DOCSLIB.ORG

2011 Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. This duty is the duty to determine if there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Entrusted with this expanded certiorari jurisdiction, the Supreme Court often cannot avoid conflicts with the two other great political branches of government, and is usually asked to resolve many of the great issues that divide our nation. Unlike the President or Congress, however, the Supreme Court, or the entire Judiciary for that matter, has neither the power of the sword nor the power of the purse. As Alexander Hamilton put it, the Judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society,” and has “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” Wielding only judgment, the Judiciary can fulfill its great duty only with the support of the very people who have entrusted to it its crucial role. Maintaining the public’s trust in the Judiciary, therefore, is an essential precondition to the continued effectiveness of courts in the fulfillment of their role in our representative democracy. This trust is not something that courts should take for granted; it must be built, and once built, it must be maintained. Continued public faith in the Judiciary is built and maintained by 4 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES ensuring to the people a workable representative democracy that protects constitutional rights and guarantees the rule of law. This can be achieved by the Judiciary only by working together with other government institutions and nurturing its relationships with them. The principle of separation of powers does not create exclusive fiefdoms for each of the three great departments of government. It provides merely the conceptual tools and institutional safeguards for preventing the sort of accumulation of power that history has proven to be inimical to the public good. The Judiciary’s primary endeavor is its duty to decide cases, and it is here where it can better nurture its relationships with the President, Congress, and the rest of government. This it can do by recognizing and taking advantage of the relative competencies of the different government institutions—without of course compromising the courts’ duty to protect constitutional values and fundamental rights. For example, it is a basic principle that courts take into account Congress’ general purposes in enacting a statute whenever its provisions are interpreted and applied to a case. Also, proper deference should be accorded to the specializations and expertise of • administrative agencies whenever their decisions are contested before the Court. MESSAGE Of course, the Judiciary in nurturing these relationships must still always look to its expanded duty under our FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE • system of government as a special obligation to the people, which it must never compromise even in the face of the raging passions of the day. It must be resolute in its commitment to the rule of law and to fundamental rights, even when public expediency demands otherwise. This, ultimately, is what gives weight to its judgments, and maintains confidence in the legitimacy of its decisions. Justice Antonio T. Carpio ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 5 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 2011: Upholding the Rule of Law in Face of Unprecedented Challenges 011 proved to be a tumultuous year for the Supreme Court, ending with Chief 2Justice Renato C. Corona being impeached by the House of Representatives • 2011: UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW IN FACE UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGES on December 12, 2011. Nonetheless, the Court continues to do its work, specifically to discharge its constitutional duty “to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” (Art. XVIII, sec. 1) Its primary accomplishment is the disposition of cases imbued with public interest and of national significance. It wrote finis to the following cases: GR No. 159618, Bayan Muna v. Romulo, February 1, 2011 (Velasco, J.) The Court dismissed for lack of merit the petition assailing the Non-Surrender Agreement concluded by and between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America absent any clear contravention of the law. The Agreement provides in pertinent part that Persons of one Party present in the territory of the other shall not, absent the express consent of the first Party, (a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any international tribunal for any purpose, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council or (b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any other entity or third country, or expelled to a third country, for the purpose of surrender to or transfer to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council. The decision became final on April 15, 2011. 6 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES is required because the Rules expressly mandate their publication. Thus, it ruled that the referral of the subject complaint against a Senator by the Committee on Ethics and Privileges to the Senate Committee of the Whole shall take effect only upon publication of the said Rules. The decision became final on March 30, 2011. GR No. 172087, Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) v. BIR, March 15, 2011 (Peralta, J.) The Court held the PAGCOR exempt from value- added tax but not from corporate income tax. The decision became final on August 4, 2011. GR No. 191560, General v. Arroyo, March 29, 2011 (Brion, J.) The Court dismissed the petition assailing the appointment of two Nationsl Police Commission • 2011: UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW IN FACE UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGES (NAPOLCOM) Commissioners on the ground that the same violates the constitutional ban on “midnight” appointments as petitioner himself has not established his right to the office to give cause of action to his petition for quo warranto. The decision attained finality on May 5, 2011. (Signed Res.) GR No. 164195, Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines, April 5, 2011, (Brion, J.) The Court “denied with absolute finality” Land Bank’s second motion for reconsideration of its (Signed Res.) GR No. 176951, League of October 12, 2010 directing the bank to pay Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. COMELEC; petitioners 12% interest on the amount of just GR No. 177499, LCP v. COMELEC; and GR compensation it belatedly paid amounting to P1.3 No. 178056, LCP v. COMELEC, February 15, billion for the petitioners’ expropriated plantations. 2011 (Bersamin, J.) The said ruling became final on April 15, 2011. After first ruling the assailed laws as constitutional in 2008, and then holding (Signed Res.) GR No. 191618, Macalintal v. otherwise in 2009, and then reverting to its 2008 Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), June 7, ruling in 2010, the Court reconsidered its 2010 2011 (Nachura, J.) ruling and instead held as not violative of the The Court denied petitioner’s motion for Constitution and the Local Government Code reconsideration of its decision dated November 23, the 16 Cityhood Laws converting
Recommended publications
  • Social Climate/Column for Phil Daily Inquirer

    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.
  • 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.
  • Disappearance"/ Death Threats 12 March 1993

    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.
  • 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

    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.
  • 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

    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
  • Philippine Case Study Revised RLM Rev As of 28

    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.
  • Disability‑Inclusive Electoral Systems: Analyzing the Philippine Electoral Policy Using the Disability Convention (Disco) Policy Framework

    Disability‑Inclusive Electoral Systems: Analyzing the Philippine Electoral Policy Using the Disability Convention (Disco) Policy Framework

    Cruz Bandung J of Global South (2015) 2:23 DOI 10.1186/s40728-015-0020-z RESEARCH Open Access Disability-inclusive electoral systems: analyzing the Philippine electoral policy using the disability convention (DisCo) policy framework John Paul P. Cruz1,2* *Correspondence: [email protected]; Abstract [email protected] For more than a century now, the Philippines has been at the forefront of democ- 2 Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs (G3iCT), Atlanta, GA, USA racy in the Southeast Asian region. Since the early 1990s, the country has sought to Full list of author information institutionalize democratic processes, which aim to meaningfully engage Filipinos in is available at the end of the the public and political spheres. In line with its efforts of strengthening its electoral article systems, it has also taken a leading role in the region in promoting and protecting the rights of voters with disabilities by becoming one of the first States Parties to ratify the United Nations convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). A key provision of the UNCRPD is affording voters with disabilities the equal opportunity to engage in every electoral process on an equal basis with other abled-bodied vot- ers. However, in spite of recent developments, the Philippines has yet to effectively implement disability-inclusive electoral policies and processes that would not only engage able-bodied Filipino voters but also one of the country’s largest minority com- munity—Filipino voters with disabilities. This paper examines the effectiveness of the Philippine government in ensuring that Filipino voters with disabilities are guaranteed with and are able to exercise their right to suffrage.
  • Philippine Studies Ateneo De Manila University • Loyola Heights, Quezon City • 1108 Philippines

    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.
  • Shooting Stars and Dancing Fish: a Walk to the World We Want

    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.
  • 2012 Annual Report | Supreme Court of the Philippines

    2012 Annual Report | Supreme Court of the Philippines

    This Annual Report is submitted pursuant to the Supreme Court's constitutionally-imposed duty under Article VIII, Section 16 "The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary." 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 II The Philippine Judiciary riginally established on June 11, 1901 through Act No. 136 by the Philippine Commission as a three-level hierarchical organization, the OOPhilippine Judiciary, through the years, has retained a structure of vertical hierarchy but has also incorporated a system of horizontal and lateral coordination among courts within the same level. Under the current structure, the Supreme Court grouped by law. The decisions of the courts of the sits at the top of a four-level vertical hierarchy, with first level are appealable to the courts of the second the Court of Appeals as the third level and Regional level, or the RTC. Trial Courts (RTC) and Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) and Within this level are the Shari’a Circuit Courts Metropolitan Trial Courts in Cities (MeTC) as second (SCC). Shari’a Courts have been established in the and first level courts, respectively. Autonomous Regions of Muslim Mindanao to interpret and apply the Code of Muslim Personal The vertical hierarchy allows for a systematic order Laws provided under Presidential Decree 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.
  • The Commission on Elections from Aquino to Arroyo

    The Commission on Elections from Aquino to Arroyo

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is with deep gratitude to IDE that I had a chance to visit and experience Japan. I enjoyed the many conversations with researchers in IDE, Japanese academics and scholars of Philippines studies from various universities. The timing of my visit, the year 2009, could not have been more perfect for someone interested in election studies. This paper presents some ideas, arguments, proposed framework, and historical tracing articulated in my Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I would like to thank my generous and inspiring professors: Paul Hutchcroft, Alfred McCoy, Edward Friedman, Michael Schatzberg, Dennis Dresang and Michael Cullinane. This research continues to be a work in progress. And while it has benefited from comments and suggestions from various individuals, all errors are mine alone. I would like to thank the Institute of Developing Economies (IDE) for the interest and support in this research project. I am especially grateful to Dr. Takeshi Kawanaka who graciously acted as my counterpart. Dr. Kawanaka kindly introduced me to many Japanese scholars, academics, and researchers engaged in Philippine studies. He likewise generously shared his time to talk politics and raise interesting questions and suggestions for my research. My special thanks to Yurika Suzuki. Able to anticipate what one needs in order to adjust, she kindly extended help and shared many useful information, insights and tips to help me navigate daily life in Japan (including earthquake survival tips). Many thanks to the International Exchange and Training Department of IDE especially to Masak Osuna, Yasuyo Sakaguchi and Miyuki Ishikawa.