DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating and Monitoring Anticorruption Reforms and Programs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EVALUATING AND MONITORING ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS AND PROGRAMS REPORTS ON A HIGH-LEVEL PANEL DISCUSSION AND TRAINING WORKSHOP EVALUATING AND MONITORING ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS AND PROGRAMS REPORTS ON A HIGH-LEVEL PANEL DISCUSSION AND TRAINING WORKSHOP Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2016 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 632 4444; Fax +63 2 636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2016. Printed in the Philippines. ISBN 978-92-9257-541-0 (Print), 978-92-9257-542-7 (e-ISBN) Publication Stock No. RPT168569 Cataloging-In-Publication Data Asian Development Bank. Evaluating and monitoring anticorruption reforms and programs: Reports on a high-level panel discussion and training workshop. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2016. 1. Anticorruption.2. Monitoring and evaluation.3. Good governance.I. Asian Development Bank. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/. By using the content of this publication, you agree to be bound by the terms of this license. This CC license does not apply to non-ADB copyright materials in this publication. If the material is attributed to another source, please contact the copyright owner or publisher of that source for permission to reproduce it. ADB cannot be held liable for any claims that arise as a result of your use of the material. Attribution—You should always acknowledge ADB as the source using the following format: [Author]. [Year of publication]. [Title of the work in italics]. [City of publication]: [Publisher]. © ADB. [URL or DOI] [license]. Translations—Any translations you create should carry the following disclaimer: Originally published by ADB in English under the title [title in italics]. © ADB. [URL or DOI] [license]. The quality of the translation and its coherence with the original text is the sole responsibility of the translator. The English original of this work is the only official version. Adaptations—Any adaptations you create should carry the following disclaimer: This is an adaptation of an original work titled [title in italics]. © ADB. [URL or DOI][license]. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of ADB or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not endorse this work or guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. Please contact [email protected] if you have questions or comments with respect to content, or if you wish to obtain copyright permission for your intended use that does not fall within these terms, or for permission to use the ADB logo. Notes: In this publication, “$” refers to US dollars. Corrigenda to ADB publications may be found at http://www.adb.org/publications/corrigenda Contents Acknowledgments v Abbreviations vi Part I: Report on High-Level Panel Discussion 1 Background 2 Participants 5 Methodology and Approach 5 Opening Session 6 Welcome Remarks—David J. Binns 6 Introduction—Thomas Ossowski 7 Session 1: Anticorruption Reforms and Programs—The General Picture toward Good Governance in Public Funding 8 Keynote Speech: Anticorruption Efforts in the Philippines: Sustaining the Gains and Moving Forward—Conchita Carpio Morales 8 Reforming a Government Agency toward Integrity and Transparency: Ingredients of Good Governance and Maintaining Momentum—Raul C. Asis 9 Anticorruption Reforms and Programs: Monitoring and Evaluating Effectiveness— Elizabeth Hart 10 Session 1 Open Forum: Highlights and Key Concerns 11 Session 2: Panel Discussion on Anticorruption Reforms and Programs— How to Evaluate and Monitor Results-Oriented Implementation 13 Integrity Initiative: Anticorruption Reforms Initiatives of the Private Sector and How to Monitor Effectiveness—Henry Schumacher 14 Monitoring and Evaluating Anticorruption Reforms: The View of Academe— J. Prospero E. De Vera III 15 Monitoring and Evaluating Anticorruption Reforms: U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center Initiatives and Resources—Fredrik Eriksson 16 Monitoring Anticorruption Reforms, Civil Society Monitoring Approaches on Governance, Transparency, Integrity, Accountability—Mahar Mangahas 17 Growth and Development through Fight against Corruption: The Case of Georgia— Tamara Kovziridze 18 Anticorruption Reforms in the United Kingdom Bilateral Cooperation: Leading the United Kingdom’s Fight to Cut Serious and Organized Crime— John McDonald 19 Session 2 Open Forum: Discussion Highlights and Key Concerns 20 Closing Remarks 22 iii ivContents Appendixes 23 1 Program 23 2 Profiles of Speakers, Panelists, and Panel Facilitators 25 3 Participants 33 Part II: Report on the Training Workshop on Evaluating and Monitoring Anticorruption Reforms and Programs 38 Background 39 Day 1: Corruption and Reform Efforts in the Philippines 40 Day 2: Challenges to Corruption Reforms, Opportunities, and Monitoring and Evaluation 44 Day 3: A Theory of Change for Anticorruption Reforms in the Philippines and Illicit Financial Flows 50 Concluding Remarks 53 Appendixes 54 1 Agenda 54 2 Speakers’ Profiles 58 3 Participants 63 Acknowledgments his publication’s summary of the Evaluating and Monitoring Anti-Corruption Reforms and Programs High-Level Panel Discussion and Workshop was made possible by the Tdedication and hard work of a number of individuals from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center, and the Government of the Philippines’ Office of the Ombudsman. Bernd-Markus Liss, GIZ Philippines’ director of the Climate Program and focal point for Anti-Corruption, deserves recognition for leading the preparation of the High-Level Panel Discussion and for making the training workshop possible by requesting for support from the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center. Dennis Russel Baldago of the Office of the Ombudsman coordinated with the external participants. The rich discussions in the training workshop would not have been possible without the guidance and wisdom of Elizabeth Hart and Frederik Ericsson from the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center. ADB would like to acknowledge the contribution of Christina Lubotzki and Mary Martha Merilo from GIZ Philippines for preparing the detailed proceedings of the event. Bianca Rosario Espiritu and Evangelyn Medina from the ADB Events Management Unit deserve recognition for taking care of logistical concerns and Josephine J. Aquino and Ethyl G. Bulao-Lorena from the ADB Governance Thematic Group Secretariat for coordinating with the ADB participants and ADB-funded resource persons. We also appreciate the provision of funding for the Governance Thematic Group staff training by the Knowledge Services and Support Department and the support by Rodel Bautista from the Department of External Relations for facilitating the process for the editing, typesetting and printing of the proceedings. Claudia Buentjen Governance Thematic Group Secretariat Asian Development Bank v Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank CMI Chr. Michelsen Institute CSO civil society organization DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit M&E monitoring and evaluation PDAF Priority Development Assistance Fund SWS Social Weather Stations TOC theory of change UK United Kingdom UNCAC United Nations Convention against Corruption UP University of the Philippines USAID United States Agency for International Development vi PART I Report on High-Level Panel Discussion Background ransparency, accountability, and integrity are key determining factors for sustainable development. At the international level, 140 countries have signed the United Nations TConvention against Corruption (UNCAC), and all parts of society have many initiatives to fight corruption. Corruption is one of the main obstacles to sustainable development. Corruption and a lack of transparency in public revenues and spending undermine poverty alleviation efforts and democratic participation. Public resources are squandered instead of being used to promote sustainable development for all. The World Bank has estimated that bribery alone costs the world $1 trillion every year. Corruption creates legal uncertainty. By inflating costs, it holds back the development of the private sector, distorts competition, and deters investors. Corruption weakens political institutions and ultimately calls into question the legitimacy of the state. Disadvantaged sections of the population, particularly women and children, are worst hit. Corruption makes it much harder and more expensive for them
Recommended publications
  • 2010 Annual Report

    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.
  • Singsing- Memorable-Kapampangans

    Singsing- Memorable-Kapampangans

    1 Kapampangan poet Amado Gigante (seated) gets his gold laurel crown as the latest poet laureate of Pampanga; Dhong Turla (right), president of the Aguman Buklud Kapampangan delivers his exhortation to fellow poets of November. Museum curator Alex Castro PIESTANG TUGAK NEWSBRIEFS explained that early Kapampangans had their wakes, funeral processions and burials The City of San Fernando recently held at POETS’ SOCIETY photographed to record their departed loved the Hilaga (former Paskuhan Village) the The Aguman Buklud Kapampangan ones’ final moments with them. These first-of-its-kind frog festival celebrating celebrated its 15th anniversary last pictures, in turn, reveal a lot about our Kapampangans’ penchant for amphibian November 28 by holding a cultural show at ancestors’ way of life and belief systems. cuisine. The activity was organized by city Holy Angel University. Dhong Turla, Phol tourism officer Ivan Anthony Henares. Batac, Felix Garcia, Jaspe Dula, Totoy MALAYA LOLAS DOCU The Center participated by giving a lecture Bato, Renie Salor and other officers and on Kapampangan culture and history and members of the organization took turns lending cultural performers like rondalla, reciting poems and singing traditional The Center for Kapampangan Studies, the choir and marching band. Kapampangan songs. Highlight of the show women’s organization KAISA-KA, and was the crowning of laurel leaves on two Infomax Cable TV will co-sponsor the VIRGEN DE LOS new poets laureate, Amado Gigante of production of a video documentary on the REMEDIOS POSTAL Angeles City and Francisco Guinto of plight of the Malaya Lolas of Mapaniqui, Macabebe. Angeles City Councilor Vicky Candaba, victims of mass rape during World COVER Vega Cabigting, faculty and students War II.
  • San Miguel Pure Foods Company, Inc. PF

    San Miguel Pure Foods Company, Inc. PF

    CR03614-2016 The Exchange does not warrant and holds no responsibility for the veracity of the facts and representations contained in all corporate disclosures, including financial reports. All data contained herein are prepared and submitted by the disclosing party to the Exchange, and are disseminated solely for purposes of information. Any questions on the data contained herein should be addressed directly to the Corporate Information Officer of the disclosing party. San Miguel Pure Foods Company, Inc. PF PSE Disclosure Form 17-18 - Other SEC Forms/Reports/Requirements Form/Report Type Certifications of Independent Directors Report Period/Report May 16, 2016 Date Description of the Disclosure Please see attached. Filed on behalf by: Name Alexandra Trillana Designation AVP & Corporate Secretary SEC COPY C O V E R S H E E T 1 1 8 4 0 S. E. C. Registration Number S A N M I G U E L P U R E F O O D S C O M P A N Y I N C . (Company’s Full Name) 23 r d F l r. J M T B l d g. A D B A v e. P a s i g C i t y (Business Address: No. Street City/Town/Province) ALEXANDRA B. TRILLANA (632) 317-5450 Contact Person Company Telephone Number Certification of Independent Director Month Day FORM TYPE Month Day Annual Meeting Secondary License Type, If Applicable Dept. Requiring this Doc. Amended Articles Number/Section Total Amount of Borrowings Total No. of Stockholders Domestic Foreign ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To be accomplished by SEC Personnel concerned ____________________________ File Number LCU ____________________________ Document I.
  • This Annual Report

    This Annual Report

    SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2005 | 1 2 | SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORTSupreme 2005 Court of the Philippines The Davide Court Seated from left: Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, and Justice Antonio T. Carpio Standing from left: Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Justice Renato C. Corona, Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Justice Dante O. Tinga, and Justice Cancio C. Garcia The Panganiban Court Seated from left: Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez Standing from left: Justice Cancio C. Garcia, Justice Dante O. Tinga, Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Justice Renato C. Corona, Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, and Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2005 | 3 ANNUAL REPORT 2005 PREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2005 |SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2005 | SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2005 | SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2005 | SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2005 | SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 20 PREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2005 |SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2005 | SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL REPORT 2005 | SUPREME COURT | ANNUAL
  • Rights of the Accused Criminal Due Process

    Rights of the Accused Criminal Due Process

    Rights of the Accused Criminal Due Process Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan March 21, 1988. [GRN L-72335 March 21, 1988.*] FRANCISCO S. TATAD, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, and THE TANODBAYAN, respondents. PETITION for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to review the resolution of the Sandiganbayan. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. YAP, J.: In this petition for certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, dated October 16, 1985, petitioner seeks to annul and set aside the resolution of the Tanodbayan of April 7, 1985, and the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, dated August 9, 1985, August 12, 1985 and September 17, 1985, and to enjoin the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan from continuing with the trial or any other proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. 10499, 10500, 10501, 10502 and 10503, all entitled "People of the Philippines versus Francisco S. Tatad." The petition alleges, among other things, that sometime in October 1974, Antonio de los Reyes, former Head Executive Assistant of the then Department of Public Information (DPI) and Assistant Officerin- Charge of the Bureau of Broadcasts, filed a formal report with the Legal Panel, Presidential Security Command (PSC), charging petitioner, who was then Secretary and Head of the Department of Public Information, with alleged violations of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Apparently, no action was taken on said report. Then, in October 1979, or five years later, it became publicly known that petitioner had submitted his resignation as Minister of Public Information, and two months after, or on December 12, 1979, Antonio de los Reyes filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan (TBP Case No.
  • (UPOU). an Explorat

    (UPOU). an Explorat

    his paper is a self-reflection on the state of openness of the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU). An exploratory and descriptive study, it aims not only to define the elements of openness of UPOU, but also to unravel the causes and solutions to the issues and concerns that limit its options to becoming a truly open university. It is based on four parameters of openness, which are widely universal in the literature, e.g., open admissions, open curricula, distance education at scale, and the co-creation, sharing and use of open educational resources (OER). It draws from the perception survey among peers, which the author conducted in UPOU in July and August 2012. It also relies on relevant secondary materials on the subject. What if you could revisit and download the questions you took during the UPCAT (University of the Philippines College Admission Test)? I received information that this will soon be a possibility. It’s not yet official though. For some people, including yours truly, this is the same set of questions that made and unmade dreams. Not all UPCAT takers make it. Only a small fraction pass the test. Some of the passers see it as a blessing. Some see it as fuel, firing their desire to keep working harder. Some see it as an entitlement — instant membership to an elite group. Whatever its worth, the UPCAT is the entryway to the University of the Philippines, a scholastic community with a unique and celebrated tradition spanning more than a century. But take heed — none of its legacy would have been possible if not for the hard work of Filipino taxpayers.

  • Philippines People Power

    v People Power in the Philippines February 22-25, 1986 January 16-20, 2001 April 25-May 1, 2001 The1986 Philippines Uprising: People Power 1 £ For five days in February 1986, hundreds of thousands of people gathered at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue and Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA). They helped overthrow Ferdinand Marcos, dictator for over 20 years. Ferdinand Marcos £ Ferdinand Marcos was the tenth president of the Philippines £ His term lasted from December 30, 1965 to February 25, 1986. £ To keep himself in power, he implemented martial law and built an authoritarian regime. Ferdinand Marcos •President 1965-1986 •1st president to be reelected •1972 Declares martial law •1983: had Ninoy Aquino assassinated •1985: pressured to have snap elections •1986: lost elections “Black Friday” £Six people killed by police attack on protests near Malacañang presidential palace Artists One estimate put the number of theater groups at 400 by 1987. Martyrs Torture under Marcos The Opposition Ferdinand Marcos’ main opponent was Benigno Aquino. Known as “Ninoy” he was a leading opposition politician. Aquino in Newton, Massachusetts £ Ferdinand Marcos faced a growing problem. He had to find a way to suppress Benigno Aquino. £ To get rid of Aquino, Marcos declared martial law in 1972 and imprisoned Aquino on murder charges. £ In1978, from his prison cell, Ninoy was allowed to take part in the elections for Interim Batasang Pambansa (Parliament). £ Aquino was sentenced to death in 1977, but because of a heart problem he was sent into exile for medical treatment in the United States in 1980. The Return £ After three years of exile in the US, Benigno Aquino made an attempt to enter the Philippines.
  • 1.1 Introduction

    1.1 Introduction

    CHAPTER ONE TO DEFER OR TO DEFY: JUDICIAL CONTROL IN INSECURE ENVIRONMENTS All judges are politicians, whether they know it or not. --- Enrique Petracchi 1.1 Introduction When do judges rein in those who reign? In a given polity, the judiciary has the crucial task of rendering verdicts on disputes and social questions fairly; insensible to considerations of power and prestige. The courts are expected to subject even those who rule to the governance of rules (Fuller 1964; Shapiro 1981). However, those who have dominion over the state can employ a variety of weaponry to bend the gavel to their will: They can refuse to implement judicial rulings, cut the court’s jurisdiction, reduce the budget allotted to the court, impeach the magistrates or subject the judges to physical harm. These threats are particularly compelling in authoritarian societies where judges do not enjoy the institutional safeguards or the popular support that protect their counterparts in democratic polities. Thus, it becomes most relevant to ask: When do judges invalidate actions of government? Why do gavels defy the gun? The objective of this dissertation is to identify the conditions that enable the robe to overturn state action at the risk of incurring the wrath of the sword. The judicial literature has focused mostly on court behavior within highly developed democracies (Guarnieri and Pederzoli 2002; Koopmans 2003). In these polities, the courts 1 have emerged as powerful, independent actors in the public policy process. Empirical studies demonstrated that institutional protections like security of tenure and fiscal autonomy, as well as public support, have allowed judiciaries in developed societies to effectively constrain governmental behavior.
  • The Philippines: a Country in Crisis - a Report by Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights

    The Philippines: a Country in Crisis - a Report by Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights

    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 1983 The Philippines: A Country in Crisis - A Report by Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights Diane Orentlicher Marvin E. Frankel Jack Greenberg Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons The Philippines: A Country in Crisis- A Report by the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights by Marvin E. Frankel, Jack Greenberg, and Diane F. Orentlicher This article is based on a mission of inquiry to the Philippines undertaken during the last three weeks of September, 1983 by a delega- tion representing the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights. * The report reflects both the direct observationsof the delegates and the information that they gatheredfrom others in the Philippines whose accounts they judge to be reliable. The delegation was headed by Marvin E. Frankel, who is Chairman of the Lawyers Committee for InternationalHuman Rights and a senior partnerin the New York law firm of Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin and Frankel.From 1965 until 1978 he servedas afederal district courtjudge in the Southern Districtof New York. judge Frankel has participatedin human rights missions to Argentina and the Soviet Union. judge Frankel was joined on the Philippines mission by Jack Greenberg and Diane Orentlicher.Mr. Greenberg is Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., with which he has been affiliated since 1949, and is also an Adjunct Professorat Columbia University School of Law.
  • Ferdinand Marcos: Apotheosis of the Philippine Historical Political Tradition

    Ferdinand Marcos: Apotheosis of the Philippine Historical Political Tradition

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Undergraduate Humanities Forum 2008-09: Penn Humanities Forum Undergraduate Change Research Fellows 4-2009 FERDINAND MARCOS: APOTHEOSIS OF THE PHILIPPINE HISTORICAL POLITICAL TRADITION Nicole Cu Unjieng niversity of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/uhf_2009 Part of the History Commons Unjieng, Nicole Cu, "FERDINAND MARCOS: APOTHEOSIS OF THE PHILIPPINE HISTORICAL POLITICAL TRADITION" (2009). Undergraduate Humanities Forum 2008-09: Change. 14. https://repository.upenn.edu/uhf_2009/14 2008-2009 Penn Humanities Forum on Change Undergraduate Mellon Research Fellows http://humanities.sas.upenn.edu/08-09/fellows_uhf.shtml This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/uhf_2009/14 For more information, please contact [email protected]. FERDINAND MARCOS: APOTHEOSIS OF THE PHILIPPINE HISTORICAL POLITICAL TRADITION Abstract Nicole E. CuUnjieng, College '09, History The Regime of Ferdinand Marcos and the Role of the Supreme Court of the Philippines My research centers on the Philippine political tradition and contextualizing President Ferdinand Marcos's 1972-1986 dictatorship within that perspective. I wish to intervene within the existing academic debate on the nature of this tradition. Challenging the established scholarship, which presents Marcos's regime as the anomaly of the Philippine patronage system, I instead argue that Marcos is the perverse apotheosis of the system. I wish to argue that Marcos embodies all the ills already present in Philippine politics and merely brings them to their extreme conclusion. More recent scholars have also championed this reading and I wish to further develop the argument by examining the legitimizing role that the judiciary played in this history.
  • Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No

    Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No

    Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985 LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. [MABINI], petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President , MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Director, Malacañang Records Office, and FLORENDO S. PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing, respondents. ESCOLIN, J.: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, 1 as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. Specifically, the publication of the following presidential issuances is sought: a] Presidential Decrees Nos. 12, 22, 37, 38, 59, 64, 103, 171, 179, 184, 197, 200, 234, 265, 286, 298, 303, 312, 324, 325, 326, 337, 355, 358, 359, 360, 361, 368, 404, 406, 415, 427, 429, 445, 447, 473, 486, 491, 503, 504, 521, 528, 551, 566, 573, 574, 594, 599, 644, 658, 661, 718, 731, 733, 793, 800, 802, 835, 836, 923, 935, 961, 1017-1030, 1050, 1060-1061, 1085, 1143, 1165, 1166, 1242, 1246, 1250, 1278, 1279, 1300, 1644, 1772, 1808, 1810, 1813-1817, 1819-1826, 1829-1840, 1842-1847.
  • Annual Cover-1

    Annual Cover-1

    1 ANNUAL REPORT 2009 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 2 ANNUAL REPORT 2009 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 3 ANNUAL REPORT 2009 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES The 2008 AND 2009 PUNO COURT i Message from CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO iv Message from CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA 6 2009: CONTINUITY AND PROGRESS 8 in a TRANSITION YEAR for the Supreme Court JUSTICES of the Supreme Court 13 Highlights of the CY 2011 BUDGET PROPOSAL 52 The STATE OF THE 2009 JUDICIARY 55 2009 Supreme Court REFORM PROJECTS 60 OFFICIALS of the Supreme Court 63 ATTACHED INSTITUTIONS 71 2009 SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS 73 2009 SIGNIFICANT RULES, Guidelines, 79 Circulars, and Orders SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS of SC COMMITTEES 81 and Technical Working Groups SIGNIFICANT FORA, Conferences, 84 Seminars, and Workshops 2009 SIGNIFICANT ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS 87 EMPLOYEE WELFARE AND BENEFITS 91 The Philippine JUDICIAL SYSTEM 94 4 ANNUAL REPORT 2009 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES ave for those who have plotted their mark in history, the vast majority of individuals in their existence Smerely enjoy a temporal place in memory and time. In contrast, the institutions, ideas, and constructs of our forefathers continue to not only tell of the tales defining the progress of society, but also articulate the principles by which we must continue to live for future generations. As we come to the end of the new millennium’s first decade, we look at the path of the Supreme Court over this past year with an accompanying pragmatic thought on how its accomplishments set the tone for subsequent chapters in the story of our people.