DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Climate/Column for Phil Daily Inquirer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Climate/Column for Phil Daily Inquirer Survey tracking of governance Page 1 of 3 Column for Philippine Daily Inquirer PDI 11-04, 27 Jan 2011 [for publication on 29 Jan 2011] Survey tracking of governance Mahar Mangahas The general Quality of Life, taken in the round, includes the quality of governance. Thus each quarterly Social Weather Survey includes ratings of the people’s satisfaction with government performance. In a democracy, the opinions of citizens at large, whether or not in consonance with experts, are meaningful both to those who govern, presently and potentially, and to those who are governed. The SWS governance ratings cover the most important officials and institutions, and the performance of the government on specific public issues. On December 13, 2010, SWS reported that the net satisfaction rating (percent satisfied minus percent dissatisfied) of President Noynoy Aquino had risen to +64 in the Fourth Quarter from +60 in the Third Quarter, of 2010. Both ratings are “very good”, which is our term for net figures of +50 to +69. We pointed out that former Presidents Cory Aquino, Fidel Ramos and Joseph “Erap” Estrada had also posted very good ratings in their honeymoon periods – which in FVR’s case lasted as long as two years. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had no honeymoon, either in 2001 or 2004. Last Tuesday, SWS reported, through BusinessWorld, on the performance of the Vice-President, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the cabinet as a collective. Vice-President Jejomar Binay’s initial net satisfaction ratings are also very good, at +57 in the Fourth Quarter and +58 in the Third Quarter. These are above the ratings of former VPs Noli de Castro and Teofisto Guingona, but below those of Erap and GMA in their honeymoons as Vice-President. VP de Castro’s scores were mostly “good”, meaning between +30 to +49, while VP Guingona’s scores were mostly “moderate”, meaning between +10 and +29. M. Mangahas, Social Climate, PDI 11-04 Jan 29 – Survey tracking of governance Survey tracking of governance Page 2 of 3 Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s net rating was +34 in the Fourth Quarter, down from +39 in the Third Quarter and +41 in the Second Quarter (in GMA’s time), which are nonetheless all “good”. However, his predecessor Manny Villar was more popular, with five “very goods” and four “goods” in nine quarters as Senate President. Speaker Feliciano Belmonte’s net +7 in the Fourth Quarter and +9 in the Third Quarter are called “neutral”, our term for net ratings of -9 to +9, because single-digit nets are statistically too small to deserve a favorable term if positive, or an unfavorable term if negative. Speaker Belmonte’s popularity, though modest, is far above that of his predecessor Prospero Nograles, whose scores were “poor” (our term for ratings of -10 to -29) all throughout his ten quarters as Speaker. Chief Justice Renato Corona scored -7 in the Fourth Quarter and -5 in the Third Quarter, both neutral, but an improvement from his poor -18 in the Second Quarter of 2010 -- the record-low for Chief Justices ever since Claudio Teehankee. His immediate predecessors Reynato Puno and Artemio Panganiban both had neutral scores during their terms. As an institution, the Senate scored two successive record-highs of a good +48 in the Third Quarter and a very good +51 in the Fourth Quarter of 2010. The previous record in the surveys starting 1988 was +34 in June 1997. The net rating of the House of Representatives rose from +30 in the Third Quarter to a new record-high of +33 in the Fourth Quarter, with both scores being good; the previous record was +32, in December 1993. The Supreme Court, as an institution, got good scores of +33 in the Third Quarter and +36 in the Fourth Quarter, higher than all previous scores as far back as September 2001. Public regard for the Supreme Court peaked at +41 in December 2000 (during the Estrada impeachment trial) and stayed good at +37 in March 2001 and +33 in July 2001. The net rating of the cabinet as a collective body was +22 in the Third Quarter and +20 in the Fourth Quarter, both moderate, but better than during all of GMA’s time, when it was as low as a poor -10. I would note: (1) Evidently, popular feelings towards the President and the cabinet, the Senate and the Senate President, the House and the Speaker, and the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice are separate and distinct. (2) M. Mangahas, Social Climate, PDI 11-04 Jan 29 – Survey tracking of governance Survey tracking of governance Page 3 of 3 Historically, the low points in public satisfaction with the President, the Speaker, and the Chief Justice all occurred during the Arroyo period. SWS asks survey respondents to rate government officials and institutions, without having to justify their answers. Our motto, quot hominess tot sententiae (“as many opinions as there are people”), obliges us to respect and report all shades of opinion. Those with explanations and expectations for the performance ratings should not attribute their analysis to SWS. For instance, the abs- cbnNEWS.com report, “Net satisfaction with Supreme Court higher: SWS”, posted on 1/25/11, has the following sentences which were not in the SWS media release: “Conducted last November 27-30, 2010, the survey was done weeks after the high tribunal granted a petition for a writ of kalikasan stopping First Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC) from operating an [sic] 117-kilometer oil pipeline from Batangas to the Pandacan oil depot.” The abs-cbnNEWS report continued: “It was also conducted before the SC declared as unconstitutional President Benigno Aquino’s Executive Order 1 creating a Truth Commission that will investigate corruption cases during the 9-year term of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.” Then why did it not add that the survey was done before the Supreme Court decided to acquit Hubert Webb? * * * Contact SWS: www.sws.org.ph or [email protected]. M. Mangahas, Social Climate, PDI 11-04 Jan 29 – Survey tracking of governance .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Judicial Tenure and the Politics of Impeachment
    C International Journal for Court Administration International Association For copywriteart.pdf 1 12/20/17 8:30 AM Vol.CourtM Administration 9 No. 2, July 2018 ISSNY 2156-7964 URL: http://www.iacajournal.org CiteCM this as: DOI 10.18352/ijca.260 Copyright: MY CY JudicialCMY Tenure and the Politics of Impeachment - 1 ComparingK the United States and the Philippines David C. Steelman2 Abstract: On May 11, 2018, Maria Lourdes Sereno was removed from office as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. She had been a vocal critic of controversial President Rodrigo Duterte, and he had labeled her as an “enemy.” While she was under legislative impeachment investigation, Duterte’s solicitor general filed aquo warranto petition in the Supreme Court to challenge her right to hold office. The Supreme Court responded to that petition by ordering her removal, which her supporters claimed was politically-motivated and possibly unconstitutional. The story of Chief Justice Sereno should give urgency to the need for us to consider the proposition that maintaining the rule of law can be difficult, and that attacks on judicial independence can pose a grave threat to democracy. The article presented here considers the impeachment of Chief Justice David Brock in the American state of New Hampshire in 2000, identifying the most significant institutional causes and consequences of an event that presented a crisis for the judiciary and the state. It offers a case study for the readers of this journal to reflect not only on the removal of Chief Justice Sereno, but also on the kinds of constitutional issues, such as judicial independence, judicial accountability, and separation of powers in any democracy, as arising from in conflicts between the judiciary and another branch of government.
    [Show full text]
  • Between Rhetoric and Reality: the Progress of Reforms Under the Benigno S. Aquino Administration
    Acknowledgement I would like to extend my deepest gratitude, first, to the Institute of Developing Economies-JETRO, for having given me six months from September, 2011 to review, reflect and record my findings on the concern of the study. IDE-JETRO has been a most ideal site for this endeavor and I express my thanks for Executive Vice President Toyojiro Maruya and the Director of the International Exchange and Training Department, Mr. Hiroshi Sato. At IDE, I had many opportunities to exchange views as well as pleasantries with my counterpart, Takeshi Kawanaka. I thank Dr. Kawanaka for the constant support throughout the duration of my fellowship. My stay in IDE has also been facilitated by the continuous assistance of the “dynamic duo” of Takao Tsuneishi and Kenji Murasaki. The level of responsiveness of these two, from the days when we were corresponding before my arrival in Japan to the last days of my stay in IDE, is beyond compare. I have also had the opportunity to build friendships with IDE Researchers, from Nobuhiro Aizawa who I met in another part of the world two in 2009, to Izumi Chibana, one of three people that I could talk to in Filipino, the other two being Takeshi and IDE Researcher, Velle Atienza. Maraming salamat sa inyo! I have also enjoyed the company of a number of other IDE researchers within or beyond the confines of the Institute—Khoo Boo Teik, Kaoru Murakami, Hiroshi Kuwamori, and Sanae Suzuki. I have been privilege to meet researchers from other disciplines or area studies, Masashi Nakamura, Kozo Kunimune, Tatsufumi Yamagata, Yasushi Hazama, Housan Darwisha, Shozo Sakata, Tomohiro Machikita, Kenmei Tsubota, Ryoichi Hisasue, Hitoshi Suzuki, Shinichi Shigetomi, and Tsuruyo Funatsu.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime and Poverty: Criminalization and Empowerment of the Poor in the Philippines
    INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNSHIP PROGRAM | WORKING PAPER SERIES VOL 7 | NO. 1 | FALL 2019 Crime and Poverty: Criminalization and Empowerment of the Poor in the Philippines Alicia Blimkie ABOUT CHRLP Established in September 2005, the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism (CHRLP) was formed to provide students, professors and the larger community with a locus of intellectual and physical resources for engaging critically with the ways in which law affects some of the most compelling social problems of our modern era, most notably human rights issues. Since then, the Centre has distinguished itself by its innovative legal and interdisciplinary approach, and its diverse and vibrant community of scholars, students and practitioners working at the intersection of human rights and legal pluralism. CHRLP is a focal point for innovative legal and interdisciplinary research, dialogue and outreach on issues of human rights and legal pluralism. The Centre’s mission is to provide students, professors and the wider community with a locus of intellectual and physical resources for engaging critically with how law impacts upon some of the compelling social problems of our modern era. A key objective of the Centre is to deepen transdisciplinary — 2 collaboration on the complex social, ethical, political and philosophical dimensions of human rights. The current Centre initiative builds upon the human rights legacy and enormous scholarly engagement found in the Universal Declartion of Human Rights. ABOUT THE SERIES The Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism (CHRLP) Working Paper Series enables the dissemination of papers by students who have participated in the Centre’s International Human Rights Internship Program (IHRIP).
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Annual Report
    THE 2010 CORONA COURT (Standing, Left to Right) Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Jose Portugal Perez, (Seated, Left to Right) Conchita Carpio Morales, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, Maria Lourdes Aranal Sereno, and Jose Catral Mendoza. 1 ANNUAL REPORT 2010 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 2 ANNUAL REPORT 2010| SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 3 ANNUAL REPORT 2010 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES The 2010 CORONA COURT i Message from CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA 5 2010: PASSING THE TORCH 8 JUSTICES of the Supreme Court 13 Highlights of the CY 2012 SPLC BUDGET PROPOSAL 32 The STATE OF THE 2010 JUDICIARY 37 2010 Supreme Court REFORM PROJECTS 42 OFFICIALS of the Supreme Court 45 ATTACHED INSTITUTIONS 56 2010 SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS 59 2010SIGNIFICANT RULES, Guidelines, 67 Circulars, and Orders SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS of SC COMMITTEES 70 and Technical Working Groups SIGNIFICANT FORA, Conferences, 73 Seminars, and Workshops 2009 SIGNIFICANT ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS 78 EMPLOYEE WELFARE AND BENEFITS 84 The Philippine JUDICIAL SYSTEM 87 4 ANNUAL REPORT 2010| SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES A first-rate Judiciary. This is something that should be in everyone’s wish list for our country. I say this not just as head of the Judiciary but also as Renato C. Corona, a Filipino citizen. The reason is simple: For the social and economic development of our country to be deep and lasting, the same must be underpinned by the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • February 19, 2011 February 4, 2012
    FeBruAry 4, 2012 hAWAii FiliPino chronicle 1 ♦♦ FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 149, ,2 2001121 ♦ ♦ HAWAII-FILIPINO NEWS FEATURE LEGAL NOTES Menor Bold dreAM , ProPosed WAiVer Announces uncoMMon VAlor : T he rule exPecTed To council Bid FlorenTino dAs sTory BeneFiT ThousAnds HAWAII FILIPINO CHRONICLE PRESORTED STANDARD 94-356 WAIPAHU DEPOT RD., 2ND FLR. U.S. POSTAGE WAIPAHU, HI 96797 PAID HONOLULU, HI PERMIT NO. 9661 2 hAWAii FiliPino chronicle FeBruAry 4, 2012 EDITORIAL FROM THE PUBLISHER Publisher & Executive Editor he Philippines wasted little time Charlie Y. Sonido, M.D. Preserve Judicial in starting 2012 off with a bang. In case you missed it, trial began Publisher & Managing Editor Independence and on January 16th for Chief Justice Chona A. Montesines-Sonido Renato Corona, the country’s top Associate Editors T lawyer, who is facing impeach - Integrity Dennis Galolo ment on charges of corruption be - Edwin Quinabo he on-going impeachment trial of Supreme Court fore a court composed of Philippine senators. It Chief Justice Renato Corona is not only unprece - is the first such impeachment of a chief justice in Philippine his - Creative Designer Junggoi Peralta dented but also the most difficult in the annals of tory. Supporters of President Benigno “Noynoy” S. Aquino III Philippine political history. It involves legal and con - say it’s about time that the nation’s corrupt officials are held ac - Design Consultant Randall Shiroma stitutional issues, along with political and partisan di - countable for their actions. Others are questioning the constitu - T mensions that make the case much more problematic tionality of the entire process, since it is the Supreme Court’s Photography to resolve.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prospectus Is Being Displayed in the Website to Make the Prospectus Accessible to More Investors. the Pse Assumes No Respons
    THE PROSPECTUS IS BEING DISPLAYED IN THE WEBSITE TO MAKE THE PROSPECTUS ACCESSIBLE TO MORE INVESTORS. THE PSE ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF ANY OF THE STATEMENTS MADE OR OPINIONS OR REPORTS EXPRESSED IN THE PROSPECTUS. FURTHERMORE, THE STOCK EXCHANGE MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THE COMPLETENESS OF THE PROSPECTUS AND DISCLAIMS ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ANY LOSS ARISING FROM OR IN RELIANCE IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON THE CONTENTS OF THE PROSPECTUS. ERRATUM Page 51 After giving effect to the sale of the Offer Shares and PDRs under the Primary PDR Offer (at an Offer price of=8.50 P per Offer Share and per PDR) without giving effect to the Company’s ESOP, after deducting estimated discounts, commissions, estimated fees and expenses of the Combined Offer, the net tangible book value per Share will be=1.31 P per Offer Share. GMA Network, Inc. GMA Holdings, Inc. Primary Share Offer on behalf of the Company of 91,346,000 Common Shares at a Share Offer Price of=8.50 P per share PDR Offer on behalf of the Company of 91,346,000 PDRs relating to 91,346,000 Common Shares and PDR Offer on behalf of the Selling Shareholders of 730,769,000 PDRs relating to 730,769,000 Common Shares at a PDR Offer Price of=8.50 P per PDR to be listed and traded on the First Board of The Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. Sole Global Coordinator, Bookrunner Joint Lead Manager, Domestic Lead Underwriter and Lead Manager and Issue Manager Participating Underwriters BDO Capital & Investment Corporation First Metro Investment Corporation Unicapital Incorporated Abacus Capital & Investment Corporation Pentacapital Investment Corporation Asian Alliance Investment Corporation RCBC Capital Corporation UnionBank of the Philippines Domestic Selling Agents The Trading Participants of the Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Papal Visit Philippines 2014 and 2015 2014
    This event is dedicated to the Filipino People on the occasion of the five- day pastoral and state visit of Pope Francis here in the Philippines on October 23 to 27, 2014 part of 22- day Asian and Oceanian tour from October 22 to November 13, 2014. Papal Visit Philippines 2014 and 2015 ―Mercy and Compassion‖ a Papal Visit Philippines 2014 and 2015 2014 Contents About the project ............................................................................................... 2 About the Theme of the Apostolic Visit: ‗Mercy and Compassion‘.................................. 4 History of Jesus is Lord Church Worldwide.............................................................................. 6 Executive Branch of the Philippines ....................................................................... 15 Presidents of the Republic of the Philippines ....................................................................... 15 Vice Presidents of the Republic of the Philippines .............................................................. 16 Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines ............................................ 16 Presidents of the Senate of the Philippines .......................................................................... 17 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines ...................................................... 17 Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church ................................................................ 18 Pope (Roman Catholic Bishop of Rome and Worldwide Leader of Roman
    [Show full text]
  • GR No. 237428
    G.R. No. 237428 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by Solicitor General JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner v. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent. Promulgated: May 11 , 2018 x--- ------------------------------------ --- - - x RESOLUTION JARDELEZA, J.: On some positions cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. - Martin Luther }(jng1 Respondent Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (respondent) in her Ad Cautelam Respectful Motion/or Inhibition (Motion) seeks to prevent me from participating in this special civil action for quo warranto. She invokes the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which enjoins judges to disqualify themselves from participating in a matter in which it may appear, to a reasonable observer, that they are unable to decide a matter impartially, and where the judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party. She further invokes the due process clause of the Constitution. Determining whether a sitting justice of the Supreme Court should recuse in a case is an exercise fraught with constitutional difficulty ..This is due in no small measure to the absence of a clear litmus test by which a jurist's partiality is measured. Walking the tightrope between a judge's duty to decide and inhibition being a matter of conscience, the Court has made largely ad hoc decisions that tum on the·factual subtleties of each case.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Annual Report.Pmd
    CONTENTS A. The Cultural Center of the Philippines B. Vision, Mission, Objectives C. Functions D. Chairman’s Message E. President’s Report F. Artistic Programs • CCP Productions • Co- Productions • Resident Companies • Lessee Shows • Exhibitions • Film Showings • Arts Festivals • Film/Broadcast Arts/Video Productions • Training and Education -Summer Workshops • International Linkages • Special Events and Other Programs • Artistic Services G. Resource Development •Administrative Services Department •Human Resource Management Department •Theater Operations Department H. CCP Organizational Chart I. Financial Report J. CCP Board of Trustees & Officials CULTURAL CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES The Cultural Center of the Philippines was The CCP rises on a 21-hectare piece of created under Executive Order No. 30 dated reclaimed land from Manila Bay. It remains one of June 23, 1966, and inaugurated on September 8, the most important landmarks in both the cultural 1969 by the former First Lady and CCP Founding and architectural history of the Philippines. Chairman Imelda Romualdez Marcos. CCP was established at a critical time in Philippine cultural In seeking to preserve, promote, and history as a trust for the benefit of the Filipino enhance the artistic and cultural heritage of the people. The Center’s founding objective was to Filipino people, the CCP showcases Filipino preserve and promote Philippine culture in all its artistic achievements, encourages the creation of varied aspects and phases and to provide original works inspired by authentic Filipino physical home for the promotion and themes and traditions, and helps make Filipino art development of Philippine art and culture. accessible to all sectors of Philippine society. VISION Arts as a way of life Arts and culture as a fundamental part of life of every Filipino MISSION The CCP is a home for culture and the arts that nurtures and promotes artistic excellence, Filipino creativity, positive values and identity in a humanistic, self-sustaining eco-friendly environment, towards a responsible global society.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion for Reconsideration
    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT MANILA EN BANC REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner, – versus – CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P.A. G.R. No. SERENO, 237428 For: Quo Warranto Respondent. Senators LEILA M. DE LIMA and ANTONIO “SONNY” F. TRILLANES IV, Movant-Intervenors. x-------------------------------------------------------------------x MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Movant-intervenors, Senators LEILA M. DE LIMA and ANTONIO “SONNY” F. TRILLANES IV, through undersigned counsel, respectfully state that: 1. On 29 May 2018, Movant-intervenors, in such capacity, requested and obtained a copy of the Decision of the Supreme Court dated 11 May 2018, by which eight members of the Court voted to grant the Petition for Quo Warranto, resulting in the ouster of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. 2. The Supreme Court’s majority decision, penned by Justice Tijam, ruled that: 2.1. There are no grounds to grant the motion for inhibition filed by respondent Chief Justice Sereno; 2.2. Impeachment is not an exclusive means for the removal of an impeachable public official; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Republic of the Philippines v. Sereno G.R. No. 237428 Page 2 of 25 2.3. The instant Petition for Quo Warranto could proceed independently and simultaneously with an impeachment; 2.4. The Supreme Court’s taking cognizance of the Petition for Quo Warranto is not violative of the doctrine of separation of powers; 2.5. The Petition is not dismissable on the Ground of Prescription, as “[p]rescription does not lie against the State”; and 2.6. The Petitioner sufficiently proved that Respondent violated the SALN Law, and such failure amounts to proof of lack of integrity of the Respondent to be considered, much less nominated appointed, as Chief Justice by the Judicial and Bar Council and the President of Republic, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES Supreme Court of the Philippines En Banc - M a N I L A
    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Supreme Court of the Philippines En Banc - M A N I L A ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, JAIME N. SORIANO, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION (Philconsa), per Manuel Lazaro, & JOHN G. PERALTA, Petitioners, - versus - G.R. Nos. 191002, 191032 & 191057 & 191149 For: Mandamus, Prohibition, etc. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL and EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA (LEANDRO MENDOZA), representing the President of the Philippines, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Respondents. X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X In re: Applicability of Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution to the appointments to the Judiciary, ESTELITO P. MENDOZA, Petitioner, - versus - A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., (123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan) Petitioner-in-Intervention, - versus - G. R. No. ______________________ For: Intervention, etc. X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X In re: (Noted, Not Denied by the JBC) Nomination dated February 4, 2010, by Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. of Atty. Henry R. Villarica and Atty. Gregorio M. Batiller, Jr. , for the position of Chief Justice subject to their ratification of the nomination or later consent thereof; with Verified Petition-Letter to CONSIDER the case at bar/pleading/Letter, an administrative matter and cause
    [Show full text]
  • Philippine Case Study Revised RLM Rev As of 28
    Environmental Adjudication in the Philippines: Jurisprudence, Access to Justice, Green Courts and Tribunals, and Judicial Specialization in Environmental and Natural Resources Law Introduction Biodiversity and Environmental Challenges The Philippines is one of the world’s most ecologically rich countries because it possesses an abundance of natural resources and is a renowned biodiversity hotspot.1 The country is host to about 9,253 plant species (65.8% endemic), 167 mammal species (61.1% endemic), 535 bird species (34.8% endemic), 237 reptile species (67.5% endemic), 89 amphibian species (85.4% endemic), and 981 freshwater fish species (23.8% endemic).2 The Philippines is also the epicenter of global marine biodiversity, and lies in an ocean biodiverse hotspot, the Coral Triangle, considered as the global center of marine biodiversity where 76% of the world’s coral species lives,3 and spans six countries – Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Timor Lester, and the Solomon Islands, which lies amidst the border of the Sulu- Sulawesi Seas Marine Ecoregion. Four hundred species of corals, 650 species of reef fishes, including six of the world's eight species of marine turtles, endangered marine mammals, and more than 400 species of marine algae and 16 species of seagrass4 can be found in the Sulu Ecoregion. The Coral Triangle is also home to the greatest extent of mangrove forests in the world, and serves as the spawning and juvenile growth areas for the world’s largest and most valuable tuna fishery.5 However, the marine and coastal resources of the Coral Triangle are at immediate risk from a range of factors, including the impacts of climate change, overfishing, unsustainable fishing methods, and land-based sources of pollution.6 These factors adversely affect food security, employment opportunities, and the standard of living for more than 120 million coastal people dependent on fishing, 1 M.
    [Show full text]