Friday, November 3, 2017
In defense of IBP
See - In defense of IBP
"x x x.
In defense of IBP
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM October 26, 2017
I am writing this in reaction to “Lawyers don’t ‘hide’ their misdeeds” (Letters, 10/23/17). I feel sorry for the frustration of Juniper Dominguez over a case he filed against a certain lawyer, who notarized two deeds of sale. I do not know if this is already a decided case by the Supreme Court. If it is not, then confidentiality rule applies and we cannot discuss this in public.
However, I take exception to what he said that “IBP is a livelihood center to protect erring lawyers.” Such statement is not fair. Having been a commissioner of the Commission on Bar
Discipline for 12 years and past Integrated Bar of the Philippines governor in Central Luzon, I cannot accept a statement that dishonors the IBP and the Supreme Court.
Commissioners decide all administrative cases based on merit since it is the duty of the complainant to prove the case. The burden of proof lies on the complainant. The reason for dismissal is due to the failure of the complainant to prove the case against a lawyer. The Board of Governors reviews the findings and makes recommendations, but it is the Supreme Court that will ultimately decide.
We do punish lawyers who commit infractions and the Supreme Court website will show how many lawyers were either suspended or disbarred. However, we have no other choice but to dismiss cases where the complainant was not able to prove the cause of action against the respondent. Definitely, the IBP being an independent body, is not a livelihood center as erroneously concluded in the letter.
JOSE I. DE LA RAMA JR., dean, Tarlac State University College of Law
x x x."
Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/108181/in-defense-of-ibp#ixzz4xNFZlcMP
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
SC: New lawyers must provide free legal service
See - SC: New lawyers must provide free legal service
"x x x.
SC: New lawyers must provide free legal service
October 23, 2017 07:09am
Marlon Ramos
Rookie lawyers will now have to render free legal aid before they can aspire to be legal eagles.
In a historic move, the Supreme Court has unanimously mandated incoming lawyers to provide 120 hours of pro bono legal work for poor litigants as part of its efforts to champion the constitutional guarantee to "free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies."
"The legal profession is imbued with public interest. As such, lawyers are charged with the duty to give meaning to the guarantee of access to adequate legal assistance under Article III, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution," the tribunal said in an order.
"As a way to discharge this constitutional duty, lawyers are obliged to render pro bono services to those who otherwise would be denied access to adequate legal services," it said.
The rule, which the court promulgated on Oct. 10, will be implemented starting with the successful barristers who are scheduled to take this year's bar exams during the four Sundays of November.
New lawyers who are already working in the executive and legislative branches six months before they hurdled the bar exams will be exempted from the requirement.
Also spared are those who have finished the "clinical legal education program" and have already rendered pro bono legal work prior to their admission to the bar.
The magistrates said lawyers must ensure people's access to legal services "in an efficient and convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession."
The 15-member high court tasked the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the country's biggest lawyers' group, to oversee the compliance of the new lawyers with its order, titled "Community Legal Aid Service Rule."
Under the rule, rookie lawyers are given one year after signing the roll of attorneys to complete the required 120-hour free legal services in criminal, civil and administrative cases.
Besides indigent litigants, also entitled to pro bono legal aid are groups, individuals and organizations that cannot get the services of the Public Attorney's Office due to conflict of interest.
The new lawyers may also render their professional services for public interest cases and legal issues which affect the society.
x x x."
Friday, October 20, 2017
Prosecuting President Duterte
See - Prosecuting President Duterte - www.jurist.org.
"x x x.
Prosecuting President DuterteTuesday 10 October 2017 at 9:50 PM ETedited by Sean Merritt
JURIST Guest Columnist Perfecto Caparas of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law discusses how Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte could face prosecution under international law...
© WikiMedia (PCOO EDP)
In the face of charges of ordering and condoning the murder of thousands of civilians by the Philippine National Police, President Rodrigo Duterte boasts that he is immune from suit. A former prosecutor himself, Duterte touts immunity as an armor.
The Rome Statute [PDF] of the International Criminal Court created the first permanent global criminal court to hear and try genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The Philippines validly ratified the Rome Statute, pursuant to Section 21, Article VII (Executive Department) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The Rome Statute entered into force in the Philippines on November 1, 2011.
Its domestic counterpart, the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity (RA 9851) took effect 15 days after its publication in the Official Gazette on December 11, 2009.
Sitting presidents like Duterte can thenceforth be investigated, prosecuted, tried and punished under RA 9851 for war crimes, genocide, or other crimes against humanity before Philippine courts even during their tenure. No impeachment needed. No need for them to finish their term. Those constitute unjustifiable and inexcusable crimes - the gravest forms of human rights violations - and, therefore, absolutely prohibited. The President retains her or his immunity, true; but not for "core crimes" under Art. 5 of the Rome Statute.
RA 9851 purportedly accords immunity to the President, at least during her or his tenure. Under Sec. 9(a), Chapter V (Some Principles of Criminal Liability), the President is supposedly immune from being hauled into court during his or her tenure.
The Rome Statute lacks any provision comparable to the "other than the established constitutional immunity from suit of the Philippine President during his/her tenure" qualifier found in Sec. 9(a) of RA 9851. The Rome Statute's silence on immunity from suit of heads of state, for "core crimes" punishable under Art 5, speaks volumes. This is precisely because no immunity for genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes exists.
Rome Statute Art. 27, para. 2 (Irrelevance of official capacity) accords no immunity at all to heads of state because, according to its preamble, such crimes are characterized by "unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity". No immunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide exists since "such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world".
Shorn of immunity, heads of state can legally be investigated, prosecuted, tried and punished for these crimes in order "to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes". Breaking the walls of impunity will surely "guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice".
Hence, the Rome Statute provides that immunities "shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person." Instead of according heads of state with immunity, the Rome Statute seeks to destroy impunity. Non-immunity of heads of state from criminal prosecution deters the commission of mass atrocities.
The Rome Statute's Art. 27 collides with Sec. 9(a) of RA 9851 on presidential immunity from suit for the worst international crimes. Having been a later act of both the President and the Senate, the Rome Statute ratification expresses the latest, specific intent of the President and the Senate - on behalf of the Philippine state - for the President to be legally bound by the Rome Statute, including its Art. 27 provision on the "[i]rrelevance of official capacity". This later act of ratifying the Rome Statute effectively nullifies the immunity from suit, under Sec. 9(a) of RA 9851, of the President insofar as those crimes are concerned, assuming arguendothat such immunity was valid in the first place.
Furthermore, the Philippine ratification of the Rome Statute indicates the intent on the part of the state to further achieve its purpose in enacting RA 9851 into law. In light of RA 9851's primary aim and purpose in Sec. 2(e) (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), the proper statutory interpretation then must be that, in ratifying the Rome Statute, the Philippine President and the Senate concurrently intended to reinforce and strengthen RA 9851 by removing any presidential immunity from suit for crimes under RA 9851. This, in order to achieve both RA 9851's and the Rome Statute's fundamental objective "to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes" (Sec. 2[e], RA 9851).
The Philippines' ratification of the Rome Statute reflects the subsequent and latest will of the state, as expressed through the President's signing of the Rome Statute's instrument of ratification with the subsequent concurrence of the Philippine Senate on August 23, 2011. The effective ratification of the Rome Statute supersedes and repeals Sec 9(a) of RA 9851. It shows its intent to fully carry out and fulfill the Philippine state's obligation under the Rome Statute and its RA 9851 domestic counterpart to end impunity.
The incorporation clause of the 1987 Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. II) also renders nugatory the presidential privilege of immunity stated in Sec. 9(a) of RA 9851 for being violative of jus cogens principles or peremptory norms of customary international law. The Constitution's "generally accepted principles of international law" include customary international law, comprising uniform and consistent state practices performed out of a sense of legal obligation. The Rome Statute also embodies jus cogens or peremptory norms of customary international law which are non-derogable. Those cannot be deviated from under any and all circumstances at all times, anywhere in the world. Jus cogens norms prohibit slavery, genocide, torture, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
RA 9851's presidential immunity from suit is therefore void ab initio. Heads of state have no immunity for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, as established in the Nuremberg judgment [PDF] and the Pinochet decision in Regina v. Bartle. Such "exception" is tantamount to according impunity to sitting presidents for these most egregious forms of international crimes. It's incompatible with jus cogens or peremptory norms of customary international law.
Perfecto Caparas serves as the Associate Director of Graduate Programs and a Doctor of Juridical Science candidate of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. He holds a Master of Laws (LLM) degree in American Law for Foreign Lawyers and an LLM in Human Rights (Honors). He is a lifetime member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Suggested citation:Perfecto Caparas, Prosecuting President Duterte, JURIST — Academic Commentary, Oct. 10, 2017, http://jurist.org/2017/10/perfecto-caparas-president-duterte.php.
This article was prepared for publication by Sean Merritt, an Assistant Editor for JURIST Commentary. Please direct any questions or comments to him at commentary@jurist.org
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
Sitting presidents like Duterte can thenceforth be investigated, prosecuted, tried and punished under RA 9851 for war crimes, genocide, or other crimes against humanity before Philippine courts even during their tenure. No impeachment needed. No need for them to finish their term. Those constitute unjustifiable and inexcusable crimes - the gravest forms of human rights violations - and, therefore, absolutely prohibited. The President retains her or his immunity, true; but not for "core crimes" under Art. 5 of the Rome Statute.
RA 9851 purportedly accords immunity to the President, at least during her or his tenure. Under Sec. 9(a), Chapter V (Some Principles of Criminal Liability), the President is supposedly immune from being hauled into court during his or her tenure.
The Rome Statute lacks any provision comparable to the "other than the established constitutional immunity from suit of the Philippine President during his/her tenure" qualifier found in Sec. 9(a) of RA 9851. The Rome Statute's silence on immunity from suit of heads of state, for "core crimes" punishable under Art 5, speaks volumes. This is precisely because no immunity for genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes exists.
Rome Statute Art. 27, para. 2 (Irrelevance of official capacity) accords no immunity at all to heads of state because, according to its preamble, such crimes are characterized by "unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity". No immunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide exists since "such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world".
Shorn of immunity, heads of state can legally be investigated, prosecuted, tried and punished for these crimes in order "to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes". Breaking the walls of impunity will surely "guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice".
Hence, the Rome Statute provides that immunities "shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person." Instead of according heads of state with immunity, the Rome Statute seeks to destroy impunity. Non-immunity of heads of state from criminal prosecution deters the commission of mass atrocities.
The Rome Statute's Art. 27 collides with Sec. 9(a) of RA 9851 on presidential immunity from suit for the worst international crimes. Having been a later act of both the President and the Senate, the Rome Statute ratification expresses the latest, specific intent of the President and the Senate - on behalf of the Philippine state - for the President to be legally bound by the Rome Statute, including its Art. 27 provision on the "[i]rrelevance of official capacity". This later act of ratifying the Rome Statute effectively nullifies the immunity from suit, under Sec. 9(a) of RA 9851, of the President insofar as those crimes are concerned, assuming arguendothat such immunity was valid in the first place.
Furthermore, the Philippine ratification of the Rome Statute indicates the intent on the part of the state to further achieve its purpose in enacting RA 9851 into law. In light of RA 9851's primary aim and purpose in Sec. 2(e) (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), the proper statutory interpretation then must be that, in ratifying the Rome Statute, the Philippine President and the Senate concurrently intended to reinforce and strengthen RA 9851 by removing any presidential immunity from suit for crimes under RA 9851. This, in order to achieve both RA 9851's and the Rome Statute's fundamental objective "to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes" (Sec. 2[e], RA 9851).
The Philippines' ratification of the Rome Statute reflects the subsequent and latest will of the state, as expressed through the President's signing of the Rome Statute's instrument of ratification with the subsequent concurrence of the Philippine Senate on August 23, 2011. The effective ratification of the Rome Statute supersedes and repeals Sec 9(a) of RA 9851. It shows its intent to fully carry out and fulfill the Philippine state's obligation under the Rome Statute and its RA 9851 domestic counterpart to end impunity.
The incorporation clause of the 1987 Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. II) also renders nugatory the presidential privilege of immunity stated in Sec. 9(a) of RA 9851 for being violative of jus cogens principles or peremptory norms of customary international law. The Constitution's "generally accepted principles of international law" include customary international law, comprising uniform and consistent state practices performed out of a sense of legal obligation. The Rome Statute also embodies jus cogens or peremptory norms of customary international law which are non-derogable. Those cannot be deviated from under any and all circumstances at all times, anywhere in the world. Jus cogens norms prohibit slavery, genocide, torture, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
RA 9851's presidential immunity from suit is therefore void ab initio. Heads of state have no immunity for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, as established in the Nuremberg judgment [PDF] and the Pinochet decision in Regina v. Bartle. Such "exception" is tantamount to according impunity to sitting presidents for these most egregious forms of international crimes. It's incompatible with jus cogens or peremptory norms of customary international law.
Perfecto Caparas serves as the Associate Director of Graduate Programs and a Doctor of Juridical Science candidate of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. He holds a Master of Laws (LLM) degree in American Law for Foreign Lawyers and an LLM in Human Rights (Honors). He is a lifetime member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Suggested citation:Perfecto Caparas, Prosecuting President Duterte, JURIST — Academic Commentary, Oct. 10, 2017, http://jurist.org/2017/10/perfecto-caparas-president-duterte.php.
This article was prepared for publication by Sean Merritt, an Assistant Editor for JURIST Commentary. Please direct any questions or comments to him at commentary@jurist.org
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
x x x."
"All because of mediocrity and, perhaps, mental state." - by Manuel Caballero, The Filipino Reporter, New York.
See - All because of mediocrity and, perhaps, mental state. The Filipino Reporter (New York).
"x x x.
All because of mediocrity and, perhaps, mental state
WEDNESDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2017 18:00
BY MANUEL CABALLERO
The Filipino Reporter (New York).
International parliamentarians display their message during a news conference in Manila to express alarm over the mounting number of killings under President Rodrigo Duterte.
Manuel Caballero
DESPITE the death of two terrorist leaders in Marawi which led to the liberation of the city, the mind of President Duterte seems to be in a state of confusion and dysfunction.
(Mabuhay ang Armed Forces of the Philippines!)
The killings of three teenagers — Kian Loyd delos Santos, Carl Arnaiz and Reynaldo de Guzman — made the Filipino people look back with belated disdain at the thousands of poor Filipino suspects killed in the last 16 months since Duterte introduced the concept that it was okay to kill.
The President’s credibility, trust and confidence from his people as their leader are in their lowest.
He is less popular now.
He admitted on television that he lied and invented the charges he threw at a senator.
Almost daily since August, Mr. Duterte has been constantly besieged by barrage of criticisms and condemnations both from within and outside the Philippines.
At the same time, almost daily, this president comes up with apparent imaginary justifications to impose emergency rule in the country.
The situation has prompted his daughter to act as his spokesperson and defender.
His former defenders have been quiet.
The opposition from varied sectors have united.
These are not positive signs.
Pres. Duterte is the object of criticisms and condemnations not only because of the thousands of poor suspects killed without due process of law in his bloody and brutal campaign against drugs, but also because of charges of corruption and smuggling of drugs against him and his family, threats of establishing dictatorship and a revolutionary government due to fake accusations of destabilization allegedly by his political enemies and the Communist Party of the Philippines.
The President’s refusal to sign a bank waiver and his obvious intent to mess up the democratic institutions by threatening the head of Ombudsman with impeachment evidently because that office has started investigating his possible hidden billions of pesos in a bank is also part of the mess in Manila.
Isn’t it weird that a leader and his family who won on the pledge that he would eliminate crimes, corruption and drugs is now being charged of being involved in the social ills he promised to eradicate?
***
Secretary of Defense Delfin Negrillo Lorenzana speaks to the media earlier this week. (Screengrab)
Threats of revolutionary government
In light of all the above, President Duterte has repeatedly accused his critics of destabilization.
And he repeatedly threatened to impose revolutionary government throughout the Philippines.
It could mean abolition of the Constitution.
These, despite flat denials there are destabilization efforts anywhere in the Philippines both by his Secretary of Defense and the Armed Forces spokesperson.
READ: Secretary of Defense Delfin Negrillo Lorenzana denies there is destabilization at: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/624479/no-proof-of-lp-destabilization-slay-plot-vs-duterte-dnd/story/
The Duterte threats prompted former Sen. Francisco Tatad, a fellow Filipino Reporter columnist whom I consider the brightest columnist in Manila today, to write in part, the following:
“...If DU30 believes the solution to his problems is to abolish the Constitution, then he must be prepared to contend against the people, who are the real authors of the Constitution; against the Church which confirms the moral and spiritual as well as the temporal and eternal values of the people; and against the Armed Forces of the Philippines, whose goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory, as constitutional protector of the people and the State.
“DU30 must be prepared to be declared in rebellion against the Constitution he has sworn to preserve and defend, and for the God-fearing and law-abiding Filipino people and their loyal armed forces to overthrow his rebellion. This is fraught with unimaginable dangers. It could lead to civil war, a bloody civil war, such as we have not known before, where brother will slay his own brother for nothing. Its first inevitable result would be the collapse of the State, which DU30 would like to control...”
***
Defending his boss, Duterte’s legal counsel and friend Salvador Panelo opined it was the Constitutional right of the President to impose a revolutionary government “to save the country from destabilization,” if necessary.
Another bright Filipino, lawyer Manuel Laserna, Jr., replied to Panelo, and expressed the following:
“I challenge Panelo to point to me the express or implied provisions of the Constitution, if any, that support his self-serving theory.
“The Constitution is specific as to the conditions and limitations of the
* “call out” power,
* “martial law” powers,
* “suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus” power,
* “war” powers, and
* “administrative” powers of the Executive. (Art. VII, Constitution).
“Duterte, as the “Executive” and “Head of State,” is merely a “salaried/paid public servant” of the sovereign Filipino people.
“He is not “The Sovereign.”
“He is not a King/Monarch who “owns” the Philippines as a kingdom.
“Sovereignty” and “all governmental authority” reside in the Filipino people.
“This is a basic constitutional doctrine.
“When a tyrant openly embraces and promotes “dictatorship (revolutionary government)” as a platform of governance, the sovereign people have the constitutional, inherent, natural and divine right to remove and eliminate such an enemy of the democratic republic.”***
Dangers of a mediocre president
Since the Filipino people won what the world hailed and proclaimed as glorious People Power Revolution in 1986, the Philippines had elected six presidents, but ousted one of the six less than two years after his elections, like how they ousted the dictator Marcos.
Not one of the former presidents dared to mention martial law, much less threaten to declare it, probably because of the bitter experiences and political vacuum that resulted from 20 years of Marcos’ authoritarian rule.
But a mediocre president, Rodrigo Duterte, has been making threats of revolutionary government which could abolish the Constitution.
(He admitted after winning the elections he was a mediocre student in college.)
The danger with a mediocre leader comes up when he is entrusted with vast powers, but is not analytical and not brilliant.
There is the likelihood, he will abuse, either by commission, or ignorance.
Because he doesn’t have a profound appreciation of democratic principles and practices.
The English philosopher John Locke said, “Tyranny is the exercise of Power beyond right.”
Likewise, Locke said, “Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins.”
In some ways, Mr. Duterte has been behaving the way tyranny was described by John Locke in the 18th century.
The Filipino Reporter (New York).
International parliamentarians display their message during a news conference in Manila to express alarm over the mounting number of killings under President Rodrigo Duterte.
Manuel Caballero
DESPITE the death of two terrorist leaders in Marawi which led to the liberation of the city, the mind of President Duterte seems to be in a state of confusion and dysfunction.
(Mabuhay ang Armed Forces of the Philippines!)
The killings of three teenagers — Kian Loyd delos Santos, Carl Arnaiz and Reynaldo de Guzman — made the Filipino people look back with belated disdain at the thousands of poor Filipino suspects killed in the last 16 months since Duterte introduced the concept that it was okay to kill.
The President’s credibility, trust and confidence from his people as their leader are in their lowest.
He is less popular now.
He admitted on television that he lied and invented the charges he threw at a senator.
Almost daily since August, Mr. Duterte has been constantly besieged by barrage of criticisms and condemnations both from within and outside the Philippines.
At the same time, almost daily, this president comes up with apparent imaginary justifications to impose emergency rule in the country.
The situation has prompted his daughter to act as his spokesperson and defender.
His former defenders have been quiet.
The opposition from varied sectors have united.
These are not positive signs.
Pres. Duterte is the object of criticisms and condemnations not only because of the thousands of poor suspects killed without due process of law in his bloody and brutal campaign against drugs, but also because of charges of corruption and smuggling of drugs against him and his family, threats of establishing dictatorship and a revolutionary government due to fake accusations of destabilization allegedly by his political enemies and the Communist Party of the Philippines.
The President’s refusal to sign a bank waiver and his obvious intent to mess up the democratic institutions by threatening the head of Ombudsman with impeachment evidently because that office has started investigating his possible hidden billions of pesos in a bank is also part of the mess in Manila.
Isn’t it weird that a leader and his family who won on the pledge that he would eliminate crimes, corruption and drugs is now being charged of being involved in the social ills he promised to eradicate?
***
Secretary of Defense Delfin Negrillo Lorenzana speaks to the media earlier this week. (Screengrab)
Threats of revolutionary government
In light of all the above, President Duterte has repeatedly accused his critics of destabilization.
And he repeatedly threatened to impose revolutionary government throughout the Philippines.
It could mean abolition of the Constitution.
These, despite flat denials there are destabilization efforts anywhere in the Philippines both by his Secretary of Defense and the Armed Forces spokesperson.
READ: Secretary of Defense Delfin Negrillo Lorenzana denies there is destabilization at: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/624479/no-proof-of-lp-destabilization-slay-plot-vs-duterte-dnd/story/
The Duterte threats prompted former Sen. Francisco Tatad, a fellow Filipino Reporter columnist whom I consider the brightest columnist in Manila today, to write in part, the following:
“...If DU30 believes the solution to his problems is to abolish the Constitution, then he must be prepared to contend against the people, who are the real authors of the Constitution; against the Church which confirms the moral and spiritual as well as the temporal and eternal values of the people; and against the Armed Forces of the Philippines, whose goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory, as constitutional protector of the people and the State.
“DU30 must be prepared to be declared in rebellion against the Constitution he has sworn to preserve and defend, and for the God-fearing and law-abiding Filipino people and their loyal armed forces to overthrow his rebellion. This is fraught with unimaginable dangers. It could lead to civil war, a bloody civil war, such as we have not known before, where brother will slay his own brother for nothing. Its first inevitable result would be the collapse of the State, which DU30 would like to control...”
***
Defending his boss, Duterte’s legal counsel and friend Salvador Panelo opined it was the Constitutional right of the President to impose a revolutionary government “to save the country from destabilization,” if necessary.
Another bright Filipino, lawyer Manuel Laserna, Jr., replied to Panelo, and expressed the following:
“I challenge Panelo to point to me the express or implied provisions of the Constitution, if any, that support his self-serving theory.
“The Constitution is specific as to the conditions and limitations of the
* “call out” power,
* “martial law” powers,
* “suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus” power,
* “war” powers, and
* “administrative” powers of the Executive. (Art. VII, Constitution).
“Duterte, as the “Executive” and “Head of State,” is merely a “salaried/paid public servant” of the sovereign Filipino people.
“He is not “The Sovereign.”
“He is not a King/Monarch who “owns” the Philippines as a kingdom.
“Sovereignty” and “all governmental authority” reside in the Filipino people.
“This is a basic constitutional doctrine.
“When a tyrant openly embraces and promotes “dictatorship (revolutionary government)” as a platform of governance, the sovereign people have the constitutional, inherent, natural and divine right to remove and eliminate such an enemy of the democratic republic.”***
Dangers of a mediocre president
Since the Filipino people won what the world hailed and proclaimed as glorious People Power Revolution in 1986, the Philippines had elected six presidents, but ousted one of the six less than two years after his elections, like how they ousted the dictator Marcos.
Not one of the former presidents dared to mention martial law, much less threaten to declare it, probably because of the bitter experiences and political vacuum that resulted from 20 years of Marcos’ authoritarian rule.
But a mediocre president, Rodrigo Duterte, has been making threats of revolutionary government which could abolish the Constitution.
(He admitted after winning the elections he was a mediocre student in college.)
The danger with a mediocre leader comes up when he is entrusted with vast powers, but is not analytical and not brilliant.
There is the likelihood, he will abuse, either by commission, or ignorance.
Because he doesn’t have a profound appreciation of democratic principles and practices.
The English philosopher John Locke said, “Tyranny is the exercise of Power beyond right.”
Likewise, Locke said, “Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins.”
In some ways, Mr. Duterte has been behaving the way tyranny was described by John Locke in the 18th century.
x x x."
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Why Duterte's drug war is unconstitutional - FLAG
See - https://www.rappler.com/nation/185316-flag-petition-sc-war-on-drugs-illegal?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=referral&utm_medium=share_bar
"x x x.
Was the PNP’s war on drugs illegal? Here’s why lawyers think so.
The Free Legal Assistance Group asks the SC the opportunity to present oral arguments for the public to hear.
By Lian Buan
@lianbuan
Published 10:30 AM, October 15, 2017
Updated 10:30 AM, October 15, 2017
x x x,
They say that the PNP’s war on drugs was illegal. Here’s why:
1. It didn’t have a legal written order from the President
PNP Chief General Ronald dela Rosa signed on July 1, 2016 Command Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 16-2016, which operationalized the war on drugs.
According to FLAG’s petition filed before the SC on October 11, the circular “did not cite any written instructions, executive order, administrative order, memorandum circular, memorandum order, or proclamation from President Duterte.”
Deal Rosa’s circular, FLAG said, was based solely on the President’s words. FLAG cited Dela Rosa himself when the police chief testified before a Senate hearing on August 24.
“Your Honor, personally I have no orders to launch the operations but our operating units were taking the cue from the words of the President that our anti-drug operation is unrelenting.”
FLAG said: “CMC 16-2016, in other words, is not based on any presidential directive but rather is based on a mere verbal pronouncement or campaign promise made by Duterte before he assumed the presidency – which obviously has no legal force and effect.”
The group cited Executive Order No. 292 that requires the President to put into writing any order. It’s what he did when he issued the memorandum on October 10 assigning PDEA to be the sole agency to implement his war on drugs.
2. The PNP’s circular empowered police to kill
FLAG noted that the circular was peppered with the words “neutralize” or “negate” which they say are terms which do not have counterparts in law.
“It is not defined in the PNP Manual of Operations or in any official PNP document. But in official PNP reports and police parlance – as admitted by Dela Rosa – “neutralize” means to kill,” the petition said. (READ: A gruesome tale of TokHang: 'Sir, may humihinga pa')
With the terms negation or neutralization, FLAG draws attention to page 5 of the 18-page circular:
“Any person suspected to be involved in illegal drug trafficking who dies or refuses the house to house visitation shall be referred to the anti-illegal drug units for immediate case build-up and negation.”
FLAG said it is “clear and unmistakable” that the war on drugs was never meant to reform drug suspects.
“Project TokHang, therefore, is unconstitutional because its real purpose is not just to persuade drug offenders to stop their drug activities, but rather to kill them,” they said in their petition.
3. Anonymous reporting
FLAG also wants to strike out the Department of Interior and Local Government or the DILG’s Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 2017-112. The circular operationalized the Mamamayang Ayaw sa Anomalya, Mamamayang Ayaw sa Iligal na Droga or MASA MASID.
Under this program, cities, municipalities and barangays are required to establish a system of reporting suspected drug personalities. The most controversial channel so far is through drop boxes.
According to FLAG, the longstanding practice of encouraging citizens to report crimes is very different to ask them to submit names of suspected criminals.
“The reporting of crimes is done by witnesses who have knowledge of criminal activity. The reporting of alleged criminals can be done by anyone who suspects, rightly or wrongly, that another person is criminal,” FLAG said.
FLAG stressed that instead of the police function to gather evidence, they are instead allow to just compile the names “without any safeguards for protecting innocent persons.”
Appeals
Aside from asking the SC to declare the two circulars illegal, FLAG also appealed to the High Court to compel authorities to investigate cases of death.
The most used narrative of the police thus far is that of "nanlaban" or suspects fighting back who have to be neutralized lest they put the cop’s life in danger.
In an interview with Al Jazeera on October 7, Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano claimed that “every single one” of the deaths are being investigated.
But as of September 27, the PNP has only managed to submit 10 inquest reports out of the 3,800 deaths at the time.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted only 71 drug-related deaths, and of those, only 19 has reached the courts, as per DOJ’s own data as of August 22.
(READ: Sereno: Special committee evaluating rules to address extrajudicial killings)
FLAG appealed to the SC to:
Compel police officers in "nanlaban" cases to submit their firearms to the NBI for forensic examination and safekeeping
Require the PNP Internal Affairs Service (IAS) and/or the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) to submit a monthly report to the Court full documentation of police operations which result to death
FLAG requested to hold oral arguments to present their arguments before the public.
“Unless this Honorable Court intervenes, the killings will continue and the rule of law itself will be supplanted by justice from the barrel of a gun,” they told the SC. – Rappler.com.
x x x."
1. It didn’t have a legal written order from the President
PNP Chief General Ronald dela Rosa signed on July 1, 2016 Command Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 16-2016, which operationalized the war on drugs.
According to FLAG’s petition filed before the SC on October 11, the circular “did not cite any written instructions, executive order, administrative order, memorandum circular, memorandum order, or proclamation from President Duterte.”
Deal Rosa’s circular, FLAG said, was based solely on the President’s words. FLAG cited Dela Rosa himself when the police chief testified before a Senate hearing on August 24.
“Your Honor, personally I have no orders to launch the operations but our operating units were taking the cue from the words of the President that our anti-drug operation is unrelenting.”
FLAG said: “CMC 16-2016, in other words, is not based on any presidential directive but rather is based on a mere verbal pronouncement or campaign promise made by Duterte before he assumed the presidency – which obviously has no legal force and effect.”
The group cited Executive Order No. 292 that requires the President to put into writing any order. It’s what he did when he issued the memorandum on October 10 assigning PDEA to be the sole agency to implement his war on drugs.
2. The PNP’s circular empowered police to kill
FLAG noted that the circular was peppered with the words “neutralize” or “negate” which they say are terms which do not have counterparts in law.
“It is not defined in the PNP Manual of Operations or in any official PNP document. But in official PNP reports and police parlance – as admitted by Dela Rosa – “neutralize” means to kill,” the petition said. (READ: A gruesome tale of TokHang: 'Sir, may humihinga pa')
With the terms negation or neutralization, FLAG draws attention to page 5 of the 18-page circular:
“Any person suspected to be involved in illegal drug trafficking who dies or refuses the house to house visitation shall be referred to the anti-illegal drug units for immediate case build-up and negation.”
FLAG said it is “clear and unmistakable” that the war on drugs was never meant to reform drug suspects.
“Project TokHang, therefore, is unconstitutional because its real purpose is not just to persuade drug offenders to stop their drug activities, but rather to kill them,” they said in their petition.
3. Anonymous reporting
FLAG also wants to strike out the Department of Interior and Local Government or the DILG’s Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 2017-112. The circular operationalized the Mamamayang Ayaw sa Anomalya, Mamamayang Ayaw sa Iligal na Droga or MASA MASID.
Under this program, cities, municipalities and barangays are required to establish a system of reporting suspected drug personalities. The most controversial channel so far is through drop boxes.
According to FLAG, the longstanding practice of encouraging citizens to report crimes is very different to ask them to submit names of suspected criminals.
“The reporting of crimes is done by witnesses who have knowledge of criminal activity. The reporting of alleged criminals can be done by anyone who suspects, rightly or wrongly, that another person is criminal,” FLAG said.
FLAG stressed that instead of the police function to gather evidence, they are instead allow to just compile the names “without any safeguards for protecting innocent persons.”
Appeals
Aside from asking the SC to declare the two circulars illegal, FLAG also appealed to the High Court to compel authorities to investigate cases of death.
The most used narrative of the police thus far is that of "nanlaban" or suspects fighting back who have to be neutralized lest they put the cop’s life in danger.
In an interview with Al Jazeera on October 7, Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano claimed that “every single one” of the deaths are being investigated.
But as of September 27, the PNP has only managed to submit 10 inquest reports out of the 3,800 deaths at the time.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted only 71 drug-related deaths, and of those, only 19 has reached the courts, as per DOJ’s own data as of August 22.
(READ: Sereno: Special committee evaluating rules to address extrajudicial killings)
FLAG appealed to the SC to:
Compel police officers in "nanlaban" cases to submit their firearms to the NBI for forensic examination and safekeeping
Require the PNP Internal Affairs Service (IAS) and/or the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) to submit a monthly report to the Court full documentation of police operations which result to death
FLAG requested to hold oral arguments to present their arguments before the public.
“Unless this Honorable Court intervenes, the killings will continue and the rule of law itself will be supplanted by justice from the barrel of a gun,” they told the SC. – Rappler.com.
x x x."
Free Legal Assistance Group (Flag) filed before the High Court a petition to declare as unconstitutional the Philippine National Police (PNP) Command Memorandum Circular (CMC) 16-2016 and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Memorandum Circular (MC) 2017-112.
See - Flag lawyers want gov’t war on drugs declared unconstitutional
"x x x.
Flag lawyers want gov’t war on drugs declared unconstitutional
October 11, 2017 03:53pm
Jhoanna Ballaran
A group of human-rights lawyers on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court (SC) to stop the implementation of the government's deadly war on drugs by revoking two orders that serve as the campaign's blueprint.
Representing the three petitioners, the Free Legal Assistance Group (Flag) filed before the High Court a petition to declare as unconstitutional the Philippine National Police (PNP) Command Memorandum Circular (CMC) 16-2016 and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Memorandum Circular (MC) 2017-112.
Flag chairman Jose Manuel Diokno said the CMC 16-2016 is unconstitutional because: it expressly authorizes the police to kill suspected drug personalities; it replaces the police function of evidence-gathering and case build-up with that of compiling lists of suspected drug criminals; and the house-to-house visits under Project Tokhang are based on the "furtive fingers" of unknown informants.
The CMC 16-2016 is the PNP's Project Double Barrel, which lays out the anti-illegal drugs campaign plan. Diokno said it was issued based on a mere verbal campaign promise of President Rodrigo Duterte, which could not be a basis of a PNP order.
"It implements an alleged verbal order from the President to stop the war on drugs in six months. Nung ni-research pa namin yan, yung sinasabing verbal order na yan ay hindi pa siya presidente n'on, (When we researched it, that verbal order was issued when he was not yet the president)," he said.
"That promise was actually a campaign promise when he was just a candidate, wala pa siyang government authority (he does not have a government authority yet)," Diokno added.
The MC 2017-112, on the other hand, implements the Mamamayang Ayaw sa Anomalya, Mamamayang Ayaw sa Iligal na Droga (Masa Masid), which Diokno said institutionalized the anti-illegal drug campaign.
The memorandum orders all barangays to establish a drop box system to anonymously report suspected criminals, which Diokno said "violates the right to due process of law and to be presumed innocent."
"DILG MC 2017-112 also supplants the duty of the police to gather evidence with the function of compiling names of suspected criminals without any safeguards for protecting innocent persons," Diokno said.
"We believe that there is a big difference between reporting crimes and submitting names of suspected criminals," he added.
He explained that reporting crimes is done by witnesses who have knowledge of criminal activity while submitting names of alleged criminals "can be done by anyone who suspects, rightly or wrongly, that another person is a criminal."
Just like during the Japanese occupation in the Philippines and the secret police of Nazi in Germany, Diokno said allowing the submission of complaints through a dropbox gives any person the opportunity to "report any person even if they are completely innocent."
"It does not require evidence, only names. This is just like during the Japanese occupation or the rule of Nazi in Germany," said Diokno.
Petitioners said the death of Ryan Dave Almora and Rex Aparri and the shooting of Jefferson Soriano are part of the extra-legal killings.
On the other hand, their relatives--- Aileen Almora, sister of victim Ryan Dave Almora; Rowena Aparri, mother of victim Rex Aparri; and Jefferson Soriano survived a summary execution attempt. They are among the petitioners in this case. /jpv
x x x."
Topping the Impunity Index - Edilberto C. de Jesus, professor emeritus, Asian Institute of Management.
See - Topping the Impunity Index
"x x x.
Ranking 69 countries, the 2017 Global Impunity Index (GII) gave us first place. This suggests that if you are a criminal, you are safest practicing your occupation in the Philippines. You would be less likely to be arrested; if arrested, prosecuted; if prosecuted, convicted; if convicted, punished. If you had the lofty connections of, say, a senator or a president, you can, after sentencing, hope for pardon.
To be fair, the Duterte administration cannot take sole credit for this dubious distinction. Impunity has plagued us for decades, leading many to favor tough action against suspected criminals and, up to a point, to excuse police violations of due process. The backlash against EJK shows this point may have already been reached. A law-and-order president should want the GII image of the Philippines corrected.
Addressing impunity requires interrogating two factors affecting the framework of security, justice and human rights. First, has the state invested resources to provide enough policemen and jails, judges and courtrooms, and human rights monitors to ensure the rule of law? Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) Director Serafin Barretto said the jail congestion rate of 558 percent was the world’s highest in 2015, beating Haiti’s 454 percent.
Looking at the number of judges against population, GII figures showed a global average of one judge overseeing 6,250 people. In Croatia, the least afflicted by impunity, the ratio was 1:2,200 and in Mexico, 1:23,800. The ratio of Philippine lower court judges to population in 2006-2009 was over 1:60,000.
In 2017, the Philippines maintained one police officer for 650, against the global average of 1:315. Mexico surpassed this average number with 280 people for each police officer. But Mexico’s fourth-place finish in the 2017 GII drives home the centrality of the second factor affecting impunity: the operational effectiveness of the security and justice systems. Do the people running these systems possess the requisite knowledge, skills, and values? Consider Caloocan.
Raising the number of police officers and judges to a minimum level is necessary, but not sufficient, to avert the problem of impunity. Law enforcers must also have the necessary qualifications for the job and follow the rule of law in their application. Monitoring their respect for human rights is thus a necessary measure to ensure the proper functioning of the security and justice systems.
The Duterte administration inherited deeply flawed systems—and made problems worse in three ways. It launched the war on drugs without serious planning for the issues of detention and rehabilitation. The BJMP predicts drug arrests this year to approach 200,000. In the urban areas, drug suspects make up 75-80 percent of prison inmates. Will a prison sentence in overcrowded jails, at the 2012 budget cost of P19,345 per prisoner—higher than the P15,000 conditional cash transfer family subsidy—contribute to the rehabilitation of drug addicts?
Second, opinion surveys reflect a widespread concern that a large number of crimes concealed by impunity are now committed by state agents. Consider Caloocan and the killing of Korean Jee Ick-joo in Camp Crame. Senators have recognized that EJK does happen and thousands of “under-investigation” cases remain unresolved. Even more alarming, the President has encouraged, by word and deed, the belief that constitutional guarantees of human rights and due process will not deter the war on drugs. Consider Caloocan and the downgrading of the charges against the 19 killers of Albuera Mayor Rolando Espinosa.
Third, resource constraints that systemically impede the delivery of justice politicize and aggravate the issue of implementation. On the corruption cases, the protest is not that those charged are innocent, but that equally guilty parties have not been prosecuted. If we cannot simultaneously prosecute all “big fish” criminals, do we abandon convicting those we can?
Mr. Duterte gallantly insists that ladies should go first; he should be investigated for hidden wealth only after the investigation of the Chief Justice and the Ombudsman. The ladies have declared their willingness to undergo investigation. Mr. Duterte has rejected investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. In rejecting constitutional processes to check abuse of power, he gives further substance to the GII judgment giving the Philippines the global prize for tolerating impunity.
Edilberto C. de Jesus (edcdejesus@ gmail.com) is professor emeritus at the Asian Institute of Management.
x x x."
Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/107690/topping-impunity-index#ixzz4vqqsQi2n
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Duterte has breached his social contract with the sovereign Filipino people.
I vehemently reject the unconstitutional theory of Duterte's lawyer, Panelo, that to "save" the county from "destabilization", Duterte is empowered by the Constitution to declare a "revolutionary government", if necessary.
I challenge Panelo to point to me the express or implied provisions of the Constitution, if any, that support his self-serving theory.
The Constitution is specific as to the conditions and limitations of the
* "call out" power,
* "martial law" powers,
* "suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" power,
* "war" powers, and
* "administrative" powers
of the Executive. (Art. VII, Constitution ).
Duterte, as the "Executive" and "Head of State", is merely a "salaried/paid public servant" of the sovereign Filipino people.
He is not "The Sovereign".
He is not a King/Monarch who "owns" the Philippines as a kingdom.
"Sovereignty" and "all governmental authority" reside in the Filipino people.
This is a basic constitutional doctrine.
It is expressly stated in the Constitution as a solemn state policy. (Art. II, Constitution ).
When a tyrant openly embraces and promotes "dictatorship (revolutionary government)" as a platform of governance, the sovereign people have the constitutional, inherent, natural and divine right to remove and eliminate such an enemy of the democratic republic.
When the Executive/Head of State intentionally breaches his "social contract" with his sovereign constituents to defend the Constitution, to enforce the laws of the land and to preserve Democracy, he is deemed to have moto proprio "disqualified himself" from his public office.
When the Head of State ceases to be the "center of unity" and has consciously morphed into the "center of national polarization and destruction", he ipso facto loses the constitutional authority to govern.
The sovereign people may forthwith oust from power such a tyrant as a matter of constitutional, natural, inherent and divine right in order to preserve the unity and integrity of the state and the "general welfare" of the sovereign people.
- Atty. Manuel Laserna Jr.
"If there is any move that will bring down the government, then the Constitution directs him, instructs him...to do something about it. Declaring a revolutionary government would be one of them," said Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo.
The collegial Supreme Court
See - The collegial Supreme Court
"x x x.
The collegial Supreme Court
Published October 17, 2017, 10:00 PM
By J. Art D. Brion (ret.)
(5th of a Series)
J. Art D. Brion
The nation’s highest court – the Supreme Court – is a collegial body; it exercises judicial power through the collective action of its individual members. This collegial character is plain from Article VIII of the Constitution which vests judicial power in the Court itself, to quote, in “one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.”
Thus, at the Supreme Court, no single or individual justice, not even the chief justice, can exercise judicial power alone unless allowed by the Constitution or by the court in a valid delegation of authority. Any exercise of judicial power that does not fall within the exceptions may effectively be a punishable unconstitutional usurpation of the court’s power. (Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions is a crime penalized under the Revised Penal Code; RA No. 10)
The Constitution assigned the task of collegially acting for the court to 15 men and women – the chief justice and the 14 associate justices of the court. The collegial character of the power they wield for the court is interesting to note and compare with the exercise of power under the Constitution by the other two branches of government.
Legislative power or the power to make laws and formulate national policies is assigned to Congress which is composed of a 24-man Senate and a multiple-member House of Representatives. Like the Supreme Court, Congress acts as a collegial body. Its wider membership is dictated by the nature of the power to legislate; the wisdom required to craft laws must consider all interests involved, national and local.
The implementation of laws or executive power is vested in one man – the president. By conscious choice, the Constitution provided for only one president whose roles as the nation’s leader and as the executive implementing our national policies require strength and unity of command.
In between the Presidency and Congress is the Judiciary which is tasked to resolve actual disputes, arising from violations of constitutional and statutory rights, between citizens and the government, within government itself, and between and among citizens.
By resolving disputes through the interpretation of the Constitution and the laws, the court safeguards the integrity of the Constitution and assumes a balancing task within society with the Constitution and the laws as its standards.
These objectives render a dominant chief justice unnecessary as this kind of strength will not serve a purpose in a system where the court itself is empowered to act. The strength that counts for an effective court is the strength of mind, will and character of the individual justices.
At the same time, these objectives make a larger Supreme Court membership unwieldy for the concerns to be considered are legal and constitutional, not geographical. In sum, the constitutional framers made a very good call in making the dispensation of justice (the popular description of the court’s task) a collegial endeavor.
Collegiality or the idea of collective action after consultations and deliberation should work best in tasks requiring analysis, interpretation, and weighing of opposing considerations. This was the reason perhaps for the collegiality that the Constitution laid out.
To ensure the court’s effectiveness in this mode, the Constitution purposively defined the qualifications the members of the court should possess: natural-born Filipino citizenship, the minimum age of 40 years, and 15 years or more years as a judge of a lower court or in the practice of law in the Philippines. Beyond all these and most importantly, a justice of the court must be of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
Fifteen years of judicial or legal experience is the required minimum experience to ensure that a new justice of the court would be prepared for the demands of his/her position, for the operating environment he/she will meet at the court, and for the intensive and pressure-laden work he/she must undertake.
Legal competence (or the keen knowledge of the law resulting from prior and continuous study) is an absolute must, together with the wisdom that one acquires from previous legal experience.
Integrity and probity in the judicial setting necessarily require a well-developed sense of fairness, justice, and honesty – the traits that a judge or justice cannot be without. Independence, of course, is the ability to work and decide on one’s own and to resist outside influence that many times is brought to bear on a decision maker.
If anything at all is expressly missing from these qualifications, this is the demonstrated capacity and willingness to work. This personal trait though is an implied requirement of the other qualifications which would be meaningless outside of the work to which they apply.
The president appoints all the members of the court. To help the president in this task and at the same time to limit his authority, all applicants to the Supreme Court must pass screening by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) whose constitutional task is to recommend appointees to the president. The president can only appoint from the JBC’s listed nominees, thus giving the nation a fair expectation that politics will not rear its head and that the appointees to the Supreme Court are worthy and well-qualified for the position.
While on the whole, the court has performed well under its collegial mode, some notable failures can still be observed from the court’s overall record. The reasons for the instances of failure are not difficult to figure out.
Legal competence, based on natural talent and dedication to study, necessarily varies among individuals. While most justices have prepared themselves well for their court positions, others have not. The curious fact is that the latter still manage to secure appointments to the Court.
This situation is not strange in a national setting where politics still intrudes into the judicial appointment process despite the contrary constitutional intent. As a result, some justices do not significantly contribute to decision making nor to the development of jurisprudence. If they have managed to remain hidden, this aberration can be charged in part to the court’s collegial character.
The practicing Bar, of course, know who these justices are. To be completely fair, new justices may initially stand in awe of their more experienced colleagues, but they mostly rise to the challenges that court membership presents; some even surpass the performance of colleagues who preceded them in the bench.
If the buzz around legal circles were also to be believed, corruption exists and is alive even in the Supreme Court. One active legal practitioner was once interviewed and she made this charge over national television. She backed out, however, when asked to explain by the court, claiming that what she said was not of her own personal knowledge.
If the charge were true, then no amount of collegiality can help the court or adjudication in this country; collegiality would even work to the advantage of the corrupt. In this situation, we can only hope that corruption, if indeed it exists, is individual and isolated. We should also pray that the corrupt ones will at some point be caught and exposed, or will eventually disappear into retirement and be replaced by justices made of sterner stuff.
Some unusual court rulings – a reality recognized independently of the allegations of corruption – have made people wonder what might have taken place behind the veil of judicial secrecy. I pointed out some of these cases in my book, The Judicial Journey, where I discussed, among others, the trust that the court deserves based on the cases decided during my time. One of the chapters in my book was aptly entitled The Resurrection Cases to reflect my comparison of the covered majority rulings with Lazarus who rose from the dead by the miracle of the Lord. I hope that these cases would be few and far between for the sake of the court as an institution and of the nation.
Lest these observations create misimpressions, let me clarify that the cited notable exceptions are not in fact actual failures of the collegial system nor of the Court as an institution; they are largely failures chargeable to peculiar personalities/alliances and to abused processes that, every now and then, bedevil human institutions and undertakings. Greed, pride, and unbridled ambition do not respect institutions or constitutional visions.
Readers should be aware, too, that the Constitution has provided a remedy against these kinds of failures – the impeachment process. With impeachment proceedings now pending against the chief justice, the nation shall know soon enough how effective or defective this process can be for the nation in our time and age.
Readers may contact the author at jadb.legalfront.mb@gmail.com
x x x."
Saturday, October 14, 2017
'Paranoid, insecure' Duterte blasted for threatening to declare revolutionary gov't
"x x x.
'Paranoid, insecure' Duterte blasted for threatening to declare revolutionary gov't
By Ian Nicolas Cigaral (philstar.com) | Updated October 14, 2017 - 6:05pm
In a same statement, Tindig Pilipinas said President Rodrigo Duterte is threatening to “annihilate” the country’s democracy by “playing his ultimate power game.” Presidential Photo/Richard Madelo
MANILA, Philippines — A coaltion of cause-oriented groups and individuals on Saturday slammed President Rodrigo Duterte and called him a “paranoid” for threatening to declare a revolutionary government to quell efforts of the Left and his critics.
“Only a paranoid and insecure little man afraid of losing power will rationalize the need to impose a revolutionary government upon the people,” Tindig Pilipinas said in a statement.
“Like any abuser sensing that his victims are seeing him as the abuser that he is, he senses doom. He knows he is an empty can once he loses control,” it added.
“We call on all democratic forces within and outside the state to resist this move to subvert our nation for the interests of one man, his family and his cohorts.”
Duterte on Friday said he would not hesitate to impose a revolutionary government to quell alleged destabilization moves against his administration—a claim that the country’s top security officials already dismissed.
He added that he would use the revolutionary powers to avert the country from falling into chaos as he accused the Communist Party of the Philippines of playing a key role in the destabilization efforts.
Once the military government is restored, Duterte said he would order the security forces to arrest all destabilizers and go on a full-scale war against the communist rebels.
A lawyer, Duterte noted that his hands would not be tied in case he declares a revolutionary government – unlike when he imposes martial law, which mandates the reporting to Congress within 60 days upon declaration.
With the military and the police on his side, he doubted whether any effort to take over the government would be successful.
In the same statement, Tindig Pilipinas said Duterte is threatening to “annihilate” the country’s democracy by “playing his ultimate power game.”
“He is playing for survival. Let no one see this as anything else but weakness. There is nothing reformist, much less revolutionary in this,” the group said.
For their part, Liberal Party senators also on Saturday criticized the Duterte administration for insisting that the party has a plan to destabilize government.
They also pointed out that criticism is not tantamount to destabilization efforts.
"Ang kritisismo at pagpapahayag ng saloobin ay mga haligi ng demokrasya at hindi dapat ituring na destabilisasyon laban sa pamahalaan," said Sen. Francis Pangilinan, the president of the former ruling party.
Based on Article 3, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are recognized by the Constitution in building and maintaining a democratic society.
Last week, the firebrand leader accused the LP of conspiring with communists to oust him from office—an allegation that both entities denied.
x x x."
SC Justice Carpio: De Lima drug charges 'pure invention'
"x x x.
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, October 14) — A Supreme Court judge on Friday hit accusations of illegal drug trade directed at Sen. Leila De Lima, calling the charges "blatantly a pure invention."
In his 39-page dissenting opinion on the high court's decision not to nullify De Lima's arrest, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio criticized the senator's continued detention, saying the charges against De Lima lacked key elements for drug accusations.
"The accusation of illegal trade of drugs against petitioner is blatantly a pure invention," Carpio said. "This Court, the last bulwark of democracy and liberty in the land, should never countenance such a fake charge," he added.
De Lima, one of President Rodrigo Duterte's staunchest critics, was arrested in February over her supposed involvement in the New Bilibid Prison drug trade as Justice Secretary from 2010 to 2015.
Last Tuesday, The Supreme Court, voting 9 to 6, dismissed De Lima's petition to void her arrest, citing "lack of merit."
Carpio, one of the six magistrates who voted to grant the petition, said the charges filed against De Lima detailed direct bribery, not related to drugs.
"Not a single essential element of this particular offense is alleged in the information (complaint). What the information actually charges is the bailable offense of direct bribery," he said.
He said charges of bribery do not fall against the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court that issued the Senator's warrant of arrest, but under the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan.
"To allow the continued detention of the petitioner under this Information is one of the grossest injustices ever perpetrated in recent memory in full view of the Filipino nation and the entire world," Carpio said.
De Lima has been detained at the Philippine National Police Custodial Center in Camp Crame since the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204 ordered her arrest on February 24.
Following the dismissal of her petition on Tuesday, De Lima said Wednesday the SC's decision legitimized political persecution and added her lawyers will file a motion for reconsideration.
x x x."
Drug war deaths dragging Philippines into disrepute, HRW warns
"x x x.
MANILA, Philippines — President Rodrigo Duterte's campaign to eradicate illegal drugs in the country is a "travesty of basic human dignity" that is pushing the Philippines to international "disrepute," and Manila should immediately take measures to arrest this downward spiral, according to a Human Rights Watch official in Geneva.
According to John Fisher, the group's advocacy director in Switzerland, Duterte's drug war, which he described as a "murderous campaign," is a "shame" for the government and all people who love the Philippines.
"What the government is doing is bringing the country into disrepute through the conduct of this murderous war on drugs," he told Philstar.com in an interview over the weekend.
He stated that the Philippines had been on a downward spiral in terms of its human rights situation since this was first reviewed in 2008 and looked into again in 2012.
"There's no question that the Philippines is on a tragic downward spiral. It really is a concern not just in the international community but also those who are about the country as well," he said.
According to Fisher, the Philippines has an added obligation to uphold human rights and subject itself to the processes of the United Nations because it is a member of the body's Human Rights Council.
It is an ironic situation for a HRC member such as the Philippines to have a leader who openly boasted in the past about violation of human rights standards and disregard for international law, Fisher said.
Human Rights Council membership carries responsibilities
He said that Manila should reconsider this position and reminded the government that its membership in the human rights body entails responsibility.
"So you have a president who is boasting about the violation of international human rights standards and at the same time the Philippines itself is a member of the UN Human Rights Council and with that membership comes responsibility to uphold international law and to cooperate with the UN and its mechanisms," Fisher said.
Fisher said that the deaths attributed to the drug war violate the right to life in "the most base way possible."
The right to life is one of the fundamental rights of a person, according to the UN Human Rights Declaration, which was instituted in the aftermath of the atrocities committed during World War II.
The HRW official said that the country could face serious consequences if it continues to ignore its international obligations regarding human rights and UN mechanisms.
When asked if the Philippines could be ousted from the Human Rights Council, he said, "That is a pretty clear warning to the government that if doesn't start cooperating with the UN system, if it doesn't change tracks and take steps to end the killings and to comply with its international human rights obligations it could well face those kinds of consequences."
If the Philippines is booted out of the human rights body, this will be a "huge embarrassment," he said, reminding government officials that membership in the council is not a right but a privilege.
HRW: Philippines turning its back on rights council
The country is failing in its responsibilities by waging the deadly war on drugs and denying access to UN special rapporteurs who will look into allegations of extrajudicial killings in the country, according to the HRW official.
"It's turning its back on the council and its mechanisms," he said.
The HRW official was on a visit to the country recently and had meetings with some human rights groups and families of victims of drug-related deaths.
Fisher said that it was "quite extraordinary" for 39 countries to express concern over drug-connected killings just after the Philippines submitted its report detailing its response to the recommendations provided during the 3rd Universal Periodic Review of its human rights situation.
He said that this showed that these member-states were not satisfied with the government's response.
According to Fisher, most of the 154 recommendations rejected by Manila were practical solutions that could end the rising number of killings and hold responsible people accountable.
"If you look at which ones the Philippines rejected, it was all of the most fundamental ones about ending violations of the right to life," he said during the interview.
Fisher added that if the Philippines continues down this path it would face further international scrutiny which could involve UN-initiated probes, cases at the International Criminal Court and changes in its bilateral relations with some nations.
Economic sanctions can also be imposed, but these depend on individual nations, he clarified.
"Tragically, what we are seeing in the Philippines is a government that openly expresses contempt for the right to life and enabling people to be killed with impunity," he said.
'Chorus of concern'
Duterte is also not helping the country's reputation on the international stage as he has openly said his disregard for human rights and international law in the past, according to Fisher.
The president has also vowed to shield security officers who would be sued for pursuing his campaign, a central plank of his platform which catapulted him to the presidency last year, according to the HRW official.
He warned the government and its officials that the growing "chorus of concern" was not likely to dissipate soon.
"What has become a number of expressions of concern is now becoming a growing chorus, and that is something that can't be denied. It's not going to go away either. the Philippines needs to hear those expressions of concern," he said.
x x x."
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
How the war on drugs creates violence
"x x x.
How the war on drugs creates violence
By Danielle Allen October 16, 2015
Danielle Allen is a political theorist at Harvard University and a contributing columnist for The Post.
To argue for legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs does not, at first blush, appear to put one on the side of the angels, especially given the accelerating heroin epidemic. But legalization and decriminalization are what we need if we want to make headway against mass incarceration, high homicide rates in urban black communities and poor educational outcomes in urban schools. If we view drug use as a public health problem, not a crime, we can fight drugs without producing the other sorts of social damage we see all around us.
Americans from all racial groups pursue narcotic-related leisure activities, spending an estimated $100 billion a year on their illegal drugs, according to a report from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. In this current period of fairly active military engagement, the nation’s defense budget is roughly $600 billion. In other words, our culture of illegal drug use must be pretty important to amount to a full sixth of our budget for national defense.
Yet despite this evidence of far-reaching social acceptance of illegal drug use, we continue to lock up nonviolent offenders. Ceasing this hypocritical practice by releasing nonviolent offenders is morally urgent. Yet this would be only a small step toward rectification of the problem of mass incarceration. As the Web site FiveThirtyEight recently reported, such a move would reduce our state and federal prison populations by only about 14 percent. We would still be the world’s leading imprisoner.
The further-reaching reason to legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs flows from how the war on drugs drives violent crime, which in turn pushes up incarceration and generates other negative social outcomes. You just can’t move $100 billion worth of illegal product without a lot of assault and homicide. This should not be a hard point to see or make. Criminologists and law enforcement personnel alike acknowledge that the most common examples of “criminogenic trends” that generate increases in murder and other violent crimes are gang- and drug-related homicides.
But there is also another, more subtle connection between the drug war and violence, pinpointed by economists Brendan O’Flaherty and Rajiv Sethi . As they argue, above-average homicide rates will result from low rates of successful investigation and prosecution of homicide cases. If you live in an environment where you know that someone can shoot you with impunity, you are much more likely to be ready to shoot to kill at the first sign of danger. When murder goes unpunished, it begets more murder, partly for purposes of retaliation, partly because people are emboldened by lawlessness, but also as a matter of preemption. Unpunished murder makes everyone (including police) trigger-happy. Such places operate according to the dictum that the best defense is a strong offense.
Major urban centers of the drug trade are just such environments, plagued by low clearance rates for homicide. In Detroit, in the years approaching the city’s bankruptcy, the homicide clearance rate verged on single digits. In Chicago, in 2009, police cleared only 30 percent of homicide cases, many of them without charges. In one Los Angeles Police Department bureau, clearance rates in the 60s mask the low rate of cases ending in arrest and prosecution. And clearance rates are lowest when victims are black and brown, as Jill Leovy explains in her new book, “Ghettoside.” In contrast, in the 1960s, in the United States, the average clearance rate for homicide was above 90 percent, according to NPR.
Why have homicide clearance rates fallen so low in these cities? According to criminologist Charles Wellford, drug-related homicides are harder to investigate, possibly because they are more likely to be stranger-to-stranger incidents and possibly because the drug business generates witness-suppression systems. Additionally, stop-and-frisk tactics have eroded trust in police and further diminished the willingness of witnesses to testify. And, recently, justified anger over police violence has further reduced the capacity of the police to function well in investigating homicides.
Finally, an overloaded judicial system may well put prosecutors in a position where they wish to pursue only open-and-shut cases that will generate plea deals. According to a retired police officer interviewed by NPR, Vernon Geberth , police nowadays have a higher bar to get over in trying to clear a case because prosecutors want only those easier cases.
And what is the No. 1 source of this prosecutorial overload? According to federal judicial caseload statistics, in U.S. district courts in 2013, 32 percent of defendant filings were for drug-related cases, making this the biggest category of filings. State judicial systems, too, have been significantly strained for financial resources and personnel by drug-related casework. Add to this picture the fact that plenty of violent offenders in our nation’s prisons started out as nonviolent drug offenders, and you have a complete picture of just how much the drug war itself has been a generator of violence.
The drug war is a perfect example of the breakdown of the rule of law and the knock-on effects of such a breakdown. Our drug laws are fundamentally unenforceable, and this distorts the judicial system, including by producing prosecutorial overload, which is a driver of low homicide clearance rates, which beget a culture of increasing violence, which puts more fathers of young children behind bars or under the ground, makes it harder for children in poor, urban areas to walk to school safely, and forces on those children a choice between the culture of the schools, inside the rule of law, and the culture of the streets, outside the rule of law. Since Plato, we have known that the power of schools to develop the minds of the young depends on an alignment of the worlds inside and outside the school. The culture of violence in urban areas, begotten by the war on drugs and a reflection of the failure of the rule of law, is the opposite of a healthy context for learning.
Why is it so hard for us to see how profoundly a $100 billion illegal market in anything, even in popcorn or “My Little Pony” toys, would distort a society? Can there be any other reason for our failure to see this than that black and brown people bear the brunt of these distortions? If we care for the safety and happiness of the whole of our society, as we must, then it is time to legalize marijuana, decriminalize other drugs and recast drug use as a public health problem, not a crime.
Read more:
x x x."
Adjournment sine die
See - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjournment_sine_die
"x x x.
Adjournment sine die (from the Latin "without day") means "without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing".[1] To adjourn an assembly sine die is to adjourn it for an indefinite period. A legislative body adjourns sine die when it adjourns without appointing a day on which to appear or assemble again.[2]
It can be used in reference to United States legislatures whose terms or mandates are coming to an end, and it is anticipated that this particular body will not meet again in its present session, form, or membership.[3] A legislative body adjourned in this way may be called back into special session, a reason why sine die adjournment rather than dissolution may be preferred in some cases.
A convention or a series of mass meetings would adjourn sine die if the business of these meetings has been completed.[4] In these cases, the adjournment dissolves the body.[4]
A court may also adjourn a matter sine die, which means the matter is stayed until further notice. This may be due to various reasons. For example, if the case is started with a wrong procedure chosen, the judge may adjourn the matter sine die, so that the party may choose to start the action again with the correct procedure.[5] It may also be thus adjourned if there is no possibility of proceeding in the foreseeable future—for example, an action may be adjourned sine die if the defendant is in prison and there is no prospect of continuing the action at that time. In a sine die adjournment of this type, the hearing stands open indefinitely, and could theoretically be resumed if the situation changed.[6]
United States usageEdit
Adjournment sine die—as in "The One Hundred Tenth Congress of the United States closed its second session today by adjourning sine die"—is an adjournment until the next session of Congress, there usually being at least two sessions[7] to each numbered Congress—e.g., the 110th Congress met in 2007 (first session) and in 2008 (second session). The next numbered Congress would have a different membership: Some members would not be running for election again, while others might not win reelection. Sine die adjournments in the Congress typically do not have a date certain, but rather are determined by the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate at a later time.[8]
James Madison ended his long chronicle of the Philadelphia Convention with the following, "The Constitution being signed by all the members present except Mr. Randolph, Mr. Mason, and Mr. Gerry, who declined giving it the sanction of their names, the Convention dissolved itself by an adjournment sine die."
The final entry in the Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America reads: "The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, / The Speaker announced that the House stood adjourned sine die" (7 J. Cong. C.S.A. 796, Mar. 18, 1865).
The term is also used in state legislatures.[9]
In the Florida Legislature, the term refers to a traditional adjournment ceremony. During this ceremony, the respective sergeant-at-arms from both the Florida Senate and the Florida House of Representatives, step outside their chambers holding up a handkerchief. When they meet in between the chambers, they both drop the handkerchiefs, signifying the end of the legislative session. [10][11]
Hong Kong usageEdit
On 28 June 1997, Andrew Wong, President of the last Legislative Council of Hong Kong as a British crown colony (which was to be dissolved by the incoming sovereign power over Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, and replaced by a provisional legislature), declared at the end of its last session: "In accordance with the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council, I now adjourn the Council, sine die."[12]
x x x."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)