Manila, Philippines—The Supreme Court turned down the transfer of an appeals court associate justice from Cagayan De Oro to Manila despite request from House Speaker Prospero Nograles.

The high court’s decision affirmed the earlier decision of Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez.

In a six-page resolution, the high court agreed with Vasquez that allowing Associate Justice Michael Elbinias to be transferred from Cagayan de Oro to Manila would mean bypassing more senior justices who deserved to be assigned to Manila.

“It is important that at the present time, the Court of Appeals has 62 incumbents and Justice Michael Elbinias is ranked 54th Associate Justice in our seniority line up. To transfer him to Manila would necessitate the approval of a lot of waivers of the more senior justices,” the high court said quoting the decision of Vasquez.

Elbinias wanted to be transferred to Manila on the next reorganization of the Court of Appeals, because he wanted to stay with his family and be with his sick father retired Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Jesus Elbinias.

Nograles also recommended Elbinias’ transfer.

The Court of Appeals has branches in Cebu and Cagayan De Oro, where newly appointed members are stationed.

Upon the appointment of new justices, the most senior members in the two provinces would be transferred to Manila.

The appeals court implemented reorganization last January following the retirement of Associate Justice Regalado Maambong.

The high court approved the reorganization, but Elbinias remained in Cagayan De Oro.

Cabalen? -- I won't be surprised if she would give clemency to Hubert Webb and other big shots in BNP.


‘Cochise-Beebom’ killer gets GMA clemency (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090403-197636/Cochise-Beebom-killer-gets-GMA-clemency)

By TJ Burgonio, Allison Lopez
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:53:00 04/03/2009

http://images.inquirer.net/media/newsinfo/inquirerheadlines/nation/images/pic-04031053030172.jpg

Rodolfo Manalili arrives here after his arrest
by then NBI Director Alfredo Lim.


MANILA, Philippines—The mastermind of the gruesome “Cochise-Beebom” double murder in April 1990 has been granted executive clemency by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Rodolfo M. Manalili—who, along with four others, drew double life terms for abducting and killing Ernesto “Cochise” Bernabe II and his girlfriend Ana Lourdes “Beebom” Castaños—was among the 10 prisoners whose sentences were commuted by Ms Arroyo on March 26, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said.

Ermita released the names of the prisoners who had been granted clemency during his regular press briefing on Wednesday.

Manalili’s sentence was shortened to 20-25 years.

In what turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, Bernabe, 26, and Castaños, 22, were abducted by armed men as they were about to enter a hamburger restaurant on Timog Avenue in Quezon City on April 25, 1990.

They were killed the next day in Pampanga province; their bodies, which bore multiple stab wounds, were found two months later.

A trial court found Manalili, Roberto Lising, Felimon Garcia, Robin Manga and Enrico Dizon guilty of the murders and sentenced each of them to double life imprisonment in 1992. The ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court six years later.

It was the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) that had recommended clemency for the prisoners, according to Undersecretary Anthony Golez, a deputy spokesperson of Ms Arroyo.

“The President ministerially signs [the recommendation]. It goes through a process,” Golez said.

He could give no details on the commutation of sentence of any of the prisoners, and referred the reporter to the Department of Justice to find out the basis for the recommendation.

‘Good conduct’

Public Attorney’s Office chief Persida Acosta said Manalili, who has served 18 years of his sentence, could be released immediately if the BPP would credit to him seven years of “good conduct time allowance.”

“It depends on their computation … We’ll have to wait for the updated prison time record,” she told the Philippine Daily Inquirer (parent company of INQUIRER.net).

Acosta said her office had recommended Manalili for executive clemency because he was qualified for it. (Manalili is supposed to serve a maximum of 40 years behind bars.)

“If you’ve done 17 years, you’re already qualified for commutation. Only 17 years is required for convicts with double life sentences because they serve the two sentences collectively. For those with a single life sentence, only 15 years is needed to qualify,” she said.

Supt. Bartolome Bustamante of the Bureau of Corrections said the commutation did not mean that Manalili would be automatically released from the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City, where he is detained.

“We have not released anyone since last week. He still has to serve his sentence if it’s commuted,” Bustamante said.

He said his office did not rely on “faxed letters” and was still awaiting the original copy of the commutation order signed by Ermita.

Bloody decade

The Cochise-Beebom double murder was one of the sensational cases in the 1990s, which also saw the killing of Maureen Hultman, Eldon Maguan and Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters.

At the time, Bernabe had just graduated from the University of the Philippines’ College of Law and was reviewing for the bar exams, and Castaños was a graduating mass communication student, also at the UP. Both excelled in academic and extracurricular activities.

On that fateful evening, they were accosted by armed men as they walked toward the front door of Dayrit’s Hamburger, forced into a car and brought to a motel in San Fernando, Pampanga, where they were killed.

According to court records, Manalili hired policemen Lising and Dizon and former Constabulary soldier Manga through Garcia to arrest one Robert Herrera, whom Manalili had suspected of killing his brother Delfin.

Manalili ordered the four men to meet with his employee Vic Lisboa who could point to Herrera and his whereabouts.

Family relations

Late in June 1990, a police source was quoted as saying that Herrera was the boyfriend of Delfin Manalili’s ex-wife, Joy Liz, who was the sister of Castaños’ father.

On April 23 and 24, 1990, Lising, Dizon, Garcia and Manga, together with Lisboa, staked out the Castaños residence in the hope of seeing Herrera, to no avail.

The next day, they resumed surveillance at around 5 p.m. Two hours later, they were alerted by Lisboa that Herrera had entered the Castaños residence.

Later, they saw a man and a woman (Bernabe and Castaños) leave the house in a Mitsubishi Lancer sedan. They tailed the pair up to the restaurant.

As soon as Bernabe and Castaños alighted, the men pointed their guns at them, and forced them into their car.

Manalili later testified that the men had mistaken Bernabe for Herrera.

Front-page news

The abduction of the pair was front-page news for weeks.

On June 21, 1990, two security guards working in a warehouse in San Fernando went to the Pasay City office of Bernabe’s mother, Rosie, and told her they had information on her son.

The guards said they had been informed by warehouse workers Raul Morales and Jun Medrano that their boss, policeman Lising, had killed a man and a woman in the warehouse.

In his account to authorities, Morales said that in the early morning of April 26, 1990, Lising and some armed men arrived at the warehouse with Bernabe and Castaños.

Morales said he heard Castaños plead innocence to a man she called “Uncle” (later identified as Manalili): “Parang awa mo naman, wala naman kaming kasalanan.”

According to Morales, Lising and Garcia stabbed Bernabe to death in the warehouse. The men then forced Castaños into a car and drove off.

On June 25, 1990, Bernabe’s body was exhumed by investigators. Castaños’ body was found the next day in a shallow grave two kilometers away.

Authorities arrested Lising, Dizon and Manga on separate occasions in 1990 and 1991. Garcia surrendered in January 1991.

In Australia

Manalili was arrested in Australia by then National Bureau of Investigation Director Alfredo Lim, now the mayor of Manila.

He admitted to hiring the other four men to get Herrera in exchange for P50,000. But he claimed that when he saw that they had gotten the wrong people, he immediately told Lising to release the latter.

Manalili said he flew to Australia in June 1990 after Lising demanded P60,000 from him and threatened to kill or implicate him in the double murder if he did not comply.

On July 1, 1992, a Quezon City trial court found the five men guilty of double murder and sentenced each of them to double reclusion perpetua.

The court also found Lising, Dizon and Manga guilty of slight illegal detention and sentenced each of them to reclusion temporal (imprisonment of from 17 years, four months and one day to 20 years).


‘2 murders that still make our stomach turn’ (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090403-197638/2-murders-that-still-make-our-stomach-turn)

PAO wants ‘first in, first out’ for convicts (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090413-199052/PAO-wants-first-in-first-out-for-convicts)
By Tetch Torres

MANILA, Philippines — The Public Attorneys Office (PAO) wants strict implementation of a “first in, first out” policy for inmates of all penitentiaries nationwide.

PAO chief Persida Rueda-Acosta said they will coordinate with Board of Pardons and Parole director Reynaldo Bayang to study the records of inmates who have been imprisoned for more than 20 to 30 years.

“The ‘first in, first out’ policy must be strictly implemented. There are many inmates who have been in prison for years even if they are already qualified for parole,” Acosta said.

She noted the many cases of inmates who have been freed or are having their release papers processed ahead of those who have been jailed much longer.

“We need to understand the plight of old prisoners at the National Bilibid Prisons and other penitentiaries, and those who are being incarcerated [in] city and provincial jails for more than five years, with or without trial, because of the rule that there should be restorative justice in our country," Acosta said.

"If a sentence has been served by an inmate, he should be released. Otherwise there would be injustice against [the inmate],” Acosta said.

She’s crazy, Gonzalez says of PAO’s Acosta


By Dona Pazzibugan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:01:00 04/17/2009

MANILA, Philippines—“She’s crazy!”

That’s how Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez described Persida Acosta, chief of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO).

Acosta, whose essential job is to assist indigent litigants, helped broadcaster Ted Failon in leaving the Quezon City police station in the midst of an investigation Thursday to visit his wife, Trinidad Etong, who was in critical condition in the hospital after she was mysteriously shot Wednesday. (Trinidad died at 8:50 p.m. Thursday in the intensive care unit of New Era General Hospital in Quezon City.)

Gonzalez said he called up Acosta and ordered her to stop interfering in the police investigation and acting as Failon’s lawyer.

“They are not supposed to do that. It is not their mandate,” said Gonzalez of the PAO, which is under the supervision of the Department of Justice.

Acosta also appeared on Korina Sanchez’s morning talk show and fielded questions from listeners, defending Failon.

Failon is Sanchez’s partner in the hugely popular radio program.

The broadcaster could hardly be considered an indigent, said Gonzalez, who threatened to charge Acosta with an administrative violation.

“I have already called Acosta. She was trying to argue it was within her authority. I’m issuing a formal memo... she’s crazy!” Gonzalez said.

...at sino po ang nagsabi uli nito...

...e di Si Raul-o Gonzales..:lol::nuts::cheers:

Birds with the same feather flocks forever:ohno:

Special court sought for tax credit scam (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090509-204030/Special-court-sought-for-tax-credit-scam)


MANILA, Philippines—The Office of the Ombudsman should ask the Supreme Court to create a special Sandiganbayan division to handle 375 cases that have been filed against a textile company owner and former finance officials in the multi-million-peso tax credit scam of the 1990s, Sandiganbayan Acting Presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval said yesterday.

Sandoval, who also chairs the 2nd Division, said having one division hear all the tax credit scam cases would greatly expedite the proceedings, noting that the cases have been raffled off to the anti-graft court’s five divisions when they have the same set of witnesses.

He said there have been instances when a division hearing one case could not proceed because a witness to be presented was testifying in another case being heard in another division.

He said there have been precedents for creating a special division. For instance, the Supreme Court created a special division to hear the ill-gotten wealth cases against the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, his heirs and his cronies after the presiding justices of the court’s five divisions inhibited themselves.

Businessman Faustino Chingkoe, his wife Gloria, two officers of the Chingkoe-owned Filstar Textile Industrial Corp. (Filstar) and several former officials of the Department of Finance have been charged with plunder for allegedly conspiring in the illegal issuance of some P74 million worth of tax credit certificates to Filstar which was not qualified to receive them.

They also face graft and falsification charges for similar offenses involving other Chingkoe-owned companies.

The Chingkoe couple are the major suspects in the tax credit scam of the mid-1990s in which some 64 companies that they own allegedly illegally obtained TCCs worth about P5.3 billion.

Tax credits are refund payments that export companies are allowed to claim for duties paid on imported materials used in the manufacture of products for re-export. The government issues TCCs instead of cash refunds which companies can use to settle tax obligations. Companies can also sell the TCCs to other companies.

Sandoval said the Sandiganbayan would fully endorse the proposal for the creation of a special division if the Supreme Court were to ask the court to comment.

He said the Office of the Ombudsman, as the prosecuting agency, was the proper body to make the request with the high court.

Ok, repeat after me (1,000 times) WAT DA PAK? :bash:

Pacquiao named special assistant to DOJ chief (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/160767/Pacquiao-named-special-assistant-to-DOJ-chief)


MANILA, Philippines — Boxing champion Emmanuel “Manny" Pacquiao was installed on Monday as a special assistant to the Justice Secretary.

Radio dzBB’s Teresa Tavares said under the Department Order 344, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez created a special office for Pacquiao where the boxer would serve as “special assistant" to the Secretary of Justice on intelligence affairs.
Under the order, the report said, Pacquiao would join the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in carrying out his function.


No salary, no office for DOJ ‘agent Pacquiao’ - Gonzalez (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/160841/No-salary-no-office-for-DOJ-agent-Pacquiao---Gonzalez)

It's Master Sergeant Emmanuel Pacquiao to you sec. Gonzales.

Pag graduate ni Pacman sa college maging 4 Star General na siya... :lol:

What can we do? It's the highest official of the land who appointed Pacquiao as NBI agent. Yes, the position is a sensitive position and it needs experience, competence and skills before one gets appointed to sensitive positions such as that as special assistant. But maybe, there is something in Manny Pacquiao that's why he was appointed as such.

Ok, repeat after me (1,000 times) WAT DA PAK? :bash:

Pacquiao named special assistant to DOJ chief (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/160767/Pacquiao-named-special-assistant-to-DOJ-chief)


MANILA, Philippines — Boxing champion Emmanuel “Manny" Pacquiao was installed on Monday as a special assistant to the Justice Secretary.

Radio dzBB’s Teresa Tavares said under the Department Order 344, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez created a special office for Pacquiao where the boxer would serve as “special assistant" to the Secretary of Justice on intelligence affairs.
Under the order, the report said, Pacquiao would join the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in carrying out his function.


No salary, no office for DOJ ‘agent Pacquiao’ - Gonzalez (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/160841/No-salary-no-office-for-DOJ-agent-Pacquiao---Gonzalez)

It's Master Sergeant Emmanuel Pacquiao to you sec. Gonzales.

Pag graduate ni Pacman sa college maging 4 Star General na siya... :lol:

kalokohan. nababaliw na talaga itong si Gonzales.

What can we do? It's the highest official of the land who appointed Pacquiao as NBI agent. Yes, the position is a sensitive position and it needs experience, competence and skills before one gets appointed to sensitive positions such as that as special assistant. But maybe, there is something in Manny Pacquiao that's why he was appointed as such.

You must be a lawyer I think to be qualified as an NBI agent.

^^ a lwayer or a cpa to be a regular NBI agent. But there are a lot of other positions in the NBI.

Pagpasensyahan nyu na si injustice gonzales, malapit na kasi yan matigok.:)

^^ a lwayer or a cpa to be a regular NBI agent. But there are a lot of other positions in the NBI.

Pagpasensyahan nyu na si injustice gonzales, malapit na kasi yan matigok.:)

:lol::lol::cheers:

^^ you have to be lawyer to be an NBI agent, but you don't have to be sane to be DOJ chief. Why did GMA get this once disbarred nutcase anyway?

^^ you have to be lawyer to be an NBI agent, but you don't have to be sane to be DOJ chief. Why did GMA get this once disbarred nutcase anyway?

He facilitated the proclamation of PGMA in 2004 during the canvassing of votes in Congress.

^^ oh yeah. Ahh I love the smell of formaline. This guy ain't dead but he sure looks like he is.

^^ oh yeah. Ahh I love the smell of formaline. This guy ain't dead but he sure looks like he is.

bad yan ha....:):cheers::lol::nuts::)

...at sino po ang nagsabi uli nito...

...e di Si Raul-o Gonzales..:lol::nuts::cheers:

Birds with the same feather flocks forever:ohno:

Injustice Gonzales and Celebrity attorney Acosta. It takes one to know one.:lol:

^^ oh yeah. Ahh I love the smell of formaline. This guy ain't dead but he sure looks like he is.

bad yan ha....:):cheers::lol::nuts::)


hmmm we might be waiting for awhile. remember what they say about bad grass?:nuts:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8734/gen1.jpg

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8225/gen1b.jpg

Mancao to identify 'Bigote' (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=474653)


Sino kaya??? ... hmmmm.....

This will be another test of our judicial system on how long this thing will last again. :lol: --- hula ko, mga 10~20 years bago maalala uli ito dahil matatabunan ito ng eleksiyon at iba pang iskandal. At baka dedo na si Bigote at si 71.

Open prayer:


God,thank you po at nawala na po si injustice secretary Gonzales sa puwesto nya. At least maraming Pilipino ang matutuwa sa nangyaring ito.

Amen.

:cheers:

Manila Standard

June 8, 2009

Devanadera new Justice chief; Gonzalez goes to Malacañang

By Christine F. Herrera, Roy Pelovello, Rey E. Requejo

SOLICITOR General Agnes Devanadera will take over the Justice Department and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez will be moving to Malacañang to become presidential legal counsel, government sources told Standard Today.

Devanadera’s appointment was released Thursday by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita after Gonzalez again asked President Arroyo before she left for South Korea and Russia for a less strenuous position.

“Secretary Gonzalez himself conveyed to the President that he wants to take care of his special child, the source said, referring to Gonzalez’s second son Jose Mari, who is suffering from palsy and epilepsy.

Gonzalez had said the family was planning on bringing the sickly son to Lourdes in France and to Fatima in Spain.

But a lawyer close to Gonzalez disclosed that the Justice secretary was supposed to speak with the President to request that his transfer be postponed to September because he wanted to make sure that the reinvestigation of the killing of publicist Salvador “Bubby” Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito was completed before he moved out of the department.

Another Palace official, who requested anonymity, told Standard Today that President Arroyo named Devanadera as the new secretary owing to her “not having political ambition” that could put color to highly-politicized and controversial issues such as the Dacer-Corbito investigation.

Before her visit to Russia and Korea, President Arroyo was informed by Gonzalez, 75, that he was going to run for mayor of Iloilo City, and that he needed time to prepare for the coming campaign, a Gonzalez aide said.

“Resignation is inevitable for me because I will be joining the election next year. I will have to resign by November [under the poll automation law] and it will have nothing to do with that case,” Gonzalez said earlier.

Devanadera was appointed Justice Department officer-in-charge on Sept. 1, 2007, and as acting Justice secretary on Sept. 5, 2007, when Gonzalez was hospitalized for ulcer and, later on, when Gonzalez had a kidney transplant.

It was not immediately clear where the current presidential legal counsel, Jesus Dureza, would be transferred should Gonzalez eventually assume the Cabinet position.

“I have not been informed [of the transfer] officially,” Dureza told Standard Today in an interview.

“But if it is true, then I would welcome it because it will help me get back to my Mindanao work,” he added.

Dureza was a Davao City congressman and chairman of the Mindanao Economic Development Council before he was appointed presidential adviser on the peace process.

^^ AMEN!!!

I will actually miss Gonzales, not that I like him, but he's been a common fixture. It takes getting used to. Thank goodness he's gone.

:ohno::ohno:
Drugs.

That, insiders aver, is the reason Raul Gonzalez was removed as Secretary of Justice. President Arroyo was livid with his actions on three big drug cases.

First, he agreed to dismiss charges against the Alabang Boys in the wake of exposure of likely bribery to do so. Then, he sat on the case of the Balasan Boys in the midst of findings that they’re close to his protégé, the Iloilo head prosecutor.

Lastly, he dropped from the complaint sheet the financier of the Naguilian, La Union, shabu lab operated by the Dagupan police chief. Apparently Gonzalez had misread how serious Arroyo was with her anti-narcotics drive.

Had she known, Arroyo might have gone wild over a fourth case. It resurfaced from Gonzalez’s odder actions just before relinquishing office.

Gonzalez’s transfer as presidential chief legal counsel should have taken effect June 4. But, sources say, he asked successor Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera for a week’s delay, purportedly to clean out his stuff.

Late Wednesday, June 10th, Department of Justice personnel frantically text-messaged their counterparts at the Office of the Solicitor General. “Di lang pala sa Pasig may (shabu) tiangge; dito sa DOJ may tiangge ng resolusyon (ng kaso),” it went, “Not only in Pasig is there a (shabu) flea market after all, at the DOJ there’s now a flea market of (case) resolutions.”

Early the next day the OSG staff went to the DOJ to inspect. Shocked, they found dozens of midnight decisions, signed the week just past and ready for registered-mailing. The OSG crew stopped the dispatching of the resolutions.

On review they found that some had no requisite bar code, since the coder was busted. One case had two contrary conclusions, both signed for delivery to opposing parties. Several decisions already had been sent out before the OSG detected the mess. One of the intercepted rulings was for the PCGG to return Imelda Marcos’s confiscated jewelry.

Devanadera finally assumed office on Monday the 15th. Because the S-O-S text mentioned the Pasig shabu tiangge, she reportedly called in the three plucky female prosecutors on case.

Murmurs at the DOJ are that Gonzalez had wanted them to go light on indicted shabu den owner Amin Boratong, but that they refused. He had even ordered them to drop out of the prosecuting team, but they found a loophole in his memo to justify their stay.

Now backed by a new chief, the trio was glad the pressuring is over. Colleagues similarly situated were happy too that the new woman at the top seems determined to bring back to the DOJ its lost glory. Devanadera had halted the PCGG from returning the Marcos jewels because of pending court cases, and ordered a review of the Naguilian drug rap.

Devanadera had a pending application to fill up one of two Supreme Court vacancies when tapped to replace Gonzalez. She’ll have to postpone that dream till the next vacancies come in succession in four months or so. Meantime, she has that short a time to re-up the DOJ’s battered morale.

From
Philippine Star
GMA candidacy can hasten her downfall
GOTCHA By Jarius Bondoc
Updated June 22, 2009 12:00 AM

^^ baka fund raising ni former injustice gonzales for his declared intetion to be the next City Mayor of Iloilo.:)

47 years? You got to love our justice system... :lol:

While other criminals and plunderers or convicted public officials only get a slap on the wrists or some of them even go to Disneyland or NY to have fun for a while. :bash:

Woman gets 47 years over travel documents (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20090822-221517/Woman-gets-47-years-over-travel-documents)

MANILA, Philippines—A Manila court has sentenced a woman to 47 years in prison for making false statements in her passport application and forging supporting documents in her application for a United States visa.

In a decision dated March 6, 2009, that was promulgated last week, Manila Trial Court Judge Nina Antonio Valenzuela found Maria Fe Cruz Aquino, alias Preciosa Cruz Aquino, guilty of seven counts of violation of Republic Act 8293 or the Philippine Passport Act 1996.

The judge also ordered her to pay a fine of P390,000.

The court said the accused made false statements in her passport application under the name Preciosa Cruz Aquino; and those of Kim Mariel Cruz Aquino and Lenore Coleen Cruz Aquino, two children whom she misrepresented as her own children.

Aquino, said the court, also forged various documents, including a marriage contract between her and one Juanito Aquino; the birth certificates of the two children; and her driver's license.

Among the prosecution witnesses against Aquino was Ted Archibal, vice consul of the Anti-Fraud Unit of the US Embassy.

Archibal told the court that a consular officer had asked him to look into documents submitted by Aquino on November 3, 1997 to support her application for non-immigrant visas.

A verification made by Archibal showed that the National Statistics Office had no records of the marriage and birth certificates submitted by Aquino to the embassy. Archibal reported the incident to the Interpol Division of the National Bureau of Investigation, which later arrested Aquino.

A certification issued by the Land Transportation Office also showed that a license under the name Preciosa Cruz Aquino did not exist in its files.

On the other hand, Aquino denied in court that she submitted falsified documents. In fact, she initially claimed she did not submit any document at all. Later, she testified that the only documents she submitted were the original copies of her Income Tax Return, her own passport and a land title in connection with her business.

She also said that she was married to one Juanito Aquino in 1992 but they separated in 2001. She added that they were childless.

47 years? You got to love our justice system... :lol:

While other criminals and plunderers or convicted public officials only get a slap on the wrists or some of them even go to Disneyland or NY to have fun for a while. :bash:

Woman gets 47 years over travel documents (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20090822-221517/Woman-gets-47-years-over-travel-documents)

MANILA, Philippines—A Manila court has sentenced a woman to 47 years in prison for making false statements in her passport application and forging supporting documents in her application for a United States visa.

In a decision dated March 6, 2009, that was promulgated last week, Manila Trial Court Judge Nina Antonio Valenzuela found Maria Fe Cruz Aquino, alias Preciosa Cruz Aquino, guilty of seven counts of violation of Republic Act 8293 or the Philippine Passport Act 1996.

The judge also ordered her to pay a fine of P390,000.

The court said the accused made false statements in her passport application under the name Preciosa Cruz Aquino; and those of Kim Mariel Cruz Aquino and Lenore Coleen Cruz Aquino, two children whom she misrepresented as her own children.

Aquino, said the court, also forged various documents, including a marriage contract between her and one Juanito Aquino; the birth certificates of the two children; and her driver's license.

Among the prosecution witnesses against Aquino was Ted Archibal, vice consul of the Anti-Fraud Unit of the US Embassy.

Archibal told the court that a consular officer had asked him to look into documents submitted by Aquino on November 3, 1997 to support her application for non-immigrant visas.

A verification made by Archibal showed that the National Statistics Office had no records of the marriage and birth certificates submitted by Aquino to the embassy. Archibal reported the incident to the Interpol Division of the National Bureau of Investigation, which later arrested Aquino.

A certification issued by the Land Transportation Office also showed that a license under the name Preciosa Cruz Aquino did not exist in its files.

On the other hand, Aquino denied in court that she submitted falsified documents. In fact, she initially claimed she did not submit any document at all. Later, she testified that the only documents she submitted were the original copies of her Income Tax Return, her own passport and a land title in connection with her business.

She also said that she was married to one Juanito Aquino in 1992 but they separated in 2001. She added that they were childless.

Anak nang! :lol: Eh si Erap nga PLUNDER, 6 years lang sa... TANAY! :lol:

There is an inverse relationship between the gravity of your crime and your prison sentence.

I gotta feeling that judge will lose her job soon due to... stupidity! :nuts:

SC OKs poll automation

abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 09/08/2009 3:10 PM


MANILA - It's full steam ahead to automate next year’s elections.

Voting 11-3-1, the Supreme Court junked the petition filed by University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque to declare as invalid the P7.2 billion automation contract between the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and winning consortium Smartmatic and Total Information Management (TIM).

The ruling, penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco, is expected to be promulgated this week. Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, and Arturo Brion dissented. Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, who is on leave, took no part.

The ruling paves the way for Comelec to go full throttle in the preparations and implementation of poll automation.

Earlier, fears were raised that the SC case, if further prolonged, could push back the poll body’s timetable, which could have dire consequences on the country’s first-ever nationwide computerized elections.

Roque had sought the junking of the automation contract, arguing that the automation law provides that the system should be first pilot-tested in selected areas.

Representing the Concerned Citizens Movement, Roque said the Comelec did not the follow this provision in the law.

Republic Act (RA) 9369, or the amended Automation Law, required that pilot-testing be held in highly-urbanized areas and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao in the national and local elections that would be held shortly after the measure’s adoption.

The law was passed January 23, 2007.

The Comelec and the Office of the Solicitor-General argued that the law was referring to the May 2007 mid-term senatorial race. But since automation was not implemented at that time, this provision of the law has been deemed waived.

The Roque petition is just one of a series of dramatic incidents that have plagued poll automation.

The winning consortium almost broke up after bagging the contract due to “irreconcilable differences.”

Legal threats issued by Comelec prompted TIM, the Filipino partner in the consortium, to go back to the negotiating table.

The foreign partner itself, Smartmatic, is bugged by negative publicities and controversies.

as of 09/08/2009 3:23 PM

Lawmaker withdraws from Right of Reply Bill debate (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=504543&publicationSubCategoryId=63)
By Delon Porcalla

MANILA, Philippines - One of the main authors of the Right of Reply Bill (RORB) in the House of Representatives has decided to withdraw from deliberations on the controversial measure, citing conflict of interest.

“I was part of the committee deliberations before, hoping and trying to strike a balanced bill,” Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante said.

Abante, who also heads the House committee on public information deliberating on House Bill 3306 (RORB), said he might abstain when the proposed measure is put to a vote.

Debates on RORB, which was up for consideration on second reading approval in plenary, have not yet resumed due to absence of quorum since session resumed last July 27, when President Arroyo delivered her last State of the Nation Address (SONA).

Abante said he will no longer sponsor HB 3306, pointing out conflict of interest being a member of the Kapisanan ng mga Broadkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) and host of a television program on government-owned NBN-4.

The House leadership designated Alagad Rep. Rodante Marcoleta to sponsor the bill on the floor. In a media forum, Marcoleta said he accepted the challenge of defending the bill that he described as a “complete picture of due process.”

Marcoleta, however, said the absence of quorum hinders the immediate approval of the bill.

He also believes that all persons who are accused, criticized and maligned in media should have the right to reply to the charges or criticisms.

Marcoleta said the House version has been watered down, compared to the version of the Senate.

Penalties for the first and second offenses should not exceed the penalties provided in the Code of Ethics while for the third offense, violators will slapped with a fine of not more than P10,000.

The so-called “blocktime” broadcasters who will tolerate the use of foul, profane, obscure or dirty language on air will be penalized with a fine of P25,000 under the RORB.

Media entities and organizations have expressed strong objection to the proposal, claiming it would curtail press freedom.

Speaker Prospero Nograles earlier hinted the House leadership would probably pass the RORB that media entities have described as a form of censorship upon the insistence of senators who authored the measure.

“The senators have been following it up from us. We have no choice but to take it up, especially because 19 senators have endorsed that bill,” Nograles said.

Nograles said the senators, led by Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., have been inquiring on the status of HB 3306.

The RORB is under Committee Report 207, which is up for consideration on second reading approval in plenary.

Nograles admitted that the House leadership is determined to act on the measure, which has been assailed by the media industry as being confiscatory in nature. The main author of the bill is Bacolod City Rep. Monico Puentevella.

Several senators, particularly presidential aspirants Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero and Loren Legarda, have withdrawn their support for the controversial measure.

Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara urged a review of the current list of authors and co-authors of the measure though he has already withdrawn his support.

SC favors CAP over planholders
By REY G. PANALIGAN
September 15, 2009, 7:26pm
MB

The Supreme Court has allowed beleaguered College Assurance Plan (CAP) Philippines, Inc. to rehabilitate itself, ordering the suspension of payment on the claims of individual plan holders against the pre-need firm.

In a decision written by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the SC ruled that the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) did not abuse its discretion in staying all claims against CAP and giving due course to its petition for corporate rehabilitation in orders issued in 2005.

But the SC said that while there was no abuse of discretion on the part of then RTC Judge and now Court of Appeals Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, the plan holders “are not precluded from seeking other remedies available to them with the lower court.”

With the ruling, the SC dismissed the petition filed by more than 700 planholders who questioned the 2005 orders issued by the trial court.

CAP was incorporated in 1980 to engage in the sale of pre-need educational plans. After suffering financial difficulties, several planholders filed in 2005 an action against the corporation “for Specific Performance and/or Annulment of Contract due to Fraud, Return and Disgorgement of Illegal Profits, Damages with Application for Receiver and/or Management Committee against CAP, its Directors and Officers, and the Fil-Estate Group of Companies.”

In less than two weeks, CAP filed a petition for corporate rehabilitation that was given due course by the trial court which also ordered a stay on the payment of claims filed by individual planholders.

The planholders elevated the issue before the SC, alleging that the trial court judge committed grave abuse of discretion issuing the two orders on corporate rehabilitation and stay of payment on claims.

Finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court judge, the SC said that “all the assets of the corporation” are to be “held in trust for the equal benefit of all creditors to preclude one from obtaining an advantage or preference over another.”

The SC said that “all the creditors ought to stand on equal footing” in situations such as this as it pointed out that the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation of 2000 (Interim Rules) applies to CAP’s petition for corporate rehabilitation.

Under the rules, a “claim” shall include ‘all claims or demands of whatever nature or character against a debtor or its property…’” and “’creditor’ shall mean ‘any holder of a claim.’”

“The claim of petitioners for payment of tuition fees from CAP is included in the definition of ‘claims’ under the Interim Rules,” and thus must be frozen with all other claims to assure that CAP’s assets will be distributed accordingly to all its claimants.”

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4001/starcoverm.jpg

Erap files libel case vs Yuchengco (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=506289&publicationSubCategoryId=63)

Estrada behind Dacer slay

Estrada ordered slay, Mancao tells court (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090827-222207/Estrada-ordered-slay-Mancao-tells-court)


Mas nabalita pa sa TV yung pag file ni Erap ng P20 milyon libel suit kay Yuchengco.
Parang pagong ang justice system sa atin... :lol:

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/2190/pic09170652590326.jpg

Would the 17 Filipinos detained in Spain would like to spend their prison terms in the Philippine jail? :D

Convicted rapist Larrañaga leaves for Spain (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=511899&publicationSubCategoryId=63)
By Sandy Araneta (The Philippine Star) Updated October 07, 2009 12:00 AM

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/9087/gen6.jpg

Francisco Juan “Paco” Larrañaga, convicted of raping and murdering two sisters over 10 years ago, flew to Spain yesterday after the Department of Justice approved his transfer to a penal facility in that country.

At about 10:30 a.m. yesterday, Larrañaga, escorted by two Spanish officers, boarded KLM Royal Airlines flight KL-804 bound for Amsterdam. He was the last passenger to board the plane.
In Cebu City, Thelma Chiong, mother of Larrañaga’s victims Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong, was surprised to learn that Larrañaga had already left the country.
“It’s a done deal, according to Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera,” she said. “But she had assured us that Paco would not be released from prison.”
Chiong said Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo did not inform where Larrañaga would be imprisoned in Spain.
The Department of Foreign Affairs is the agency that could monitor the convict, she added.
Chiong said details of Larrañaga’s transfer are unclear except that two Filipino detainees in Spain will be returned to the country in exchange.
She is resigned to the likelihood of Larrañaga’s release, she added.
She plans to visit Larrañaga in the Spanish prison if she gets the money, Chiong said.
Six National Bureau of Investigation agents turned over Larrañaga to Spanish authorities at Boarding Gate 12 at the departure area of Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) terminal 1. He was not handcuffed.
Larrañaga sat at the back of the economy class, flanked by his two escorts.
He was brought to the NAIA by officers of the Bureau of Corrections.
Larrañaga, a citizen of Spain by virtue of his father’s citizenship, still has to serve 14 years, nine months and more than 20 days in prison.
His good behavior at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa was taken into consideration.
Larrañaga, now 32, was 19 years old when arrested in Cebu 13 years ago along with his accomplices for the rape and murder of the Chiong sisters.
Justice Secretary Devanadera said Larrañaga’s transfer to Spain was effected yesterday pursuant to the Treaty on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons between the Philippine and Spain.
The Cebu City Regional Trial Court Branch 7 has ruled that the 1997 hold departure order against Larrañaga has “lost its force” after the judgment of conviction against him has become final and executory on Aug. 16, 2005, she added.

Devanadera said upon Larrañaga’s

arrival in Spain, he will be taken directly to the Centro Penitencario Madrid 5 Soto del Real to continue serving the sentence imposed on him in the Philippines.
Larrañaga will be serving the remainder of his 40-year prison term in Spain, she added.
In a diplomatic note, dated Sept. 16, 2009, the Spanish embassy in Manila said there will be no conversion of Larrañaga’s sentence, and that the Spanish government is bound by the terms of his judgment of conviction.
No justification whatsoever exists to revise the decision handed down by the Philippine judicial authorities, the embassy added.
Devanadera said Larrañaga has already served 12 years in prison in the Philippines.
Based on Philippine laws, with good conduct, he would serve less than 28 years, she added, Devanadera said Philippine law, not the law of Spain, would be observed in Larrañaga’s prison term.
A Philippine representative, as an observer, will be allowed to visit Larrañaga in Spain to make sure that he serves his sentence, she added.
Meanwhile, Devanadera said the Philippine government is working for the release from Spanish prisons of two Filipinos who have been convicted on drug charges.
The government plans to petition for their return to the Philippines, she added.Devanadera said they have signified their intention to apply for repatriation under the same treaty that allowed the transfer of Larrañaga to Spain.
Seventeen Filipinos are detained in Spain for various offenses, she added.
At the Department of Foreign Affairs, spokesman Eduardo Malaya said the Department of Justice has notified the DFA that Larrañaga would depart yesterday.
“Yes, but these are matters for implementation and the DFA was informed by the DOJ of the transfer of Larrañaga to Spanish law enforcement officials for the continued service of his sentence of prison,” he said.
The Philippine embassy in Spain was instructed to monitor the arrival of Larrañaga and his transfer to Madrid Central Penitentiary, Malaya said.— Rudy Santos, Sandy Araneta, Pia Lee-Brago

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That Devanadera... I hate her!

Anak nang! :lol: Eh si Erap nga PLUNDER, 6 years lang sa... TANAY! :lol:

There is an inverse relationship between the gravity of your crime and your prison sentence.

I gotta feeling that judge will lose her job soon due to... stupidity! :nuts:

Well, you have to factor in the wealth and power the criminal wields and you can pretty much summarize the kind of 'just tiis' system in general. :lol:

That Devanadera... I hate her!

me, too!

and Merceditas Gutierrez, the inutile Ombudsman:bash::bash:

SC orders prosecution of Ever Gotesco’s Go (http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/nation/18072-sc-orders-prosecution-of-ever-gotescos-go-.html)
Nation
Written by Joel San Juan / Reporter
Monday, 02 November 2009 20:21

THE Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila to proceed with the trial of the criminal case against tycoon Jose C. Go for allegedly guaranteeing loans to others and borrowing at least P2.75 billion deposits of his wholly owned bank, the now defunct Orient Commercial Banking Corp., without the written approval of the majority of the bank’s board of directors.

In a 13-page decision penned by Associate Justice Arturo Brion, the Court’s Second Division denied the petition for review filed by Go seeking the nullification of the Court of Appeals’ (CA) decision issued on October 26, 2006, which overturned the order of Branch 26 of the RTC in Manila granting the businessman’s motion to quash the information filed against him.

Go, who also owns the Ever Gotesco shopping malls in Manila, Caloocan and Quezon cities and in Cainta, Rizal, argued that the CA erred in reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the case, which found the complaint against him not only vague but also did not constitute an offense.

The lower court agreed with Go’s contention that the information for violation of Section 83 of Republic Act (RA) 337, or the General Banking Act, filed against him by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) penalized only directors and officers of banking institutions who acted either as borrower or as guarantor, but not as both.

Go pointed out that the second paragraph of Section 83 allowed banks to extend credit accommodations to their directors, officers and stockholders, provided it is “limited to an amount equivalent to the respective outstanding deposits and book value of the paid-in capital contribution in the bank.”

He maintained that extending credit accommodations to bank officers and stockholders is not prohibited, unless the amount exceeds the legal limit.

Since the information failed to state that the amount he purportedly borrowed or guaranteed or both was beyond the limit set by law, Go insisted that his acts did not constitute a violation of the banking laws.

Go protested the prosecution’s “shotgun approach” that he claimed violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.

The SC, however, is not convinced with Go’s contentions, saying that Section 83 of RA 337 generally prohibits a bank director or officer from becoming an obligor of the bank without securing the necessary written approval of the majority of the bank’s directors.

“To make a distinction between the act of borrowing and guarantying is therefore unnecessary because in either situation, the director or officer concerned becomes an obligor of the bank against whom the obligation is juridically demandable,” the Court explained.

Even assuming that the information filed against Go do not constitute an offense, the  Court stressed that it was erroneous for the RTC in Manila to immediately dismiss the case without giving the prosecution a chance to amend the  complaint.

Section 4 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, according to the Court, requires that the prosecution should be given a chance to correct the defect and the court can order the dismissal if the prosecution fails to do so.

“The RTC’s failure to provide the prosecution this opportunity constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power that was correctly addressed by the CA through the certiorari petition. This defect in the RTC’s action on the case, while not central to the issue before us, strengthens our conclusion that this criminal case should be resolved through full-blown trial on the merits.”

Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing, Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales and Roberto Abad.

The complaint filed on August 20, 1999, before the sala of Judge Oscar Barrientors of Branch 26 of the RTC in Manila accused Go, then the director and the president and chief executive officer of Orient Bank, of “unlawfully borrowing the deposits of the said bank or become a guarantor for loans from said bank to others or both and using the borrowed funds in facilitating and granting credit lines to the New Zealand Accounts loans in the total amount of P2.75 billion…without the written approval of majority of the board of directors.”

Orient Bank was ordered closed by the BSP on October 14, 1998, and placed under receivership by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. It was the first bank to collapse at the height of the Asian financial crisis.

Palace appoints Villarama new SC justice (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/07/09/palace-appoints-villarama-new-sc-justice)

By Aries Rufo, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 11/07/2009 11:26 AM

Supreme Court now a '100% Arroyo Court'

MANILA - Malacañang appointed on Friday Senior Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Martin Villarama to the High Tribunal, making it a 100% “Arroyo Court."

It was Villarama’s ninth nomination to the Supreme Court (SC), after being bypassed in favor of junior members of the CA.

Third in seniority in the CA, Villarama has also consistently topped poll preferences of SC justices.

His appointment caps President Arroyo’s total makeover of the SC with the retirement last Wednesday of Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing. The retired magistrate was an appointee of former President Fidel Ramos.

Villarama will assume the post vacated by retired Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, who was an appointee of former President Estrada. Santiago retired last October 15.

Applicants for the vacancy created by Quisumbing's retirement are currently being vetted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

Another vacancy will be created next month with the retirement of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario on December 5.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno, although originally a Ramos appointee, joined the ranks of Arroyo appointees when he was named to the top SC post by President Arroyo in December 2006.

The chief justice's post will be the last vacancy under the Arroyo administration as Puno is scheduled to retire on May 17, 2010.

But Arroyo will not be able to appoint his replacement because of the appointment ban during the election period, which starts on January 10, 2010.

Villarama seen as independent

Court observers praised Villarama’s appointment, saying he was “better than those appointed ahead of him.”

In terms of the integrity meter, they believe Villarama will be fiercely independent from the appointing power.

Loyalty to Malacañang has been a contentious issue thrown on appointees of President Arroyo.

One anecdote goes that in one previous nomination, a Malacañang emissary asked Villarama “how far he would extend his loyalty to the President.”

Villarama, who claimed he has not sought any political backer for his SC application, said nothing, one source familiar with the vetting process said.

In a previous interview by Newsbreak, Villarama was asked about “utang na loob” or debt of gratitude to the appointing power, which seems to afflict new appointees to the Court.

“I wouldn’t be pressured. I’ve been here for 22 years. I could retire tomorrow with full benefits. Besides, history will judge you,” Villarama said.

In an old boys club like the CA, Villarama is one of the few who keep their noses clean, sources said.

Villarama’s wife, Ma. Luisa, is the current SC Clerk of Court.
as of 11/07/2009 11:50 AM

"100% Arroyo Court!" tsk tsk..

Palace appoints Villarama new SC justice (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/07/09/palace-appoints-villarama-new-sc-justice)

By Aries Rufo, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 11/07/2009 11:26 AM

Supreme Court now a '100% Arroyo Court'

MANILA - Malacañang appointed on Friday Senior Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Martin Villarama to the High Tribunal, making it a 100% “Arroyo Court."

It was Villarama’s ninth nomination to the Supreme Court (SC), after being bypassed in favor of junior members of the CA.

Third in seniority in the CA, Villarama has also consistently topped poll preferences of SC justices.

His appointment caps President Arroyo’s total makeover of the SC with the retirement last Wednesday of Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing. The retired magistrate was an appointee of former President Fidel Ramos.

Villarama will assume the post vacated by retired Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, who was an appointee of former President Estrada. Santiago retired last October 15.

Applicants for the vacancy created by Quisumbing's retirement are currently being vetted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

Another vacancy will be created next month with the retirement of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario on December 5.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno, although originally a Ramos appointee, joined the ranks of Arroyo appointees when he was named to the top SC post by President Arroyo in December 2006.

The chief justice's post will be the last vacancy under the Arroyo administration as Puno is scheduled to retire on May 17, 2010.

But Arroyo will not be able to appoint his replacement because of the appointment ban during the election period, which starts on January 10, 2010.

Villarama seen as independent

Court observers praised Villarama’s appointment, saying he was “better than those appointed ahead of him.”

In terms of the integrity meter, they believe Villarama will be fiercely independent from the appointing power.

Loyalty to Malacañang has been a contentious issue thrown on appointees of President Arroyo.

One anecdote goes that in one previous nomination, a Malacañang emissary asked Villarama “how far he would extend his loyalty to the President.”

Villarama, who claimed he has not sought any political backer for his SC application, said nothing, one source familiar with the vetting process said.

In a previous interview by Newsbreak, Villarama was asked about “utang na loob” or debt of gratitude to the appointing power, which seems to afflict new appointees to the Court.

“I wouldn’t be pressured. I’ve been here for 22 years. I could retire tomorrow with full benefits. Besides, history will judge you,” Villarama said.

In an old boys club like the CA, Villarama is one of the few who keep their noses clean, sources said.

Villarama’s wife, Ma. Luisa, is the current SC Clerk of Court.
as of 11/07/2009 11:50 AM

"100% Arroyo Court!" tsk tsk..

Already the effects of this "100% Arroyo Court" is being felt, to wit:

The reversal of the Penera case on premature campaigning. from a 8-7 vote that said that upon filing of certificate of candidacy and even before the campaign period, any exercise designed to promote the victory or defeat of a candidate is premature campaigning; to a 9-6 reversal saying that even if one has laready filed his candidacy but it is not yet campaign period ( presently the deadline for filing is december 1 but the campaign period only starts on February for national positions and March for local), then there is no premature campaigning.

Expect to have the tri-media flooded with every conceivable ads of politicians specially during the Christmas season. expect also all those tarps, streamers and whatever saying this and that.:bash:

another case is that of the League of Cities of the PHilippines vs. the 16 municipalities cum cities. despite the final and executory decision of the case whihc invalidated the cityhood charters of the 16 municipalities and reverted them back to munisipyos, despite admonishing no additional pleadings will be allowed, despite the entry of judgment, the SC has once again taken up the case upon the request of the 16 muncipalities to reverse the decision.

tsk tsk tsk :bash::ohno:

It is kinda funny calling the SC a 100% "Arroyo court" just because the justices were appointed by the PGMA. If the people doesn't want it to be an "Arroyo court" or any other President's court, then I guess they should repeal the power of any President to appoint SC justices. Common sense tells us that PGMA had served long enough to see the retirement of all justices appointed by the previous Presidents.

Wala lang, nakakatawa lang kasing pakinggan. So maybe before the SC was called a "50% Arroyo-15% Ramos-35% Erap court". :lol:

Here's another WTF moments in our history... Filing of a complaint as Christmas gift to the families of the victims?

The victims and their families need justice, the authorities have to do their job to get it done.

Murder raps vs Ampatuan Sr., 27 others (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20091215-242088/Murder-raps-vs-Ampatuan-Sr-27-others)



First Posted 02:33:00 12/15/2009

MANILA, Philippines—Authorities on Monday filed a complaint in the Department of Justice (DoJ) for multiple murder against former Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr. and 27 others, saying it was a Christmas gift to the families of the victims of the massacre of 57 people.

The Philippine National Police also brought a rebellion complaint in the DoJ against five members of Ampatuan’s family and more than 600 of his supporters for allegedly resisting government efforts to arrest suspects in the Nov. 23 mass murder in Maguindanao province.

Ampatuan was arrested on Dec. 5, a day after the declaration of martial law, which was rescinded at the weekend. The 70-year-old clan patriarch was later indicted for rebellion in a Cotabato City court, along with 24 others that included his son Zaldy, the governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

On Monday, the National Bureau of Investigation lodged a complaint in the DoJ for multiple murder against Ampatuan and his 27 followers based on sworn statements of 21 witnesses to the massacre, said the agency spokesperson, Richard Fadullon.

“This is our Christmas gift to the families of the victims of the massacre,” Ric Diaz, the NBI spokesman, said.

The elder Ampatuan is detained at the military hospital inside the Eastern Mindanao Command headquarters in Davao City.

another case is that of the League of Cities of the PHilippines vs. the 16 municipalities cum cities. despite the final and executory decision of the case whihc invalidated the cityhood charters of the 16 municipalities and reverted them back to munisipyos, despite admonishing no additional pleadings will be allowed, despite the entry of judgment, the SC has once again taken up the case upon the request of the 16 muncipalities to reverse the decision.

tsk tsk tsk :bash::ohno:

Well, the SC did it again, i mean come out with another very controversial decision. After declaring the case closed, final and executory and prohibiting additional pleadings, it has reversed itself and declared the 16 municipalities are eligible cities.:bash:

ai ai ba lamang..:ohno:

It is kinda funny calling the SC a 100% "Arroyo court" just because the justices were appointed by the PGMA. If the people doesn't want it to be an "Arroyo court" or any other President's court, then I guess they should repeal the power of any President to appoint SC justices. Common sense tells us that PGMA had served long enough to see the retirement of all justices appointed by the previous Presidents.

Wala lang, nakakatawa lang kasing pakinggan. So maybe before the SC was called a "50% Arroyo-15% Ramos-35% Erap court". :lol:

its usually referred to as the _____ court depending on who is the incumbent president although at the time of CJ Davide, it was called Davides' court. and depending on how it is perceived by the general public, such a monicker either carries honor and prestige, or notoriety and disgrace.

Supreme Court violates own rules in cityhood case
www.abs-cbnnews.com
By Jesus F. Llanto, Newsbreak | 12/23/2009 8:31 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court violated its own rules when it reopened the 16 cityhood laws and eventually reversed itself on the contentious case.

By breaking its own rules, the tribunal has also set the stage for "judicial instability," according to Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjur Abalos, president of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) that had fought against the cityhood of unqualified localities.

A member of the Court also warned his colleagues that the SC is inviting "catastrophe" since the reopening of a closed case could encourage other parties to ask for a review of jurisprudence on settled political cases.

The LCP went to the Supreme Court last year to ask for the nullification of several republic acts that converted into cities 16 municipalities that failed to meet the requirements for cityhood set by the amended Local Government Code.

These localities were

* Baybay in Leyte
* Bayugan in Agusan del Sur
* Batac in Ilocos Norte
* Bogo, Naga and Carcar in Cebu
* Borongan in Eastern Samar
* Cabadbaran in Agusan del Norte
* Catbalogan in Samar
* El Salvador in Misamis Oriental
* Guihulngan in Negros Oriental
* Tandag in Surigao del Sur
* Lamitan in Basilan
* Tayabas in Quezon
* Tabuk in Kalinga
* Mati in Davao Oriental

'Final and executory'

On Nov. 18, 2008, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-5, declared as unconstitutional the cityhood laws because they contain provisions that exempt the municipalities from the minimum income requirement of P100 million for them to become cities.

On May 21, 2009, the Court declared as “final and executory” the nullification of the said cityhood laws. The ruling was recorded in the entry of judgment, which means that the case is closed and the decision is ready for execution.

On June 2, 2009, the SC, in en banc resolution finally closed the case of the cityhood laws.

In a press statement issued June 10, the Court acknowledged the finality of the case. SC spokesman Midas Marquez said that the SC, in an en banc resolution, has “finally closed and terminated” the cases which declared the 16 cityhood laws as unconstitutional.

The statement said that the High Court held that “there can be no doubt of the intention of this Court to consider [these cases] finally closed and terminated.” It also stressed that “basic is the rule in our judicial system that litigations must be terminated at some point.”

This indicated that no further motions for reconsideration would be entertained by the Court.

Catastrophe in the making

Yet, the Court revived the 16 cityhood laws and reversed its decision . Voting 6-4, the tribunal on Monday reversed its ruling.

The 35-page ruling penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. declared valid the cityhood laws and set aside the "final and executory" ruling it made several months earlier.

In a phone interview, Abalos implied that the SC committed an irregular act.

“We are saddened and shocked. That is illegal,” Abalos told Newsbreak, adding that the case could be a bad precedent. “All other decisions could be opened.”

Abalos stressed that once a ruling had been recorded in the entry of judgment, “It is like the death certificate of the case.”

Justice Antonio Carpio, in his dissenting opinion, warned that the Court's somersault in decided cases "would wreak havoc on well-settled jurisprudence" that could unleash a "catastrophe."

"Such an unprecedented ruling would resurrect contentious political issues long ago settled," Carpio said, citing as example the case of the People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action, which gathered enough signatures in 1997 that could lift the constitutional limit on a president's term.

Motions for reconsideration

Abalos said that the recent ruling of the high tribunal raises question on judicial stability since the decision came after the Supreme Court have already declared that the case is closed.

The LCP has been protesting the conversion of unqualified cities, saying that they eat up portions of the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) for the existing cities. The IRA is the lifeblood of local government units.

Following the May 2009 final ruling of the SC, the Department of Budget and Management issued LBM No. 61, providing for the final allocation of the IRA of the existing cities for 2009.

After the first ruling nullifying the cityhood of the 16 LGUs, 2 motions for reconsideration (MR) were filed by the 16 affected LGUs, which called themselves the League of 16.

On March 31, 2009, the SC, by a vote of 7-5, denied the first MR for lack of merit. The High Tribunal also said that no further pleadings should be entertained.

On April 28, 2009, the Court, by a vote of 6-6, denied a second MR, again for lack of merit. The tribunal also said that no further pleadings should be entertained and that an entry of judgement shall be made in due course.

A tie in the voting does not reverse a case.

Define 'majority'

However, in reversing itself, the Supreme Court said that the deadlocked vote on April 28, 2009, “does not reflect the majority of the members.”

“Webster defines 'majority' as 'a number greater than half of a total.' In plain language, this means 50% plus one,” said Velasco, who penned the fresh decision.

Velasco also said that no violation of equal protection clause has been made by the cityhood laws.

“While the equal protection guarantee frowns upon the creation of a privileged class without justification, inherent in equality clause is the exhortation for the Legislature to pass laws promoting equality or reducing inequalities. The enactment of the cityhood laws was in real sense an attempt on the part of the Congress to address the inequality dealt the respondent LGUs” the decision reads.

Ironically, Velasco, the ponente of the new ruling, voted for the nullification of 16 cities in November last year.

Carpio, who wrote the dissenting opinion, said that the 6-6 tie vote did not overrule the Nov. 18, 2008, decision that voided the creation of the 16 cities.

“These prior majority actions of the Court en banc can only be overruled by a new majority vote, not a tie vote because a tie vote cannot over rule prior affirmative action,” Carpio wrote.

“The tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided,” he said, adding that the November 2008 decision and March 2009 resolution much stand “in view of the failure of the members of the Court en banc to muster the necessary vote for their reconsideration.” (Newsbreak)
as of 12/23/2009 8:49 PM

^^ while only two (2) motion for reconsiderations were mentioned, these were the official MRs filed by the 16 municipalities. there were about 6 other "unofficial" MRs filed in the SC which were collectively called "the prohibited pleadings". This included letters to the CJ and the individual justices.

it is indeed a judicial catastrophe. :ohno:

Im surprised there is no on-going healthy debate here about the issue of whether pgma can validly appoint a ne Chief Justice when the position becmes vacant on May 17 (if im not mistaken) which is the birthday of CJ Puno and his final day at the Supreme Court.

Notice that the vacancy occurs right smack during the constitutional prohibition on appointments of an outgoing President.

2 more justices join list of SC chief wannabe

By Norman Bordadora
Philippine Daily Inquirer (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100206-251562/2-more-justices-join-list-of-SC-chief-wannabe)
First Posted 01:33:00 02/06/2010

THERE ARE NOW THREE INCUMBENT justices who accepted their nomination for the post of Chief Justice without the condition that the next President should be the one to make the appointment of Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s successor in May.

Aside from Associate Justice Renato Corona, associate justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro and Arturo Brion have also been nominated to the post and have both accepted their respective nominations without any condition.

De Castro was the chair of the Sandiganbayan Special Division that found deposed President Joseph Estrada guilty of plunder. Brion, on the other hand, was a member of President Macapagal-Arroyo’s cabinet having served as labor secretary.

The Judicial Bar Council is mandated by the Constitution to submit at least three names to the President from which the Chief Executive would choose his or her appointee.

Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Minita Chico Nazario nominated De Castro for the post. Both De Castro and Nazario chaired the special division that tried Estrada at the Sandiganbayan.

The Philippine Constitution Association and Court of Appeals Associate Justice Japar Dimaapao nominated Brion.

Both De Castro and Brion accepted without any condition despite the debate on whether Ms Arroyo could still appoint Puno’s successor despite a constitutional ban on presidential appointments 90 days before her terms ends on June 30.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio—the most senior associate justice in the Supreme Court—and Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales have both accepted their nominations on the condition that the JBC would submit the list to the next President.

Morales is the third most senior after Carpio and Corona.

PGMA cannot appoint the next Chief Justice after the retirement of CJ Puno. If hse does, the appointed CJ will risk being impeached for an unconstitutional appointment.

Let the next president whoever he/she will be, appoint the next CJ.

That Puno should go down. I still prefer Miriam Defensor-Santiago to be the country's CJ.

^^ be patient. CJ Puno will reach his madatory retirement age on May 17 2010 if im not mistaken. That is why there is this brewing controversy if pgma can appoint the next CJ on her way out as President and in the middle of the prohibition on midnight appointments.

Lakas-Kampi senatorial bet warns of politicized SC (http://www.tribuneonline.org/metro/20100219met1.html)

By Charlie V. Manalo

02/19/2010

Legal luminary Raul Lambino has warned of the possibility of a politicized Supreme Court should President Arroyo fail to appoint a permanent replacement for the retiring Chief Justice Reynato Puno.

In “Square Off: The Civics Debate” aired over ANC on Wednesday night, Lambino, who is gunning for a senatorial seat under the Lakas-Kampi-CMD, stressed that should an acting Chief Justice be appointed he would also act as the presiding officer of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET).

He explained that in the event that there is a petition filed before the PET against the winning presidential candidate in May, it is highly likely that the acting Chief Justice would play politics.

Lambino raised the possibility that the acting Chief Justice would side with the petitioned presidential candidate to make his stint permanent.

“We cannot leave the fate of the judiciary in the hands of politicians,” he emphasized.

The Lakas-Kampi-CMD senatorial bet also said there is no truth to speculations that the appointment of a permanent Chief Justice is out of President Arroyo’s whim to extend her term, pointing out “her term will end on June 30 and she can no longer do anything with the Supreme Court.”

He further pointed out that the appointment of the Chief Justice cannot be placed in the hands of the next president, adding “we cannot afford an acting Chief Justice at the advent of automation.”

Should the appointment be left to the next president, Lambino cautioned, the designation of a permanent Chief Justice could be delayed to October. He explained that Congress would only convene on the 4th Monday of July and it is only then that senators and congressmen, who will sit as members of the Judicial and Bar Council, will be selected.

The lawyer further emphasized that there is no legal obstacle to the President’s selection of Puno’s replacement since the election ban on appointments under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution only applies to executive positions and does not include the judiciary.

Saguisag asks JBC to come clean on plaint vs Corona (http://www.tribuneonline.org/nation/20100219nat3.html)

By Benjamin B. Pulta

02/19/2010

Legal luminary, former Sen. Rene Saguisag has called on the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to make public the details of its investigation into the accusations filed by a lawyer against Associate Justice Renato Corona and the latter’s claim of a breach of the rule of confidentiality by an incumbent associate justice.

“This should be brought out in the sunlight. Let Atty. Fernando Campos, who seems to be the son-in-law of President Garcia, be heard, along with Justice Rene Corona, together with Justice Antonio Carpio. Transparency is a desideratum even as we cannot see any urgency or any justification to add to our divisions,” Saguisag said.

Campos had said Corona dismissed a suit for certiorari by Inter-Petal Recreational Corp., the developer of the first on-line cockfighting or Tele-Sabong, which he heads, on April 20 last year and his motion for reconsideration in exchange of a free ticket to Las Vegas to watch the Pacquiao-Hatton fight on May 3 last year, courtesy of Philweb, one of the respondents in the petition.

In his letter to the JBC, Corona branded Campos’ accusations as “totally false, malicious and outright lies.” He also noted that the questioned resolutions were extended resolutions signed by the Division Clerk of Court, thus, the ponente (lead writer of the decision) was supposed to be confidential.

This, Corona said, prompted him to suspect that a member of the First Division could have breached the confidentiality rule and colluded with Campos in filing the complaint.

Saguisag expressed belief that the JBC need not rush the submission of the shortlist of nominees for the position of Chief Justice which will be vacated by Chief Justice Reynato Puno on May 17. He noted that under the Constitution, the President has 60 days to choose among the JBC’s nominees the next chief justice.

Saguisag recalled that it took more than six months for Chief Justice Querube Macalintal to replace Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, who left the judiciary 50 days prior to his scheduled mandatory retirement age on April 18, 1973.

“The Constitution gave the Palace 60 days to choose among the new nominees. That means it accepts that a vacancy in the post is acceptable or something we can live with. For years we had no chief justice. The collegial body has gone on. The Constitution does not say that midnight appointments are all right when it concerns the Supreme Court. With all due respect, you may not tempt the Palace and contribute to our divisions,” he added.

“Self-restraint seems indicated, to land on the right side of history,” he told the JBC.

The former senator said President Arroyo could no longer name Puno’s replacement because of a constitutional prohibition on presidential appointments that starts two months before the May 10 elections and that will last until her term ends on June 30.

“The Constitution does not say that midnight appointments are alright when it concerns the Supreme Court,” Saguisag stressed.

International Lawyers Group Denounce Arrest and Continued Detention of Morong 43 (http://www.bulatlat.com/main/2010/02/28/international-lawyers-group-denounce-arrest-and-continued-detention-of-morong-43/)
Published on February 28, 2010

PRESS RELEASE
February 28, 2010

The International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) reiterates its strong denunciation of the illegal arrest, continued illegal detention, coninuing physical and spychological torture, harassment and inhuman treatment of forty-three (43) Philippine health workers who were abducted by the Philippine military in the morning of February 6, 2010 in Morong,Rizal, Philippines.

Those arrested were medical practitioners and health workers who were participating in a one week First Responders Training, sponsored by the Community Medicine Foundation, Inc. (COMMED) and Council for Health and Development (CHD) at a conference and training facility.

It will be recalled that at around 6:15 am on February 6, 2010, around 300 heavily armed elements of the military and police forced their way into the conference site, forcing the caretaker to open the gates. Inside, the soldiers fanned out to different directions. They also kicked the main door to get into the building.
Disclaimer | What you are reading is either a press release/ statement or a manifesto. These materials do not go through our editorial process and do not reflect our policy or position.

All the medical practitioners and health workers, were ordered to line up at the garage, frisked, and handcuffed. The male victims were then blindfolded with old shirts brought in by the soldiers and secured with packaging tape. All of the personal belongings of the victims were also taken by the military.

It was only when the participants were already handcuffed, that the police showed a search warrant for someone who is not even the owner nor a participant or related at all to the conference The search warrant did not indicate the exact address of the compound where the training was taking place.

The military declared that the victims were members of the New People’s Army because of the explosives allegedly found inside the compound. However, according to witnesses, the military conducted the search of the compound’s premises only after all of the victims, as well as the residents, were already outside the buildings.

The arrest and false charges thrown on the 43 health workers, disregards and shows disrespect for proper legal procedures. Their basic human rights violations have been violated left and right.

The search conducted by the military was itself illegal. It proceeded from a search warrant that was invalid. The “evidence” that was presented were planted to justify and cover-up the illegality of this blunder. The arrested health workers were also denied their basic constitutional rights. They were purposely uninformed of the nature of their arrest, and they were simply blindfolded and brought to the military camp. They were denied visits by their counsels, doctors, and family, in clear violation of their rights.

Some families of the detained health workers were allowed to see them for half an hour.

They told their families that they were subjected to acts of torture, both physical and mental, by their military abductors.

The arrrested health workers conduct health care in rural areas in the Philippines, where medical care is not available to the people. They are doctors, nurses, and medical aides, who have chosen to devote themselves to helping the local community by bringing the medical missions to them, since the government is unable or refuses to do it.

The International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) calls on the Goverment of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to immediately release the arrested health workers.

The IAPL also calls on its members, and lawyers world wide, to join them in protesting the violations of the rights of the arrested health workers, and offer their services in the defense of these health workers.

Signed:
Raf Jespers
Secretary General, International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL)
28 February 2010

>>> News in pictures <<<
http://www.bulatlat.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/morong43_chr01.jpg
Morong 43 File Complaint Against Military Before CHR

Palace to SC: Compel JBC to submit CJ list (http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22408:palace-to-sc-compel-jbc-to-submit-cj-list&catid=26:nation&Itemid=63)

MALACAÑANG, through Solicitor General Alberto Agra, has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to compel the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to submit to the President its shortlist of nominees for the Chief Justice post which will be vacated by Chief Justice Reynato Puno on May 17 upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70.

In a 34-page comment, Agra backed the petitions filed by lawyers Arturo de Castro and Estelito Mendoza, as well as the Philippine Constitution Association, seeking the Court’s resolution of the issue of whether the JBC should submit its shortlist of nominees to President Arroyo for Chief Justice.

“The nature of respondent JBC’s function is executive. The present Constitution has not conferred legislative nor judicial powers on it. Accordingly, it is not vested with power to resolve issues. It has no discretion to withhold the list from the President. Nor does it have jurisdiction to determine whether the incumbent President can appoint the next Chief Justice in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case. Such jurisdiction lies in this Honorable Court,” Agra said.

Having deferred its duty to submit the list of nominees, Agra stressed that the Court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel the eight-man JBC to perform its duty to submit its list of nominees to Mrs. Arroyo.

CJ needed during elections

Agra maintained that the position of Chief Justice is the most important appointment vested by the Constitution in the President, thus, a prolonged vacancy, particularly during a critical period such as an election, should be avoided.

“It is quite expected that there will be a deluge of cases involving sensitive political issues before this Honorable Court. National interest compels the President to make such appointment for it is particularly during this crucial period when national leaders are seeking fresh mandates from the people that the Supreme Court, more than at any other time, represents stability. Hence, a full court is ideal to ensure not only due deliberation on and careful consideration of issues but also expeditious disposition of cases,” Agra explained.

He added that the submission of the shortlist is necessary to give the President ample time to scrutinize the nominees.

Furthermore, Agra argued that the election ban on midnight appointments under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution does not cover the Chief Justice post based on the deliberations of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.

It further noted that if the Chief Justice post will not be filled out during the time of Arroyo, the Constitution’s Section 4, Article VII, which requires a 90-day period within which a SC justice must be appointed will be violated.

Agra explained that the appointment ban lasts from 109 to 115 days in regular elections.

Read the rest of the entry here. (http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22408:palace-to-sc-compel-jbc-to-submit-cj-list&catid=26:nation&Itemid=63)

SC notes petitions, motions for intervention on naming of new Chief Justice by PGMA (http://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php?idn=1&sid=&nid=1&rid=261900)

MANILA, March 2 (PNA) - The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday noted all the petitions and motions for intervention regarding the issue on whether or not President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo should appoint the next Chief Justice, replacing Chief Justice Reynato Puno who is set to retire on May 17, 2010.

SC Spokesman and Court Administrator lawyer Jose Midas Marquez, however, said that except for the petition filed by a certain John Peralta, the SC ordered the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the petition within a "non-extendible" period of five days from today, Tuesday.

Peralta's petition involves the issue on whether or not President Arroyo can appoint the next Chief Justice, as well as whether or not the JBC can withhold the transmittal of its shortlist of nominees to the Office of the President (OP).

Both the OSG and the JBC have submitted their respective comments on the matter.

Marquez said that the Court would go over the petitions and motions for intervention. If there are no new issues raised, the Court will deny such petition or motion for intervention.

In its comment, the OSG supported the petitions filed by lawyer Arturo de Castro, former Solicitor General and erstwhile Justice Secretary Estelito Mendoza and the Philippine Constitution (Philconsa) that said that the SC should compel the JBC to submit its shortlist of nominees to President Arroyo for the appointment of the next Chief Justice.

Marquez said that Mendoza's stand that there was no need for Chief Justice Puno to inhibit from the case, it's solely addressed to Chief Justice Puno.

Puno is the ex-officio chairman of the JBC.

The JBC is an independent constitutional body that screens aspirants to the positions in the Judiciary whenever a vacancy exists there.

In turn, the President has a period of 90 days within which to fill up such vacancy in the Judiciary.

Marquez who is consultant to the JBC, also said that the executive committee advised the JBC to forego its two meetings, considering that there were no urgent matters to be taken up by the JBC.

The JBC cancelled its meetings on Feb. 22 and March 1 upon such advice of the executive committee.

The regular meeting of the JBC will resume on Monday, March 8. (PNA)

SC notes petitions, motions for intervention on naming of new Chief Justice by PGMA (http://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php?idn=1&sid=&nid=1&rid=261900)

MANILA, March 2 (PNA) - The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday noted all the petitions and motions for intervention regarding the issue on whether or not President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo should appoint the next Chief Justice, replacing Chief Justice Reynato Puno who is set to retire on May 17, 2010.

SC Spokesman and Court Administrator lawyer Jose Midas Marquez, however, said that except for the petition filed by a certain John Peralta, the SC ordered the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the petition within a "non-extendible" period of five days from today, Tuesday.

Peralta's petition involves the issue on whether or not President Arroyo can appoint the next Chief Justice, as well as whether or not the JBC can withhold the transmittal of its shortlist of nominees to the Office of the President (OP).

Both the OSG and the JBC have submitted their respective comments on the matter.

Marquez said that the Court would go over the petitions and motions for intervention. If there are no new issues raised, the Court will deny such petition or motion for intervention.

In its comment, the OSG supported the petitions filed by lawyer Arturo de Castro, former Solicitor General and erstwhile Justice Secretary Estelito Mendoza and the Philippine Constitution (Philconsa) that said that the SC should compel the JBC to submit its shortlist of nominees to President Arroyo for the appointment of the next Chief Justice.

Marquez said that Mendoza's stand that there was no need for Chief Justice Puno to inhibit from the case, it's solely addressed to Chief Justice Puno.

Puno is the ex-officio chairman of the JBC.

The JBC is an independent constitutional body that screens aspirants to the positions in the Judiciary whenever a vacancy exists there.

In turn, the President has a period of 90 days within which to fill up such vacancy in the Judiciary.

Marquez who is consultant to the JBC, also said that the executive committee advised the JBC to forego its two meetings, considering that there were no urgent matters to be taken up by the JBC.

The JBC cancelled its meetings on Feb. 22 and March 1 upon such advice of the executive committee.

The regular meeting of the JBC will resume on Monday, March 8. (PNA)

SC affirms with finality constitutionality of the RP-US VFA (http://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php?idn=1&sid=&nid=1&rid=261940)

MANILA, March 2 (PNA) -- The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday affirmed with finality that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States is "constitutional".

In a minute en banc resolution, the SC denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by former Senate President Jovito Salonga seeking a reversal of the earlier ruling of the highest court of the land which said that the VFA is "constitutional".

This means that there is no more legal impediment for the stay of the American troops in the Philippines for the training of Filipino soldiers in the country.

The resolution said that the group of Salonga did not raise any new arguments in their appeal. Hence, the SC denied the petition with finality.

Earlier, Salonga argued that the American troops violated the 1987 Philippine Constitution because of the installation of their military base camps in the sense that their temporary stay in the country is only for the conduct of military exercises and training with Filipino soldiers. (PNA)

SC clears 2 retired justices of graft charges (http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/246624/sc-clears-2-retired-justices-graft-charges)
By EDMER F. PANESA
March 7, 2010, 4:04pm

The Supreme Court (SC) has cleared its two retired justices of graft charges involving their alleged unjust ruling in a land dispute case in 2003 even as it initiated disbarment proceedings against their accusers.

Voting unanimously, the 15-member tribunal ruled that former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and former Associate Justice Alicia Austria Martinez cannot be held liable for graft in the absence of clear showing that they acted with partiality, bad faith and negligence in deciding the case.

“The act of a judicial officer in reviewing the findings of fact in a decision and voting for its reversal cannot by itself constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in the absence of facts, alleged and proven, demonstrating a dishonest purpose, conscious partiality, extrinsic fraud, or any wrong doing on his or her part,” the court said in 15-page per curiam (anonymous) decision.

On the other hand, the SC ordered the father-and-daughter tandem of lawyers Oliver Lozano and Evangeline Lozano Endriano to explain in writing why they should not be disbarred for filing a defective complaint against the retired justices.

The complaint stemmed from the participation of Davide and Martinez in the resolution of the SC’s First Division issued in the case of Heirs of Antonio Pael vs. Court of Appeals (CA).

In that case, the Lozanos were counsels for Jorge Chin and Renato Mallari, who were claimants of the 78-hectare disputed property along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City.

The CA had earlier awarded the property to Chin and Mallari and this was affirmed by the SC’s First Division with five members concurred with the decision.

But in November 2003, the First Division reversed its decision and favored the claim of the University of the Philippines over the subject property. This time, however, only three members assented to the ruling.

In the graft complaint, Davide and Martinez were accused of violating Article X, Section 2(3) of the 1973 Constitution by reversing, by a vote of a majority of only three members, the decision of the First Division unanimously approved by its full membership of five justices.

That constitutional provision provides that cases heard by a division shall be decided with the concurrence of at least five members and that if such required number is not obtained the case shall be decided en banc.

The complaint was originally filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. But last month, the anti-graft body dismissed the case and referred it to the SC for appropriate action.

In its decision, the SC held that the Lozanos have “brazenly misquoted and misused applicable constitutional provisions” to justify their case against the retired magistrates.

“Had the complainants bothered to carefully considered the facts and developments in Pael and accordingly related these to the applicable constitutional provision, they would have discovered that Pael was decided in 2003 when the 1987 Constitution, not the 1973 Constitution, was the prevailing Charter,” the court pointed out.

Under the 1987 Constitution, particularly Section 4(3) of Article VIII, a division ruling can stand provided that at least three members concurred with it.

The SC also castigated the Lozanos for complaining about Davide and Martinez overturning the findings of fact of the CA. “Contrary to the position of the complainants, the Supreme Court has the power to review the lower court’s findings of fact,” it said.

“The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land with the power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of the lower courts,” the court noted.

JBC set to submit to PGMA nominees for Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, Special Prosecutor posts (http://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php?idn=12&sid=&nid=12&rid=263034)

MANILA, March 8 (PNA) -- The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is set to submit to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo its shortlist of nominees for the vacant positions of Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon and Special Prosecutor, respectively.

Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Victor Fernandez retired from government service on March 3, 2010.

The JBC voted on Monday on the shortlist of nominees to be submitted to the Office of the President.

Those in the shortlist of nominees are Ombudsman Graft Investigator Roque Damian Dator, with seven votes; Assistant Ombudsman Mark Jalandoni, five votes; and retired Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice and Presidential Anti-Graft Commissioner Monina Arevalo Zenarosa, five votes.

Likewise, the JBC also voted on the shortlist of nominees for the position of Special Prosecutor to replace Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio who retired on Feb. 14, 2010.

Those in the shortlist are Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert Kallos, with eight votes; Wendel Sulit, five votes; and Zenarosa, five votes. (PNA)

Manila court orders abolition of PASG (http://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php?idn=1&sid=&nid=1&rid=263274)

MANILA, March 9 (PNA)--A Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge on Tuesday ordered the abolition of the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group (PASG) after it ruled that its creation was illegal and unconstitutional.

Judge Silvino Pampilo Jr. of the Manila RTC Branch 26, declared as illegal and unconstitutional Executive Order No. 624, which created the PASG.

In his nine-page decision, Pampilo granted the petition of British national Siu Ting Alpha Kwok, also known as Alpha Kwok, for declatory relief which sought to declare the Executive Order 624 invalid and unconstitutional.

"Wherefore, premises considered, the Petition for Declatory relief is hereby granted. Executive Order No. 624 is hereby declared illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, checks, and balances," said Pampilo.

Kwok, a British national, who was earlier arrested and detained for allegedly smuggling jewelry and precious gems worth millions of pesos, sought the declaratory relief last Oct. 30.

“The PASG, likewise, fails to promote efficiency. The Alliance of Customs Brokers, Truckers, Importers and Organizations Nationwide (ACTION) submitted a manifesto demanding the abolition of PASG “to put an end to an abusive, unnecessary, redundant, red tape imposing presidential creation that has contributed more problems than the solutions of the anti-smuggling campaign,” the decision said.

Through her lawyer Bonifacio Alentajan, Siu Ting Alpha Kwok filed the petition for declaratory relief with application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and PASG chief Antonio Villar Jr.

Kwok claimed EO 624 had become a source of excessive abuses and official lawlessness and that the creation of PASG grossly violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

The complainant, through Alentajan, said that the power and functions of the PASG duplicated those of the Bureau of Customs, particularly, those addressing the problem of smuggling.

“As such, it emasculates the powers and functions of the Bureau of Customs which is provided for by the law,” Alentajan said, adding that the operations of the PASG caused confusion to the public and weakens investor confidence due to the usurpation and duplication of the functions of the Bureau of Customs.

Pampilo, in resolving the constitutionality of Executive Order 624, agreed that the ordinance power of the President to issue executive orders was limited to the implementation or execution or statutory power and that the creation of PASG was not a product of simply reshaping or reorganizing the bureaucracy.

"The executive order created another instrumentality which is not allowed because it is tantamount to usurpation of legislative power and violation of the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive branch and legislative branch of the government," Pampilo said.

"It cannot be said that the provisions of E.O No. 624 merely invested the PASG agents with additional duties because perusal of the records will reveal that the actions of PASG do not bear the conformity of the Bureau of Customs. They act independently," he said.

Pampilo also said that the creation of PASG did not achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency since the agency's function was already being performed by other agencies.

Instead of being achieving simplicity of performance, Pampilo said that the creation of PASG only resulted to the duplicity of functions.

Pampilo said there was no economy in the creation of PASG since the department, which does the same functions with other agency, received a huge allocation of budget, where in fact it could have likewise been saved by the government.

"The PASG has an initial allocation of P50 million which is a huge amount considering that the Bureau of Customs, Philippine National Police, National Food Authority, Marina and other agencies have their respective budgets to conduct surveillance, intelligence activities for the purpose of preventing smuggling and other related illegal activities. Thus there is no economy," he said.

As for its efficiency, the judge pointed out that it created more problems than solutions to the anti-smuggling campaign as he cited a manifesto submitted by the Alliance of Customs Brokers, Truckers, Importers, and Organizations Nationwide (ACTION) demanding the abolition of PASG.

"There being sufficient evidence to support the petitioner's contention, the Petition for Declatory Relief is hereby Granted," he said.

PASG agents staged a raid on Aug. 18 on Kwok’s residence on the 17th floor of Pacific Place in Ortigas, Pasig City, and arrested Kwok for allegedly selling precious gems illegally.

But the PASG officers never filed any criminal or administrative case against Kwok before any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body in the Philippines, the lawyer said.

“The PASG illegally arrested Kwok “without the benefit of any warrant to support the arrest, and on a mere suspicion of violating the Tariff and Customs Code. Clearly, she was not committing any offense at the time of her illegal arrest.”

He claimed there was “no pending case nor any deportation charge” against Kwok ordered by the immigration bureau.

Kwok was not allowed to post bail for her provisional liberty despite having filed a petition to post bail.

Kwok earlier filed graft, arbitrary detention, violation of domicile, maliciously obtaining search warrants, perjury and unlawful arrest charges against Villar and seven other PASG officers. (PNA)

CA junks habeas petition of 43 Morong health workers (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100310-257811/CA-junks-habeas-petition-of-43-Morong-health-workers)

By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 10:24:00 03/10/2010

MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE 3) The 43 detained health workers accused of being communist insurgents will remain in jail after the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for habeas corpus filed by their relatives.

In a 20-page decision by the Court of Appeals Special Division, it said that whatever irregularities present in the arrest of the 43 were corrected by the subsequent filing of criminal charges against the detainees in Camp Capinpin.

“Indeed, it has been held in a long line of cases that even if the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of some supervening event, be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application,” the appeals court said through Senior Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos.

The appeals court also said that there was a commitment order against the 43 issued by the Morong regional trial court Branch 78 through Acting Presiding Judge Amorfina Cerrado-Cezar last February 12 or a day after they were charged with illegal possession of firearms and explosives.

In the commitment order, the Morong court directed the jail warden of Camp Capinpin to take custody of the 43 following the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

“Once a person is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention through a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed after the party sought to be released had been charged before any court,” the appeals court said.

“Having established that the detainees’ continued imprisonment is by virtue of a valid court process, we find it unnecessary to dwell on the other issues raised by the petitioners,” the appeals court said.

At the same time, in the motion seeking the transfer of the 43 from Camp Capinpin to Camp Crame, the appeals court said that they would leave this to the Morong RTC to decide.

A division of five was created by the Court of Appeals second division after it failed to reach a unanimous vote.

Members of the original division assigned to the case – Associate Justices Normandie Pizarro and Francisco Acosta –stood pat on their decision favoring the 43 health workers.

Associate Justices Magdangal De Leon and Sesinando Villon concurred with Justice Hormachuelos in dismissing the case.

The 43 health workers were arrested last February 6 at a rest house in Morong, Rizal while undergoing community health training.

The military accused the 43 of undergoing training for making explosives, which they claimed were seized during the arrest.

But relatives of the 43 countered that the military violated the rights of the health workers by torturing and harassing them to force an admission that they were members of the communist party.

Various organizations as well as international human rights groups joined the call in condemning the military in the arrest and continued detention of the 43 health workers.

In their dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Normandie Pizarro and Associate Justice Francisco Acosta cited the invalidity of the search warrants used by the military during the raid.

Both justices noted that the search warrant bore the name of a certain Mario Condes as owner of the property to be searched but the military entered and searched the premises owned by Dr. Melecia Velmonte.

They said the search warrant was too broad and did not specify the exact location of the area to be searched as required under Article III of the Constitution . The search warrant only indicated "Brgy. Maybangcal, Morong Rizal."

Pizarro said that since the search warrant was invalid, and the search and arrests were unlawful, the inquest proceedings were void.

The two justices also dismissed the filing of the case five days after the arrest as merely “curative” and was only meant to render the habeas corpus petition.

“This is a matter I cannot simply tolerate,” Pizarro.

“Allowing curative information to justify illegal searches, arrests and detentions would definitely make every habeas corpus proceeding an exercise in futility, similar to a salt that had lost its taste. This is absolutely repugnant to the basic and primordial constitutional right to due process of law,” Acosta said.

He said with the majority decision dismissing the habeas corpus and remanding the case to the Morong Regional Trial Court “would give the impression that this court is washing its hands on a matter which necessitates an extremely urgent resolution and attention.”

“There being no legal reason to detain the 43 detainees, who will soon be mourning their one month detention, their immediate release should be effected. To do so is not just our legal duty but our high moral obligation as magistrates,” Pizarro said.

Arroyo can appoint next Chief Justice—SC
by Tetch Torres


MANILA, Philippines – Voting 9-1-3, the Supreme Court ruled that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo could appoint the next Chief Justice, a spokesman for the high tribunal said Wednesday.

Lawyer Midas Marquez made the announcement in a press conference at past 11 a.m. at the Supreme Court division hearing room in Manila.

Quoting the decision penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, Marquez said vacancies in the Supreme Court – the 14 Associate Justices and the Chief Justice – were not covered by the appointment ban under Section 15 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

He said that the high court asked the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to submit a shortlist of nominees to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on or before Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s retirement on May 17.

Aside from Bersamin, the justices who voted for allowing Arroyo to name the next Chief were: Associate Justices Jose Perez, Martin Villarama, Roberto Abad, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, Teresita Leonardo de Castro, and Jose Mendoza.

But Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, and Mendoza disagreed with Bersamin and the four others that the entire Judiciary was exempted from the appointment ban and clarified that only appointments to the Supreme Court were exempted.

Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales was the lone dissenter.

Those who inhibited themselves from voting were Chief Justice Puno, and Associate Justices Renato Corona and Antonio Carpio.

Associate Justices Antonio Eduardo Nachura and Presbitero Velasco voted to dismiss all petitions filed for and against the appointment issue, citing that these are “premature.”

Marquez said the appointment ban under Article VII of the Constitution that prevented the President or Acting President from making appointments “two months immediately before the next presidential elections” to avoid prejudicing public service and endangering public safety did not apply to the judiciary.

The judiciary is covered under Article VIII, which does not mention any appointment ban, and which specifically under Section 9, gives the President “the authority to appoint, within 90 days, any member of the Judiciary based on the list which will be submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council,” said Marquez.

The JBC is in the process of screening the nominees for the Chief Justice post.

Marquez said the JBC has yet to determine if a public interview would be conducted and what to do with those who accepted the nomination with conditions.

Carpio and Morales said, in separate letters to the JBC that they would accept the nominations to the Chief Justice post only if the next president would make the appointment.

Other nominees are Associate Justices Corona, De Castro, and Brion; and Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval.

SC: PGMA's CJ appointee beyond questioning by next president
MANILA, March 17 (PNA) -- The next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (SC) to be appointed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo cannot be questioned by the next President.

This was the clarification made on Wednesday by SC Spokesman and Court Administrator Atty. Jose Midas Marquez on the pronouncements made by some presidential candidates that if they get elected, they would not recognize whoever will be appointed by President Arroyo as the next Chief Justice.

Marquez stressed that the High Court has already decided that President Arroyo has the power to appoint the successor of Chief Justice Reynato Puno who will retire on May 17, 2010.

It can be recalled that Liberal Party (LP) standard bearer Senator Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III stated that if he gets elected as President, he will not recognize whoever will be appointed by President Macapagal-Arroyo as the next Chief Justice of the highest court of the land.

Her term will end on June 30, 2010.

Marquez pointed out that the "non-recognition" of the next Chief Justice to be appointed by President Arroyo would mean "anarchy".

By a majority vote of nine, one dissent, two for the dismissal of the petitions and three inhibitions and did not participate in the voting, the SC en banc ruled that President Macapagal-Arroyo has the power to appoint the successor of Chief Justice Reynato Puno who will retire on May 17, 2010.

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) was also ordered to submit its shortlist of nominees of at least three to four names to President Arroyo on or before May 17, 2010.

The vacancy in the Judiciary will occur on May 18, 2010 and it has to be filled up on or before Aug. 15, 2010. (PNA)
http://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php?idn=101&nid=1&rid=264849

:lol: SC is playing with our constitution....hahanapan ng butas ang pananalita at lagda, lusot na... :lol:
May 17 pa si Puno mag resign, why such a hurry? Wala pa naman bakante at kung meron man, puwede punuan kahit na sinong mga natira at imbestigahan ang susunod na miembro.

'Ruling a virtual amendment of 1987 Constitution' (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=559332&publicationSubCategoryId=63)

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) ruling allowing President Arroyo to appoint the next chief justice is tantamount to amending the 1987 Constitution, former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo said yesterday.

“It is a very clear violation of the 1987 Constitution because of the absolute prohibition,” Marcelo, president of the Philippine Bar Association, told The STAR, referring to the appointments ban from March 10 to June 30, when Mrs. Arroyo steps down.

“It (SC ruling) is shocking to the legal community because the wording of the Constitution here is very clear. There should be no appointments to the judiciary two months before the elections,” said Marcelo, a former law partner and Sigma Rho fraternity brother of the most senior SC associate justice, Antonio Carpio.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno retires on May 17, when he turns 70.

Marcelo, Mrs. Arroyo’s first Ombudsman in 2002, also agreed with the position of Justices Eduardo Nachura and Presbitero Velasco Jr. that the SC cannot at this stage compel the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to submit a shortlist of nominees to the top SC post since there is no vacancy yet.

“The issue is not yet ripe for adjudication. There is no vacancy yet. The discretion is with the JBC, whether or not the incumbent president or the next president can appoint the next chief justice,” he explained.

He said he is still hopeful that the high tribunal can change its mind, noting how the magistrates have reversed themselves on several occasions.

“There’s still hope. You know sometimes the SC can surprise you,” he said.

“We’ll just pray after filing a motion for reconsideration and we hope to prick their conscience,” he said in Filipino.

Marcelo lamented that the justices didn’t even bother to seek the legal opinion of experts or even the framers of the Constitution.

“They didn’t schedule oral arguments. Why the haste? We still have two more months before the retirement of Puno,” he said.

The SC acknowledged the importance of oral arguments at least on two occasions - the deliberations on the impeachment case against former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and on the citizenship issue involving the late Fernando Poe Jr.

In these two instances, the justices sought guidance from amicus curiae or friends of the court.

Nine justices voted in favor of allowing Mrs. Arroyo to name Puno’s successor. They were Lucas Bersamin, Jose Perez, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Jose Mendoza, Mariano del Castillo, and Diosdado Peralta.

Only Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales gave a dissenting vote. Justices Nachura and Velasco said the case was premature.

Legacy

Despite the SC’s ruling, President Arroyo should let her successor name the next chief justice if she wants to leave behind a good legacy, her former chief economist and now opposition senatorial candidate Ralph Recto said.

“The President is in the legacy mode. Simply bequeathing onto her successor the right to name the head of a co-equal branch is one classy act of saying goodbye,” Recto said.

“There is no gesture more noble than in refusing to exercise a power that is yours,” he said.

He said that if the President “forfeits her right of appointing a new chief justice, she will score a double victory: legally, in the bench; and morally, in the bar of public opinion.”

Another LP senatorial candidate, Muntinlupa Rep. Ruffy Biazon, gave the same advice.

“Even if the SC ruled that she can name the next chief justice, she also has the option not to do it for the sake of preventing any speculation on the motive behind the appointment,” he said.

“At this time, an appointment by President Arroyo will only suffer from credibility, with people suspecting that the SC is controlled by the President since all the justices are appointed by her,” he said.

Kapatiran Party presidential candidate JC de los Reyes said the latest controversy over the SC decis