DOCSLIB.ORG

Vargas V. Rilloraza, 80 Phil 297 F: Pet. Vargas Filed a Motion Assailing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vargas V. Rilloraza, 80 Phil 297 F: Pet. Vargas Filed a Motion Assailing Vargas v. Rilloraza, 80 Phil 297 F: Pet. Vargas filed a motion assailing the constitutionality of People's Court Act w/c provides that any justice of the SC who held any office or position under the Phil Exec. Commission or under the govt called Phil. Republic, may not sit and vote in any case brought to that court under sec. 13 hereof in w/c the accused is a person who held any office or position under either both the Phil. Exec. Commission and the Phil. Republic or any branch, instrumentality or agency thereof. If on account of such disqualification, or bec. of any of the grounds of disqualification of judges, in R 126, sec. 1 of the ROC, or on account of illness, absence of temporary disability, the requisite number of justices necessary to constitute a quorom in any case is not present, the Pres. may designate such no. of judges of the CFI, judges at large of CFI, cadastral judges, having none of the disqualification set forth in the above law, as may be necessary to sit temporarily as justice of the SC in order to form a quorom. HELD: (1) Congress does not have the power to add to the existing grounds for disqualification of a justice of the SC. To disqualify any of these constitutional component member of the court- especially as in this case, a majority of them-- in a treason case, is nothing short of depriving the court itself of its jurisdiction as established by the fundamental law. Disqualification of a judge is a deprivation of his judicial power. It would seem evident that if Congress could disqualify members of SC in taking part in the hearing and determination of certain "collaboration" cases, it could extend the disqualification to other cases. (2) The designation provided (a CFI-judge to sit as a SC justice if the SC does not have the required quorum) is repugnant to the constitutional requirement that members be appointed by the Pres. w/ the consent of the CA. (This was under the 1935 Constitution w/c required confirmation from the Commission on Appointments.) It will result in a situation wherein 6 members sitting will not be appointed and confirmed in accordance w/ the Consti. (3) However brief or temporary may be the action or participation of a judge designated, there is no escaping the fact that he would be participating in the deliberations and acts of the SC and if allowed to do so, his vote would count as much as any regular justice. Perfecto v Meer, 85 Phil 552 (1950) In Perfecto v Meer, 85 Phil 552 (1950), the SC ruled that salaries of judges were not subject to income tax, for such would be a diminution of their salary, in contravention of the Constitution. This happened after Justice Perfecto refused to pay the assessment of income tax made upon him by the Collector. In April 1947, the Collector of the Internal Revenue required Perfecto to pay the income tax upon his salary as member of the Supreme Court during the year 1946. Perfecto paid the amount, worth P 802.00, and instituted action in the Manila Court of First Instance after, contending that the assessment was illegal and that his salary not being taxable for the reason that imposition of taxes thereon would reduce it in violation of the Constitution. The Manila judge upheld Perfecto’s contention and required the refund of the amount collected. The defendant (Meer) appealed. The Constitution provides in Article VIII, Section 9 that the members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts “shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” Furthermore, it provides that “until Congress shall provide otherwise, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall receive an annual compensation of P 16,000.00.” Congress had not fixed a different salary for associate justices when Perfecto assumed office in 1945. He received salary at the rate provided by the Constitution, which is P 15,000.00 a year. Issue: Imposition of an income tax in 1946 amounted to a diminution of Perfecto’s salary According to a note found at page 534 of Volume 11 of the American Law Reports, which answers the issue in the affirmative: “Where the Constitution of a State provides that the salaries of its judicial officers shall not be dismissed during their continuance in office, it had been held that the state legislature cannot impose a tax upon the compensation paid to the judges of its court. The respondent argued that by executive order the President has subjected his salary to the income tax law. Without such voluntary act of the President, his salary would not be taxable because of constitutional protection against diminution. To argue from this executive gesture that the judiciary could, and should act in like manner is to assume that, in the matter of compensation and power and need of security, the judiciary is on a par with the Executive. Such assumption certainly ignores the prevailing state of affairs. According to the majority, the independence of judges may be imperilled thru the imposition of a tax on their salaries. Decision: AFFIRMED decision of the Manila Court of First Instance Endencia v David, 93 Phil 696 Responding to this, Congress passed a law providing that the constitutional provision against the diminution of salaries of members of the judiciary should not be interpreted to mean an exemption from income tax. (Sec. 13, RA 590.) But the Court struck this statute down as unconstitutional when as in the previous case, Judge Endencia refused to pay his taxes; thereby giving the SC an opportunity to make the pronouncement in the case of Endencia v David, 93 Phil 696 (1953). The SC ruling invalidating the statute was based on the reason that the legislature had no power to interpret the Constitution, such power being lodged in the judicial branch, and so when it did, it violated the separation of powers under the Constitution. The joint appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila as unconstitutional, and ordering David to refund to Endencia the sum of P 1,744.45 representing the income tax collected on his salary as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals in 1951, and to Justice Fernando Jugo the amount of P 2,345.46 representing the income tax collected on his salary from January 1, 1950 to October 19, 1950, as Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, and from October 20, 1950 to December 31, 1950, as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, without special pronouncement as to cost. Saturnino David, then Collector of Internal Revenue, ordered the taxing of Justice Pastor Endencia’s and Justice Fernando Jugo’s salary pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 590 which provides that: “No salary wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of the Philippines shall be considered as exempt from income tax, payment of which is hereby declared not to be a diminution of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.” According to the brief of the Solicitor General on behalf of appellant Collector of Internal Revenue, the SC’s decision in the case of Perfecto v Meer was not received favourably by Congress, because immediately after its promulgation, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 590. Issue: Can the Legislature proceed to declare, after the Supreme Court has found and decided already on similar matters, that the collection of income tax on the salary of a public official, specially a judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary? Ruling: Fundamental principles regarding separation of powers. The authority to interpret and apply said laws belong exclusively to the Judicial department, whose function of judicial review extends to the Constitution. A final court determination of a case based on a judicial interpretation of the Constitution may be undermined or even annulled by a subsequent and different interpretation of the law or of the Constitution by the Legislative department. Decision: AFFIRMED Nitafan v CIR In Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (July 1987), the Court ruled that under the 1987 Constitution, the salaries of members of the Judiciary are not exempt from taxes. It anchored its decision on the deliberation of the Constitutional Commission, that is, on the legislative history of the present Art. VIII, Sec. 10. A draft of the present Art. VIII, Sec. 10 when originally presented to the body, expressly exempted the salary of judges from taxation. But when this draft was discussed on second reading, the sentiment was against the exemption, the reason being that like any other citizen, judges and justices must pay their share in the burden of maintaining the government. So this express exemption was deleted from Art. VIII, Sec. 10 and so it was when the draft was adopted by the body. There was a plan to insert a similar provision as that found in Art. XV, Sec. 6 of 1973, but through oversight, the constitutional commission failed to insert one. Yet, the intent was clear to have one, and so it must be read into the Constitution, the SC concluded. Facts 1. Petitioners David Nitafan, Wenceslao Polo and Maximo Savellano Jr., were duly appointed and qualified Judges of the RTC National Capital Judicial Region. 2. Petitioners seek to prohibit and/or perpetually enjoin respondents (Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Financial Officer of the Supreme Court) from making any deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries. 3. Petitioners submit that “any tax withheld from their emoluments or compensation as judicial officers constitutes a decreased or diminution of their salaries, contrary to Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Climate/Column for Phil Daily Inquirer
    Second honeymoons Page 1 of 3 Column for Philippine Daily Inquirer PDI 12-36, 14 Sep 2012 [for publication on 15 Sep 2012] Second honeymoons Mahar Mangahas Not only President Noynoy Aquino, but also other top officials, achieved new personal bests in public satisfaction, in the third quarter 2012 Social Weather Survey conducted last August 24-27, released through BusinessWorld the last two Fridays. The President. Compared to the second quarter 2012 survey, of May 24-27, the percentage satisfied with P-Noy’s performance rose to 77 from 63, and the percentage dissatisfied with him fell to 10 from 21. Consequently, his net satisfaction rating rose from +42 in May to +67 in August, topping his previous best of +64 in November 2010. Both his old and new personal bests are classified by SWS as Very Good (+50 to +69). P-Noy’s net rating rose most of all in the National Capital Region, from merely +18 (Moderate) in May to +59 in August. It also rose significantly in Balance of Luzon, from +41 (Good) to +70 (Excellent), and in the Visayas, from +41 (Good) to +76 (Excellent). In Mindanao, it was at a Very Good + 61 in both May and August. Everyone is entitled to do her/his own analysis of the survey findings. Personally, I do not emphasize too much the timing of the interviews -- that is to say, during the tragic week of mourning for the lost Secretary Jesse Robredo – because I prefer to look at the total picture encompassing the two successive quarters, in which the obvious big difference was the ouster of former Chief Justice Renato Corona.
    [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]
  • Disappearance"/ Death Threats 12 March 1993
    EXTERNAL (for general distribution) AI Index: 35/04/93 Distr: UA/SC UA 68/93 "Disappearance"/ Death Threats 12 March 1993 PHILIPPINES: Romeo Legaspi, 58, Journalist / Publisher Amnesty International is concerned for the safety of Romeo Legaspi, a journalist and publisher, who "disappeared" after being abducted by four armed men believed to be linked to the Philippines National Police (PNP) on 11 January 1993 in Olongapo City, Zambales. Prior to his abduction, Romeo Legaspi had been harrassed and threatened by police authorities about whom he had written a critical article in the Voice of Zambales newspaper. Police have denied having him in custody and, as of 12 March 1993, his whereabouts remained unknown. The Supreme Court has yet to reach a decision on a habeas corpus petition filed by family members in late February. Amnesty International fears that Romeo Legaspi may be in danger of ill-treatment or unlawful execution if he is not located immediately. The organization is also concerned for the safety of Romeo Legaspi's relatives who have received death threats since they filed a formal complaint about his "disappearance". In 1992, ten members of the PNP's Intelligence Special Operations Group (PNP-ISOG) in Olongapo, including the Station Commmander, filed libel charges against Romeo Legaspi for an article which alleged that their unit had been involved in illegal activities, and which called for its dissolution. The charges were dismissed, but he continued to receive threats and warnings from the police involved. In letters to family and friends, and in his personal diary, he expressed fear that the police authorities might take action against him.
    [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]
  • Philippine Studies Ateneo De Manila University • Loyola Heights, Quezon City • 1108 Philippines
    philippine studies Ateneo de Manila University • Loyola Heights, Quezon City • 1108 Philippines The Filipino Reaction to American Rule 1901-13 Review Author: Jose S. Arcilla S.J. Philippine Studies vol. 33, no. 2(1985) 242–243 Copyright © Ateneo de Manila University Philippine Studies is published by the Ateneo de Manila University. Contents may not be copied or sent via email or other means to multiple sites and posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s written permission. Users may download and print articles for individual, noncom- mercial use only. However, unless prior permission has been obtained, you may not download an entire issue of a journal, or download multiple copies of articles. Please contact the publisher for any further use of this work at [email protected]. http://www.philippinestudies.net Fri June 27 13:30:20 2008 242 PHILIPPINE STUDIES browse through the text. While the summary of all the accounts may interest the historian and sleuth, a coherent highlighting of the key testimonies would have served the general reader better. The story line wanders and gets lost in a mass of facts, personalities and details. The remainder of the book: "The Exhibits," "The Photochronology," "The Board Counsel's Report," "The Board Members' Report" and "The Chairman's Report" reads more like an appendix-it contains important in- formation, but things one would not normally read through. The 150-slide photochronology, the master stroke of Andres Narvasa, General Counsel of the Board, is a priceless historical documentation of the two murders. Save for the fatal few moments of the murder, the photochronology will always make the event vividly familiar.
    [Show full text]
  • Shooting Stars and Dancing Fish: a Walk to the World We Want
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Environmental Law Program Publications @ Haub Law School of Law 2017 Shooting Stars and Dancing Fish: A Walk to the World We Want Tony Oposa School of the SEA, Bantayan, Cebu, Philippines, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/environmental Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, International Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation Tony Oposa, Shooting Stars and Dancing Fish: A Walk to the World We Want (2017). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Environmental Law Program Publications @ Haub Law by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. a walk to the world we want tony oposa Shooting Stars and Dancing Fish A Walk to the World We Want Antonio A. Oposa, Jr. Copyright © 2017 by Antonio A. Oposa, Jr. School of the SEA Barangay OK-oy! Sta. Fe Bantayan Island, Cebu The Philippines www.oposa.ph [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, for profit, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Published by: 35 Lopez Jaena Street Cebu City 6000 The Philippines Tel/Fax: (63 32) 411-1700 / 343-1700 www.rafi.org.ph ISBN: 978-971-95996-7-8 Editor: Eileen G.
    [Show full text]
  • '17 HAY- 8 R 2 2 2 SENATE ° R N P
    wra SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE ) of tbr rr.'r->-t.irp REPUBLIC OF THE PH ILIPPIN ES ) First Regular Session ) '17 HAY- 8 R 2 2 2 SENATE ° r n P. S. Res. No. KECEIV lD h :: Introduced by Senator Juan Miguel F. Zubiri RESOLUTION COMMENDING AND CONGRATULATING KAREN MAE CALAM FOR BEING THE TOPNOTCHER IN THE 2016 PHILIPPINE BAR EXAMINATION WHEREAS, on 3 May 2017, the Supreme Court of the Philippines announced the results of the 2016 Philippine Bar Examination, the professional licensure examination for lawyers administered once every year by the Supreme Court Bar Examination Committee: WHEREAS, with a rating of 89.05 percent. Certified Public Accountant and University of San Carlos graduate Karen Mae Calam, obtained the highest mark in what is considered as one of the toughest licensure exams in the country, besting over 6,300 other examinees who took the grueling tests which were held during the four Sundays of November 2016 at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila; WHEREAS, Karen Mae Calam hails from the Municipality of Kalilangan in the Province of Bukidnon, where she completed both her primary and secondary education at the Kalilangan Elementary School and Kalilangan High School, respectively; WHEREAS, she earned the distinction of being the first bar topnotcher from Bukidnon and the first-ever law graduate of the University of San Carlos, the oldest university in Cebu, to rank first in the Philippine Bar Examination; WHEREAS, the 2016 Philippine Bar Examination was marked with numerous milestones: with 3,747 examinees passing out of
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Private Legal Practitioners to Monitor Access to Justice by the Disadvantaged on the IBP’S Legal Aid Advocacy, Atty
    Message Over the last years, the Judiciary has taken concrete steps to establish a strong foundation for a long-term development of the Judicial Branch. One of these steps is the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR), which encompasses a wide-ranging yet comprehensive set of reform projects and activities aimed at improving the delivery of judicial services. Among the components of the APJR is Access to Justice by the Poor, which cuts across all the other APJR components, as it is the inevitable byproduct of the successful implementation of each of the reform program components. It is also an overarching goal which all of the pillars of justice are striving to achieve. Several factors, however, frustrate the justice system, especially the courts, from ensuring that the poor and marginalized sectors have access to justice. Finite resources strain the Judiciary in finding ways to provide its services at no cost or at the very least, minimal cost. To help achieve the purpose of the reform program to provide each and every Filipino — regardless of race, sex, creed or social status — the capability to access the court systems, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has provided a grant for pioneering studies or surveys on areas where access to justice is most crucial. UNDP’s invaluable support in funding these projects provided us with important data which will be useful in the thorough assessment of issues and problems in the present system of administration of justice. The surveys — the National Survey of Inmates, Survey on Private Legal Practitioners, Study on the Public Attorney’s Office — have generated national baseline data and recommendations from inmates, as well as legal practitioners from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Alternative Law Groups.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Annual Report
    ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES This is a publication of the Supreme Court Public Information Office. Prior permission is not required to reproduce its contents, in whole or in part. An electronic copy of this publication may be downloaded from sc.judiciary.gov.ph ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 1 2 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 ANNUAL REPORT2011| | SUPREMECOURTOFTHEPHILIPPINES SUPREMECOURT OFTHEPHILIPPINES THE 2011 TO 2012 CORONA COURT (Center) Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, (Left to Right) Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes, Jose Catral Mendoza, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Mariano C. del Castillo, Diosdado M. Peralta, Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, Jose Portugal Perez, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES • The 2011 Corona Court 2 • Message from the Acting Chief Justice 4 • 2011: Upholding the Rule of Law 6 in Face of Unprecedented Challenges • Justices of the Supreme Court 15 • Highlights of the CY 2013 Budget Proposals 41 of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and Lower Courts • The State of the 2011 Judiciary 44 • 2011 Supreme Court Reform Projects 50 • Officials of the Supreme Court 55 • Attached Institutions 67 • 2011 Significant Decisions 70 • 2011 Significant Rules 76 • Significant Accomplishments 77 of SC Committees and Technical Working Groups • Significant Fora, Conferences, 80 Seminars, and Workshops • 2011 Significant Administrative Rulings 86 • Employee Welfare and Benefits 94 • The Philippine Judicial System 99 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 3 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES he Filipino people, through the 1987 Constitution, place in the Supreme Court a duty much larger than that Tenjoyed by most, if not all, the highest courts of other countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents [Edit] Term
    Economic development is a term that generally refers to the sustained, concerted effort of policymakers and community to promote the standard of living and economic health in a specific area. Such effort can involve multiple areas including development of human capital, critical infrastructure, regional competitiveness, environmental sustainability, social inclusion, health, safety, literacy, and other initiatives. Economic development differs from economic growth. Whereas economic development is a policy intervention endeavor with aims of economic and social well-being of people, economic growth is a phenomenon of market productivity and rise in GDP. Consequently, as economist Amartya Sen points out: ―economic growth is one aspect of the process of economic development.‖ [1] Contents [hide] 1 Term 2 Social Science Research 3 Goals 4 Regional policy o 4.1 Organization o 4.2 International Economic Development Council 5 Community Competition 6 See also 7 References [edit] Term The scope of economic development includes the process and policies by which a nation improves the economic, political, and social well-being of its people.[2] The University of Iowa's Center for International Finance and Development states that: 'Economic development' is a term that economists, politicians, and others have used frequently in the 20th century. The concept, however, has been in existence in the West for centuries. Modernization, Westernization, and especially Industrialization are other terms people have used when discussing economic development.
    [Show full text]
  • Philippine Bar Examination
    Philippine Bar Examination . 12.1.1 Presidents and Vice- Presidents From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . 12.1.2 Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Justices The Philippine Bar Examination is the professional . 12.1.3 Senators and Representatives licensure examination for lawyers in the Philippines. 12.1.4 Appointees and career service officials 12.1.5 Local officials It is the only professional licensure exam in the . 12.1.6 Academe country that is not supervised by the Professional . 12.1.7 Private sector Regulation Commission. The exam is exclusively . administered by the Supreme Court of the Philippines 13 1st place in the Philippine Bar Examinations through the Supreme Court Bar Examination Committee. 14 External links 15 See also Contents 16 References 1 Brief history Brief history 2 Admission requirements The first Philippine Bar Exams was given in 1903 but 3 Committee of Bar Examiners the results were released in 1905. Jose I. Quintos 4 Bar review programs obtained the highest rating of 96.33%, Sergio Osmena, 5 Venue and itinerary Sr. was second with 95.66%, F. Salas was third with 6 Coverage 94.5% and Manuel L.Quezon fourth with 87.83%. The 7 Grading system first bar exam was held in 1903, with 13 examinees, o 7.1 Passing average vs. Passing rate while the 2008 bar examination is the 107th (given o 7.2 Passing Percentage (1978-2012) per Article 8, Section 5, 1987 Constitution). The o 7.3 Law school passing rates 2001 bar exam had the highest number of passers—1,266 o 7.4 Role of the Supreme Court, Criticisms out of 3,849 examinees, or 32.89%, while 2006 had the o 7.5 Bar topnotchers highest examinees -.6,187.
    [Show full text]
  • COVERAGE for PNP Entrance Examination
    COVERAGE FOR PNP entrance examination General information -Philippine constitution Basic Human Rights -Philippine History significant Event, People and Places) -Philippine Government {Structures and Functions} -PNP Laws and Jurisprudence - Five (5) Pillars of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) - Current Events (Very Current/social Awareness and Value Judgment) Verbal Reasoning -Vocabulary (Words related to police matters) -Comprehension (Contextual Understanding) -Grammar (correct usage) Quantitative Reasoning - Basic Concepts {measurements) -Problem Solving skills Logical Reasoning -Induction -Deduction -Synthesis 30 Universal Human Rights Written below are the 30 Human Rights that all persons have. These universal rights must be respected at all times, anywhere in the world: Human Rights refer to the “basic rights and freedoms that all human beings have.” 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. 2. Everyone is entitled to rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political affiliation or opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status. 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national court for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
    [Show full text]