Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Notice of sale in a foreclosure of mortgage

See - 174581.pdf





"x x x.

Caubang never made an effort to inquire as to whether the Oriental
Daily Examiner was indeed a newspaper of general circulation, as required
by law. It was shown that the Oriental Daily Examiner is not even on the
list of newspapers accredited to publish legal notices, as recorded in the
Davao RTC’s Office of the Clerk of Court. It also has no paying subscribers
and it would only publish whenever there are customers. Since there was no
proper publication of the notice of sale, the Spouses Crisologo, as well as the
rest of the general public, were never informed that the mortgaged property
was about to be foreclosed and auctioned. As a result, PDCP Bank became
the sole bidder. This allowed the bank to bid for a very low price
(P1,331,460.00) and go after the spouses for a bigger amount as deficiency.



 The principal object of a notice of sale in a foreclosure of mortgage is
not so much to notify the mortgagor as to inform the public generally of the
nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place, and
terms of the sale. Notices are given to secure bidders and prevent a sacrifice
of the property. Therefore, statutory provisions governing publication of
notice of mortgage foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with and
slight deviations therefrom will invalidate the notice and render the sale, at
the very least, voidable. Certainly, the statutory requirements of posting and
publication are mandated and imbued with public policy considerations.
Failure to advertise a mortgage foreclosure sale in compliance with the
statutory requirements constitutes a jurisdictional defect, and any substantial
error in a notice of sale will render the notice insufficient and will
consequently vitiate the sale. 8



Since it was Caubang who caused the improper publication of the
notices which, in turn, compelled the Spouses Crisologo to litigate and incur
expenses involving the declaration of nullity of the auction sale for the
protection of their interest on the property, the CA aptly held that Caubang
shall be the one liable for the spouses' claim for litigation expenses and
attorney's fees.



x x x."

Chain of custody of the illegal drugs.

See - 192785.pdf





"x x x.

As a final note, it does not escape the Court’s attention that there was also no testimony from the police officers that they conducted a physical inventory and took photographs of the sachets of shabu confiscated from appellant pursuant to  Section 21(1)27 of Article II of RA 9165. Their sworn statements did not mention any inventory-taking or photographing of the same. They also did not bother to offer any justification for this omission.28



At this point, it is apt to restate the Court's pronouncement in People v. ,Pepino-Consulta:29



[T]he Court cannot emphasize enough that zealousness on the part of law enforcement agencies in the pursuit of drug peddlers is indeed laudable. However, it is of paramount importance that the procedures laid down by law be complied with, especially those that involve the chain of custody of the illegal drugs. It is is necessary in order to dispel even the most infinitesimal of doubts on the outcome of arrests any buy-bust operations, so as not to render naught the efforts and the resources put forth in the apprehension and prosecution of violators of our drug laws.30

x x x."

If the pleadings or the evidence on record show that the claim is barred by prescription, the court is mandated to dismiss the claim even if prescription is not raised as a defense.

See - 172509.pdf





"x x x.

We deny the right of the BIR to collect the assessed DST on the ground of prescription. Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that:

Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. -

Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to  dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by prior judgment or by the statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. If the pleadings or the evidence on record show that the claim is barred by prescription, the court is mandated to dismiss the claim even if prescription is not raised as a defense


In Heirs of Valientes v. Ramas, we ruled that the CA may motu proprio dismiss the case on the
ground of prescription despite failure to raise this ground on appeal. The court is imbued with sufficient discretion to review matters, not otherwise assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case. More so, when the provisions on prescription were enacted to benefit and protect taxpayers from investigation after a reasonable period of time.

x x x."

Disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude

See - 7973.pdf





"x x x.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended as attorney by this Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. This Court has ruled that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a
crime involving moral turpitude.4

Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.5

The question of whether conviction for homicide involves moral turpitude was discussed by this Court in International Rice Research Institute v. NLRC6 where it ruled:

This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide do not involve moral turpitude. Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances.

While x x x generally but not always, crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala
prohibita do not, it cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum  prohibitum, since there are crimes which are mala in se and yet rarely involve moral turpitude and there are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, that moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases
are reached.7

x x x."

Foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.

See - 193707.pdf





"x x x.

Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action.

x x x.

Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.48

Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor penalize the noncompliance therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the child to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.

x x x."

Doctrine of processual presumption

See - 193707.pdf





"x x x.

It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondent is not obliged to support petitioner’s son under Article 195 of the Family Code as a consequence of the Divorce Covenant obtained in Holland. This does not, however, mean that respondent is not obliged to support petitioner’s son altogether.

In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law.40 In the present case, respondent hastily concludes that being a national of the Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the matter of provision of and capacity to support.41 While respondent pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not obliged to support his son, he never proved the same.

It is incumbent upon respondent to plead and prove that the national law of the Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation to  support their child (either before, during or after the issuance of a divorce decree), because Llorente v. Court of Appeals,42 has already enunciated that:

True, foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.43

In view of respondent’s failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law.44

Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not been properly
pleaded and proved in the instant case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and penalizing the non-compliance therewith.

Moreover, while in Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, 45 the Court held that a divorce obtained in a foreign land as well as its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in view of the nationality principle on the matter of status of persons, the Divorce Covenant presented by respondent does not completely show that he is not liable to give support to his son after the divorce decree was issued.

Emphasis is placed on petitioner’s allegation that under the second page of the aforesaid covenant, respondent’s obligation to support his child is specifically stated,46 which was not disputed by respondent.

We likewise agree with petitioner that notwithstanding that the national law of respondent states that parents have no obligation to support their children or that such obligation is not punishable by law, said law would still not find applicability, in light of the ruling in Bank of America, NT and SA v. American Realty Corporation,47 to wit:

In the instant case, assuming arguendo that the English Law on the matter were properly pleaded and proved in accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the jurisprudence laid down in Yao Kee, et al. vs. Sy-Gonzales, said foreign law would still not find applicability.

Thus, when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied.  Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action. Section 4, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is pertinent —

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.48

Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor penalize the noncompliance therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the child to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.

x x x."

Article 15 of the New Civil Code stresses the principle of nationality

See - 193707.pdf





"x x x.

To determine whether or not a person is criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262, it is imperative that the legal obligation to support exists. Petitioner invokes Article 19530 of the Family Code, which provides the parent’s obligation to support his child. Petitioner contends that notwithstanding the existence of a divorce decree issued in relation to Article 26 of the Family Code,31 respondent is not excused from complying with his obligation to support his minor child with petitioner.

On the other hand, respondent contends that there is no sufficient and clear basis presented by petitioner that she, as well as her minor son, are entitled to financial support.32

Respondent also added that by reason of the Divorce Decree, he is not obligated to petitioner for any financial support.33 On this point, we agree with respondent that petitioner cannot rely on Article 195 of the New Civil Code in demanding support from respondent,  who is a foreign citizen, since Article 15 of the New Civil Code stresses the principle of nationality. In other words, insofar as Philippine laws are concerned, specifically the provisions of the Family Code on support, the same only applies to Filipino citizens.

By analogy, the same principle applies to foreigners such that they are governed by their national law with respect to family rights and duties.36 The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC-Cebu that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do so.37

In the case of Vivo v. Cloribel, 38 the Court held that –
Furthermore, being still aliens, they are not in position to invoke the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines, for that Code cleaves to the principle that family rights and duties are governed by their personal law, i.e., the laws of the nation to which they belong even when staying in a foreign country (cf. Civil Code, Article 15).39



x x x."

Instances when a ruling of the trial court may be brought on appeal directly to the Supreme Court without violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts

See - 193707.pdf





"x x x.

At the outset, let it be emphasized that We are taking cognizance of the instant petition despite the fact that the same was directly lodged with the Supreme Court, consistent with the ruling in Republic v. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation, 28 which lays down the instances when a ruling of
the trial court may be brought on appeal directly to the Supreme Court without violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, to wit:


x x x Nevertheless, the Rules do not prohibit any of the parties from filing a Rule 45 Petition with this Court, in case only questions of law are raised or involved. This latter situation was one that petitioners found themselves in when they filed the instant Petition to raise only questions of law.

In Republic v. Malabanan, the Court clarified the three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, to wit: (1) by ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error under Rule 41, whereby judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; (2) by a petition for review under Rule 42, whereby judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and (3) by a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45. “The first mode of appeal is taken to the [Court of Appeals] on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal is elevated to the Supreme Court only on questions of law.” (Emphasis supplied) 



There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented or of the truth or falsehood of the facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.29

Indeed, the issues submitted to us for resolution involve questions of law – the response thereto concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on a given set of facts, i.e., whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law; and  whether or not he can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to do so.

It cannot be negated, moreover, that the instant petition highlights a novel question of law concerning the liability of a foreign national who allegedly commits acts and omissions punishable under special criminal laws, specifically in relation to family rights and duties. The inimitability of the factual milieu of the present case, therefore, deserves a definitive ruling by this Court, which will eventually serve as a guidepost for future cases. Furthermore, dismissing the instant petition and remanding the same to the CA would only waste the time, effort and resources of the courts. Thus, in the present case, considerations of efficiency and economy in the administration of justice should prevail over the observance of the hierarchy of courts.



x x x."

Duty of alien to support his Filipino child

See - Presumed to be similar | Opinion, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com





"x x x.

So Delia already filed a complaint affidavit before the Cebu Provincial Prosecutor against Andersen for violation of Section 5 (e) (2) of R.A. 9262 otherwise known as “Anti Violence against Women and their Children Act” which considers “depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support due her or her family” as an act of violence against women and their children.
Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1
After preliminary investigation the Prosecutor charged Andersen before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of “willfully, unlawfully and deliberately depriving, refusing and still continue to deprive his son of financial support legally due him.” Upon motion of Delia, after due notice and hearing, the RTC issued a Hold Departure Order against Andersen. Consequently, he was arrested and subsequently posted bail.
But subsequently on motion of Andersen, the RTC dismissed the criminal case since he is a foreign national and therefore not subject to our national law particularly the Family Code (FC, Article 195) in regard to a parent’s duty to give support to his child. Consequently, the RTC said he cannot be charged of violating R.A. 9262 for his alleged failure to support Rodger. Was the RTC correct?
According to the Supreme Court where the case was appealed via a petition for certiorari of Delia on purely a question of law, the RTC is correct in ruling that Andersen is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine Law (Art.195 FC) as to whether he is obliged to support his child as well as the consequences of his failure to do so.
This does not mean however that Andersen is not obliged to support Rodger altogether. Since he wanted to apply the national law of Netherlands in advancing his position he should have properly pleaded and proven said law. But in this case he never proved the same. And since the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic internal law which enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and penalizes non-compliance therewith. Besides, in the second page of the Divorce Covenant presented by Andersen himself, his obligation to support his child is specifically stated.
Furthermore, even if the national law of Netherlands states that parents have no obligation to support their children or that such obligation is not punishable by law, said law shall not be applied here because it is contrary to the sound and well established public policy of the Philippines as it would work great injustice to the child to be denied of financial support. So Andersen may be held liable under Section 5 (e) and (i) R.A. 9262 for unjustly refusing to give support to Delia’s son (Del Socorro etc. vs. Van Wilsem, G.R. 193707, December 10, 2014)
*      *      *
x x x."


Read more: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2015/03/04/1429850/presumed-be-similar#ixzz3TOfVNKUV
Follow us: @PhilstarNews on Twitter | philstarnews on Facebook

SC orders gov't to return P5-B tax for PEACe bonds | Inquirer Business

See - SC orders gov't to return P5-B tax for PEACe bonds | Inquirer Business





"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court ordered the government to pay the P5-billion tax to holders of the Poverty Eradication and Alleviation Certificates (PEACe) bonds after it nullified the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)  rulings imposing a 20% final withholding tax on the government-issued bonds.

In a 45-page decision, the high court en banc said BIR Rulings No. 370-2011 and No. 378-2011 are unconstitutional and contrary to law.

“Respondent Bureau of Treasury (BTr) is hereby ordered to immediately release and pay to the bondholders the amount corresponding to the 20 percent final withholding tax that it withheld on October 18, 2011,” the high court said.

The PEACe bonds were originally issued by the BTr to Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) Capital, in behalf of the Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO), and subsequently sold to the secondary markets, including the eight petitioner banks–Banco de Oro, Bank of Commerce, China Banking Corp., Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Philippine Bank of Communications, Philippine National Bank, Philippine Veterans Bank and Planters Development Bank. Net proceeds from the sale will be used to endow a permanent fund to finance accredited non-government organizations throughout the country.

A few months before the bonds matured, the BIR issued the assailed rulings imposing said tax “not only on RCBC/CODE NGO but also on all subsequent holders of the bonds.”

The petitioners and petitioner-intervenors sought recourse from the Supreme Court, which then issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against implementation by the BTr of the BIR rulings. However, the government agency failed to comply with said order.

The high court said the BIR erroneously ruled that “all treasury bonds, regardless of the number of purchasers/lenders at the time of issuance are considered deposit substitutes.” 

This interpretation, according to the high court, “completely disregarded the 20 or more lender rule added by Congress in the 1997 Tax Code. It also created a distinction for government debt instruments as against those issued by private corporations when there was none in the tax law.”

Under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), monetary benefits from deposit substitutes are subject to a 20% final withholding tax. The Code also defines “deposit substitutes as an alternative form of obtaining funds from the public…other than deposits, through the issuance, endorsement or acceptance of debt instruments for the borrower’s own accounts…”

“Congress specifically defined ‘public’ to mean twenty (20) or more individual or corporate leaders at any one time. Hence, the number of lenders is determinative of whether a debt instrument should be considered a deposit substitute and consequently subject to 20% final withholding tax,” the decision said.

The high court said “at the time of original issuance, the PEACe bonds are not deemed deposit substitutes within the meaning of Section 22 (Y) of the 1997 Tax Code, since there is only one lender – RCBC on behalf of CODE – NGO – to whom the bonds were issued.”

“It may be granted that the interpretation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in charge of executing the Tax Code is an authoritative construction of great weight, but the principle is not absolute and may be overcome by strong reasons to the contrary,” he said. “[T]he error must be corrected when the true construction is ascertained.”

However, the decision also clarified that a subsequent sale and distribution of the PEACe bonds to 20 or more lenders/investors, would oblige RCBC Capital and Code NGO to withhold the 20% final on the interest/discount from the bond.

The high court said should PEACe Bonds be found to be within the coverage of the deposit substitutes, the proper procedure was for the BTr to pay the face value of the PEACe bonds to the bondholders and for the BIR to collect  the unpaid final withholding tax directly from RCBC  Capital/ CODE-NGO, or any lender or investor.

“Thus, should it be found that RCBC Capital/CODE-NGO sold the PEACe bonds to 20 or more lenders/investors, the BIR may still collect the unpaid tax from RCBC Capital/CODE-NGO within 10 years after the discovery of the omission,” the high court said.


x x x."

Read more: http://business.inquirer.net/187745/sc-orders-govt-to-return-p5-b-tax-for-peace-bonds#ixzz3TOaxZBkU
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Inter-country adoption




"x x x.
Republic Act No. 8043

An act establishing the rules to govern inter-country adoption of Filipino children, and for other purposes

Article III
Procedure

Sec. 7. Inter-Country Adoption as the Last Resort.- The Board shall ensure that all possibilities for adoption of the child under the Family Code have been exhausted and that inter-country adoption is in the best interest of the child. Towards this end, the Board shall set up the guidelines to ensure that steps will be taken to place the child in the Philippines before the child is placed for inter-country adoption: Provided, however, That the maximum number that may be allowed for foreign adoption shall not exceed six hundred (600) a year for the first five (5) years.

Sec. 8. Who May be Adopted.- Only a legally free child may be the subject of inter-country adoption. In order that such child may be considered for placement, the following documents must be submitted to the Board:

a)  Child study;
b)  Birth certificate/founding certificate;
c)  Deed of voluntary commitment/decree of abandonment/death certificate of parents;
d)  Medical evaluation/history;
e)  Psychological evaluation, as necessary; and
f)    Recent photo of the child.
Sec. 9. Who May Adopt.- Any alien or a Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad may file an application for inter-country adoption of a Filipino child if he/she;

a)   is at least twenty-seven (27) years of age and at least sixteen (16) years older than the child to be adopted, at the time of application unless the adaptor is the parent by nature of the child to be adopted or the spouse of such  parent;
b)   if married, his/her spouse must jointly file for the adoption;
c)   has the capacity to act and assume all rights and responsibilities of parental authority under his national laws, and has undergone the appropriate counselling from an accredited counsellor in his/her  country;
d)   has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
e)   is eligible to adopt under his/her nation law;
f)    is in a position to provide the proper care and support and to give the necessary moral values and example to all his children, including the child to be adopted;
g)   agrees to uphold the basic rights of the child as embodied under Philippine laws, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to abide by the rules and regulations issued to implement the provisions of this Act;
h)   comes from a country with whom the Philippines has diplomatic relations and whose government maintains a similarly authorized and accredited agency and that adoption is allowed under his/her national laws;  and
i)    possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided herein and in other applicable Philippine laws.

Sec. 10. Where to File Application.- An application to adopt a Filipino child shall be field either with the Philippine Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the child, or with the Board, through an intermediate agency, whether governmental or an authorized and accredited agency, in the country of the prospective adoptive parents, which application shall be in accordance with the requirements as set forth in the implementing rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Board.

The application shall be supported by the following documents written and officially translated in English:

a)   Birth certificate of applicant(s);
b)   Marriage contract, if married, and divorce decree, if applicable;
c)   Written consent of their biological or adopted children above ten (10) years of age, in the form of sworn statement;
d)   Physical, medical and psychological evaluation by a duly licensed physician and psychologist;
e)   Income tax returns or any document showing the financial capability of the applicant(s);
f)    Police clearance of applicant(s);
g)   Character reference from the local church/minister, the applicant's employer and a member of the immediate community who have known the applicant(s) for at least five (5) years; and
h)   Recent postcard-size pictures of the applicant(s) and his immediate family;

The Rules of Court shall apply in case of adoption by judicial proceedings.

Sec. 11. Family Selection/Matching.- No child shall be matched to a foreign adoptive family unless it is satisfactorily shown that the child cannot be adopted locally. The clearance, as issued by the Board, with the copy of the minutes of the meetings, shall form part of the records of the child to be adopted. When the Board is ready to transmit the Placement Authority to the authorized and accredited inter-country adoption agency and all the travel documents of the child are ready, the adoptive parents, or any one of them, shall personally fetch the child in the Philippines.

Sec. 12. Pre-adoptive Placement Costs.- The applicant(s) shall bear the following costs incidental to the placement of the child;

a)   The cost of bringing the child from the Philippines to the residence of the applicant(s) abroad, including all travel expenses within the Philippines and abroad: and
b)   The cost of passport, visa, medical examination and psychological evaluation required, and other related expenses.

Sec. 13. Fees, Charges and Assessments.- Fees, charges, and assessments collected by the Board in the exercise of its functions shall be used solely to process applications for inter-country adoption and to support the activities of the Board.

Sec. 14. Supervision of Trial Custody.- The governmental agency or the authorized and accredited agency in the country of the adoptive parents which filed the application for inter-country adoption shall be responsible for the trial custody and the care of the child. It shall also provide family counselling and other related services. The trial custody shall be for a period of six (6) months from the time of placement. Only after the lapse of the period of trial custody shall a decree of adoption be issued in the said country, a copy of which shall be sent to the Board to form part of the records of the child.

During the trial custody, the adopting parent(s) shall submit to the governmental agency or the authorized and accredited agency, which shall in turn transmit a copy to the Board, a progress report of the child's adjustment. The progress report shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not to issue the decree of adoption.
The department of Foreign Affairs shall set-up a system by which Filipino children sent abroad for trial custody are monitored and checked as reported by the authorized and accredited inter-country adoption agency as well as the repatriation to the Philippines of a Filipino child whose adoption has not been approved.


Sec. 15. Executive Agreements.- The Department of Foreign Affairs, upon representation of the Board, shall cause the preparation of Executive Agreements with countries of the foreign adoption  agencies to ensure the legitimate concurrence of said countries in upholding the safeguards provided by this Act.

x x x."

Abandoned, surrendered, or neglected child.


Republic Act No. 9523             March 12, 2009

AN ACT REQUIRING CERTIFICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT (DSWD) TO DECLARE A "CHILD LEGALLY AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION" AS A PREREQUISITE FOR ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8552, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DOMESTIC ADOPTION ACT OF 1998, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8043, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION ACT OF 1995, PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 603, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

"x x x.

Section 3. Petition. – The petition shall be in the form of an affidavit, subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. It shall contain facts necessary to establish the merits of the petition and shall state the circumstances surrounding the abandonment or neglect of the child.

The petition shall be supported by the following documents:
(1) Social Case Study Report made by the DSWD, local government unit, licensed or accredited child-caring or child-placing agency or institution charged with the custody of the child;
(2) Proof that efforts were made to locate the parent(s) or any known relatives of the child. The following shall be considered sufficient:
(a) Written certification from a local or national radio or television station that the case was aired on three (3) different occasions;
(b) Publication in one (1) newspaper of general circulation;
(c) Police report or barangay certification from the locality where the child was found or a certified copy of a tracing report issued by the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC), National Headquarters (NHQ), Social Service Division, which states that despite due diligence, the child's parents could not be found; and
(d) Returned registered mail to the last known address of the parent(s) or known relatives, if any.
(3) Birth certificate, if available; and
(4) Recent photograph of the child and photograph of the child upon abandonment or admission to the agency or institution.
Section 4. Procedure for the Filing of the Petition. – The petition shall be filed in the regional office of the DSWD where the child was found or abandoned.

The Regional Director shall examine the petition and its supporting documents, if sufficient in form and substance and shall authorize the posting of the notice of the petition conspicuous place for five (5) consecutive days in the locality where the child was found.

The Regional Director shall act on the same and shall render a recommendation not later than five (5) working days after the completion of its posting. He/she shall transmit a copy of his/her recommendation and records to the Office of the Secretary within forty-eight (48) hours from the date of the recommendation.

Section 5. Declaration of Availability for Adoption. – Upon finding merit in the petition, the Secretary shall issue a certification declaring the child legally available for adoption within seven (7) working days from receipt of the recommendation.

Said certification, by itself shall be the sole basis for the immediate issuance by the local civil registrar of a foundling certificate. Within seven (7) working days, the local civil registrar shall transmit the founding certificate to the National Statistic Office (NSO).

Section 6. Appeal. – The decision of the Secretary shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals within five (5) days from receipt of the decision by the petitioner, otherwise the same shall be final and executory.

Section 7. Declaration of Availability for Adoption of Involuntarily Committed Child and Voluntarily Committed Child. – The certificate declaring a child legally available for adoption in case of an involuntarily committed child under Article 141, paragraph 4(a) and Article 142 of Presidential Decree No. 603 shall be issued by the DSWD within three (3) months following such involuntary commitment.

In case of voluntary commitment as contemplated in Article 154 of Presidential Decree No. 603, the certification declaring the child legally available for adoption shall be issued by the Secretary within three (3) months following the filing of the Deed of Voluntary Commitment, as signed by the parent(s) with the DSWD.

Upon petition filed with the DSWD, the parent(s) or legal guardian who voluntarily committed a child may recover legal custody and parental authority over him/her from the agency or institution to which such child was voluntarily committed when it is shown to the satisfaction of the DSWD that the parent(s) or legal guardian is in a position to adequately provide for the needs of the child: Provided, That, the petition for restoration is filed within (3) months after the signing of the Deed of Voluntary Commitment.

Section 8. Certification. – The certification that a child is legally available for adoption shall be issued by the DSWD in lieu of a judicial order, thus making the entire process administrative in nature.

The certification, shall be, for all intents and purposes, the primary evidence that the child is legally available in a domestic adoption proceeding, as provided in Republic Act No. 8552 and in an inter-country adoption proceeding, as provided in Republic Act No. 8043.

x x x."

Adoption law; penalties for criminal acts.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8552
 "Domestic Adoption Act of 1998."

Penalties:

"x x x.

ARTICLE VII
Violations and Penalties

SEC. 21. Violations and Penalties.-

a) The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and/or a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), but not more than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) at the discretion of the court shall be imposed on any person who shall commit any of the following acts:

i) obtaining consent for an adoption through coercion, undue influence, fraud, improper material inducement, or other similar acts;
ii) noncompliance with the procedures and safeguards provided by the law for adoption; or
iii) subjecting or exposing the child to be adopted to danger, abuse, or exploitation.

b) Any person who shall cause the fictitious registration of the birth of a child under the name(s) of a person(s) who is not his/her biological parent(s) shall be guilty of simulation of birth, and shall be punished by prison mayor in its medium period and a fine not exceeding Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).

Any physician or nurse or hospital personnel who, in violation of his/her oath of office, shall cooperate in the execution of the above mentioned crime shall suffer the penalties herein prescribed and also the penalty of permanent disqualification.

Any person who shall violate established regulations relating to the confidentiality and integrity of records, documents, and communications of adoption applications, cases, and processes shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from one (1) year and one (1) day to two (2) years and/or a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) but not more than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) at the discretion of the court.

A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated offense under this Article shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit any of the acts herein enumerated.

Acts punishable under this Article, when committed by a syndicate or when it involves two (2) or more children shall be considered as an offense constituting child trafficking and shall merit the penalty of reclusion pepetua.

Acts punishable under this Article are deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any of the unlawful acts defined under this Article. Penalties as are herein provided, shall be in addition to any other penalties which may be imposed for the same acts punishable under other laws, ordinances, executive orders, and proclamations.

When the offender is an alien, he/she shall be deported immediately after service of sentence and perpetually excluded from entry to the country.

Any government official, employee or functionary who shall be found guilty of violating any of the provisions on this Act, or who shall conspire with private individuals shall, in addition to the above-prescribed penalties, be penalized in accordance with existing civil service laws, rules and regulations: Provided, That upon filing of a case, either administrative or criminal, said government official, employee, or functionary concerned shall automatically suffer suspension until the resolution of the case.

SEC. 22. Rectification of Simulated Births.- A person who has, prior to the effectivity of this Act, simulated the birth of a child shall not be punished for such act: Provided, That the simulation of birth was made for the best interest of the child and that he/she has been consistently considered and treated by that person as his/her own son/daughter: Provided, further, That the application for correction of the birth registration and petition for adoption shall be filed within five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act and completed thereafter: Provided, finally, That such person complies with the procedure as specified in Article IV of this Act and other requirements as determined by the Department.

x x x."

Monday, February 23, 2015

Drilon says Purisima could be charged with usurpation of authority | News | GMA News Online

See - Drilon says Purisima could be charged with usurpation of authority | News | GMA News Online





"x xx.

Resigned Philippine National Police chief Director General Alan Purisima could be charged with usurpation of authority for giving instructions on a law enforcement mission despite his being suspended from post, Senate President Franklin Drilon said Monday.
 
“The Ombudsman should study the possibility of charging purisima with usurpation of public functions because at the time of his suspension, he was performing functions of a public official who have the power to direct the operations,” Drilon told reporters.
 
“Because (it was) very clear that he gave the go-signal which he should not be doing,” he added.
 
Purisima has been under suspension since December 2014 over graft charges.
 
Drilon said it was clear that Purisima did not follow the order of President Benigno Aquino III for him to coordinate with other officials.
 
During the Senate hearing on Mamasapano clash Monday upon the questioning of Drilon, relieved Special Action Force chief Director Getulio Napeñas Jr. admitted that it was Purisima who gave him the go-signal to push through with the Oplan Exodus. 
 
Drilon read the text message of Purisima to Napeñas on January 13 which said: "OK na, go for the secondary schedule.” Napeñas had recommended to the suspended PNP chief that the SAF set the operation on January 23 to 26.
 
The operation was conducted on January 25 and the SAF troopers were able to shoot Malaysian terrorist Zulkifli bin Hir alias Marwan dead but 44 of them died during the ensuing hours-long gunfight with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and its splinter group, Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters. Another target, Filipino bomb-maker Basit Usman was able to escape.
 
Drilon said it was also appropriate for the Senate panels probing the Mamasapano incident to include in its recommendation or report the liability of Purisima.
 
“Is there any administrative or criminal  liability for Purisima for having given instructions kahit po suspendido na siya maliwanag na siya pa rin ang nagbibigay ng instruction. Yung sinasabi ni Purisima na advice, ang sabi ni Napeñas yan ay order galing sa taas. So maliwanag na talagang si Purisima ang nagbibigay ng instruction,” he said. —NB, GMA News.
x x x."

JBC finalizes shortlist for Sandiganbayan post vacated by Ong

See - JBC finalizes shortlist for Sandiganbayan post vacated by Ong





"x x x.

MANILA - From an initial list of 38 aspirants, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) on Monday shortlisted five nominees for the post at the Sandiganbayan left vacant following last year's sacking by the Supreme Court of Associate Justice Gregory Ong.

The JBC said the five candidates, whose names were submitted to the Office of the President for consideration, are Muntinlupa City RTC Branch 207 Judge Philip A. Aguinaldo, Makati City Branch 141 Judge Mary Ann Corpus-Manalac, Quezon City Branch 97 Judge Bernelito R. Fernandez, Assistant Solicitor General Sarah Jane T. Fernandez, and Justice Undersecretary Jose Justiniano.

Aguinaldo garnered seven votes along with Corpus-Manalac, while the two Fernandez got six each, and Justiniano five votes from the JBC.

Aguinaldo is a former senior state prosecutor at the Department of Justice (DOJ) before he was appointed RTC judge, while Corpus-Manalac is a recipient of many awards including the 2013 Judicial Excellence Award.

Justiniano is a DOJ Undersecretary and part of the panel prosecuting the plunder cases against government officials allegedly involved in the pork barrel scam.

He also served as a lawyer of US Marine Corporal Daniel Smith who was convicted but later acquitted for the 2005 Subic rape case.

Fernandez (Bernelito) is a Quezon City RTC judge while Fernandez (Sarah Jane) is part of the team from the Office of the Solicitor General that successfully argued cases before the SC, such as the reformed value added tax.

Ong was dismissed from the service last year for his supposed links to alleged pork barrel fund scam architect Janet Lim-Napoles.

Under the Constitution, the members of the High Tribunal and the judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy.

The President has 90 days upon receipt of the transmittal letter within which to fill up such vacancies.

x x x."

Filipino woman gets job back | Inquirer Global Nation

See - Filipino woman gets job back | Inquirer Global Nation





"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court has upheld the reinstatement of a Filipino employee of Japanese firm Fuji Television Network Inc., saying her termination due to illness was invalid.
In a 45-page decision, the high court’s Second Division affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling ordering the reinstatement of Arlene Espiritu as news producer in Fuji’s Manila Bureau, saying she was illegally terminated when the firm learned she was suffering from lung cancer in 2009.
The high court said Espiritu, being a regular employee, had security of tenure.
“The court held that Espiritu had been illegally dismissed since Fuji failed to comply with the requirements of substantive and procedural due process necessary for her dismissal since she was a regular employee,” said the ruling penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
The ruling promulgated on Dec. 3 ordered that “Espiritu’s back wages be computed from June 2009.” Tarra Quismundo and Jerome Aning.
x x x."


Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/118918/filipino-woman-gets-job-back/#ixzz3SYZILKGM
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Friday, February 20, 2015

Court convicts land registration aide for soliciting P250k for ‘research’ | News | GMA News Online

See - Court convicts land registration aide for soliciting P250k for ‘research’ | News | GMA News Online





"x x x.

An employee of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) has been convicted for soliciting and receiving about P250,000 in exchange for a favor, the Office of the Ombudsman said.
 
In a statement released on Friday, the Ombudsman said Acting Presiding Judge Lyn Cha of the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 38 found Florzerfida Asuncion, LRA administrative aide, guilty of violating Section 7(d) of Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
 
The Ombudsman said the evidence presented before the court showed that in 2006, Asuncion demanded P250,000 from Marilou Galenzoga, in exchange for research work on a parcel of property Galenzoga was claiming.
 
It added that Asuncion failed to deliver the results of her research even after the deadline had lapsed.
 
However, when requested to refund the money, Asuncion refused to do so, the Ombudsman said.
 
Instead, it said she promised to "return the money of complainant when she recovers all the money from an alleged group of people who shared in the said money."
 
Section 7(d) of  RA 6713 states that "public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any persons in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office." — Amanda Fernandez/JDS, GMA News.

x x x."

Tanong at Sagot: Pribilehiyo ng mga taong may kapansanan | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Tanong at Sagot: Pribilehiyo ng mga taong may kapansanan | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines





"x x x.

Iba’t ibang pribilehiyo ang nakasaad sa Magna Carta of Disabled Persons atRepublic Act 9442 upang protektahan ang mga taong may kapansanan o PWDs (persons with disabilities).
SINO-SINO ANG MGA TAONG MAY KAPANSANAN?
Itinuturing na may kapansanan ang mga taong may dinaranas na hadlang sa kanilang iba’t ibang kakayahan. Bunga ito ng pinsala sa pag-iisip, katawan, o pandama. Dahil dito, hindi nila nagagawa ang mga aktibidad na itinuturing na pangkaraniwan para sa karamihan.
ANO-ANO ANG MGA ITO?
1. 20% diskuwento
  1. sa mga gamot na mabibili mula sa mga botika, ospital, klinika, at iba pang katulad na establisimyento.
  2. sa mga serbisyong medikal, dental, pati mga bayarin kapag nagpapa-diagnose, laboratory, x-ray, computerized tomography, blood test, at iba pa. Kabilang din dito ang professional fee ng doktor sa lahat ng pribadong ospital.
  3. sa mga teatro, sinehan, konsiyerto, sirkus, karnabal, museo, parke, at iba pang lugar-pangkultura at pang-aliw.
  4. sa pamasahe sa kahit anong uri ng biyahe: karagatan, himpapawid, kalsada, o riles.
    • Sakaling may promo sa barko o eroplano at mas mataas sa 20% ang diskuwentong iniaalok nito, maaaring kunin ng PWD ang promo subalit hindi na idaragdag dito ang 20% orihinal na diskuwento.
    • May 20% diskuwento rin sa mga skyway at expressway, sa kondisyong pagmamay-ari ng PWD ang sasakyan.
2. Espesyal na diskuwento
  1. Para sa mga espesyal na programa, maaaring bigyan ang PWD ng espesyal na diskuwento sa mga pangunahing bilihin mula sa mga supermarket at grocery.
3. Tulong pang-edukasyon
  1. Scholarship, tulong-pinansiyal, at iba pa sa elementarya, sekondarya, tersiyarya, masterado at doktorado, teknikal o bokasyonal na edukasyon sa mga pampubliko at pribadong paaralan.
  2. Suporta sa pagbili ng mga aklat, uniporme, kagamitan sa pag-aaral, at iba pa.
    • Upang makuha ang mga tulong na ito, kailangang maipasa ng PWD ang mga minimum na kahingian ng Department of Education (DepEd), Commission on Higher Education Department (CHED), Technical and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), at iba pang mga institusyong nagbibigay ng tulong para sa edukasyon ng mga PWD.
4. Express lane
  1. Magkakaroon ng express lane, o espesyal na pila, para sa mga PWD sa lahat ng pribado, komersiyal, at panggobyernong establisimyento. Sakaling wala, prayoridad ng establisimyento ang mga PWD sa kanilang mga transaksiyon.
  2. Inaatasan ang lahat ng establisimyento na magtalaga ng isang tauhan na panguhaning aasikaso sa mga PWD.
5. Insentibo sa buwis
  1. Para sa mga kasal na indibidwal, mayroong P8,000 insentibo sa buwis para sa bawat anak na PWD (di-lalampas sa apat).
  2. Para sa mga solong magulang, mayroong P8,000 insentibo sa buwis para sa bawat anak na PWD (di-lalampas sa apat).

KAILANGAN PA BA NG PWD ID PARA SA MGA PRIBILEHIYO?
Oo.

PAANO MAKUKUHA ANG PWD ID?
Sundin ang sumusunod na hakbang para makakuha ng PWD ID:
  1. Kumuha ng application form mula sa sumusunod:
    • Tanggapan ng Alkalde (Office of the Mayor)
    • Tanggapan ng Kapitan ng Barangay (Office of the Barangay Captain)
    • National Council on Disability Affairs (NCDA) o katumbas nito sa bawat rehiyon
    • Mga tanggapan ng Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
    • Mga organisasyong may memorandum of agreement sa Department of Health (DOH)
  2. Sagutan ang application form, maaari itong gawin mismo ng PWD o ng kanyang tagapag-alaga.
  3. Magdala ng dalawang “1×1″ na litrato at idikit ito sa application form.
  4. Magdala ng sertipikasyon ng pagiging PWD mula sa kahit anong lisensiyadong pribado o pampublikong klinika, o doktor mula sa mga ospital. Ilakip sa application form.
  5. Kailangang dalhin o i-upload ng aplikante, tagapag-alaga, o registration center personnel ang application form sa pinakamalapit na City of Municipal Health Office o sa mga satellite office nito sa mga barangay upang beripikahin.
    • Sakaling di nakakikilos ang PWD, pupuntahan siya ng registration center personnel sa kanyang tahanan upang beripikahin ang mga detalye ng aplikasyon at kanyang kapansanan.
    • Ipaaalam sa mga di-tinanggap na aplikasyon ang naging pagkukulang nila at papayagan silang mag-aplay muli.
  6. Sa oras na maberipika, ipadadala ang mga application form sa Health Officer ng Main City o Municipal Health Center. Sasagutan ng Health Officer ang certification form, maglalakip ng control number, at ia-upload ang impormasyon sa Philippine Registry for Persons with Disabilities.
  7. Kailangang dalhin ng aplikante ang aprobadong application form at certificate of disability sa City o Municipal Social Welfare Office o NCDA para makuha ang kanyang ID. x x x."

Tanong at Sagot: Pagrerehistro para sa Halalan | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Tanong at Sagot: Pagrerehistro para sa Halalan | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines





"x x x.

Sa Mayo 2016, muling gaganapin ang halalang pambansa. Bilang demokratikong bansa, may karapatan ang bawat Pilipinong piliin ang kanyang pinuno. At upang makaboto, kailangan munang makapagrehistro ng isang indibidwal bilang opisyal na botante.
Puwede na ba ako magrehistro para sa halalan?
Maaari ka nang magrehistro kung ikaw ay:
  • Mamamayan ng Pilipinas,
  • 18 taong gulang pataas,
  • Residente ng Pilipinas nang di-bababa sa isang taon,
  • Residente ng pook kung saan mo gustong bumoto nang di-bababa sa anim na buwan, at
  • Hindi diskuwalipikado ng batas.
Hindi ka maaaring magrehistro kung ikaw ay:
  • Nakulong nang di-bababa sa isang taon, at nakalaya hindi dahil sa plenary pardon o amnestiya.
  • Nagkasala ng kasong rebelyon, insureksiyon, paglabag ng batas ukol sa armas, o kahit anong krimen laban sa seguridad ng bansa.
  • Wala sa tamang pag-iisip o walang sapat na kakayahan, ayon sa paghuhusga ng kinauukulang awtoridad (makapagrerehistro lamang kung ideklara ng awtoridad na malaya na sa nasabing kalagayan).
Hanggang kailan ako maaaring magrehistro?
Hanggang Oktubre 31, 2015, ang pagrerehistro para sa halalan sa Mayo 2016.
Saan ako pupunta para makapagrehistro?
Maaari kang magparehistro sa mga lokal na tanggapan ng Commission on Elections (COMELEC) o Office of the Election Officer (OEO). Mayroong lokal na COMELEC o OEO sa bawat distrito, lungsod, o munisipalidad. Kadalasang matatagpuan ang mga ito malapit sa munisipyo.
Anong oras bukas ang mga tanggapang ito?
Para sa mga pangunahing lungsod, bukas ang mga tanggapan mula Lunes hanggang Linggo, 8:00 n.u. – 5:00 n.h. Para naman sa iba, Lunes hanggang Biyernes, 8:00 n.u. – 5:00 n.h.
Kailan ko bang personal na pumunta para magparehistro?
Oo. Hindi pahihintulutan ang ibang tao na magrehistro para sa iyo.
Ano’ng kailangan kong dalhin para makapagrehistro?
Dalhin ang sumusunod sa iyong pagrerehistro:
  • Dalawang (2) ID kung saan nakasaad ang iyong litrato, tirahan, at pangalan. Pumili mula sa sumusunod:
Paano ko mapabibilis ang proseso ng pagrerehistro?
Sagutan online ang application form, i-print, at dalhin sa pagrerehistro para makatipid ng oras. Maaari ding i-download ang application form saka ito i-print at sagutan. Tiyaking mayroon kang tatlong (3) kopya ng application form para sa iyong pagrerehistro.
Ano-ano ang mga gagawin pagdating sa COMELEC/OEO?
  1. Beberipikahin ang iyong pagkakakilanlan at tirahan gamit ang iyong ID.
  2. Beberipikahin ang lagay ng iyong pagrerehistro.
  3. Sagutan ang application form. Tiyaking tatlong (3) kopya ang sinagutan mo. Maaari mo nang sagutan ito bago online o i-download ang form bago ka magparehistro para mapabilis ang proseso.
  4. Kukunin ang iyong biometrics (litrato, fingerprint, lagda).
  5. Bibigyan ka ng Acknowledgment Receipt pagkatapos.
Kailangan ba ng Voter’s ID para makaboto?
Hindi. Subalit maaari itong dalhin, o iba pang valid ID sa araw ng halalan.
Paano ako makakukuha ng Voter’s ID?
Kailangan mong magparehistro at siguruhing nakuhaan ka ng biometrics para makakuha. Walang biometrics, walang Voter’s ID.
Kailan ko makukuha ang aking Voter’s ID?
Aabutin nang di-hihigit sa anim (6) na buwan bago mo makuha ang iyong Voter’s ID. Libre ito at maaaring kunin sa tanggapan kung saan ka nagparehistro.
_____________________________________
Para sa karagdagang kaalaman bisitahin ang comelec.gov.ph.
x x x."