DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court Padre Faura, Manila

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court Padre Faura, Manila REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT PADRE FAURA, MANILA EN BANC REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, ET. AL, PETITIONERS, G.R. NO. 231658 -versus- HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. x--------------------------------------------x EUFEMIA CAMPOS CULLAMAT, ET AL., PETITIONERS, G.R. NO. 231771 -versus- PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. x--------------------------------------------x NORKAYA S. MOHAMAD, ET AL., PETITIONERS, G.R. NO. 231774 -versus- EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. x--------------------------------------------x MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PETITIONERS in G.R. No. 231658, through counsel, respectfully submit the instant motion for reconsideration based on the following presentation: 1 1. Petitioners received on 06 July 2017 copies of the Majority Decision (ponencia) dated 04 July 2017 together with the separate concurring and dissenting opinions. The dispositive portion of the ponencia reads: WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 and DECLARES it as CONSTITUTIONAL. Accordingly, the consolidated Petitions are hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. 2. The motion for reconsideration of petitioners is due on or before 21 July 2017. 3. This motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed. I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 4. It is significant that the Honorable Justices who concurred with the Majority Decision and those who dissented all highlighted the multiple safeguards provided for in the 1987 Constitution which seek to: (a) Prevent the misuse and abuse of the President’s power to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and (b) Foreclose the recurrence of atrocities and corruption which marred the martial law regime of the late President Ferdinand Marcos. 5. These constitutional safeguards include the grant of original, exclusive and special jurisdiction to the Honorable Supreme Court under the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution to “review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the writ” of habeas corpus. 6. The reiteration of these safeguards is a stern reminder to the President that his exercise of extraordinary emergency powers must be judicious, not absolute or unbridled, and confined within the limitations and parameters of the Constitution. 2 7. It is also a wake-up call on the citizens not to sleep on their rights and be always vigilant against any design or attempt by the Government to violate their civil liberties. 8. However, the reality is these constitutional safeguards are only good and vibrant with a President who respects the Constitution and upholds the rule of law. 9. It is in this context that the people and the Honorable Supreme Court must be wary of the motives of the President who has deliberately announced that his brand of martial law will be harsh and no different from that of the late President Ferdinand Marcos’. President Duterte publicly rated the Marcos martial law regime as “very good”, despite its documented excesses and repressions. 10. Moreover, these constitutional safeguards are only concrete and cogent with a Supreme Court which will accord them efficacy in proper cases brought before it, and with a High Court which does not abdicate its special jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of a presidential imposition of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by giving inordinate deference to the President’s exercise of extraordinary emergency powers. 11. Furthermore, these safeguards would be meaningless if the Honorable Supreme Court engages in a balancing act of appeasement vis-à-vis the President. 12. It is also noteworthy that the Honorable Supreme Court settled the following issues: (a) A petition for the Supreme Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of a martial law declaration and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is justiciable and must perforce be resolved on the merits by the Supreme Court since it is outside the ambit of a political question. (b) A petition filed by a citizen under Section 18 of Article VII granting jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of such declaration and suspension is sui generis or a class by itself. It does not fall under the expanded power of judicial review of the Supreme Court under Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution and the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein both instances the petitioner must prove grave abuse 3 of discretion or arbitrariness on the part of the public respondent. (c) There are two indispensable concurrent requirements to warrant the declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, namely, (a) actual rebellion or invasion; and (b) necessity to safeguard public safety. (d) The burden of proof is on the President or his subalterns to show sufficiency of the factual basis because it is the Executive who has the monopoly of supposed intelligence information which may warrant such declaration or suspension, which information is not available to the citizen-petitioner. However, Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Noel Tijam, Estela Perlas- Bernabe and Lucas Bersamin in their respective concurring opinions maintain that the petitioners have the burden of proof and/or burden of evidence. (e) The quantum of evidence is “probable cause”. This is the level of evidence wherein a reasonably discreet and prudent man makes a judgment based on a set of facts and circumstances. Variations were made based on standards of “reasonableness” (Justice Francis Jardeleza); “reasonableness” (Justice Jose Catral Mendoza); “adequate proof” (Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe) and parity between “probable cause” and “reasonableness” (Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro). II. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION 13. With due respect to the Honorable Supreme Court, the Majority Decision (ponencia) which upholds the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Marawi City and the whole of Mindanao under Proclamation No. 216, is flawed for the following overriding reasons: I. THE SUPREME COURT HAS VIRTUALLY ABDICATED THE ORIGINAL, EXCLUSIVE AND SPECIAL JURISDICTION WHICH SECTION 18 OF ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION CONFERRED ON IT TO REVIEW THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE PRESIDENT’S DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 4 A. THE EXCUSE THAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE “COMPETENCE” AND “LOGISTICAL MACHINERY”, COMPARED TO THE PRESIDENT, TO “ABLY AND PROPERLY ASSESS THE GROUND CONDITIONS” ALLEGED BY THE PRESIDENT IN HIS PROCLAMATION AND REPORT, IS AN OMINOUS PRELUDE TO AN ABANDONMENT OF ITS POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 18 OF ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION. B. THE SUPREME COURT WAS APPARENTLY OBLIVIOUS OF ITS INHERENT POWER TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY AFTER THE CONSTITUTION GRANTED IT EXCEPTIONAL FACT-FINDING JURISDICTION. C. RELIANCE ON THE IN-CAMERA PRESENTATIONS AND TESTIMONIES OF RESPONDENTS DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA AND AFP CHIEF-OF- STAFF EDUARDO AÑO IS MISPLACED SINCE THEY LACKED TRANSPARENCY AND THEIR INTERPELLATION WAS NOT IN AN OPEN COURT PUBLIC SESSION. D. THE PONENCIA DELIMITED AND EMASCULATED THE SUPREME COURT’S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE SUFFICIENCY OF FACTUAL BASIS BY PRONOUNCING THAT ITS REVIEW DOES NOT EXTEND TO DETERMINING THE CORRECTNESS AND VERACITY OF THE PRESIDENT’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND IT IS IRRELEVANT THAT THE REPORTS GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE OR INACCURATE. E. THE SUPREME COURT ACCORDED “MUCH LEEWAY AND FLEXIBILITY” AND UNDUE DEFERENCE TO THE PRESIDENT’S EXERCISE OF HIS POWER TO IMPOSE MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPEND THE WRIT 5 OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THE EXTENT OF DENIGRATING ITS POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 18 OF ARTICLE VII. F. THE INVOCATION OF THE PRESUMPTIONS OF GOOD FAITH AND REGULARITY IN FAVOR OF THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS DEFEATS OR DIMINISHES THE SUPREME COURT’S POWER TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DECLARATION AND SUSPENSION. II. PROCLAMATION NO. 216 DATED 23 MAY 2017 AND THE PRESIDENT’S REPORT TO THE CONGRESS DATED 25 MAY 2017 FAILED TO SHOW SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN MARAWI CITY AND THE WHOLE OF MINDANAO. A. THERE WAS NO ACTUAL REBELLION ON 23 MAY 2017 IN MARAWI CITY AND THE WHOLE OF MINDANAO, AND WHAT WAS OBTAINING WAS LAWLESS VIOLENCE. B. THE ESCALATING DEATHS OF COMBATANTS AND CIVILIANS, MASSIVE DESTRUCTION OF MARAWI CITY AND THE HORRIFIC DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS ARE ALL THE AFTERMATH OF THE DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW WHICH WERE NOT THE PREVAILING FACTS WHEN PROCLAMATION NO. 216 WAS ISSUED ON 23 MAY 2017. C. IT IS A FARCE TO POSIT AND ADMIT THAT THERE WAS A “MARAWI SIEGE” AND THERE IS NEED TO RETAKE OR LIBERATE MARAWI CITY BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER CAPTURED IN THE FIRST PLACE. D. AT NO INSTANCE BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF PROCLAMATION 6 NO. 216 WAS THE REPUBLIC’S SOVEREIGNTY IMPERILED AND ITS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY COMPROMISED. E. THE DOCTRINE ON REBELLION AS A “CONTINUING OFFENSE” WAS MISAPPLIED. F. THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC SAFETY ON 23 MAY 2017 WHEN PROCLAMATION NO. 216 WAS ISSUED BECAUSE THE SITUATION IN MARAWI WAS UNDER CONTROL AND THE MILITARY WAS ON TOP OF THE SITUATION AS REPORTED NO LESS BY RESPONSIBLE MILITARY OFFICIALS. III. ABSENT THE ELEMENTS OF REBELLION, TERRORISM AND LAWLESS VIOLENCE DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID GROUNDS FOR THE DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. IV. CONSIDERING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE MONOPOLY OF SO-CALLED INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION, THE HEARSAY RULE MUST NOT BE APPLIED ON PETITIONERS’ SECONDARY SOURCES OF INFORMATION LIKE NEWS REPORTAGE WHICH BELIE THE VERACITY OF INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION AND/OR CONTEST THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF PROCLAMATION NO.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Acquitted of Plunder: a Case of Justice Catering to Political Power in the Philippines?
    Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Acquitted of Plunder: A Case of Justice Catering to Political Power in the Philippines? By Rappler Region: South-East Asia Asia-Pacific Research, July 20, 2016 Theme: Justice, Society Rappler 19 June 2016 The presidential administration of former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was marked by corruption, fraud, misuse of public funds, and utter disregard for constitutionalism and the rule of law. She has been widely accused of murder, kidnapping, plundering, and cheating. The US Embassy in Manila was even informed in 2005 by corporate accounting firm SGV founder Washington Sycip that her husband, José Miguel Arroyo, was one of the most corrupt figures in the Philippines, according to US diplomat cables that were leaked in 2011. The Arroyo Administration also arbitrarily and unlawfully arrested her political opponents while it used national security measures and the language of law and order as pretexts to suppress her opponents and Filipinos and Filipinas seeking justice. The Hello Garci scandal that emerged in 2005 merely served to prove that the 2004 Philippine general-election’s were rigged by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her political associates. After the scandal, Arroyo would admit that the audio evidence produced about her election rigging was authentic, but nothing happened to her. Her government argued on the basis of procedural law that since the key evidence against Arroyo was a phone conversation that was recorded without her consent that it could not be used while her political party and coalition prevented her impeachment and justice from ever taking place through legislative means by blocking any action against her by using their majority vote in the Congress of the Philippines.
    [Show full text]
  • ~Upreme <!L:Ourt
    l\epublic of tbe tlbilippines ~upreme <!l:ourt ;fflanila EN BANC REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 237428 represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner, Present: SERENO, C.J.,* CARPIO, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, PERLAS-BERNABE, - versus - LEONEN, JARDELEZA, CAGUIOA, MARTIRES, TIJAM, REYES, JR., and GESMUNDO, JJ. Promulgated: MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Respondent. May 11, 20~ x---------------------------------------------------------~--------------------x DECISION TIJAM, J.: Whoever walks in integrity and with moral character walks securely, but he who takes a crooked way will be discovered and punished. -The Holy Bible, Proverbs 10:9 (AMP) 'No Part. Decision 2 G.R. No. 237428 Integrity has, at all times, been stressed to be one of the required qualifications of a judge. It is not a new concept in the vocation of administering and dispensing justice. In the early l 600's, Francis Bacon, a philosopher, statesman, and jurist, in his "Essay L VI: Of Judicature" said - "'[a]bove all things, integrity is the Judge's portion and proper virtue." Neither is integrity a complex concept necessitating esoteric philosophical disquisitions to be understood. Simply, it is a qualification of being honest, truthful, and having steadfast adherence to moral and ethical principles. 1 Integrity connotes being consistent - doing the right thing in accordance with the law and ethical standards everytime. Hence, every judicial officer in any society is required to comply, not only with the laws and legislations, but with codes and canons of conduct and ethical standards as well, without derogation. As Thomas Jefferson remarked, "it is of great importance to set a resolution, never not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth.
    [Show full text]
  • (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.
    [Show full text]
  • Sun May 31 11:12:53 2020 SOURCE: Content Downloaded from Heinonline
    DATE DOWNLOADED: Sun May 31 11:12:53 2020 SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline Citations: Bluebook 20th ed. Antonio G. M. La Vina, Nico Robert R. Martin & Josef Leroi Garcia, High Noon in the Supreme Court: The Poe-Llamanzares Decision and Its Impact on Substantive and Procedural Jurisprudence, 90 Phil. L.J. 218 (2017). ALWD 6th ed. Antonio G. M. La Vina, Nico Robert R. Martin & Josef Leroi Garcia, High Noon in the Supreme Court: The Poe-Llamanzares Decision and Its Impact on Substantive and Procedural Jurisprudence, 90 Phil. L.J. 218 (2017). APA 7th ed. La Vina, A. G., Martin, N. R., & Garcia, J. (2017). High noon in the supreme court: The poe-llamanzares decision and its impact on substantive and procedural jurisprudence. Philippine Law Journal, 90(2), 218-277. Chicago 7th ed. Antonio G. M. La Vina; Nico Robert R. Martin; Josef Leroi Garcia, "High Noon in the Supreme Court: The Poe-Llamanzares Decision and Its Impact on Substantive and Procedural Jurisprudence," Philippine Law Journal 90, no. 2 (January 2017): 218-277 McGill Guide 9th ed. Antonio GM La Vina, Nico Robert R Martin & Josef Leroi Garcia, "High Noon in the Supreme Court: The Poe-Llamanzares Decision and Its Impact on Substantive and Procedural Jurisprudence" (2017) 90:2 Philippine LJ 218. MLA 8th ed. La Vina, Antonio G. M. , et al. "High Noon in the Supreme Court: The Poe-Llamanzares Decision and Its Impact on Substantive and Procedural Jurisprudence." Philippine Law Journal, vol. 90, no. 2, January 2017, p. 218-277. HeinOnline. OSCOLA 4th ed. Antonio G M La Vina and Nico Robert R Martin and Josef Leroi Garcia, 'High Noon in the Supreme Court: The Poe-Llamanzares Decision and Its Impact on Substantive and Procedural Jurisprudence' (2017) 90 Phil LJ 218 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at https://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
    [Show full text]
  • Duterte Revokes Trillanes Amnesty; Court Orders His Arrest
    17 POLITICAL Duterte revokes Trillanes amnesty; court orders his arrest Senator Antonio Trillanes IV is facing his previously dismissed rebellion and coup d’état charges again after President Rodrigo Duterte revoked the amnesty granted to him in 2011. Beyond the arrest of the senator, the crisis could have far more reaching consequences to those who were previously granted amnesty. wo charges against Nacionalista Party Sen. Trillanes, a staunch critic of Pres. Duterte, have been revived in separate Regional Trial Courts (RTC) after the President Trevoked his amnesty through the issuance of Proclamation No. (PN) 572, s. 2018. The proclamation declares the amnesty granted to the senator void ab initio (void from the very beginning) after he allegedly failed to comply with the minimum prerequisites needed to qualify for amnesty – filing of an Official Amnesty Application Form and admission of guilt. In 2010, Former Pres. Benigno Aquino III, through PN 75, granted amnesty to officers and personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police (PNP), and their supporters, in connection with the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, 2006 Marines Stand-Off, and the 2007 Manila Peninsula Incident. Based on the news the 2007 Manila Peninsula Siege. Sen. Trillanes temporarily reports during that period, Sen. Trillanes, a former Navy avoided jail after posting bail worth P200,000. Notably, Judge Lieutenant, filed his amnesty application on January 5, 2011. Alameda is the same judge who previously dismissed these Although PN 572 was released publicly through the Manila charges against the senator way back in 2011 in pursuant to Times on September 4 while the President was in the middle of Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Daily Bulletin
    CCoommmmiitttteeee DDaaiillyy BBuulllleettiinn 17th Congress A publication of the Committee Affairs Department Vol. III No. 21 Third Regular Session September 04, 2018 BUDGET BRIEFINGS COMMITTEE SUBJECT MATTER DISCUSSIONS Appropriations Briefing on the proposed FY 2019 budget, plans The Committee, chaired by Rep. Karlo Alexei Nograles (1st District, and programs, and major accomplishments of the Davao City), listened to the presentations on the proposed FY 2019 following government offices: budget, plans and programs, and major accomplishments of the CSC, CHR, the Judiciary, and DOST. Civil Service Commission (CSC) Committee Vice Chair, Rep. Raul del Mar (1st District, Cebu City), sat as the presiding officer during the CSC’s budget briefing. CSC Chair Alicia dela Rosa-Bala said that under the FY 2019 National Expenditure Program (NEP), the CSC is set to receive a budget of P1.65 billion, which is 4.97% higher than its current budget of P1.57 billion. By expense class, CSC’s 2019 proposed budget will be distributed as follows: personnel services (PS), P1.26 billion; maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE), P317.27 million; capital outlay (CO), P78.05 million; and financial expenses (Finex), P9,000. Several Members of the Committee support the call of the CSC to restore its FY 2019 budget to its original proposal of P2.24 billion. Bala explained that the slashed budget of the CSC will affect the following programs: creation of new positions in the CSC field offices; upgrading of CSC field offices; and reactivation of the CSC Academy. In response to the query of Reps. Carlos Isagani Zarate (Party-List, BAYAN MUNA) and Mark Aeron Sambar (Party-List, PBA), Bala clarified that Joint Circular No.1 series of 2017 issued by the CSC, Commission on Audit (COA) and Department of Budget and Management (DBM), pertaining to the rules and regulations governing contract of service (CS) and job order (JO) workers in the government, does not prevent government agencies from engaging the services of CS and JO workers after December 31, 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Separate Opinion I
    G.R. No. 237428 (Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, petitioner, v. Maria Lourdes P.A.. Sereno, respondent) Promulgated: x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SEPARATE OPINION MARTIRES, J.: It is well to state, at the outset, that we are NOT REMOVING A CHIEF JUSTICE because respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, who has no valid appointment, is not the legitimate Chief Justice that the Filipino people perceive her to be. She failed to comply with the requirement of submission of Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) imposed by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for applicants to the position of Chief Justice, and such noncompliance necessarily renders her appointment invalid, making her a mere "de facto" Chief Justice who can be removed from office through an action for quo warranto. Further, it is my humble submission that the constitutional provision on impeachment as u mode of removing an impeachable officer from office only applies to a "de Jure" and not to a de facto officer like respondent Sereno. In any event, the heart of this petition for quo warranto does not pertain to acts performed by respondent Sereno as a de facto Chief Justice but is with respect to her right to continue to hold and exercise the powers of the office of Chief Justice. In view of the foregoing, I CONCUR IN THE RESULT of the ponencia and vote to GRANT the petition. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno FAILED TO QUALIFY for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and must therefore be OUSTED from office.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 20 Page 8
    HONGKONGNEWS.COM.HK Page 2 The No.1 Foreign Newspaper Vol.XVI No.359 November 15, 2016 The Supreme Court allows the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos in Stiffer penalties the Libingan ng mga Bayani. eyed vs agencies Page 8 Multinational companies in Hong Kong pledge to support the “ethical hiring” of foreign domestic workers. Page 20 PUNISH THEM. LegCo member Fernando Cheung said he will propose stiffer penalities for abusive employment agencies after a study showed that Filipino domestic workers are still often charged fees that are more than 25 times the legal limit in Hong Kong. (Philip C. Tubeza) Actress Sunshine Cruz By Philip C. Tubeza domestic workers were still being charged issue at the LegCo so that it could increase crease penalties in the law for employ- has a new boyfriend fees that are more than 25 times the legal the penalties for erring employment agen- ment agencies violating the law,” Cheung A Hong Kong lawmaker wants to increase limit. cies. said during the presentation of the study after parting ways the penalties for abusive employment Legislative Council (LegCo) member “I will bring this up in the Legislative with Cesar Montano. Turn to page 10 agencies after a study showed that Filipino Fernando Cheung said he will take up the Council. I would look into ways to in- PUBLISHED BY HK PUBLICATIONS LTD. TEL: 2851 1766 2 NEWS November 15, 2016 HONGKONGNEWS.COM.HK SC allows Marcos burial in Libingan By Maia Lopez his family. dent, Duterte has the right “to amend, re- International in 2004 named Marcos the “As a son, it is something that I have voke, or rescind political agreements en- second most corrupt leader of all time.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Decision on Quo Warranto Case Against CJ Sereno
    ! ! ! Quo Warranto Case Against CJ Sereno EXCERPTSDIGEST: SUPREME: SUPREME COURT COURT DECISION DECISION The digestThe excerpts printed printed below wasbelow prepared were prepared by the Ateneo by the Ateneode Manila de ManilaUniversity School School of Law of Law.. Republic of the Philippines v. Maria Lourdes Sereno G.R. No. 237428, 11 May 2018 Ponente: Associate Justice Noel Tijam Facts: The Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, filed a Petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare void Respondent Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (SC) and to oust and altogether exclude her therefrom. Respondent served as a member of the faculty of the UP College of Law (UP) from 1986 to 2006. She also served as legal counsel for the Republic of the Philippines for several agencies from 1994 until 2009. On July 2010, Respondent submitted her application for the position of Associate Justice of the SC. Despite the span of 20 years of employment with UP from 1986 to 2006 and despite having been employed as legal counsel of various government agencies from 2003 to 2009, records from the UP Human Resources Development Office, Central Records Division of the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of Recruitment Selection and Nomination (ORSN) of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) show that the only Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) available on record and filed by Respondent were those for the years 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002, or only 11 out of 25 SALNs that ought to have been filed.
    [Show full text]
  • REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M a N I L A
    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., (123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan) Complainant, - versus - A.M. OCA IPI No. ______________ For: Gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, manifest undue interest, violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct (Rule 2.04, inter alia) and Professional Responsibility, Disbarment, etc. Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Associate Justice Martin Villarama and Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz , and “Jane Doe” & Sarah Doe” (Lawyers, daughters of Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.), (Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila) Respondents. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Amended / Supplemental Verified Complaint – Letter-Affidavit [Under Rules 140, 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, Codes of Judicial Conduct & Professional Responsibility, inter alia] – and – Verified Motion For Leave To Intervene & Petition-in-Intervention In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" – With - Urgent Omnibus Motions I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, and II. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.” Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, S.C. Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, Supreme Court, and The (Acting) Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila & Mme.
    [Show full text]
  • IBP Journal (2021, Vol. 46, Issue No. 1)
    i IBP JOURNAL INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES VOLUME 46, ISSUE NO. 1 UP WOMEN LAWYERS’ CIRCLE EDITION (March 2021) BOARD OF EDITORS ROAN I. LIBARIOS Editor in Chief SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA CYNTHIA R. DEL CASTILLO MARCIANO G. DELSON NILO T. DIVINA AL-SHWAID D. ISMAEL MA. SOLEDAD MARGARITA DERIQUITO-MAWIS MANUEL P. QUIBOD FIDES CORDERO-TAN Editors BERNARD U. COBARRUBIAS ALEXIS F. MEDINA Managing Editors CEAZAR RYAN C. AQUINO MARIJO ANGELA T. CONEJERO FRENTE SUR L. MELLIZA JOHN ERIC FLOYD C. PACAMARRA Associate Editors JEANNE MARL B. DOMINISAC IBP Program Officer i BOARD OF GOVERNORS DOMINGO EGON Q. CAYOSA Chairman of the Board BURT M. ESTRADA Executive Vice President & Governor for Eastern Mindanao Region DOROTEO LORENZO B. AGUILA Governor for Northern Luzon BABY RUTH F. TORRE Governor for Central Luzon ELEAZAR S. CALASAN Governor for Greater Manila ERIC C. ALAJAR Governor for Greater Manila GIL G. TAWAY IV Governor for Bicolandia GINA H. MIRANO-JESENA Governor for Western Visayas JAMES JAYSON J. JORVINA Governor for Eastern Visayas ii NATIONAL OFFICERS DOMINGO EGON Q. CAYOSA National President GRACE P. QUEVEDO-PANAGSAGAN National Treasurer JAYSON P. LOPEZ Assistant National Treasurer ROLAND B. INTING National Secretary JOSE ANGEL B. GUIDOTE, JR. Assistant National Secretary ERIC C. ALAJAR National Director for Legal Aid MARIE FE GALVEZ-GARCIA National Executive Director for Administration SHEENALYN R. TENGCO National Executive Director for Administration FLORIMON G. BERNARDO National Executive Director for Planning RANDALL C. TABAYOYONG Director for Bar Discipline EMERICO O. DE GUZMAN Legal Counsel ALICIA A. RISOS-VIDAL Liaison Officer ROAN I. LIBARIOS Editor in Chief, IBP Journal iii CONTENTS The Legal Impediments to Protecting the Rights of Women as Persons Deprived of Liberty……………………..1 Arlene G.
    [Show full text]
  • Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Acquitted of Plunder: a Case of Justice Catering to Political Power in the Philippines?
    Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Acquitted of Plunder: A Case of Justice Catering to Political Power in the Philippines? By Rappler Region: South-East Asia Global Research, July 20, 2016 Theme: Society Rappler 19 June 2016 The presidential administration of former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was marked by corruption, fraud, misuse of public funds, and utter disregard for constitutionalism and the rule of law. She has been widely accused of murder, kidnapping, plundering, and cheating. The US Embassy in Manila was even informed in 2005 by corporate accounting firm SGV founder Washington Sycip that her husband, José Miguel Arroyo, was one of the most corrupt figures in the Philippines, according to US diplomat cables that were leaked in 2011. The Arroyo Administration also arbitrarily and unlawfully arrested her political opponents while it used national security measures and the language of law and order as pretexts to suppress her opponents and Filipinos and Filipinas seeking justice. The Hello Garci scandal that emerged in 2005 merely served to prove that the 2004 Philippine general-election’s were rigged by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her political associates. After the scandal, Arroyo would admit that the audio evidence produced about her election rigging was authentic, but nothing happened to her. Her government argued on the basis of procedural law that since the key evidence against Arroyo was a phone conversation that was recorded without her consent that it could not be used while her political party and coalition prevented her impeachment and justice from ever taking place through legislative means by blocking any action against her by using their majority vote in the Congress of the Philippines.
    [Show full text]