Republic Act No. 10365 - further amending the anti-money laundering act o 2001- | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

see - Republic Act No. 10365 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines


"x x x.

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365]

AN ACT FURTHER STRENGTHENING THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING LAW, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9160, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001″, AS AMENDED

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

“(a) ‘Covered persons’, natural or juridical, refer to:

“(1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, foreign exchange dealers, pawnshops, money changers, remittance and transfer companies and other similar entities and all other persons and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);

“(2) insurance companies, pre-need companies and all other persons supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission (IC);

“(3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar persons managing securities or rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or consultant, (ii) mutual funds, close-end investment companies, common trust funds, and other similar persons, and (iii) other entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised or regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

“(4) jewelry dealers in precious metals, who, as a business, trade in precious metals, for transactions in excess of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);

“(5) jewelry dealers in precious stones, who, as a business, trade in precious stones, for transactions in excess of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);

“(6) company service providers which, as a business, provide any of the following services to third parties: (i) acting as a formation agent of juridical persons; (ii) acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a director or corporate secretary of a company, a partner of a partnership, or a similar position in relation to other juridical persons; (iii) providing a registered office, business address or accommodation, correspondence or administrative address for a company, a partnership or any other legal person or arrangement; and (iv) acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a nominee shareholder for another person; and

“(7) persons who provide any of the following services:

(i) managing of client money, securities or other assets;

(ii) management of bank, savings or securities accounts;

(iii) organization of contributions for the creation, operation or management of companies; and

(iv) creation, operation or management of juridical persons or arrangements, and buying and selling business entities.

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term ‘covered persons’ shall exclude lawyers and accountants acting as independent legal professionals in relation to information concerning their clients or where disclosure of information would compromise client confidences or the attorney-client relationship: Provided, That these lawyers and accountants are authorized to practice in the Philippines and shall continue to be subject to the provisions of their respective codes of conduct and/or professional responsibility or any of its amendments.”

SEC. 2. Section 3(i) of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“(i) ‘Unlawful activity’ refers to any act or omission or series or combination thereof involving or having direct relation to the following:

“(1) Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

“(2) Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;

“(3) Section 3 paragraphs B, C, E, G, H and I of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;

“(4) Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended;

“(5) Robbery and extortion under Articles 294, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

“(6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No. 1602;

“(7) Piracy on the high seas under the Revised Penal Code, as amended and Presidential Decree No. 532;

“(8) Qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

“(9) Swindling under Article 315 and Other Forms of Swindling under Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

“(10) Smuggling under Republic Act Nos. 455 and 1937;

“(11) Violations of Republic Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000;

“(12) Hijacking and other violations under Republic Act No. 6235; destructive arson and murder, as defined under the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

“(13) Terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism as defined and penalized under Sections 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 9372;

“(14) Financing of terrorism under Section 4 and offenses punishable under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Republic Act No. 10168, otherwise known as the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012:

“(15) Bribery under Articles 210, 211 and 211-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and Corruption of Public Officers under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

“(16) Frauds and Illegal Exactions and Transactions under Articles 213, 214, 215 and 216 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

“(17) Malversation of Public Funds and Property under Articles 217 and 222 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

“(18) Forgeries and Counterfeiting under Articles 163, 166, 167, 168, 169 and 176 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

“(19) Violations of Sections 4 to 6 of Republic Act No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003;

“(20) Violations of Sections 78 to 79 of Chapter IV, of Presidential Decree No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, as amended;

“(21) Violations of Sections 86 to 106 of Chapter VI, of Republic Act No. 8550, otherwise known as the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998;

“(22) Violations of Sections 101 to 107, and 110 of Republic Act No. 7942, otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995;

“(23) Violations of Section 27(c), (e), (f), (g) and (i), of Republic Act No. 9147, otherwise known as the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act;

“(24) Violation of Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 9072, otherwise known as the National Caves and Cave Resources Management Protection Act;

“(25) Violation of Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 2002, as amended;

“(26) Violations of Sections 1, 3 and 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, otherwise known as the decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives;

“(27) Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law;

“(28) Violation of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022;

“(29) Violation of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines;

“(30) Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9995, otherwise known as the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009;

“(31) Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9775, otherwise known as the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009;

“(32) Violations of Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10(c), (d) and (e), 11, 12 and 14 of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination;

“(33) Fraudulent practices and other violations under Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code of 2000; and

“(34) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that are punishable under the penal laws of other countries.”

SEC. 3. Section 3 of the same Act shall have new paragraphs (j) and (k).

“(j) Precious metals’ shall mean gold, silver, platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium and osmium. These include alloys of precious metals, solders and plating chemicals such as rhodium and palladium plating solutions and potassium gold cyanide and potassium silver cyanide and silver cyanide in salt solution.

“(k) ‘Precious stones’ shall mean diamond, ruby, emerald, sapphire, opal, amethyst, beryl, topaz, and garnet that are used in jewelry making, including those formerly classified as semi-precious stones.”

SEC. 4. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 4. Money Laundering Offense. – Money laundering is committed by any person who, knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity:

“(a) transacts said monetary instrument or property;

“(b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses said monetary instrument or property;

“(c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership of or rights with respect to said monetary instrument or property;

“(d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);

“(e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above; and

“(f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.

“Money laundering is also committed by any covered person who, knowing that a covered or suspicious transaction is required under this Act to be reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.”

SEC. 5. Section 6(a) of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 6. Prosecution of Money Laundering. –

“(a) Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money laundering and the unlawful activity as herein defined.

“(b) The prosecution of any offense or violation under this Act shall proceed independently of any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity.”

SEC. 6. Section 7 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 7. Creation of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). – The Anti-Money Laundering Council is hereby created and shall be composed of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas as Chairman, the Commissioner of the Insurance Commission and the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as members. The AMLC shall act unanimously in the discharge of its functions as defined hereunder:

“x  x  x

“(6) to apply before the Court of Appeals, ex parte, for the freezing of any monetary instrument or property alleged to be laundered, proceeds from, or instrumentalities used in or intended for use in any unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof;

“x  x  x

“(12) to require the Land Registration Authority and all its Registries of Deeds to submit to the AMLC, reports on all real estate transactions involving an amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) within fifteen (15) days from the date of registration of the transaction, in a form to be prescribed by the AMLC. The AMLC may also require the Land Registration Authority and all its Registries of Deeds to submit copies of relevant documents of all real estate transactions.”

SEC. 7. Section 9(c), paragraphs 1 and 4 of the same Act are hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 9. Prevention of Money Laundering; Customer Identification Requirements and Record Keeping. –

“(a) x  x  x

“(b) x  x  x

“(c) Reporting of Covered and Suspicious Transactions. – Covered persons shall report to the AMLC all covered transactions and suspicious transactions within five (5) working days from occurrence thereof, unless the AMLC prescribes a different period not exceeding fifteen (15) working days.

“Lawyers and accountants acting as independent legal professionals are not required to report covered and suspicious transactions if the relevant information was obtained in circumstances where they are subject to professional secrecy or legal professional privilege.

“x  x  x

“x  x  x

“When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the AMLC, covered persons and their officers and employees are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person or entity, the media, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction has been reported or is about to be reported, the contents of the report, or any other information in relation thereto. Neither may such reporting be published or aired in any manner or form by the mass media”, electronic mail, or other similar devices. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer and employee of the covered person and media shall be held criminally liable.”

SEC. 8. Section 10 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10167, is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 10. Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property. – Upon a verified ex parte petition by the AMLC and after determination that probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof, the Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately, and which shall not exceed six (6) months depending upon the circumstances of the case: Provided, That if there is no case filed against a person whose account has been frozen within the period determined by the court, the freeze order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted: Provided, further, That this new rule shall not apply to pending cases in the courts. In any case, the court should act on the petition to freeze within twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the petition. If the application is filed a day before a nonworking day, the computation of the twenty-four (24)-hour period shall exclude the nonworking days.

“A person whose account has been frozen may file a motion to lift the freeze order and the court must resolve this motion before the expiration of the freeze order.

“No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against any freeze order, except the Supreme Court.”

SEC. 9. Section 12 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“(a) Civil Forfeiture. – Upon determination by the AMLC that probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) or a money laundering offense under Section 4 hereof, the AMLC shall file with the appropriate court through the Office of the Solicitor General, a verified ex parte petition for forfeiture, and the Rules of Court on Civil Forfeiture shall apply.

“The forfeiture shall include those other monetary instrument or property having an equivalent value to that of the monetary instrument or property found to be related in any way to an unlawful activity or a money laundering offense, when with due diligence, the former cannot be located, or it has been substantially altered, destroyed, diminished in value or otherwise rendered worthless by any act or omission, or it has been concealed, removed, converted, or otherwise transferred, or it is located outside the Philippines or has been placed or brought outside the jurisdiction of the court, or it has been commingled with other monetary instrument or property belonging to either the offender himself or a third person or entity, thereby rendering the same difficult to identify or be segregated for purposes of forfeiture.

“(b) Claim on Forfeited Assets. – Where the court has issued an order of forfeiture of the monetary instrument or property in a criminal prosecution for any money laundering offense defined under Section 4 of this Act, the offender or any other person claiming an interest therein may apply, by verified petition, for a declaration that the same legitimately belongs to him and for segregation or exclusion of the monetary instrument or property corresponding thereto. The verified petition shall be filed with the court which rendered the judgment of forfeiture, within fifteen (15) days from the date of the finality of the order of forfeiture, in default of which the said order shall become final and executor. This provision shall apply in both civil and criminal forfeiture.

“(c) Payment in Lieu of Forfeiture. – Where the court has issued an order of forfeiture of the monetary instrument or property subject of a money laundering offense defined under Section 4, and said order cannot be enforced because any particular monetary instrument or property cannot, with due diligence, be located, or it has been substantially altered, destroyed, diminished in value or otherwise rendered worthless by any act or omission, directly or indirectly, attributable to the offender, or it has been concealed, removed, converted, or otherwise transferred to prevent the same from being found or to avoid forfeiture thereof, or it is located outside the Philippines or has been placed or brought outside the jurisdiction of the court, or it has been commingled with other monetary instruments or property belonging to either the offender himself or a third person or entity, thereby rendering the same difficult to identify or be segregated for purposes of forfeiture, the court may, instead of enforcing the order of forfeiture of the monetary instrument or property or part thereof or interest therein, accordingly order the convicted offender to pay an amount equal to the value of said monetary instrument or property. This provision shall apply in both civil and criminal forfeiture.”

SEC. 10. Section 14 of the same Act, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 14. Penal Provisions. – (a) Penalties for the Crime of Money Laundering. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from seven (7) to fourteen (14) years and a fine of not less than Three million Philippine pesos (Php3,000,000.00) but not more than twice the value of the monetary instrument or property involved in the offense, shall be imposed upon a person convicted under Section 4(a), (b), (c) and (d) of this Act.

“The penalty of imprisonment from four (4) to seven (7) years and a fine of not less than One million five hundred thousand Philippine pesos (Php1,500,000.00) but not more than Three million Philippine pesos (Php3,000,000.00), shall be imposed upon a person convicted under Section 4(e) and (f) of this Act.

“The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months to four (4) years or a fine of not less than One hundred thousand Philippine pesos (Php100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand Philippine pesos (Php500,000.00), or both, shall be imposed on a person convicted under the last paragraph of Section 4 of this Act.

“(b) x  x  x

“(c) x  x  x

“(d) x  x  x

“(e) The penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) to seven (7) years and a fine corresponding to not more than two hundred percent (200%) of the value of the monetary instrument or property laundered shall be imposed upon the covered person, its directors, officers or pesonnel who knowingly participated in the commission of the crime of money laundering.

“(f) Imposition of Administrative Sanctions. The imposition of the administrative sanctions shall be without prejudice to the filing of criminal charges against the persons responsible for the violation.

“After due notice and hearing, the AMLC shall, at its discretion, impose sanctions, including monetary penalties, warning or reprimand, upon any covered person, its directors, officers, employees or any other person for the violation of this Act, its implementing rules and regulations, or for failure or refusal to comply with AMLC orders, resolutions and other issuances. Such monetary penalties shall be in amounts as may be determined by the AMLC to be appropriate, which shall not be more than Five hundred thousand Philippine pesos (P500,000.00) per violation.

“The AMLC may promulgate rules on fines and penalties taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, such as the nature and gravity of the violation or irregularity.

“(g) The provision of this law shall not be construed or implemented in a manner that will discriminate against certain customer types, such as politically-exposed persons, as well as their relatives, or against a certain religion, race or ethnic origin, or such other attributes or profiles when used as the only basis to deny these persons access to the services provided by the covered persons. Whenever a bank, or quasi-bank, financial institution or whenever any person or entity commits said discriminatory act, the person or persons responsible for such violation shall be subject to sanctions as may be deemed appropriate by their respective regulators.”

SEC. 11. New sections are hereby inserted after Section 19 of the same Act, as amended, to read as follows:

“SEC. 20. Non-intervention in the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Operations. – Nothing contained in this Act nor in related antecedent laws or existing agreements shall be construed to allow the AMLC to participate in any manner in the operations of the BIR.”

“SEC. 21. The authority to inquire into or examine the main account and the related accounts shall comply with the requirements of Article III, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which are hereby incorporated by reference. Likewise, the constitutional injunction against ex post factolaws and bills of attainder shall be respected in the implementation of this Act.”

SEC. 12. The succeeding sections are hereby renumbered accordingly.

SEC. 13. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity and effectivity of the other provisions hereof.

SEC. 14. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, orders, and issuances or portions thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SEC. 15. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,

(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILEPresident of the Senate

(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR. Speaker of the House of Representatives

This Act which is a consolidation of House Bill No. 6565 and Senate Bill No. 3123 was finally passed by the House of Representatives and the Seriate on February 6, 2013.

(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES Secretary of the Senate

(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAPSecretary General House of Representatives

Approved: FEB 15 2013

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO IIIPresident of the Philippines

x x x."

Six Big Myths About Lawyers - The Careerist

see - Six Big Myths About Lawyers - The Careerist


"x x x.

Myth 1: Lawyers are miserable. Not so—lawyers are generally satisfied with their lives. The Bell Curve is alive and well. Well-being seems distributed among lawyers in a fairly normal statistical pattern, with most reporting life satisfaction around the middle.

What's more, law students entering law school actually show higher than average well-being. (This spring, we will be surveying 3Ls to measure what law school—and job hunting–has done to their happiness. Stay tuned.)

Myth 2: If you're depressed, that's your problem. For those lawyers and law students not doing so well, there's growing institutional awareness of this problem. There is no question that law practice and law school induce or exacerbate depressive symptoms in a percentage of the population, but law schools are taking this more seriously. Almost every law school makes some level of counseling resources available to students, and some go a step further, like Yale Law's “therapy” dogs during exams. Still, few if any legal institutions are providing the sort of formalized resilience training that is needed to better insulate this at-risk population. 

Myth 3: Negative, cautious types get better grades. Personality traits don’t predict first-year grades. This is based on character strengths studies I conducted at two top 50 law schools with Peggy Kern of the University of Pennsylvania. This was surprising to us. It has long been believed that traits like pessimism and prudence translate into better law school grades (as opposed to grades in other professional schools).

Myth 4: Lawyers are cynical. They are skeptical, but no more so than most highly educated people. In other character strengths surveys, every group of lawyers sampled—from North Carolina country lawyers to their big city counterparts—rank themselves high in critical thinking. Guess what? So do most Americans with postgraduate degrees who took the same surveys.

Myth 5: Successful female lawyers are cold and emotionless. Instead, they attribute their success to humanistic traits. In a 2012 study of high-achieving women lawyers, we found that strong emotional awareness was a robust element of their success. (The study was led by attorney/psychological researcher Pat Snyder.) Which leads to the final myth:

Myth 6: Emotional intelligence is overrated. Actually, it becomes more important with career advancement. Lawyers tend to have a higher I.Q. than the general population, but score lower in emotional or social intelligence, meaning the ability to read and respond appropriately to other people.

Recently, I have noticed more firms talking about the value of emotional intelligence among its partners, arguing that it leads to better client attraction and retention. I agree.

x x x."

Are lawyers more miserable than general population? - ABA Journal

see - Are lawyers more miserable than general population? - ABA Journal


"x x x.

The conventional wisdom is that lawyers are a cynical, miserable lot.

Now a positive psychology guru who teaches at Duke Law School is seeking to dispel that notion. Writing as a guest blogger for theCareerist, Dan Bowling says lawyers aren’t so miserable after all.

Lawyers are generally satisfied with their lives, reporting rates of well-being that are about the same as the general population, Bowling says. On a bell curve, most lawyers report life satisfaction around the middle. Students entering law school are even happier, reporting well-being that is above average. Does the law school experience change their outlook? Bowling will be studying 3Ls to find the answer.

Bowling has also found that pessimism doesn’t necessarily translate into better grades for 1Ls. He conducted a study of student character strengths at two top 50 law schools and learned that personality traits don’t predict first-year grades. The finding was surprising, Bowling says, since it was previously believed that pessimists got better grades in law school.

Bowling also targets the belief that lawyers are cynical. While lawyers do rank themselves high in critical thinking, so do most Americans with postgraduate degrees, he says.

Bowling acknowledges that law practice and law school can worsen symptoms of depression among some lawyers, but he says there is growing institutional awareness of the problem. Law schools, for example, offer counseling and, in some instances, therapy dogs during exams. Resilience training could help even more, he says.

x x x."

Right of child to choose - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/RTJ-12-2326.pdf

see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/RTJ-12-2326.pdf

"x x x.


In all questions relating to the care, custody, education and property of the children, the latter's welfare is paramount. This means that the best interest of the minor can override procedural rules and even the rights of parents to the custody of their children. Since, in this case, the very life and existence of the minor is at stake and the child is in an age when she can
exercise an intelligent choice, the courts can do no less than respect, enforce and give meaning and substance to that choice and uphold her right to live in an atmosphere conducive to her physical, moral and intellectual development. 1

x x x.

Confidentiality of disbarment cases. - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/194578.pdf

see -  sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/194578.pdf

"x x x.


Atty. Quinsayas is bound by Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court both as a complainant in the disbarment case against petitioner and as a lawyer. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, Atty. Quinsayas is familiar with the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. However, instead of preserving its confidentiality, Atty. Quinsayas disseminated copies of the disbarment complaint against petitioner to members of the media which act constitutes contempt of court. In Relativo v. De Leon,28 the Court ruled that the premature disclosure by publication of the filing and pendency of disbarment proceedings is a violation of the confidentiality rule.29 In that case, Atty. Relativo, the complainant in a disbarment case, caused the publication in newspapers of statements regarding the filing and pendency of the disbarment proceedings. The Court found him guilty of contempt.

x x x."

Valid airport search - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191023.pdf

see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191023.pdf


"x x x.


In People v. Johnson,16 which also involved seizure of a dangerous drug from a passenger during a routine frisk at the airport, this Court ruled
that such evidence obtained in a warrantless search was acquired
legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures, thus:


Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a
lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport
security procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and
terrorism has come increased security at the nation’s airports. Passengers
attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors;
their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected
to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of
suspicious objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the
objects are. There is little question that such searches are reasonable,
given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests
involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline
travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport public address
systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to
search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such
would be subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers on
notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures.17

x x x."

Quantum of evidence. - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/197299.pdf

see -  sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/197299.pdf


"x x x.


It is well-entrenched that in an administrative proceeding, the quantum
of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence or such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion and not proof beyond reasonable doubt which requires moral
certainty to justify affirmative findings.22

x x x,"

EDSA’s failed legacy: Political dynasties

see -  EDSA’s failed legacy: Political dynasties


"x x x.

Graft and corruption

Before the Marcos dictatorship, in what has been described as an era of elite democracy, political control was dominated by a relatively small class of political families like the Ortegas of La Union, the Abads in Batanes, the Albanos in Isabela, the Cojuangcos in Tarlac, the Laurels in Batangas, the Fuentebellas in Camarines Sur, the Aquinos in Sorsogon, and the Cuencos and the Osmeñas in Cebu, to name some.

Under the authoritarian regime of Marcos, some survived and thrived like the Ablans in Ilocos Norte, the Asistios in Caloocan, the Dys in Isabela, the Escuderos of Sorsogon, the Josons in Nueva Ecija, and the Romualdezes in Leyte.

Brimming with idealism after Marcos’ ouster, the framers of the 1987 Constitution, painfully aware of the potential abuse and excess of allowing select families to have political control, introduced Article II, Section 26, which states that the State “shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

One of the members of the Constitutional Commission (ConCom), the recently retired poll commissioner Rene Sarmiento -- in supporting the anti-dynasty provision during the ConCom debates -- argued that “political dynasties are the bane and waterloo of young, promising but poor candidates to occupy important positions in government. While it is true we have government officials who have ascended to power despite accident of birth, they are exceptions [as] most officials would show that they come from powerful clans with vast economic fortunes.”

Another ConCom member, Jose Colayco, pointed out that a political dynasty “breeds graft and corruption,” citing the case of a former Manila mayor who had been in power for 20 years. Having been into power for so long, the mayor allowed his children to control illegal activities in the city, Colayco told the ConCom.

But 27 years after the 1987 Constitution was ratified, the political affairs of the country remains the monopoly of a select few, revolving around family members and relatives.

x x x,"

Statement of Concern: Comelec must stop committing the same mistakes; voters’ rights are at stake | Blog Watch Citizen Media

see - Statement of Concern: Comelec must stop committing the same mistakes; voters’ rights are at stake | Blog Watch Citizen Media

"x x x.

With barely three months to go before Election Day, the people are left to pursue all courses of actions necessary to: a) assert the rule of law, b) ensure that the elections push through, c) the voters’ right are not violated, d) teachers’ duties and rights as BEIs are protected, and e) the integrity of the vote through automation is maintained.

Meantime, the Comelec must allow stakeholders, especially political parties and election watchdogs equal access to the following MINIMUM information during election day:

• Printed precinct audit logs
• Printed MBOC (municipal board of canvassing) audit logs
• Continuing public website (as provided for in the law) where the canvassed votes in the
national server should be posted
• Random Manual Audit immediately after elections conducted by a competent group
• Electronic Transmission Results

What can we as citizens, voters, and election watch groups do for the May 2013 automated elections and for our country?

The right to suffrage is the people’s sovereign right to elect officials upon whom they confer the authority to serve the public responsibly, transparently, with accountability, and on a full-time basis. For this reason, it is imperative that the electoral process is credible, trustworthy, reliable, and accurate in serving as the instrument of the people’s will. We have to demand from Comelec, our election manager, full accountability and transparency.

x x x."

COMMENTARY: The Sabah standoff

read  -  COMMENTARY: The Sabah standoff


"x x x.

THE SULU SULTANATE ACQUIRES SABAH

The Genealogy of the Sulu Royal Families, written by Sururul-Ain Ututalum (descendant of Dayang-Dayang Hadja Piandao and, therefore, an heir to Sabah) and Abdul-Karim Hedjazi, traced the close relationship between the royals of Brunei and Sulu. In the 1500s, Brunei Sultan Bolkiah was married to Sulu Princess Putri Laila, granddaughter of Shariful Hashim, first Sultan of Sulu. In the late 1600s, when Sultan Muaddin of Brunei was threatened by rebellion, he turned to his kin in Sulu for help. The rebellion was quelled. As a reward, the Brunei sultan gave resource-rich Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu. The property includes the “mainland of the island of Borneo commencing from the Pandassan River on the north-west coast and extending along the whole east coast as far as the Sibuco River in the south and comprising amongst other the States of Paitan, Sugut, Bangaya, Labuk, Sandakan, Kina Batangan, Mumiang, and all the other territories and states to the southward thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco river with all the islands within three marine leagues of the coast.” The territory is defined in the agreement. (http://www.lawnet.sabah.gov.my/Lawnet/SabahLaws/Treaties/GrantBySultanOfSuluOfTerritoriesAndLandsOnTheMainlandOfTheIslandOfBorneo.pdf.)

SABAH BECOMES PART OF MALAYSIA

In 1763, Sultan Azimuddin signed a treaty allowing the British East Indies Co. to use Sabah and other territories. Tensions later developed between the sultan and the company, which prevented the effective implementation of the treaty until 1878. At this time, Baron Von Overbeck of the British East India Trading Co. entered into a lease agreement or padjak with Sultan Jamalul Alam. This company was later absorbed by the British North Borneo Co. which, in 1946, transferred sovereign rights over Sabah to Britain. When the Federation of Malaya was granted its independence from Britain in 1963, Sabah was one of the territories turned over to the newly established Malaysia.

SOURCE OF DISPUTE

The dispute revolves around the meaning of the term padjak. The Tausug padjak means lease whereas the British version used the term to mean “grant” or “cede.” Thus, the sultan’s heirs maintain that Sabah was merely leased to the company while Malaysia states that the Philippines has no claim because Sabah had been sold to British East India Trading.

The Malaysian government continues to pay lease money owed by British North Borneo to the descendants of the sultan to this day. The Malaysian government pays RM5,300 per year as rental for Sabah to the heirs since the formation of the Malaysian federation in 1963.

Today, the sum of RM5,300 — less than ₱75,000 — as annual rental barely covers the monthly rent of a house in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The heirs, on their own, have attempted to renegotiate the terms of the padjak with the Malaysian government.

In 1996, Princess Denchurai Kiram, daughter of Princess Tarhata Kiram and administrator of her estate, wrote then Prime Minister Mahathir to raise the rental to $1,000,000. She also stated that she and the other heirs were willing to renounce the claim if Kuala Lumpurt will provide a fair settlement. The letter was ignored by Mr. Mahathir.

In June 2010, the Sulu provincial board passed a resolution supporting the demand of the heirs to increase the yearly payment to at least $500 million.

Weeks earlier, Mr. Misuari issued a statement calling the attention of Malaysia to settle the Sabah issue. Misuari’s first wife, the late Desdemona Tan, and present wife Ruayda, are heirs to Sabah since they are descendants of Dayang-Dayang (Queen) Hadja Piandao, who was acknowledged to have 3/8 share of Sabah.

In January 2001, Sultan Esmail Kiram II, the brother of Jamalul III, also wrote Mr. Mahathir, this time through President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Princess Denchurain’s daughter, Princess Tajmahal, was a co-signatory. According to reports, their demand was for $855 million.

SOVEREIGN RIGHTS

The late Ambassador Abraham Rasul, wazir or prime minister to Sultan Esmail Kiram (and later wazir to Sultan Mahakuttah, son of Esmail), had been authorized by the sultan to discuss the pursuit of the Sabah claim with Mr. Macapagal and, later, President Ferdinand Marcos. (Ambassador Rasul succeeded his father, the first Muslim senator, Hadji Butu, who was wazir to three sultans.)

Esmail Kiram officially transferred the sultanate’s authority and sovereignty to the Philippines on Sept. 12, 1962 through a written instrument signed by himself and Foreign Affairs Secretary Emmanuel Pelaez. The transfer was authorized by a resolution passed by the Ruma Bechara (literally “House of Talk,” equivalent to council of advisers/Cabinet). He thus gave up the Sulu sultanate’s sovereign rights to Sabah to the government, but retained proprietary rights over the same.

However, there was a provision in the Ruma Bechara resolution that in the event the government fails or refuses to protect its claim, the Sultanate of Sulu reserves the right to prosecute its claim over Sabah, in whatever manner it can think of. The Kiram family lawyer, Ulka Ulama, and former Senator Santanina Rasul have documents that bear this out. (As a UP political science student, Senator Rasul wrote an award-winning essay on the claim, which was published in the UP Law Journal.)

If the sovereign claim over Sabah is dropped, do we lose all rights? Even if we lose sovereign rights over Sabah, we still have proprietary rights, through the heirs of the Sultan, who personally owned Sabah.

THE HEIRS

The legally recognized owners — members of Sulu royalty and nobility — were identified in the 1939 ruling of Chief Justice C. F. C. Macaskie of the High Court of North Borneo: Dayang-Dayang (Princess) Hadji Piandao was acknowledged as the major share-holder with 3/8 share. Princess Tarhata Kiram and Princess Sakinur-In Kiram were to each have a 3/16 share. The six other heirs who went to Macaskie’s court were awarded 1/24 share apiece: Mora Napsa, Sultan Esmail Kiram, Datu Punjungan, Sitti Mariam, Sitti Jahara and Sitti Rada.

Princess Denchurain acknowledged the nine heirs specified in the Macaskie decision as the true heirs of Sabah.

All the principal heirs have died. As of today, there are probably a thousand heirs of the heirs. Dayang-Dayang Hadji Piandao Kiram, an only child, was childless. Therefore her cousins, nieces and nephews will divide her 3/8 share. Among her cousins was my grandmother, Hadja Salma, wife of Sen. Hadji Butu. Thus, my father, the late Ambassador Rasul, and his siblings and cousins are heirs. Misuari’s wives (Desdemona and Ruayda), are heirs. Jamalul III and Esmail are the children of Datu Punjungan.

MOVES TO RESOLVE CLAIM

During the term of President Macapagal, the government in 1962 filed a claim over Sabah with the United Nations. A Sabah Division was created in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Marcos had other plans. Parallel to legal maneuverings, he had young Muslims trained in Corregidor to “destabilize” Sabah. The scenario: the Philippines could then come in and take Sabah by force, to “protect” the thousands of Tausugs who lived there or incite them to secede and join the Philippines. The plan went awry, resulting in the massacre of the Muslim trainees. Except for one lone survivor, Jibin Arula. Away from the barracks when he heard gunfire, Arula claimed he saw his comrades mowed down by their military trainors. He ran to the mountains, went over the cliff and into the sea. He was rescued the next day by Cavite fishermen. Somehow, he was brought to then Cavite Gov. Delfin Montano. The governor brought Arula to Senator Benigno Aquino who then exposed the infamous “Jabidah Massacre” of March 18, 1968. Malaysia severed diplomatic ties with the Philippines after the expose. It took the combined efforts of Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand to resolve the situation.

President Corazon C. Aquino wanted to resolve the claim during her term. It seems that Malaysia would only agree to negotiate if all the heirs spoke as one. In 1987, she instructed Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul Manglapus to bring all the heirs together. On Oct. 23, 1987, Mr. Manglapus wrote Ambassador Rasul: “I would like to suggest that the claimants organize themselves so that they may arrive at a common position…. Although yours is a private claim, we have the assurance of the Malaysian government that they are ready and willing to negotiate with the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu in order to settle this matter.”

Then Sen. Santanina Rasul was requested to coordinate the unification of the heirs. As her chief of staff, I was tasked to implement the assignment. We managed to bring them all to Malacañang. After hours of deliberation, the heirs appointed their representatives, led by Sec. Manglapus, to negotiate with Malaysia. Unfortunately, the meeting came to a standstill when Jamalul III dissented. Afterward, the heirs of Dayang-Dayang Hadji Piandao Kiram, Sultan Esmail Kiram, Princesses Tarhata, Sakinur-in and Sitti Mariam sought a meeting with Sec. Manglapus. A brief from that meeting held on Dec. 6, 1987, stated: “They were of the opinion that Sultan Mohamad Jamalul Kiram III was expressing his own personal views which contravene the consensus reached at the meeting of the heirs with Secretary… Manglapus at the PICC on Friday, December 4 and at the conference of the heirs held with President Corazon C. Aquino at Malacañang on Saturday, December 5.”

President Fidel V. Ramos pursued the attempt to unite the heirs. Upon his suggestion, the representatives of the heirs met on Feb. 10, 1993 to discuss their establishment of the Sulu-Sabah Development Corp., which would be responsible for the economic development and sociocultural advancement of Sulu. It was understood that this entity would be the conduit of the funds from the settlement of the proprietary claim over Sabah. Former Presidential Legal Counsel (now Supreme Court Justice) Antonio Carpio drafted the terms. This corporation would have been powerful if the idea had prospered.

Why then did the attempts fizzle? During the Ramos years, the heirs still could not unite. By then, the idea to establish the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area had prospered. Rich Malaysia was employing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos as well as investing in Mindanao. Terrorism was sprouting and borders had to be secured. The Sabah claim moved to the back burner. This situation continued through the short-lived Estrada presidency.

The Arroyo administration renewed interest in settling the claim. Some of the heirs were feted at Malacañang in 2002 and Jamalul III was hailed as Sultan of Sulu. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo even gave the letter of Sultan Jamalul and Princess Tajmahal, asking for an adjustment of the rentals, to then Prime Minister Mahathir. The Arroyo administration, however, did not unite all the heirs, as the preceding administrations had done.

THE SULTAN OF SULU

The Sultanate of Sulu has had a tradition of being governed by one Sultan, supported and acknowledged by the citizens of the sultanate. The last to be so proclaimed was Sultan Mahakuttah Kiram, the son of Esmail Kiram. Mahakuttah, was recognized by Mr. Marcos, while his father was recognized by Messrs. Macapagal and Marcos. Jamalul III was recognized by Mrs. Arroyo, and was even included in the administration senatorial slate in 2004. He has been the most forceful and visible sultan.

It is unfortunate that today there are over 10 who are claiming the Sultanship. Among them are Sultan Jamalul III and his brother Sultan Esmail. Jamalul is the eldest son of Datu Punjungan Kiram. Initially, Datu Punjungan was the raja muda or crown prince of Sultan Esmail Kiram. But after Datu Punjungan left the Philippines to reside in Sabah, Sultan Esmail was fearful that Datu Punjungan might sign a quitclaim in favor of Malaysia, so he changed his crown prince, with the consent and authority of his Ruma Bechara. Esmail named his eldest son, Mahakuttah Kiram, as his crown prince. When Esmail passed away, Mahakuttah succeeded and his coronation was ordered by Mr. Marcos to safeguard the Sabah claim. Mahakuttah had anointed his son, Muedzul-Lail as the raja muda. At the time, Muedzul-Lail was in grade school.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• The Sabah impasse needs to be resolved peacefully. It is to the interest of the government to ensure that the MNLF, the dominant Moro liberation front in Sulu, supports a peaceful resolution of the situation. Misuari can play a role to de-escalate tensions. Not only is he Tausug and therefore supportive of the sultanate, his late wife Desdemona and present wife Ruayda are heirs. However, Misuari is aggrieved that the MNLF and he himself have been sidelined in the peace process with the MILF. Further, the Arroyo administration had been instrumental in supporting the Council of 15, which removed Misuari from the leadership of the MNLF. He was also incarcerated for over seven years and later released for lack of evidence. Misuari, who is still recognized by the Organization of the Islamic Conference as the chairman of the MNLF, is therefore a key player. Misuari yesterday convened a meeting of the MNLF and island leaders in Zamboanga City on the situation in Sabah and the claim. A statement will be issued calling for support for the Sabah claim.

• The national government should encourage and assist the leading members of the Kirams and the datus of Sulu to come together and choose one Sultan. This will not only re-establish the tradition of one Sultan leading the Sulu sultanate; it will provide a focal point for the nobility and traditional leaders of Sulu to lead in peace and development. At this point, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III has established his dominance in the field, particularly after the Lahad Datu incident. Most of the leaders in the island-provinces of Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Basilan — domain of the Sulu sultanate — have applauded his action.

As many elected leaders in the island-provinces have not been successful in forging a strong foundation of governance and peace, perhaps strengthening the institution of the sultanate will provide Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Basilan with an institution that can help unite the population behind peace and development, as the sultans of Malaysia are doing.

• The Benigno Aquino administration should follow the initiative began by Presidents Corazon Aquino and Ramos to unite the Sabah heirs and pursue the peaceful and just resolution of the Sabah claim.

(MindaViews is the opinion sectionof MindaNews. This piece was first published on February 21, 2013 under “Surveil,” the column of Ms Amina Rasul for Businessworld. Ms Rasul granted MindaNews permission to reprint this piece)..

x x x."