UN rights chief: Investigate Duterte for killings | Inquirer News

See - UN rights chief: Investigate Duterte for killings | Inquirer News


"x x x.

The U.N. human rights chief asked Philippine authorities Tuesday to investigate President Rodrigo Duterte for murder after he claimed to have killed people in the past and also to examine the “appalling epidemic of extra-judicial killings” committed during his anti-drug crackdown.

Philippine judicial authorities “must demonstrate their commitment to upholding the rule of law and their independence from the executive by launching a murder investigation,” U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said, adding it’s “unthinkable for any functioning judicial system not to launch investigative and judicial proceedings when someone has openly admitted being a killer.”

Since taking office in June, Duterte has obsessively overseen the crackdown on illegal drugs that has left more than 6,000 people dead. Philippine government officials have defended police actions during the crackdown, and the president has met past such calls with angry tirades.

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/855187/un-rights-chief-investigate-duterte-for-killings#ixzz4TRuph7im
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

The Philippines in 2016: On Forgotten Histories and Identities in Peril

See - (95) The Philippines in 2016: On Forgotten Histories and Identities in Peril


"x x x.

The Philippines in 2016: On Forgotten Histories and Identities in Peril
LEILA DE LIMA·MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2016

Good afternoon to everyone. It is a great honor and pleasure to be among the invited speakers for this Annual Conference on Cultural Diplomacy 2016.

x x x.

In May of this year, 16 million Filipinos elected a self-confessed serial killer[1] as President; the same candidate who, while on the campaign trail, told a rape joke about an Australian missionary who was raped and killed in the city where he was then serving as Mayor; cursed the Pope for having caused traffic jams during his papal visit;evaded questions about the source of his alleged undeclared wealth amounting to billions of pesos;and basically promised to employ summary killings as a policy to curtail criminality.

In the last five months, he has proven true his blood-soaked promise, at least to the extent that, by the Philippine National Police’s own statistics, we have now recorded a total of more than 6,095 deaths in connection with the Duterte Administration’s so-called “War on Drugs”[2] – which is turning out to be more of a “war on the poor”, while big-time drug lords have thus far been mostly allowed to evade justice.

He has also allowed the former dictator, Ferdinand E. Marcos, to be buried as a hero. The same dictator whose 20-year regime – which was as corrupt as it was bloody from similar acts of summary execution, torture, enforced disappearances and various other forms of human rights abuses and political oppression – is the very raison d’etre for the drafting of the 1987 Constitution, which sought to ensure that similar abuses and heinousness will never again find space within the annals of Philippine history. In one fell swoop, the current President obscured the rejection of such dictatorial regime by allowing a plunderer and a killer to be given a hero’s burial.

He has also driven the women’s empowerment and gender sensitivity movement several decades back, by himself creating a culture of misogyny wherein female members of the press are catcalled during press conferences, female police officers are touched inappropriately, the vice president’s legs are openly ogled during cabinet meetings, and slut-shaming is employed as a form of political reprisal against women who dare criticize him.

He and his men – preying on the people’s fears from so-called anticipated reprisals by those involved in the drug trade, or from terrorist attacks, or some other undefined threats that prey upon their feelings of insecurity – are keeping the threat of a declaration of a state of national emergency, martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus perpetually hanging above the Filipino’s heads, thus priming them for malleability for other extreme actions.

And even after all of that, what is most disturbing is the way he is shaping the very psyche and identity of the Filipino people.

x x x.

In fact, in spite of everything and against all reasonable expectations, he still enjoys a “Very Good” Performance Rating from the people according to a latest survey released just days ago. Of course surveys aren’t always accurate, but the absence of a roaring rejection of the occurrence of daily deaths in our streets is in itself quite disturbing.
If 6,095 deaths,including deaths of innocent children, in less than 6 months, isn’t enough to spark outrage, how many more will it take?

Apparently, much, much more, if we go by the proposal to revive the Death Penalty, which, I predict,can easily pass in the lower house of the Philippine Congress. Apparently, our choice is be killed in the streets, or be killed by public execution. It doesn’t matter that we all know that death penalty has never been as successful a deterrent to crime as it is a weapon of political suppression. It doesn’t’ matter that our justice system is far from being perfect to ensure that no innocent lives are taken. All that matters is that macabre mathematics that equates death tolls to accomplishments.

That is the true horror of it all: we are fast becoming a nation where killing is seen as the solution to our problems. Not a solution; not the first or the last resort; but the solution. It doesn’t even matter that it has been clearly demonstrated that some cops are complicit in the very crimes they are supposed to suppress– clearly, the only real solution is to give them a carte blanche authority to kill the suspects outright.

That is our brand of justice these days. And the true horror is that some of our people will stand up and applaud this reality.
What does this say about our people?

Are we evil that we condone evil to be done in our name? Are we cowards? Or are we simply realists?

x x x.

There, I believe, lies the answer as to why authoritarian leaders who excel at manipulation can find the gaps that allow them to sink their claws into our nation, and rip us apart from the inside: they have been able to prey on our fears and self-interests in order to divide and conquer us.

x x x.

For as long as we see one another as “others” we will never trust that we truly have each other’s interests in mind, and we will always look for the person who will fight for us, even if that person employs means that we would otherwise have found unacceptable.

That, therefore, is the challenge that we Filipinos face in 2017.

x x x."

Duterte’s EJK supporters violate US immigration laws | INQUIRER.net

See - Duterte’s EJK supporters violate US immigration laws | INQUIRER.net


"x x x.

These DHS officials may now inquire of Filipinos visiting the US as tourists or even those applying for permanent residence or for naturalization if they approve of Duterte’s extrajudicial killings as part of his war against drugs and if they were involved in or participated in “any way in the killings.”

Extrajudicial killings may not be prosecuted in the Philippines under Duterte – as proven by the jail cell cold-blooded execution of Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa by 24 police officers on November 3 — but they are crimes in the United States and supporting their practice in the Philippines may have severe consequences for Duterte’s supporters in the United States.

Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act

U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act Section 212 lists the “classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas and ineligible for admission” to the United States. Included under subsection E are “participants in Nazi persecutions, genocide or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing.”

Under this subsection E is: “iii) COMMISSION OF ACTS OF TORTURE OR EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS- Any alien who, outside the United States, has committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the commission of– (I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code; or (II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note), is inadmissible.”

This new and expanded definition of “extrajudicial killing” became law in 2004 under Title XII Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2004.

Activists hold a candle light vigil for victims of the extra judicial killings in the drug war of the government in front of a church in Manila on September 16, 2016. The Philippines faced calls September 16 to investigate its firebrand president after a self-confessed hitman alleged Rodrigo Duterte ordered a thousand opponents and suspected criminals murdered when he was a city mayor.

As reported in the Congressional Record of deliberations on this new law, “subsection (a) would add a new clause to Section 8 USC Sec. 1182(a)(3)(E) that would trigger operation of the inadmissibility ground if an alien has “committed, ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in “acts of torture…or extrajudicial killings as defined in the Torture Victim Protection Act.”

“Extrajudicial killing,” as defined by the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, “means a deliberate killing without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

Filipinos in the Philippines who apply online for a tourist visa will be asked on Form DS-160 will be asked if they have ever “committed, ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in “acts of torture…or extrajudicial killings as defined in the Torture Victim Protection Act.” If they truthfully answered that they “assisted” Duterte by enthusiastically supporting his killings, their tourist visa application will likely be rejected.

If they somehow make it to the US, and they divorce their spouse in Las Vegas, and then marry a US citizen who petitions them for a green card, they will have to fill out Form I-485, their Application for Adjustment of Status to the United States. “Part 3 Processing Information” asks on #14 “Have you EVER ordered, incited, called for, committed, helped with, or otherwise do any of the following: a. Acts involving torture or genocide? b. Killing any person?…”

“Helped with” is quite broad and may include enthusiastically endorsing and cheering Duterte’s policy of extrajudicial killings in his war against drugs.

If these pro-Duterte Filipinos somehow acquire their green cards by lying about their support for Duterte’s EJK and they then apply for naturalization as a US citizen, they will have to fill out Form N-400. In it on Part 12 #14, they will be asked: “Were you EVER involved in any way with any of the following: A. Genocide? B. Torture? Killing or trying to kill someone?…”

“Any way” is quite broad and it can certainly be argued that endorsing/cheering Duterte’s “slaughter” of innocents (they are all innocent because they were never even charged with a crime much less convicted of a crime) is a “way” of being involved in the extrajudicial killings of Duterte.

x x x."


Read more: https://globalnation.inquirer.net/150954/dutertes-ejk-supporters-violate-us-immigration-laws#ixzz4TRiJAhzy
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

R.A. 9255 - amending Art. 176, Family Code - "illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father."

See - R.A. 9255


Republic Act No. 9255 February 24 2004
AN ACT ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE SURNAME OF THEIR FATHER, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 176 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES"

SECTION 1. Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child."

SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. – All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, proclamations, rules and regulations, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

As a Senate ethics committee member who will be among those who will try and decide the pending ethics complaints against De Lima, Poe should have restrained her talkative political tongue from prejudging the complaints.

See - (92) It is unfair for Poe to accuse De Lima that... - Manuel Laserna Jr.

It is unfair for Poe to accuse De Lima that during the term of the latter as Justice Secretary drugs flourished in the country, as if De Lima was the mastermind of it all, and that De Lima should explain to the people the allegations of Espinosa and Dayan implicating the latter, as if De Lima was running away from any legal process. 

Poe's generic statement follows the character demolition script of Duterte, Aguirre, Calida, Alvarez, Lacson, Gordon, et al. 

Poe has not presented credible, scientific, empirical and official data proving that drugs indeed flourished during De Lima's tenure as Justice Secretary, not even the accessible data from the PNP, PDEA and DOJ from 2010 to 2016. Poe has failed to prove the veracity of her implicit message that De Lima is the alleged mastermind of narcopolitics in the country.

Poe's tacit message that De Lima is a narcopolitician, following the Duterte script, is based solely on the Espinosa and Dayan tainted affidavits, which, as we all know, were executed under duress before Bato, Aguirre, Alvarez and/or their minions and were prejudiced by extreme pressures, questions, and death threats. 

My reading of the matter is that De Lima is ready, willing, and prepared to answer the Duterte-inspired VACC criminal complaint it had filed with the DOJ, provided, that the said criminal complaint would be investigated by the proper constitutionally independent forum, which is the Office of the Ombudsman. Not the DOJ. The DOJ is under the political control of Aguirre and Duterte.

Aguirre should have forwarded outright the VACC criminal complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman for its final disposition pursuant to the ethical doctrine of "Delicadeza". 

Aguirre is a political hatchet man and de facto spokesman of Duterte to demolish De Lima. 

Aguirre has lost the quasi-judicial ability to be just and fair.

Duterte is a man of hatred. He cannot forget how De Lima, as CHR chair during the Arroyo administration, held a series of investigations in Davao into his deadly DDS that had killed 1,400 helpless victims, mostly the youth involved in petty crimes. No big drug lords died. 

His courage to kill was limited to helpless and poor citizens of Davao who had no political might and economic power to flaunt.

De Lima's CHR report was supported and corroborated by the HRW and the AI, both of which are respected global human rights organizations. 

The ICC, the UN human rights agencies, the world mass media, the EU, the Asean, the Vatican and other borderless humanitarian organizations are closely monitoring Duterte's war on drugs. 

Duterte's wicked and deadly war on drugs has killed one victim every forty minutes since he took over Malacanang on July 1, per a press statement of Sen. Pangilinan, 

Incidentally, some top VACC leaders have been appointed by Duterte to juicy GOCC positions. The bias and partiality of the VACC in favor of Duterte's secret agenda are obvious. The VACC has degenerated into a mercenary political group. 

The VACC continues to rely on the tainted Espinosa and Dayan affidavits as well as the equally tainted affidavits of convicted drug lords serving life sentence in Muntinlupa. 

The said affidavits were apparently prepared with the participation of Bato, PNP officials, Aguirre, and other Duterte confidential demolition team members. 

A big conspiracy is executing the Duterte demolition script. 

The affiants of the said affidavits obviously wanted to obtain as many legal and political concessions as possible from Duterte, Aguirre, et al in return for demolishing the name of De Lima. 

Further, as a Senate ethics committee member who will be among those who will try and decide the pending ethics complaints against De Lima, Poe should have restrained her talkative political tongue from prejudging the complaints. 

As a politician and semi-showbiz figure, Poe clearly needs free publicity to maintain her household name for reelection and other political goals now and in the future.

But Poe should avoid unfair, empty and premature statements involving ethics complaints pending before the Senate ethics committee, of which she is a voting member. if she were to be true to her oath of office as a legislator.

Her oath includes the constitutional duty to be just, fair and truthful to the people.

Duterte violates Second Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Duterte insists on restoring the death penalty. He plans to kill six death row convicts daily. He should improve his knowledge of Public International Law. The Philippines is a signatory to the Second Protocol to the 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which prohibit the death penalty among all signatory States. The Senate has concurred in it, thus, making it part of the law of the land. Read the full text of the Second Protocol below. I capitalized the relevant points.

Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition  of the death penalty.

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 44/128 of 15 December 1989

The States Parties to the present Protocol,

Believing that ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights,

Recalling article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on 10 December 1948, and article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966,

Noting that article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refers to ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY in terms that strongly suggest that abolition is desirable,

Convinced that all measures of ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the RIGHT TO LIFE.

Desirous to undertake hereby an international commitment to ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY.

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

1. NO ONE within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be EXECUTED.

2. Each State Party shall take all necessary measures to ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY within its jurisdiction.

Article 2

1. NO RESERVATION is admissible to the present Protocol, EXCEPT for a reservation made at the time of ratification or accession that provides for the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a MILITARY NATURE committed during WARTIME.

2. The State Party making such a reservation shall at the time of ratification or accession communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the relevant provisions of its national legislation applicable during wartime.

3. The State Party having made such a reservation shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any beginning or ending of a state of war applicable to its territory.

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Protocol shall include in the reports they submit to the Human Rights Committee, in accordance with article 40 of the Covenant, information on the measures that they have adopted TO GIVE EFFECT to the present Protocol.

Article 4

With respect to the States Parties to the Covenant that have made a declaration under article 41, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications when a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations shall extend to the provisions of the present Protocol, unless the State Party concerned has made a statement to the contrary at the moment of ratification or accession.

Article 5

With respect to the States Parties to the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted on 16 December 1966, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction shall extend to the provisions of the present Protocol, unless the State Party concerned has made a statement to the contrary at the moment of ratification or accession.

Article 6

1. The provisions of the present Protocol shall apply as additional provisions to the Covenant.

2. Without prejudice to the possibility of a reservation under article 2 of the present Protocol, the right guaranteed in article 1, paragraph 1, of the present Protocol shall NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY DEROGATION under article 4 of the Covenant.

Article 7

1. The present Protocol is open for signature by any State that has signed the Covenant.

2. The present Protocol is subject to ratification by any State that has ratified the Covenant or acceded to it. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3. The present Protocol shall be open to accession by any State that has ratified the Covenant or acceded to it.

4. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

5. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States that have signed the present Protocol or acceded to it of the deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 8

1. The present Protocol shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the tenth instrument of ratification or accession.

2. For each State ratifying the present Protocol or acceding to it after the deposit of the tenth instrument of ratification or accession, the present Protocol shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 9

The provisions of the present Protocol shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.

Article 10

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States referred to in article 48, paragraph 1, of the Covenant of the following particulars:

(a) Reservations, communications and notifications under article 2 of the present Protocol;

(b) Statements made under articles 4 or 5 of the present Protocol;

(c) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under article 7 of the present Protocol:

(d) The date of the entry into force of the present Protocol under article 8 thereof.

Article 11

1. The present Protocol, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.

2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of the present Protocol to all States referred to in article 48 of the Covenant.

x x x."

Note the following important provisions stated int he Second Protocol:

"x x x.

Article 2

1. NO RESERVATION is admissible to the present Protocol, EXCEPT for a reservation made at the time of ratification or accession that provides for the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a MILITARY NATURE committed during WARTIME.

2. The State Party making such a reservation shall at the time of ratification or accession communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the relevant provisions of its national legislation applicable during wartime.

3. The State Party having made such a reservation shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any beginning or ending of a state of war applicable to its territory.

x x x."

Reference: http://www.ohchr.org/…/ProfessionalInt…/Pages/2ndOPCCPR.aspx.

Philippines' exclusive economic zone (EEZ) - "Sharing" our natural marine resources in the West Philippine Sea (Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]) with China on the pretext of "joint development" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a ground for IMPEACHMENT.

"Sharing" our natural resources in the West Philippine Sea (Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]) with China on the pretext of "joint development" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a ground for IMPEACHMENT. -

Duterte has repeated his desire to surrender and sell our multi-trillion-peso Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) rights, interests and natural resources to China on the pretext of "sharing" or “joint development” and friendship with China (Duterte’s “new ally”).

This is prohibited by the Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) of the 1987 Constitution.

If Duterte violates the said Article, he may be IMPEACHED under Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) of the 1987 Constitution.

Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides as follows:

(1)             “All xxx waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are OWNED BY THE STATE”.

(2)            “With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources SHALL NOT BE ALIENATED”.

(3)            “The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be UNDER THE FULL CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE STATE”.

(4)            “The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements WITH FILIPINO CITIZENS or corporations or associations AT LEAST SIXTY PERCENTUM OF WHOSE CAPITAL IS OWNED BY (FILIPINO) CITIZENS”.

(5)            “Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and UNDER SUCH TERMS AND CONDITION AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.”

(6)            “The State shall protect the nation's MARINE WEALTH in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE, and reserve its use and enjoyment EXCLUSIVELY to Filipino citizens”.

(7)            “The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by FILIPINO CITIZENS, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons”.

(8)            “The President may enter into AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN-OWNED CORPORATIONS involving either TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITION PROVIDED BY LAW, based on REAL CONTRIBUTIONS to the economic growth and GENERAL WELFARE of the country xxx.”

(9)            “The President shall NOTIFY THE CONGRESS of EVERY CONTRACT entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.”

Duterte yesterday again floated the idea of “sharing oil in the West Philippine Sea with China”, despite an international arbitral award recognizing the EEZ rights of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea, which is part of the South China Sea.

His words, as reported by Rappler.Com:

(1)             "I have this arbitral award, so I have to push it. Kung gusto ninyo (If you want), let's just develop what's the oil there, hati-hati nalang tayo (let's divide it up)."

(2)            "Anuhin ko naman iyang dagat kung walang (What can I do with that sea if there is no) – What will I do with the Scarborough Shoal? Swim there everyday? For what? To send my soldiers there to die? Nakalutang lahat? (Everyone floating there?)."

(3)            Duterte said “he would not raise the award  any time soon” (Re: the recent UNCLOS arbitral decision in favor of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone and against the Nine-Dash Ownership Claim of China over almost the whole of the  South China Sea).

(4)            Duterte said “bringing up the award may stoke tensions with China”, which Duterte now regards as “a new friend and ally”.

(5)            "Iyang oil, tayo may arbitral. Gusto nila [US] i-push talaga natin. Bakit naman ako maghanap ng away? (That oil, we have the arbitral award. They want us to push it. Why would I look for a fight?) If I send the Marines there, they’ll be wiped out in just one minute. It will be a disaster."  Note: Duterte’s statement comes after increased “militarization by the Chinese” in the West Philippine Sea. His Foreign Secretary Yasay said “the government can't do anything about.”

(6)            Duterte said he will eventually raise the arbitral award with Chinese leaders but did not say when that time will come. Duterte: "There will be a day, sinabi ko kay (I told) Xi Jinping, that we will have to take this up. But not now because I am here as a visitor... But I will bring this up. Alam na niya, pati ang ambassador dito iyong Chinese (He knows, even the Chinese Ambassador). I will bring this up, someday." He added: "But it will be during my time, that I have this arbitral award, so I have to push it.". Note: Since his 2016 campaign, Duterte has said he was open to the idea of joint development of the West Philippne Sea, especially if China agreed to help finance big infrastructure projects like trains.  

(News Source: Rappler.com).

Read –

http://www.rappler.com/nation/156032-duterte-china-share-oil-west-philippine-sea?utm_content=buffer30cc3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

War on drugs: There are so many vital questions that remain unanswered by the Duterte regime. Its obsessive-compulsive focus is "police operations".

Last July, Bato and his PNP communicators reported that under his Project "Tokhang" 120,038 individuals had surrendered: 112,902 drug users; 7,107 drug pushers (see ABS CBN news website). 

To this day, the Duterte regime has failed or refused to report on the updated status of the following important matters; 

(1) How many have been processed for "voluntary drug rehabilitation" in accredited private rehabilitation centers and in public DOH-supervised rehabilitation centers? 

* What is their status?

* What financial assistance have been given to those confined in private centers?

(2) How many have been assisted by the DSWD in terms of "counselling and pro-poor socioeconomic benefits"?

(3) How many have been "trained for livelihood" purposes?

(4) How many have been referred to and assisted by the DOH for "physical and medical examination, hospitalization and provision for maintenance medicine".

(5) How many have been assisted by DepEd, CHED and TESDA to revive their "regular or vocational education"?

(6) How many have been referred to the DOJ for "criminal investigation and indictment"? 

(7) How many have been provided "free legal aid by the PAO, IBP, and voluntary bar associations"?

(8) Has the regime coordinated with the Supreme Court on the status of their "pending criminal cases" in the trial courts and on how the adjudication thereof could be given top priority by the Judiciary, the DOJ, and the PAO (the three vital pillars of the criminal justice system)?

(9) How many have been "detained" and "under detention"? 

* How many are "on bail"? 

* What is the status of the trial of their cases?

* How many have been "convicted"? 

* How many are on "probation"? 

(10) What assistance from the UN, Asean, Caritas, and other world charitable and humanitarian institutions have been sought to support the needs of the surrenderers?

There are so many vital questions that remain unanswered by the Duterte regime. Its obsessive-compulsive focus is "police operations". 

Aside from trite speeches of Duterte, which are notorious for "putang ina", "fuck you", "bullshit", and "go to hell" cusses, the Filipinos are not educated on the true state of the management of his (brutal, deadly and unconstitutional) war on drugs.

Its accomplishment so far: six thousand dead drug "suspects" (and counting).

We will lose all of the West Philippine Sea | The Society of Honor

See - We will lose all of the West Philippine Sea | The Society of Honor: the Philippines


"x x x.

Duterte is mad at drugs. He is mad at the US and the West for its concern on human rights but what does he do? He runs to China and Russia, egregious in its own human rights violations, suppression of dissent and use of drugs (for foreign policy, Olympic doping).

Principles do matter, no matter the contradictions you see in a country’s history.

China’s assistance in the construction of drug rehab facilities actually makes it an end to end, seamless integrated operation for them since there is evidence that the Chinese government, through its intelligence services, is covertly supporting the manufacture of illegal drugs in its territory.

Synthetic drug manufacturing is an open secret in China
China is fueling a drug war against the US

Knowing Duterte’s mad man attitude to drugs, they can calibrate the flow of drugs into the country, depending on how cooperative we are with the resources of the West Phililippine Sea.

When Duterte complains that “all the big fish are in China”, the Chinese are probably nodding, “and we supervise them, too.”

The business concessions Duterte will likely bring home after his visit to Beijing – opening of the Chinese market to fruit exports, investments, railways for Mindanao, allowing Filipino fishermen to go back may look huge but it is extremely, extremely small compared to the economic value of the West Phil sea. Even if you peg the potential increased Chinese business ties in billions, the West Philippine Sea is still much much more than that. It is multiples of that.

Needless to say, business ties benefit both parties. But the West Philippine Sea is ours, and it rightfully, wholly belongs to us alone. The aquatic resources are renewable and capable of benefitting several generations of Filipinos.

Business ties with China can be cut abruptly, if relations turn sour. But once China starts exploiting the area for its resources, it cannot be reversed anymore, short of declaring a shooting war.

At the outset, China will play the nice guy, rolling out the red carpet – facilitate business to business partnerships, soft loans, infrastructure projects; it might even roll up a few illegal drug manufacturers to show its support for Duterte’s obsession with the drug wars.

At the right point in time in the future, (say after 2-3 years) China will then turn the screws on us, applying the nine-dash line map, and start exploitation of the West Philippine Sea. When this point arrives, the Philippines will have absolutely no more leverage to contest, oppose or reverse whatever China wants to do. The arbitral ruling is no more; nor is the alliance with the West.

Where does Duterte turn at this point? Can he rely on China’s sense of fairness and equity to obtain our just share? At this point, who dictates what?

China is wrapping Duterte and the country around its finger, deftly calibrating all its options to leverage its position- and Duterte, (egged on by local Maoists he has empowered via appointments to the Cabinet and a peace negotiation that will likely benefit the Maoists more) is powerless to counter it.

Duterte, for all his bluster and big words, is actually enabling China to get all that its dark heart desires, and the losers will be the entire Filipino nation and the generations to come. Duterte is brutal with the Filipino people, but he cannot touch the Chinese.
Say goodbye to the West Philippine Sea.

x x x."

Torrens Title not subject to collateral attack

FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC., MEGATOP REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., PEAKSUN ENTERPRISES AND EXPORT CORP., ARTURO DY, AND ELENA DY JAO, Petitioners, versus GEORGE H. TRONO, MA. TERESA TRONO, MA. VIRGINIA TRONO, JESSE TRONO, MA. CRISTINA TRONO, PATRICIA TRONO, MA. DIVINA TRONO, INOCENCIO TRONO, JR., CARMEN TRONO, AND ZENAIDA TRONO, Respondents. G. R. No. 130871, February 17, 2006.

“x x x.

Section 2 of Presidential Decree (PD) 1529[7] partly provides:

Sec. 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem, and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens System.

Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. x x x

Pursuant to the above provisions, the Regional Trial Court (formerly Court of First Instance) has the authority to act, not only on applications for original registration of title to land, but also on all petitions filed after the original registration of title. Thus, it has the authority and power to hear and determine all questions arising from such applications or petitions.[8]

The Court of Appeals, therefore, erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 255, Las Pinas City has no jurisdiction over LRC Case No. M-228 on the ground that the land subject of respondents application for registration was already registered in the Registry of Deeds of Las Pias City.

Significantly, even respondents themselves admit in their comment on the instant petition that what they should have filed was a complaint for nullity of petitioners titles.

Likewise, Section 48 of PD 1529 provides:

Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. (Underscoring ours)

Respondents application for registration of a parcel of land already covered by a Torrens title is actually a collateral attack against petitioners title not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. It is well settled that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose.[9] Hence, whether or not respondents have the right to claim title over the property in question is beyond the province of the instant proceeding. That should be threshed out in a proper action. It has been invariably stated that the real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the mirador su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land.[10]

In Ramos v. Rodriguez,[11] we held:

It must be noted that petitioners failed to rebut the LRA report and only alleged that the title of the Payatas Estate was spurious, without offering any proof to substantiate this claim. TCT No. 8816, however, having been issued under the Torrens System, enjoys the conclusive presumption of validity. As we declared in an earlier case (Reyes and Nadres vs. Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil. 791), (t)he very purpose of the Torrens system would be destroyed if the same land may be subsequently brought under a second action for registration. The application for registration of the petitioners in this case would, under the circumstances, appear to be a collateral attack of TCT No. 8816 which is not allowed under Section 48 of P.D. 1529. (underscoring ours)

Corollarily, Section 32 of the same law states:

Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgment, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase innocent purchaser for value or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.

Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other person responsible for the fraud. (underscoring ours)

A decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive not only on the questions actually contested and determined, but also upon all matters that might be litigated or decided in the land registration proceedings.[12]

As per records of the Registry of Deeds of Las Pinas City, TCT No. T-9182[13] was registered in petitioners name as early as April 28, 1989, or five (5) years before the filing of respondents application for registration. Thus, it is too late for them (respondents) to question petitioners titles considering that the Certificates of Title issued to the latter have become incontrovertible after the lapse of one year from the decree of registration.

X x x.”

Diocese is corporation sole

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF DAVAO, INC. vs. THE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DAVAO CITY, G.R. No. L-8451, December 20, 1957

“x xx.

In solving the problem thus submitted to our consideration, We can say the following: A corporation sole is a special form of corporation usually associated with the clergy. Conceived and introduced into the common law by sheer necessity, this legal creation which was referred to as "that unhappy freak of English law" was designed to facilitate the exercise of the functions of ownership carried on by the clerics for and on behalf of the church which was regarded as the property owner (See I Couvier's Law Dictionary, p. 682-683).

A corporation sole consists of one person only, and his successors (who will always be one at a time), in some particular station, who are incorporated by law in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense, the king is a sole corporation; so is a bishop, or dens, distinct from their several chapters (Reid vs. Barry, 93 Fla. 849, 112 So. 846).

The provisions of our Corporation law on religious corporations are illuminating and sustain the stand of petitioner. Section 154 thereof provides:

SEC. 154. — For the administration of the temporalities of any religious denomination, society or church and the management of the estates and the properties thereof, it shall be lawful for the bishop, chief priest, or presiding either of any such religious denomination, society or church to become a corporation sole, unless inconsistent with the rules, regulations or discipline of his religious denomination, society or church or forbidden by competent authority thereof.

See also the pertinent provisions of the succeeding sections of the same Corporation Law copied hereunder:

SEC. 155. In order to become a corporation sole the bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder of any religious denomination, society or church must file with the Securities and Exchange Commissioner articles of incorporation setting forth the following facts:

xxx xxx xxx.

(3) That as such bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder he is charged with the administration of the temporalities and the management of the estates and properties of his religious denomination, society, or church within its territorial jurisdiction, describing it;

xxx xxx xxx.

(As amended by Commonwealth Act No. 287).

SEC. 157. From and after the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commissioner of the said articles of incorporation, which verified by affidavit or affirmation as aforesaid and accompanied by the copy of the commission, certificate of election, or letters of appointment of the bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder, duly certified as prescribed in the section immediately preceding such the bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder, as the case may be, shall become a corporation sole and all temporalities, estates, and properties the religious denomination, society, or church therefore administered or managed by him as such bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder, shall be held in trust by him as a corporation sole, for the use, purpose, behalf, and sole benefit of his religious denomination, society, or church, including hospitals, schools, colleges, orphan, asylums, parsonages, and cemeteries thereof. For the filing of such articles of incorporation, the Securities and Exchange Commissioner shall collect twenty-five pesos. (As amended by Commonwealth Act. No. 287); and.

SEC. 163. The right to administer all temporalities and all property held or owned by a religious order or society, or by the diocese, synod, or district organization of any religious denomination or church shall, on its incorporation, pass to the corporation and shall be held in trust for the use, purpose behalf, and benefit of the religious society, or order so incorporated or of the church of which the diocese, or district organization is an organized and constituent part.

X x x.

That leaves no room for doubt that the bishops or archbishops, as the case may be, as corporation's sole are merely administrators of the church properties that come to their possession, in which they hold in trust for the church. It can also be said that while it is true that church properties could be administered by a natural persons, problems regarding succession to said properties cannot be avoided to rise upon his death. Through this legal fiction, however, church properties acquired by the incumbent of a corporation sole pass, by operation of law, upon his death not his personal heirs but to his successor in office. It could be seen, therefore, that a corporation sole is created not only to administer the temporalities of the church or religious society where he belongs but also to hold and transmit the same to his successor in said office. If the ownership or title to the properties do not pass to the administrators, who are the owners of church properties?.

Bouscaren and Elis, S.J., authorities on cannon law, on their treatise comment:

In matters regarding property belonging to the Universal Church and to the Apostolic See, the Supreme Pontiff exercises his office of supreme administrator through the Roman Curia; in matters regarding other church property, through the administrators of the individual moral persons in the Church according to that norms, laid down in the Code of Cannon Law. This does not mean, however, that the Roman Pontiff is the owner of all the church property; but merely that he is the supreme guardian (Bouscaren and Ellis, Cannon Law, A Text and Commentary, p. 764).

and this Court, citing Campes y Pulido, Legislacion y Jurisprudencia Canonica, ruled in the case of Trinidad vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 63 Phil. 881, that:

The second question to be decided is in whom the ownership of the properties constituting the endowment of the ecclesiastical or collative chaplaincies is vested.

Canonists entertain different opinions as to the persons in whom the ownership of the ecclesiastical properties is vested, with respect to which we shall, for our purpose, confine ourselves to stating with Donoso that, while many doctors cited by Fagnano believe that it resides in the Roman Pontiff as Head of the Universal Church, it is more probable that ownership, strictly speaking, does not reside in the latter, and, consequently, ecclesiastical properties are owned by the churches, institutions and canonically established private corporations to which said properties have been donated.

Considering that nowhere can We find any provision conferring ownership of church properties on the Pope although he appears to be the supreme administrator or guardian of his flock, nor on the corporation sole or heads of dioceses as they are admittedly mere administrators of said properties, ownership of these temporalities logically fall and develop upon the church, diocese or congregation acquiring the same. Although this question of ownership of ecclesiastical properties has off and on been mentioned in several decisions of the Court yet in no instance was the subject of citizenship of this religious society been passed upon.

X x x.

While it is true and We have to concede that in the profession of their faith, the Roman Pontiff is the supreme head; that in the religious matters, in the exercise of their belief, the Catholic congregation of the faithful throughout the world seeks the guidance and direction of their Spiritual Father in the Vatican, yet it cannot be said that there is a merger of personalities resultant therein. Neither can it be said that the political and civil rights of the faithful, inherent or acquired under the laws of their country, are affected by that relationship with the Pope. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church in almost every country springs from that society that saw its beginning in Europe and the fact that the clergy of this faith derive their authorities and receive orders from the Holy See do not give or bestow the citizenship of the Pope upon these branches. Citizenship is a political right which cannot be acquired by a sort of "radiation". We have to realize that although there is a fraternity among all the catholic countries and the dioceses therein all over the globe, the universality that the word "catholic" implies, merely characterize their faith, a uniformity in the practice and the interpretation of their dogma and in the exercise of their belief, but certainly they are separate and independent from one another in jurisdiction, governed by different laws under which they are incorporated, and entirely independent on the others in the management and ownership of their temporalities. To allow theory that the Roman Catholic Churches all over the world follow the citizenship of their Supreme Head, the Pontifical Father, would lead to the absurdity of finding the citizens of a country who embrace the Catholic faith and become members of that religious society, likewise citizens of the Vatican or of Italy. And this is more so if We consider that the Pope himself may be an Italian or national of any other country of the world. The same thing be said with regard to the nationality or citizenship of the corporation sole created under the laws of the Philippines, which is not altered by the change of citizenship of the incumbent bishops or head of said corporation sole.

We must therefore, declare that although a branch of the Universal Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, every Roman Catholic Church in different countries, if it exercises its mission and is lawfully incorporated in accordance with the laws of the country where it is located, is considered an entity or person with all the rights and privileges granted to such artificial being under the laws of that country, separate and distinct from the personality of the Roman Pontiff or the Holy See, without prejudice to its religious relations with the latter which are governed by the Canon Law or their rules and regulations.

X x x.

According to our Corporation Law, Public Act No. 1549, approved April 1, 1906, a corporation sole is organized and composed of a single individual, the head of any religious society or church, for the ADMINISTRATION of the temporalities of such society or church. By "temporalities" is meant estate and properties not used exclusively for religious worship. The successor in office of such religious head or chief priest incorporated as a corporation sole shall become the corporation sole on ascension to office, and shall be permitted to transact business as such on filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission a copy of his commission, certificate of election or letter of appointment duly certified by any notary public or clerk of court of record (Guevara's The Philippine Corporation Law, p. 223).

The Corporation Law also contains the following provisions:

SECTION 159. Any corporation sole may purchase and hold real estate and personal; property for its church, charitable, benevolent, or educational purposes, and may receive bequests or gifts of such purposes. Such corporation may mortgage or sell real property held by it upon obtaining an order for that purpose from the Court of First Instance of the province in which the property is situated; but before making the order proof must be made to the satisfaction of the Court that notice of the application for leave to mortgage or sell has been given by publication or otherwise in such manner and for such time as said Court or the Judge thereof may have directed, and that it is to the interest of the corporation that leave to mortgage or sell must be made by petition, duly verified by the bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder acting as corporation sole, and may be opposed by any member of the religious denomination, society or church represented by the corporation sole: Provided, however, That in cases where the rules, regulations, and discipline of the religious denomination, society or church concerned represented by such corporation sole regulate the methods of acquiring, holding, selling and mortgaging real estate and personal property, such rules, regulations, and discipline shall control and the intervention of the Courts shall not be necessary.

It can, therefore, be noticed that the power of a corporation sole to purchase real property, like the power exercised in the case at bar, it is not restricted although the power to sell or mortgage sometimes is, depending upon the rules, regulations, and discipline of the church concerned represented by said corporation sole. If corporations sole can purchase and sell real estate for its church, charitable, benevolent, or educational purposes, can they register said real properties? As provided by law, lands held in trust for specific purposes me be subject of registration (section 69, Act 496), and the capacity of a corporation sole, like petitioner herein, to register lands belonging to it is acknowledged, and title thereto may be issued in its name (Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Insular Government, 26 Phil. 300-1913). Indeed it is absurd that while the corporations sole that might be in need of acquiring lands for the erection of temples where the faithful can pray, or schools and cemeteries which they are expressly authorized by law to acquire in connection with the propagation of the Roman Catholic Apostolic faith or in furtherance of their freedom of religion they could not register said properties in their name. As professor Javier J. Nepomuceno very well says "Man in his search for the immortal and imponderable, has, even before the dawn of recorded history, erected temples to the Unknown God, and there is no doubt that he will continue to do so for all time to come, as long as he continues 'imploring the aid of Divine Providence'" (Nepomuceno's Corporation Sole, VI Ateneo Law Journal, No. 1, p. 41, September, 1956). Under the circumstances of this case, We might safely state that even before the establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth and of the Republic of the Philippines every corporation sole then organized and registered had by express provision of law the necessary power and qualification to purchase in its name private lands located in the territory in which it exercised its functions or ministry and for which it was created, independently of the nationality of its incumbent unique and single member and head, the bishop of the dioceses. It can be also maintained without fear of being gainsaid that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in the Philippines has no nationality and that the framers of the Constitution, as will be hereunder explained, did not have in mind the religious corporations sole when they provided that 60 per centum of the capital thereof be owned by Filipino citizens.

There could be no controversy as to the fact that a duly registered corporation sole is an artificial being having the right of succession and the power, attributes, and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence (section 1, Corporation Law). In outlining the general powers of a corporation. Public Act. No. 1459 provides among others:

SEC. 13. Every corporation has the power:

(5) To purchase, hold, convey, sell, lease, lot, mortgage, encumber, and otherwise deal with such real and personal property as the purpose for which the corporation was formed may permit, and the transaction of the lawful business of the corporation may reasonably and necessarily require, unless otherwise prescribed in this Act: . . .

In implementation of the same and specially made applicable to a form of corporation recognized by the same law, Section 159 aforequoted expressly allowed the corporation sole to purchase and hold real as well as personal properties necessary for the promotion of the objects for which said corporation sole is created. Respondent Land Registration Commissioner, however, maintained that since the Philippine Constitution is a later enactment than public Act No. 1459, the provisions of Section 159 in amplification of Section 13 thereof, as regard real properties, should be considered repealed by the former.

X x x.

In this case of the Register of Deeds of Rizal vs. Ung Sui Si Temple, ² G.R. No. L-6776, promulgated May 21, 1955, wherein this question was considered from a different angle, this Court through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, said:

The fact that the appellant religious organization has no capital stock does not suffice to escape the Constitutional inhibition, since it is admitted that its members are of foreign nationality. The purpose of the sixty per centum requirement is obviously to ensure that corporation or associations allowed to acquire agricultural land or to exploit natural resources shall be controlled by Filipinos; and the spirit of the Constitution demands that in the absence of capital stock, the controlling membership should be composed of Filipino citizens.

In that case respondent-appellant Ung Siu Si Temple was not a corporation sole but a corporation aggregate, i.e., an unregistered organization operating through 3 trustees, all of Chinese nationality, and that is why this Court laid down the doctrine just quoted. With regard to petitioner, which likewise is a non-stock corporation, the case is different, because it is a registered corporation sole, evidently of no nationality and registered mainly to administer the temporalities and manage the properties belonging to the faithful of said church residing in Davao. But even if we were to go over the record to inquire into the composing membership to determine whether the citizenship requirement is satisfied or not, we would find undeniable proof that the members of the Roman Catholic Apostolic faith within the territory of Davao are predominantly Filipino citizens. As indicated before, petitioner has presented evidence to establish that the clergy and lay members of this religion fully covers the percentage of Filipino citizens required by the Constitution. These facts are not controverted by respondents and our conclusion in this point is sensibly obvious.

X x x.”

Public documents; probative value.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. T.A.N. PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. [G.R. NO. 154953 : June 26, 2008]

"x x x.

Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence as follows:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; andcralawlibrary

(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.

Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred to in Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x. The CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. The CENRO should have attached an official publication²¹ of the DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable.

Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence. Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.

The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not fall within the class of public documents contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect "entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer," such as entries made by the Civil Registrar²² in the books of registries, or by a ship captain in the ship's logbook.²³ The certifications are not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of a government office. The certifications are not even records of public documents.²⁴ The certifications are conclusions unsupported by adequate proof, and thus have no probative value.²⁵ Certainly, the certifications cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not prove that Lot 10705-B falls within the alienable and disposable land as proclaimed by the DENR Secretary. Such government certifications do not, by their mere issuance, prove the facts stated therein.²⁶ Such government certifications may fall under the class of documents contemplated in the second sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. As such, the certifications are prima facie evidence of their due execution and date of issuance but they do not constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

The Court has also ruled that a document or writing admitted as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts stated therein.²⁷ Here, Torres, a private individual and respondent's representative, identified the certifications but the government officials who issued the certifications did not testify on the contents of the certifications. As such, the certifications cannot be given probative value.²⁸ The contents of the certifications are hearsay because Torres was incompetent to testify on the veracity of the contents of the certifications.²⁹ Torres did not prepare the certifications, he was not an officer of CENRO or FMS-DENR, and he did not conduct any verification survey whether the land falls within the area classified by the DENR Secretary as alienable and disposable.

x x x."

Respondent Failed to Prove that the Land is Alienable and Disposable Land of the Public Domain

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. T.A.N. PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. [G.R. NO. 154953 : June 26, 2008]

“x x x.

Respondent Failed to Prove

that the Land is Alienable and Disposable

Petitioner argues that anyone who applies for registration has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land forms part of the public domain. Petitioner insists that respondent failed to prove that the land is no longer part of the public domain.

The well-entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the State.¹⁴ The onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the applicant.¹⁵

In this case, respondent submitted two certifications issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The 3 June 1997 Certification by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Offices (CENRO), Batangas City,¹⁶ certified that "lot 10705, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre situated at Barangay San Bartolome, Sto. Tomas, Batangas with an area of 596,116 square meters falls within the ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE ZONE under Project No. 30, Land Classification Map No. 582 certified [on] 31 December 1925." The second certification¹⁷ in the form of a memorandum to the trial court, which was issued by the Regional Technical Director, Forest Management Services of the DENR (FMS-DENR), stated "that the subject area falls within an alienable and disposable land, Project No. 30 of Sto. Tomas, Batangas certified on Dec. 31, 1925 per LC No. 582."

The certifications are not sufficient. DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 20,¹⁸ dated 30 May 1988, delineated the functions and authorities of the offices within the DENR. Under DAO No. 20, series of 1988, the CENRO issues certificates of land classification status for areas below 50 hectares. The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Offices (PENRO) issues certificate of land classification status for lands covering over 50 hectares. DAO No. 38,¹⁹ dated 19 April 1990, amended DAO No. 20, series of 1988. DAO No. 38, series of 1990 retained the authority of the CENRO to issue certificates of land classification status for areas below 50 hectares, as well as the authority of the PENRO to issue certificates of land classification status for lands covering over 50 hectares.²⁰ In this case, respondent applied for registration of Lot 10705-B. The area covered by Lot 10705-B is over 50 hectares (564,007 square meters). The CENRO certificate covered the entire Lot 10705 with an area of 596,116 square meters which, as per DAO No. 38, series of 1990, is beyond the authority of the CENRO to certify as alienable and disposable.

The Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has no authority under DAO Nos. 20 and 38 to issue certificates of land classification. Under DAO No. 20, the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR:

1. Issues original and renewal of ordinary minor products (OM) permits except rattan;

2. Approves renewal of resaw/mini-sawmill permits;

3. Approves renewal of special use permits covering over five hectares for public infrastructure projects; andcralawlibrary

4. Issues renewal of certificates of registration for logs, poles, piles, and lumber dealers.

Under DAO No. 38, the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR:

1. Issues original and renewal of ordinary minor [products] (OM) permits except rattan;

2. Issues renewal of certificate of registration for logs, poles, and piles and lumber dealers;

3. Approves renewal of resaw/mini-sawmill permits;

4. Issues public gratuitous permits for 20 to 50 cubic meters within calamity declared areas for public infrastructure projects; andcralawlibrary

5. Approves original and renewal of special use permits covering over five hectares for public infrastructure projects.

Hence, the certification issued by the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, in the form of a memorandum to the trial court, has no probative value.

Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.

These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.

Only Torres, respondent's Operations Manager, identified the certifications submitted by respondent. The government officials who issued the certifications were not presented before the trial court to testify on their contents. The trial court should not have accepted the contents of the certifications as proof of the facts stated therein. Even if the certifications are presumed duly issued and admissible in evidence, they have no probative value in establishing that the land is alienable and disposable.

Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence as follows:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; andcralawlibrary

(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.

Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred to in Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x. The CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. The CENRO should have attached an official publication²¹ of the DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable.

Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence. Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.

The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not fall within the class of public documents contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect "entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer," such as entries made by the Civil Registrar²² in the books of registries, or by a ship captain in the ship's logbook.²³ The certifications are not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of a government office. The certifications are not even records of public documents.²⁴ The certifications are conclusions unsupported by adequate proof, and thus have no probative value.²⁵ Certainly, the certifications cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not prove that Lot 10705-B falls within the alienable and disposable land as proclaimed by the DENR Secretary. Such government certifications do not, by their mere issuance, prove the facts stated therein.²⁶ Such government certifications may fall under the class of documents contemplated in the second sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. As such, the certifications are prima facie evidence of their due execution and date of issuance but they do not constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

The Court has also ruled that a document or writing admitted as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts stated therein.²⁷ Here, Torres, a private individual and respondent's representative, identified the certifications but the government officials who issued the certifications did not testify on the contents of the certifications. As such, the certifications cannot be given probative value.²⁸ The contents of the certifications are hearsay because Torres was incompetent to testify on the veracity of the contents of the certifications.²⁹ Torres did not prepare the certifications, he was not an officer of CENRO or FMS-DENR, and he did not conduct any verification survey whether the land falls within the area classified by the DENR Secretary as alienable and disposable.

Petitioner also points out the discrepancy as to when the land allegedly became alienable and disposable. The DENR Secretary certified that based on Land Classification Map No. 582, the land became alienable and disposable on 31 December 1925. However, the certificate on the blue print plan states that it became alienable and disposable on 31 December 1985.

We agree with petitioner that while the certifications submitted by respondent show that under the Land Classification Map No. 582, the land became alienable and disposable on 31 December 1925, the blue print plan states that it became alienable and disposable on 31 December 1985. Respondent alleged that "the blue print plan merely serves to prove the precise location and the metes and bounds of the land described therein x x x and does not in any way certify the nature and classification of the land involved."³⁰ It is true that the notation by a surveyor-geodetic engineer on the survey plan that the land formed part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain is not sufficient proof of the land's classification.³¹ However, respondent should have at least presented proof that would explain the discrepancy in the dates of classification. Marquez, LRA Records Officer II, testified that the documents submitted to the court consisting of the tracing cloth plan, the technical description of Lot 10705-B, the approved subdivision plan, and the Geodetic Engineer's certification were faithful reproductions of the original documents in the LRA office. He did not explain the discrepancy in the dates. Neither was the Geodetic Engineer presented to explain why the date of classification on the blue print plan was different from the other certifications submitted by Respondent.

X x x.”