Transformational vs. transactional leadership

Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno spoke on leadership (transformational leadership versus transactional leadership) during a seminar held at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM), Makati City, Philippines. Thus:


“A transformational leader focuses first in transforming self to become selfless, to look out for each other, to promote unity and harmony and to give more importance to the interest of the whole more than its parts.” (citing the late American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of a transformational leader).

“Transactional leaders motivate followers by appealing to their self-interest. They approach followers on a quid pro quo basis with an eye to exchanging one thing for another, such as jobs for votes or subsidies for campaign contributions. Leadership to them is more of a transaction, more of business where you get your goal through the bargaining of interests.”

“A transactional leader is obsessed with the completion of an objective with little regard to its moral and ethical hazards on his followers.”


See:

SC chief blasts RP leaders
By Dona Pazzibugan, Daxim Lucas
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:25:00 01/30/2010
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100130-250242/SC-chief-blasts-RP-leaders

Sen. Manuel Villar's woes

I am reproducing below in full the recent Philippine Daily Inquirer column of economics professor Solita Monsod in re: presidential candidate and Senator Manuel Villar’s role in alleged expropriation and road construction anomalies which reportedly benefitted his private real estate businesses located in his political turfs in Paranaque City and Las Pinas City amounting to a least Six Billion Pesos.

This raging issue is a politically hot potato that has besieged the normally peaceful and courteous halls of the Philippine Senate for the past days, rendering it virtually paralyzed, immobilized and humiliated in terms of institutional productivity, effectiveness, and public-relations image.

Sen. Villar opted to boycott the senate ad hoc ethics committee of the whole and refused to participate in its proceedings. The committee resolved to sanction (admonish) him and to require him to return to the government the huge amount of the road project that allegedly benefited his businesses.

The Filipino people will decide during the presidential election on May 20, 2010 whether or not they believe the findings and conclusions of the Senate and whether or not they have forgiven Villar.



Get Real
Manny Villar blameless?
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:06:00 01/30/2010


WHILE the Senate is declaring a moratorium on the discussion of the ethics case against Sen. Manny Villar, here are some incontrovertible facts, presented in Q & A form. The source of the information is also given.

Question: What roadway projects are the subject matter of the Villar ethics controversy? Answer: 1. The Manila Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP), the original C-5 south extension project, linking SLEX with the Coastal Road; 2. the DPWH C-5 Extension project (CX-5), which together with 3. the Las Piñas-Parañaque Link Project (LPPLP), also links SLEX with the Coastal Road. Source: Senate Report (SR) 780.

Q: Is the CX-5/LPPLP project realignment, as Sen. Jamby Madrigal describes it, or has there been no realignment, as Senator Villar’s allies insist? A: Technically there has been no realignment, because these are two separate roads linking C-5 from SLEX to the Coastal Road. But they are very close together and, in some areas, overlap, as can be ascertained from a site map. Source: interactive map available at www.gmanews.tv

Q: Are there any differences between the MCTEP and the CX-5/LPPLP? A: Yes. 1. The MCTEP is a joint-venture project between the government and a private Malaysian partner, with the government’s financial exposure limited to P2.68 billion for the purchase of the road right-of-way; the private partner is responsible for the construction of the project, for which tolls will be charged. The CX-5/LPPLP is a toll-free, wholly-financed government project costing P6.96 billion; 2. The CX-5/LPPLP is longer than the MCTEP, its extra length essentially covering the LPPLP portion; 3. The CX-5/LPPLP passes through more Villar properties than the MCTEP. Source: DPWH project documents cited as Exhibits A, B and TTTT in SR 780; site map from www.gmanews.tv.

Q: How large are the Villar company landholdings in the immediate vicinity of the questioned road projects? A: At least 50-52 hectares: 40 hectares in the vicinity of the LPPLP; 10-12 hectares in the area between Sucat Road and Multinational Avenue. Source: testimony of Anastacio Adriano Jr., senior vice president and general manager, chief operating officer of Adelfa Properties Inc. and other Villar-owned companies up to 2008; self-styled consultant and political officer of Senator Villar since August 2008. Nota bene: Senate employment records do not include his name. Nota bene: it is not clear whether the 50-52 hectares mentioned above include properties cited in SR 780—roughly 10 hectares in area—to be developed by Villar companies in joint venture with their owners.

Q: What is the involvement of Villar in CX-5 and LPPLP? A: 1. The Project Feasibility Study of the DPWH for CX-5 states: “The conceptualization of and the initial release of funds for the CX-5 Project was initiated by Sen. Manuel Villar whose same efforts also paved the way for the funding of the Las Piñas-Parañaque Link Road [LPPLP]”; 2. Various insertions and amendments (Priority Development Assistance Fund, read pork barrel) in the national government budget over the years 2002-2008 for CX-5 and LPPLP; 3. Adriano (cited above), in the office of and presence of Villar, dictating to the director general of the Senate’s Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office (LBRMO) Villar’s proposed amendments to the 2008 budget, including a P400-million appropriation for the CX-5. Source: documents submitted by DPWH, lawyer Yolanda Doblon of the LBRMO, testimony of both Doblon and Adriano, cited in SR 780.

Q: Were the Villar properties bought for road right-of-way overpriced? A: SR 780 argues for the affirmative; PSR 1472 (the resolution signed by Villar and his allies exonerating him from all charges) argues for the negative. This calls for a conclusion of the reader. And to help that along, I have—based on the documented prices and acreage of the lands purchased in connection with the LPPLP—computed the weighted average prices that were paid for the Villar and related properties, and those paid for the non-Villar properties. The results: The Villar/related properties, comprising 23,455 square meters, were bought for P168.1 million. The non-Villar properties, comprising 11,685 square meters, were bought for P22 million. That comes to a weighted average of P7,168 per square meter for Villar’s properties, and P1,880 per square meter for the non-Villar properties. That has to be a statistically significant difference.

Given the above facts—which no one can contest, since they are based on official documents, and not on a he-says-she-says set of assertions—it has to be reasonable to conclude:

1. Since there was already an ongoing project (the MCTEP) linking C-5 to the Coastal Road, it was totally unnecessary to build a second one.

2. Which means that there was a waste of scarce resources. Instead of using only P2.6 billion of government funds for the first project, the government had to spend an additional P6.9 billion for the second, which practically duplicated the first, except for the additional length which happily for Senator Villar, traversed his properties.

3. This unnecessary, wasteful project was certainly Villar’s idea. It is specious to argue that it is a DPWH project. As the DPWH feasibility study states (in black and white), both the CX-5 and the LPPLP were conceived and initially funded by Villar.

4. Villar benefited tremendously from the second project. Certainly, his companies were paid significantly more per square meter for the road right of way (which were mostly bought from him). But that pales into insignificance compared with the tremendous increase in the values of his real estate holdings in the area—at least 50-52 hectares.

Is he blameless? Is the Pope protestant?


See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100130-250236/Manny-Villar-blameless


Addendum:

Was Manny Villar really ever poor?
AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR By William M. Esposo (The Philippine Star) Updated February 07, 2010 12:00 AM


“Nakaligo ka na ba sa dagat ng basura? (Have you bathed in a sea of garbage?)” is the opening line of the jingle of Nacionalista Party presidential candidate Manny Villar which is featured in a television commercial that attempts to project him as having been one of the poorest of the poor. But was Manny Villar really one of the poorest of the poor as what his advertising has been projecting?

A Chair Wrecker reader from Tondo who claimed to know the Villar family when they still resided there debunked that notion of Villar ever having been poor. This information was relayed to yours truly via our response email address.

The former Villar family Tondo neighbor cited reference points to support his assertion that Manny Villar was never really poor — including the claim that Villar’s father used to have a “nikaladong (stainless steel clad)” private Jeep. During the 1950s, a nikaladong private Jeep is a status symbol in Tondo, definitely not the hallmark of a poor household.

Considering how Manny Villar has been dodging the serious issues pertaining to his use of public office in order to add immense benefits and profits to his businesses, your Chair Wrecker decided to do some investigating. Guess what Manny Villar’s online bio revealed:

“Manuel Villar Jr. was born on December 13, 1949 in Tondo, a densely populated district of Manila. He was the second of nine children of Manuel Villar Sr., a government employee, and Curita Bamba, a seafood dealer. As a young boy, he helped his mother sell fish, crabs, and shrimp in Divisoria to help earn money to pay for his education.

Villar finished his education at Holy Child Catholic School in 1962, and finished his high school education at Mapua Institute of Technology in 1966. He attended the University of the Philippines-Diliman and earned his bachelor’s degree in business administration in 1970. He returned to the same school to earn his master’s degree in business administration in 1973.”

In the early 1950s, the rich lived in the big compounds in Ermita and Pasay and what was called New Manila in Quezon City. In Tondo, you found the middle class and the poor as well.

Former president Joseph Estrada also claims roots in Tondo but his family was never poor. Based on his online bio, Villar cannot really justify calling himself poor.

The Villar Tondo home, as shown on his 2009 TV commercials, was made of sturdy materials. It has lasted to this day. His father was employed while his mother operated a fish, crab and shrimp dealership in lucrative Divisoria Market. It may not be Class AB household income but it is definitely not Class E.

Proof that the Villar children were never really wanting is the fact that Manny Villar studied in private schools. The indigent kids went to public school. Enrolling one’s child in a private school is a middle class value and option. The indigent kids who do manage to finish high school would tend to immediately learn a craft in order to be able to earn money right away. Aspiring for a business administration master’s degree is not the usual post high school move of indigent kids.

Villar narrated on his 2009 TV commercial, with Boy Abunda interviewing him, that as a young kid he thought that corned beef was soupy because that was how they used to prepare it at home. This, he claimed, was their way to ensure that everybody had a share.

But the fact is that there are really two ways to cook canned corned beef. One is the dry sautéed type while the other is the soupy type where you can add potatoes and cabbage. Both the rich and the middle class enjoy corned beef both ways.

Also, poor folks, especially a family of eleven, CANNOT AFFORD to eat canned corned beef. For a family of 11 to be eating corned beef confirms that the Villar family is anything but poor. That was the case then and more so now when the poor go hungry or manage to eat only one meal a day. Up to the 1980s, people from the provinces consider it a status symbol to be eating corned beef. That is why canned foodstuffs, especially corned beef, are being displayed in the sala by many households in the provinces for these to be seen by visitors.

For Manny Villar to don this facade of being “poor” once upon a time just to gain political advantage should make every Filipino voter ponder as to what else he would be willing to do just to attain his objective.

See:

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=547396&publicationSubCategoryId=64




Read also:

Editorial
Villar’s challenge
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:13:00 02/09/2010


AT MONDAY’S INQUIRER PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, Sen. Manny Villar offered a simple but powerful defense of his heavy ad spending. Then he pivoted and issued an even more forceful challenge to his rivals for the presidency. His words are worth quoting in full: “Pera ko naman ang ginagastos ko. Napakahalaga, tanungin din natin, hindi lamang kung magkano na ang nagastos, kundi sino ang nagbibigay sa kanila, dahil baka ito ang ihinalal nating pangulo, at hindi yung nakaharap dito.”(A close translation: It’s my money that I’m using. It’s very important [that] we should also ask, not only how much has been spent, but who is giving [money] to them, because these may be the ones we elect as president, and not the one facing [us] here.)

His challenge, however, is not without complications. It is true that, with the possible exception of Eduardo Cojuangco in 1992 and Juan Ponce Enrile in 1998, Villar is the first nationally known political figure to run for the presidency entirely on his own money. But it is only natural to ask: How does he intend to recover all the money he will spend?

We do not underestimate the public appeal of a self-funded campaign. If Villar succeeds, he will be the first president to arrive in Malacañang financially beholden to no one. (At the height of the Noynoy Aquino euphoria, late last year, the possibility of a people-funded campaign, and thus a president-elect with no major financial debts of gratitude, also animated the Liberal Party.) Philippine polity has not yet reached a sufficient level of maturity to subsidize the cost of party-based elections with counterpart public money; perhaps before then, a self-funded campaign (or one entirely supported by small donations from a broad spectrum of citizens) is the best means to negate the influence of vested interests.

Also, we should also point out that Sen. Mar Roxas, Aquino’s vice-presidential candidate, started pulling away from Sen. Loren Legarda in surveys tracking the vice-presidential contest precisely at the time his camp started investing again in advertising campaigns. Indeed, Roxas (“Mr. Palenge,” who placed first) and Sen.
Jamby Madrigal (“Ja-ja-ja-jamby,” who placed fourth) massively outspent all other candidates for the Senate in 2004. In other words, Roxas shares with Villar a track record of heavy campaign spending.

This was a point raised at the Inquirer debate against Madrigal, one of 10 officially accredited candidates for the presidency. Didn’t you yourself use a celebrity endorser when you first ran for the Senate? she was asked. Madrigal, a surprisingly nimble speaker, responded by striking a contrite note, saying she has seen the folly of her ways. That expensive foolishness, however, spelled the difference between victory in 2004 and defeat in her first run for the Senate in 2001.

Heavy ad spending, in sum, is a sin that covers a multitude of sinners.

What really concerns us, though, is the sheer magnitude of Villar’s spending. Again, it is only natural to ask, How will he recoup his investment? “Pera ko naman ang ginagastos ko.” Precisely. Not even the notoriously generous variety show host Willie Revillame gives away millions of pesos of his own money (it only looks that way). Villar needs to convince the public that he is, in fact, one of a kind, and can give away hundreds of millions, perhaps even the billions that political analysts say are needed to finance a presidential run, away, without thought of recompense.

In other words, at such levels of spending, Villar faces the prospect of himself becoming a vested interest.

See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20100209-252273/Villars-challenge

OFWs: hopelessness and solitude.

For legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog, I am quoting the salient parts of two feature articles recently published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on the topic of social justice for the Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW), the new economic heroes of the Philippines who, for many decades now, continue to live in extreme suffering and solitude in foreign lands due to the gross negligence of the entire Philippine government.

Meanwhile, the empty motherhood statements and promises of corrupt, lazy, and incompetent Filipino politicians and bureaucrats continue unabated for publicity purposes, especially in time for delivery of the annual state of the nation address of the President and in the press releases on the window-dressed performance reports of the Department of Labor and Employment, the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and other concerned agencies.

Please note that ten percent of the Philippine population live and work abroad in more than 230 countries and that almost one million Filipinos leave the Philippine per annum as foreign contract workers. They remit more than 15 billion US Dollars yearly to their families in the Philippines, thus saving the sagging and depressed Philippine economy from total collapse.

Pres. Gloria Arroyo and her cabinet members accredit to themselves the huge remittances being made by the poor and sufferings OFWs.

As the lonely and hapless OFWs eke out their humble living in God-forsaken foreign lands every day of their hopeless and solitary lives, corrupt Filipino politicians, led by Pres. Gloria Arroyo, enjoy their multi-billion junket foreign trips, pork barrels, kickbacks from government contracts, and comfortable vacations in expensive foreign resorts and spas.


PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Page A19

9 years under GMA: What was then temporary, now an official policy
By Rhodora Alcantara Abano
Center for Migrant Advocacy


1. President Macapagal Arroyo’s Administrative Order No. 247 issued in December 2008 tells the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to “execute a paradigm shift by refocusing its functions from regulation to full blast market development efforts, the exploration of frontier, fertile job markets for Filipino expatriate workers, in the heat of the global economic meltdown when hundreds of Overseas Filipino workers were being laid off elsewhere.

2. This order and the government’s one-million OFW’s per year target for the whole of her term are quite contrary to the intent and spirit of Republic Act N0. 9422, which strengthens the regulatory functions of the POEA.

3. In the administrative order, she went on record on her export policy on OFW’s that presidents since Ferdinand Marcos called temporary.

4. Thus, by 2006, more than a million Filipino workers had been forced to migrate every year. Around half are women. As of December 2007, the government estimated the number of OFWs at 8.7 million, around 10 percent of the country’s population. In 2008, 1,236,013 more followed. Sixty percent of OFW’s leaving for land based jobs renew their work contracts several times, working for as long as 25 years, instead of coming home for good.

5. RA 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, commits in Sec. 2 (b) thus: “The state shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized…Towards this end, the state shall provide adequate and timely social, economic and legal services to Filipino migrant workers.” Further in Sec. 27: “The protection of the Filipino migrant workers and the promotion of their welfare…shall be the highest priority concerns of the secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Philippine foreign service posts.

6. This is not surprising. OFWs are in 238 foreign countries and territories worldwide. But the Philippines has only 89 diplomatic posts, broken down as follows: 63 embassies, 24 consulates and 2 permanent missions, excluding the three offices of the Manila Economic and Cultural Office in Taiwan, around the world.

7. In 20 posts with OFWs numbering up to 540,000 and up to 13, 048 cases to attend to, according to the 2005-2006 COA report, only two to six POLO/Overseas Workers Welfare Administration personnel were assigned. OFWs and POLO/OWWA personnel had a ratio, ranging from 1:5,712 to 1:100,000. The ratio of POLO/OWWA personnel to cases was anywhere from 1:84 to 1:6,524.

8. Disparity in personnel at the posts may have contributed to the delayed resolution of OFW cases.

9. The embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia also covers the OFWs in Yemen. Two posts are in charge of almost half a million OFWs in UAE.

10. The post in Lebanon where there were around 25,000, mostly domestic workers, was also in charge of OFWs in Syria, until the Philippine government opened a post in Syria in 2008.

11. The Abuja post in Nigeria covers 19 countries in Africa, the one in Nairobi in Kenya, 16 countries; Tripoli in Libya, 10; and that in Pretoria, South Africa, nine. Even the embassy in Washington D.C. covers 18 countries and territories in the Americas. The embassy in Mexico, eight.

12. There is this post that retreated from Baghdad during the Iraq War, to Amman, Jordan, leaving behind OFWs who were not supposed to be there in the first place because of the deployment ban.

13. Or the post is overstretched to attend to so many OFWs of so many other countries and/or territories. Or the post is situated far from where the OFWs are, as in the case of embassy in Kuala Lumpur that is miles away from some 100,000 Filipinos in Sabah. So how could you expect a maid in the country side to see a Philippine labor attaché in a faraway city?

14. First, OFW organizations and migrant NGOs have been calling on the government to seriously attend to a national development plan that would generate sufficient jobs with decent wages and benefits for its fast growing workers.

15. Second, a culture of public service should be deeply inculcated in the minds and hearts of all DFA personnel so that embassies and consulates abroad are genuine “centers of care” for Filipinos, where they can trustfully seek assistance from public servants instead of feel like second-class citizens begging for crumbs.

16. Finally, embassies and consulate officials and personnel should be adequately oriented on the particularities and peculiarities of migrant issues, including the laws of the host countries.


PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Page A19

PRICE TO PAY: ABANDONED WIVES, ORPHANED CHILDREN
By Roy V. Seneres



1. Of the eight million OFWs, there are one million professionals such as doctors, engineers, architects, nurses, seafarers and others; skilled like master mechanics, electricians, carpenters—two million; semi-skilled like hotel workers, restaurant waiters and others—three million; domestic helpers, caregivers and others—two million.

2. The two million domestic helpers are females. They are the ones who, by the very environment of their jobs, are highly vulnerable to all sorts of abuses, from non-payment or under payment of salaries, to physical and verbal abuse, acts of lasciviousness, and worse, rapes. The abusers, criminals as they are, do not discriminate whether the victims of their bestial instincts are virgin or not; married or unmarried; teeners or in their 40’s; Christians or Muslims or neither.

3. After solving the problems of some of them, others would take their place. At present, the population of Filipino domestic helpers in UAE has sextupled to 100,000 out of total population of 300,000. The total number of domestic helpers world wide in 1989 was only half a million as compared to today’s total of two million.

4. This government, wittingly or unwittingly, has been playing the role of providers of the insatiable sexual appetites of rapists and perverts all over the world.

5. The law is clear. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act, says: “The protection of the Filipino migrant workers and the promotion of their welfare, in particular, and the protection of dignity and fundamental rights and freedoms of the Filipino citizens abroad, in general, shall be the highest priority concerns of the secretary of foreign affairs and the Philippine foreign service posts.” The other two concerns of the department of Foreign Affairs are: economic diplomacy and furtherance of national security.

6. Notwithstanding the clear mandate of our DFA, we have foreign secretary in person of Alberto Romulo who is apparently clueless about his role as the vicar of Philippine foreign policy. It is of public knowledge that it is Vice President Noli de Castro who is playing out Romulo’s role insofar as the OFW’s are concerned.

7. We fervently wish this government shed itself off its affliction and issue forthwith several directives in line with Section 27 of Republic Act 8042: One, to issue an executive order requiring ambassadors to exercise the extra ordinary diligence to a good father of a family in over seeing the welfare and protection of OFWs in their host countries. Their job performance should be measured on how true and dedicated they and their subordinates are in discharging their roles as surrogate fathers and substitute families of the OFWs; two, the government must like wise put more teeth to the citizen’s arrest law by requiring the police to swiftly come to the assistance of victims of illegal recruitment who decide to arrest on the spot their illegal recruiters; three, the government should authorize ambassadors and consuls to withhold approval or cancel the passports of irresponsible OFW husbands and fathers until they resume their support to their dependents.

8. Four, using its profound power and influence upon every sector in society, the government should prod big businesses, especially those who have tremendously benefited from OFW remittances like Henry Sy’s SM, Lucio Tan’s airlines, the Ayalas and the Villars, Gotianum’s real estate conglomerates, many Pangilinan’s and the Indonesians’ PLDT, Globe’s and the Lhuilliers’ remittance companies and other banks owned by Tan’s, Sys, Yuchengcos, to contribute to a private fund that will underwrite the education of children who have been orphaned y the death of their fathers or mothers overseas.

9. Five, the government must acknowledge in more concrete terms the major OFW contributions to the economy by placing them under the coverage of the Social Security system to enable them to avail a loan, and most especially, its retirement benefits. The government must play the role of being their surrogate employer by paying the counterpart amount that employers in the Philippines are normally required to pay; six, government must regulate the rates of remittance fees; seven, government must augment the present budget of embassies, consulates and overseas labor offices. What they have there now, to use a metaphor, are tricycles, when what they need are buses to ferry out of danger thousands of distressed OFWs; eight, local governments must establish special desks fro the spouses and children of absent OFWs who have lost a pillar, permanently or temporarily, due to overseas employment.

read also:

Arroyo administration has no welfare program for OFWs
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:18:00 02/09/2010


MIGRANTE-MIDDLE EAST joins other sectors criticizing the Arroyo administration’s engaging in massive advertising of its “accomplishments.”

The intensified campaign is just a pure waste of public funds. It reveals her administration’s growing desperation to boost her image in the face of her plunging popularity. There is no need for this campaign; the Arroyo administration has accomplished nothing worthwhile to alleviate the socio-economic plight of the majority of the Filipino people.

Most Filipinos would know better their situation—that during Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s nine years in the presidency, they have been living in misery and deep poverty.

The more than 10 million overseas Filipino workers abroad and their families have been witness to Ms Arroyo’s continued neglect of runaway and distressed OFWs.

Many of our fellow OFWs are from families of workers and farmers in the provinces who have been forced to accept “demeaning, dirty, and dangerous” jobs abroad amid the scarcity of available jobs in the homeland, only to end up victims of employer abuse, maltreatment and labor malpractices.

For instance there are numerous requests to the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration and Department of Foreign Affairs for airfare tickets from the stranded OFWs, but under Ms Arroyo’s regime, OFW needs and concerns have not been properly attended to.

The Arroyo administration is only paying lip service to OFWs and their families for whom the government has no welfare programs that provide meaningful benefits. This despite the huge amount of OFWs funds—estimated to have reached P14 billion—held in trust by the government through the OWWA, the OFWs and their families.

The huge amount of money spent by the Arroyo administration for its “legacy ads” could have been better spent for more valuable social services and welfare programs to alleviate the condition of the majority of the poor Filipinos—workers, farmers, urban poor and OFWs.

—JOHN LEONARD MONTERONA,
regional coordinator,
Migrante-Middle East,
migranteme@gmail.com

See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20100209-252275/Arroyo-administration--has-no-welfare-program-for-OFWs

HB No. 6822: proposed expanded powers of CHR

Apropos to my previous entry on the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), I am quoting hereinbelow the salient parts of the proposed “Commission on Human Rights Act of 2009” docketed as House Bill No. 6822 (Committee Report No. 2387) of the House of Representatives of the Philippine Congress.

I wish to focus only on the expanded powers of the CHR which may be relevant to Filipino trial lawyers and jurists and for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog.

The Senate has yet to act on the bill to complete the entire legislative process on the matter.

As I stated in a previous entry, I doubt if the Senate would be able to finish its job, considering the intense political jealousies and hatred that now permeate its haunted and disgraceful halls in the midst of the fast approaching May 2010 national elections.

The new and expanded powers granted by the proposed act to the CH are impressive. They seem to be patterned after the nature of the powers of the Ombudsman under existing laws and the spirit of the provisions of the Supreme Court resolutions on the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data. For instance:

1. The Commission may deputize government prosecutors or private lawyers, who shall be under the direct control and supervision of the Commission, for the prosecution of human rights cases under Section 26 hereof;

2. Any investigation being conducted by any other body shall not be a bar to the investigation of the Commission;

3. It may compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence, to place the witnesses under oath or affirmation, issue subpoenas and take testimony in any investigation or inquiry;

4. It may cite and punish for direct or indirect contempt any person for violations of the Commission’s lawful orders. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily to the Rules of the Commission.

5. The Commission may issue:

(a) Injunction orders directing any member of the government’s military or police forces, as well as public officials or employees, or any person acting under their control and supervision, to desist from hiding, transferring or torturing a detainee and to allow access to said detainee by the Commission, his/her counsel, physician and
relatives;

(b) Orders directing the government official or employee, or any person in control of the premises of any government agency or office, specifically police and military detention facilities, secret detention places, stations, installations, camps, bases and training
schools, as well as private land and property, to permit the inspection of said premises;

(c) Orders to transfer persons deprived of their liberty and in danger of reprisal due to the filing of a complaint in connection with his/her detention, in order to secure safety of his/her person;

(d) Restraining orders restricting respondent, his/her unit or command from entering the immediate vicinity of the affected area or residence and from searching the victim or his/her belongings; and

(e) General writs of injunction ordering the respondent to refrain from committing any and all acts that would tend to cause irreparable harm and have the immediate effect of rendering the investigation of the Commission moot and academic.

6. The Commission may also issue:

(a) Mandatory protection orders directing government security forces, other appropriate government agencies or private institutions to provide specific protection to victims of human rights violations;

(b) Orders to deputize government offices and private institutions for the purpose of providing protection; and

(c) Orders to deputize government and private lawyers as counsels de officio to ensure that the human rights of the victim are not further violated.

7. The Commission may grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose possession and production of documents or other evidence may be necessary to determine the truth in any hearing, inquiry or proceeding under such terms and conditions as it may determine, taking into account pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and its own rules. The immunity granted shall be revoked on account of evidence presented to be true but which is, in fact, false and spurious, and without which the Commission would not have granted immunity.

8. With the exception of Members of Congress, those of the Judiciary and impeachable officials, the Commission may preventively suspend any officer or employee, after summary hearing/s, pending an investigation, if in its judgment: (a) the evidence of guilt is strong; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; and (c) the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him/her.

9. The Commission shall exercise concurrent prosecutorial powers.

In the event of the failure of the prosecution agency of the government to initiate a preliminary investigation within ninety (90) working days from its receipt of the case recommended for prosecution by the Commission, the latter shall conduct the preliminary investigation and, upon a finding of probable cause, refer the same to the appropriate prosecution agency for the filing of the information and prosecution of the case.

In case of failure of the prosecution agency to file the information within thirty (30) calendar days upon receipt of the resolution of the Commission finding probable cause, the latter shall exercise concurrent prosecutorial powers by filing the information in court on its own and prosecuting the case. For this purpose, the Commission shall have the power to deputize government prosecutors or private lawyers who shall be under its
direct control and supervision.

(Comment: I feat that this provision will be rendered practically useless if the in-house preliminary investigations of the Department of Justice are delayed for good or corrupt reasons or are subjected to dilatory internal and external appeals. The Commission should be given exclusive original jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations of human rights violations that are criminal in nature. – Atty. M. J. Laserna Jr.).

10. The Commission shall implement and manage a witness protection program, including the provision of security, shelter, relocation and livelihood assistance to witnesses and their families. It shall strengthen its financial assistance program to victims of human rights violations and their families.


11. The Commission may recommend the creation of ad hoc Truth Commissions on matters of transcendental importance, such as widespread and systematic human rights violations occurring over prolonged periods of time, or under extraordinarily repressive conditions, or attended by a culture of impunity that is instigated, inspired or orchestrated by public officials, in conspiracy with government security forces or State-sponsored armed groups.


Please note that orders, decisions or findings of the Commission, including determination of probable cause, shall be appealed to the Court of Appeals on both questions of fact and law (Rule 43), or on certiorari to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law (Rule 45).

No writ of injunction against the Commission in the performance of its functions shall be issued other than those emanating from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court only.

Also, the investigation of human rights violations shall not be subject to any statute of limitations or prescriptive period.


Quoted verbatim below are the most important sections of HB No. 6822, thus:


1. SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of this Act, “human rights”
shall include those found in Article III of the Constitution and those affirmed
and recognized by the State in the following international covenants: the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (1976); and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (1976), and all other international instruments on
human rights to which the Philippines is a signatory.

2. SEC. 13. The Commission as an Independent Office. – The
Commission is an independent constitutional office. It shall not be subject to
instructions or orders from the President of the Philippines, Congress or the
Judiciary, except in cases provided in the Constitution with regard to the
appointment of its Chairperson and Members, legislation affecting the exercise
of its powers and functions, and judicial review of the legality of its acts,
orders, resolutions or decisions.

3. SEC. 15. Fiscal Autonomy. – The Commission shall enjoy full fiscal
autonomy. The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be
automatically and regularly released.

4. SEC. 16. General Powers and Functions of the Commission. – The
Commission shall have the following general powers and functions:

(a) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of
human rights violations;

(b) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure and cite for
direct and indirect contempt those in violation thereof or of its
lawful orders in accordance with the Rules of Court;

(c) Provide appropriate legal and preventive measures for the
protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as
well as Filipinos residing abroad;

(d) Provide legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human
rights have been violated or need protection;

(e) Exercise unhampered and unrestrained visitorial powers over jails,
prisons or detention facilities;

(f) Establish a continuing program of research, education and
information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;

(g) Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human
rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of
human rights or their families;

(h) Monitor the Philippine government’s compliance with international
treaty obligations on human rights;

(i) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or
possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or
convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by
it or under its authority;

(j) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office or agency
in the performance of its functions;

(k) Deputize government prosecutors or private lawyers, who shall be
under the direct control and supervision of the Commission, for the
prosecution of human rights cases under Section 26 hereof;

(l) Accredit national nongovernment and peoples’ organizations
involved in human rights promotion, protection and advocacy,
including for purposes of visiting persons arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation;

(m) Ensure that the status, rights and interests of children are upheld in
accordance with the Constitution, laws and international
instruments on human rights;

(n) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and

(o) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.

5. SEC. 17. Investigative Powers and Functions. – The Commission shall
exercise primary and original jurisdiction to investigate, on complaint or motu
proprio, cases of human rights violations to include civil, political, economic,
social and cultural rights. In the exercise of its investigative function, the
Commission shall have the following powers:

(a) Act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner by any
person, whether directly affected or not, and on a finding of human rights
violation, recommend the filing of appropriate administrative, civil and/or
criminal action. Any investigation being conducted by any other body shall
not be a bar to the investigation of the Commission;

(b) Compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence,
to place the witnesses under oath or affirmation, issue subpoenas and take
testimony in any investigation or inquiry;

(c) Issue orders and directives constituting preventive and legal
measures as provided for under Sections 19 and 20, respectively;

(d) Provide protection and financial assistance to witnesses to ensure
their attendance in investigations and production of evidence;

(e) Delegate to its deputies, investigators or representatives such
authority or duty as shall ensure the effective exercise or performance of its
investigative function;

(f) Require the assistance of any officer or employee of any
department, bureau or office, subdivision, agency or instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned or -controlled corporations and
local governments;

(g) Deputize lawyers or legal aid groups, medical organizations, as well
as government agencies and offices, to provide assistance in the exercise of its
investigative functions;

(h) Make the results and findings of its investigations available and
accessible to the public; and

(i) Cite and punish for direct or indirect contempt any person for
violations of the Commission’s lawful orders. The Rules of Court shall apply
suppletorily to the Rules of the Commission.

6. SEC. 18. Imprescriptibility of Human Rights Violations. – The
investigation of human rights violations shall not be subject to any statute of
limitations or prescriptive period.

7. SEC. 19. Scope of Preventive Measures. – The preventive measures
under Article XIII, Section 18(3) of the Constitution that may be issued by the
Commission in the investigation of cases involving all forms of human rights
violations shall include the following:

(a) Injunction orders directing any member of the government’s
military or police forces, as well as public officials or employees, or
any person acting under their control and supervision, to desist
from hiding, transferring or torturing a detainee and to allow access
to said detainee by the Commission, his/her counsel, physician and
relatives;

(b) Orders directing the government official or employee, or any
person in control of the premises of any government agency or
office, specifically police and military detention facilities, secret
detention places, stations, installations, camps, bases and training
schools, as well as private land and property, to permit the
inspection of said premises;

(c) Orders to transfer persons deprived of their liberty and in danger of
reprisal due to the filing of a complaint in connection with his/her
detention, in order to secure safety of his/her person;

(d) Restraining orders restricting respondent, his/her unit or command
from entering the immediate vicinity of the affected area or
residence and from searching the victim or his/her belongings; and

(e) General writs of injunction ordering the respondent to refrain from
committing any and all acts that would tend to cause irreparable
harm and have the immediate effect of rendering the investigation
of the Commission moot and academic.

8. SEC. 20. Scope of Legal Measures. – The legal measures under Article
XIII, Section 18(3) of the Constitution that may be provided by the
Commission shall include the following:

(a) Mandatory protection orders directing government security forces,
other appropriate government agencies or private institutions to
provide specific protection to victims of human rights violations;

(b) Orders to deputize government offices and private institutions for
the purpose of providing protection; and

(c) Orders to deputize government and private lawyers as counsels de
officio to ensure that the human rights of the victim are not further violated.

9. SEC. 21. Grant of Immunity. – The Commission may grant immunity
from prosecution to any person whose possession and production of documents
or other evidence may be necessary to determine the truth in any hearing,
inquiry or proceeding under such terms and conditions as it may determine,
taking into account pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and its own
rules. The immunity granted shall be revoked on account of evidence presented
to be true but which is, in fact, false and spurious, and without which the
Commission would not have granted immunity.

10. SEC. 22. Preventive Suspension. – With the exception of Members of
Congress, those of the Judiciary and impeachable officials, the Commission
may preventively suspend any officer or employee, after summary hearing/s,
pending an investigation, if in its judgment: (a) the evidence of guilt is strong;
(b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; and (c) the
respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against
him/her.

In the case of suspended elective official/s, upon expiration of his/her
preventive suspension, he/she shall be deemed reinstated in office without
prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him/her which shall be
terminated within one hundred twenty (120) days from the time he/she was
formally notified of the case against him/her.

The preventive suspension shall be immediately executory, unless
restrained by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, and shall continue
until the case is terminated by the Commission: Provided, That said suspension
shall not be more than three (3) months without pay, except when the delay in
the disposition of the case by the Commission is due to the fault, negligence or
petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be
counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided.

Any abuse of the exercise of the power of preventive suspension shall
be penalized as abuse of authority.

The respondent official preventively suspended from office shall receive
no salary or compensation during such suspension; but upon subsequent
exoneration and reinstatement, he/she shall be paid full salary or compensation
including such emoluments accruing during such suspension.

The respondent shall be accorded full opportunity to appear and defend
himself/herself in person or by counsel, to confront and cross-examine the
witnesses against him/her, and to require the attendance of witnesses and the
production of documentary evidence in his/her favor through the compulsory
process of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum.

11. SEC. 23. Referral to Disciplining Authority. – The Commission may
direct the disciplining authority to take appropriate action against a public
officer or employee found guilty of committing violations of human rights and
recommend his/her removal, suspension, demotion, censure, imposition of fine
or prosecution and to ensure compliance by requiring the officer concerned to
report on his/her action within thirty (30) days from receipt of the
recommendation of the Commission. Failure to act or comply with said
recommendation shall be actionable by mandamus.

For this purpose, every case on which the Commission has rendered a
resolution or recommendation adverse to a public official shall be transmitted
to the head of the department, agency or instrumentality, or of the province,
city or municipality concerned for immediate action, as may be necessary.

12. SEC. 26. Concurrent Prosecutorial Powers and Functions. – The
Commission shall exercise concurrent prosecutorial powers and, functions as
herein provided.

In the event of the failure of the prosecution agency of the government
to initiate a preliminary investigation within ninety (90) working days from its
receipt of the case recommended for prosecution by the Commission, the latter
shall conduct the preliminary investigation and, upon a finding of probable
cause, refer the same to the appropriate prosecution agency for the filing of the
information and prosecution of the case.

In case of failure of the prosecution agency to file the information
within thirty (30) calendar days upon receipt of the resolution of the
Commission finding probable cause, the latter shall exercise concurrent
prosecutorial powers by filing the information in court on its own and
prosecuting the case. For this purpose, the Commission shall have the power to
deputize government prosecutors or private lawyers who shall be under its
direct control and supervision.

This section shall apply in cases where the offender is a public officer as
defined under Article 203 of Republic Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and acting in his/her capacity as such, or any
person acting on behalf or under the immediate control of the State and its
agents and where the human rights violation constitutes a criminal offense
under the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as follows:

(a) Use of physical, psychological and degrading punishment, torture,
force, violence, threats and intimidation;

(b) Extrajudicial killings, summary executions and “massacres” or
mass killings;

(c) Violations of right to be secure from unreasonable searches and
seizures, including involuntary or enforced disappearances;

(d) Violations of the rights of persons arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation, including deprivation of the rights of
political detainees;

(e) Violations of the right to a speedy, impartial and public trial or
disposition of cases;

(f) Hamletting, forced evacuation or eviction, illegal demolition,
development aggression and other violations of the right to travel
and to freely choose one’s abode and change the same;

(g) Violations of the right to peaceably assemble, free association and
to petition the government for redress of grievances;

(h) Violations of the right to worship and the free exercise of a religion;

(i) Violations of the right to privacy;

(j) Violations of civil and political rights of persons suspected of,
accused of, or detained for the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism;

(k) Political, religious, racial, ethnic, social or sexual persecution,
oppression or harassment committed with acts constituting offenses
punished under the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special
laws; and

(l) In general, any crime penalized under the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, or special laws when committed within the context of or
resulting to human rights violations.

13. SEC. 27. When Committed by Non-State Actors. – The preceding
section shall also apply when the violation is committed by non-state actors.
Non-state actors are persons, other than public officers, belonging to and
acting on behalf or under the immediate control of a juridical or non-juridical
person, whether legitimate or illegitimate including, but not limited to, the
following:

(a) Armed groups, warlords and private armies;
(b) Criminal organizations and groups; and
(c) Multinational, foreign and domestic corporations, and other
business entities.

14. SEC. 28. When Committed Against Vulnerable Persons. – The
concurrent prosecutorial powers of the Commission shall likewise apply in the
investigation and prosecution of the following offenses as penalized under the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws when committed by any
person against any member or group of vulnerable persons, as defined herein:

(a) Involuntary servitude constituting Crimes Against Personal Liberty
and Security;

(b) Crimes penalized under Republic Act No. 7610, or the “Special
Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”;

(c ) Crimes penalized under Republic Act No. 9262, or the
“Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004”; and

(d) Crimes penalized under Republic Act No. 8371, or “The
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997”.

Vulnerable persons shall include those identified as such in international
human rights treaties, specifically children, women, elderly, persons with
disabilities, migrant workers, indigenous peoples and ethnic and religious
minorities.

15. SEC. 36. Witness Protection Program. – In the conduct of its
investigations, the Commission shall implement and manage a witness
protection program, including the provision of security, shelter, relocation and
livelihood assistance to witnesses and their families.

16. SEC. 37. Financial Assistance Program. – The Commission shall
strengthen its financial assistance program to victims of human rights
violations and their families.

The funds necessary for the initial implementation of the Witness
Protection and Financial Assistance Program shall be taken from the current
year’s appropriation of the Commission. Thereafter, the funding requirement
shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

The Commission shall adopt operational guidelines on the
implementation and management of these programs which shall be included in
its implementing rules and regulations.

17. SEC. 38. Legal Assistance Program. – The Commission shall
implement a legal assistance program to benefit victims of human rights
violations consisting of the provision of legal services in coordination with
human rights organizations and lawyers’ groups, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and Philippine law schools with legal aid programs.

Upon its discretion, the Commission may also provide allowances and
incentives to private lawyers or lawyers’ groups who would render their
professional services on behalf of the Commission in any court proceeding
involving the litigation of human rights cases, subject to auditing rules and
regulations.

18. SEC. 39. Protection of Filipinos Abroad. – The Commission shall
undertake measures for the protection and promotion of human rights of
Filipinos living abroad. It may assign organic personnel to act as Human
Rights Attachés in Philippine embassies or consulates or deputize Philippine
Embassy or Consulate officers, resident private individuals of known probity
and active involvement in human rights work, or foreign-based human rights
and migrant workers’ nongovernment organizations in countries where the
incidence of human rights violations of Filipinos is widespread and
commonplace, including traditional host countries of overseas Filipino
workers.

The assigned personnel acting as Human Rights Attachés or deputized
individuals of the Commission shall monitor the status of human rights of
Filipinos living abroad and establish networks among Filipinos for purposes of
monitoring and reporting cases of human rights violations, as well as for
providing counseling and financial assistance to victims. They shall
immediately notify the concerned Embassy officials of incidents of human
right violations of Filipinos and provide immediate assistance to victims.

19. SEC. 40. Creation of Ad Hoc Truth Commissions. – The Commission
may recommend the creation of ad hoc Truth Commissions on matters of
transcendental importance, such as widespread and systematic human rights
violations occurring over prolonged periods of time, or under extraordinarily repressive
conditions, or attended by a culture of impunity that is instigated,
inspired or orchestrated by public officials, in conspiracy with government
security forces or State-sponsored armed groups.

20. SEC. 41. Issuance of Certifications. – The Commission shall issue
certifications to members of the military, police and other law enforcement
agencies prior to their promotion or assumption to office. The Commission
shall clearly indicate in its certification if the applicant has a pending case with
them and shall state the nature and status of the case/s filed.

The Commission shall also make its own recommendations to the
Commission on Appointments prior to the confirmation of other officials other
than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph, who are being considered for
promotion or appointment.

This provision shall also apply to other government officers with Salary
Grade Twenty-seven (27) or its equivalent and higher.

It may also issue certifications for purposes of trainings, local or foreign
study grants and education purposes, upon proper request made by the
applicant.

21. SEC. 42. Appeals; Prohibition Against Injunction. – Orders, decisions
or findings of the Commission, including determination of probable cause,
shall be appealed to the Court of Appeals on both questions of fact and law, or
on certiorari to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law. No writ of
injunction against the Commission in the performance of its functions shall be
issued other than those emanating from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme
Court.

22. SEC. 43. Protection from Harassment Suits; Dismissal. – The
Chairperson, Members, officers and employees of the Commission shall be
free from any administrative, civil or criminal liability in the regular
performance of their functions. Personal legal actions brought against them
shall be dismissed where it appears that the same was filed for acts committed
in the regular performance of said functions.

R.A. No. 9851: international humanitarian law.

For legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog, the salient provisions of the newly approved REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9851, known as the "Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity", are digested hereinbelow.

Section 2 (policy statement) of the act declares that:

(a) The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to a policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.

(b) The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights, including the rights of indigenous cultural communities and other vulnerable groups, such as women and children;

(c) It shall be the responsibility of the State and all other sectors concerned to resolved armed conflict in order to promote the goal of "Children as Zones of Peace";

(d) The state adopts the generally accepted principles of international law, including the Hague Conventions of 1907, the Geneva Conventions on the protection of victims of war and international humanitarian law, as part of the law our nation;

(e) The most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level, in order to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes, it being the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes;

(f) The State shall guarantee persons suspected or accused of having committed grave crimes under international law all rights necessary to ensure that their trial will be fair and prompt in strict accordance with national and international law and standards for fair trial, It shall also protect victims, witnesses and their families, and provide appropriate redress to victims and their families, It shall ensure that the legal systems in place provide accessible and gender-sensitive avenues of redress for victims of armed conflict, and

(g)The State recognizes that the application of the provisions of this Act shall not affect the legal status of the parties to a conflict, nor give an implied recognition of the status of belligerency

Under Section 4, "war crimes" or "crimes against International Human Humanitarian Law" means:

In case of an international armed conflict , grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(1) Willful killing;
(2) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(3) Willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(4) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(5) Willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(6) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population or unlawful confinement;
(7) Taking of hostages;
(8) Compelling a prisoner a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power; and
(9) Unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or other protected persons.

In case of a non-international armed conflict, serious violations of common Article 3 to the four (4) Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely , any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including member of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause;

(1) Violence to life and person, in particular, willful killings, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(2) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(3) Taking of hostages; and
(4) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely:

(1) Internationally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(2) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(3) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions or Additional Protocol III in conformity with intentional law;

(4) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(5) Launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

(6) Launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, and causing death or serious injury to body or health .

(7) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives, or making non-defended localities or demilitarized zones the object of attack;

(8) Killing or wounding a person in the knowledge that he/she is hors de combat, including a combatant who, having laid down his/her arms or no longer having means of defense, has surrendered at discretion;

(9) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions or other protective signs under International Humanitarian Law, resulting in death, serious personal injury or capture;

(10) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives. In case of doubt whether such building or place has been used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used;

(11) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind, or to removal of tissue or organs for transplantation, which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his/her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(12) Killing, wounding or capturing an adversary by resort to perfidy;
(13) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(14) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure is imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(15) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(16) Ordering the displacements of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

(17) Transferring, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

(18) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatments;

(19) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions or a serious violation of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions;

(20) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

(21) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols;

(22) In an international armed conflict, compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;

(23) In an international armed conflict, declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

(24) Committing any of the following acts:

(i) Conscripting, enlisting or recruiting children under the age of fifteen (15) years into the national armed forces;
(ii) Conscripting, enlisting or recruiting children under the age of eighteen (18) years into an armed force or group other than the national armed forces; and
(iii) Using children under the age of eighteen (18) years to participate actively in hostilities; and

(25) Employing means of warfare which are prohibited under international law, such as:

(i) Poison or poisoned weapons;
(ii) Asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;
(iii) Bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with hard envelopes which do not entirely cover the core or are pierced with incisions; and
(iv) Weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of the nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict.

Under Section 5 , "genocide" means any of the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, religious, social or any other similar stable and permanent group as such:

(1) Killing members of the group;
(2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and
(5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It shall be unlawful for any person to directly and publicly incite others to commit genocide.

Under Section 6, "other crimes against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Willful killing;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, sexual orientation or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime defined in this Act;

(i) Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons;
(j) Apartheid; and
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Under Section 7, any person found guilty of committing any of the acts provided under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium to maximum period and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (Php 100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (Php 500,000.00).

When justified by the extreme gravity of the crime, especially where the commission of any of the crimes specified herein results in death or serious physical injury, or constitutes rape, and considering the individual circumstances of the accused, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (Php 500,000.00) to One million pesos (Php 1,000,000.00) shall be imposed.

Any person found guilty of inciting others to commit genocide referred to in Section 5(b) of this Act shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (Php 10,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos (Php 20,000.00).

In addition, the court shall order the forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived, directly or indirectly, from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third (3rd) parties. The court shall also impose the corresponding accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code, especially where the offender is a public officer.

Section 8 provides that in addition to existing provisions in Philippine law on principles of criminal responsibility, a person shall be criminally liable as principal for a crime defined and penalized in the act if he/she:

(1) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(2) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(3) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of person acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:

(i) be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime defined in this Act; or
(ii) be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime.

A person shall be criminally liable as accomplice for facilitating the commission of a crime defined and penalized in the act if he/she aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission.

A person shall be criminally liable for a crime defined and penalized in the act if he/she attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person's intention. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Act for the attempt to commit the same if he/she completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.

Section 9 states that the act shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a head of state or government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under the act, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence. However:

(a) Immunities or special procedural rules that may be attached to the official capacity of a person under Philippine law other than the established constitutional immunity from suit of the Philippine President during his/her tenure, shall not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction over such a person; and

(b) Immunities that may be attached to the official capacity of a person under international law may limit the application of the act, but only within the bounds established under international law.

Section 10 provides that in addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility for crimes defined and penalized under the act, a superior shall be criminally responsible as a principal for such crimes committed by subordinates under his/her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his/her failure to properly exercise control over such subordinates, where:

(a) That superior either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes;
(b) That superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his/her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

Section 11 provides that the crimes defined and penalized under the act, their prosecution, and the execution of sentences imposed on their account, shall not be subject to any prescription.

Section 12 provides that the fact that a crime defined and penalized under the act has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a government or a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless all of the following elements occur:

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the government or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.

For the purposes of this section, orders to commit genocide or other crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.

Section 13 provides that in addition to existing provisions in Philippine law for the protection of victims and witnesses, the following measures shall be undertaken:

(a) The Philippine court shall take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and physiological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. In so doing, the court shall have regard of all relevant factors, including age, gender and health, and the nature of the crime, in particular, but not limited to, where the crime involves sexual or gender violence or violence against children. The prosecutor shall take such measures particularly during the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. These measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and to a fair and impartial trial;

(b) As an exception to the general principle of public hearings, the court may, to protect the victims and witnesses or an accused, conduct any part of the proceedings in camera or allow the presentation of evidence by electronic or other special means. In particular, such measures shall be implemented in the case of the victim of sexual violence or a child who is a victim or is a witness, unless otherwise ordered by the court, having regard to all the circumstances, particularly the views of the victim or witness;

(c) Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the court shall permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the court in manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and concerns may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the court considers it appropriate in accordance with the established rules of procedure and evidence; and

(d) Where the disclosure of evidence or information pursuant to the act may lead to the grave endangerment of the security of a witness for his/her family, the prosecution may, for the purposes of any proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of the trial, withhold such evidence or information and instead submit a summary thereof. Such measures shall be exercised in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and to a fair and impartial trial.

Section 14 provides that in addition to existing provisions in Philippine law and procedural rules for reparations to victims, the following measures shall be undertaken:

(a) The court shall follow the principles relating to the reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision, the court may, wither upon request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims and state the principles on which it is acting;

(b) The court may make an order directly against a convicted person specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation; and

(c) Before making an order under this section, the court may invite and shall take account of representations from or on behalf of the convicted person, victims or other interested persons.

Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prejudicing the rights of victims under national or international law.

Section 15 provides that in the application and interpretation of the act, Philippine courts shall be guided by the following sources:

(a) The 1948 Genocide Convention;
(b) The 1949 Geneva Conventions I-IV, their 1977 Additional Protocols I and II and their 2005 Additional Protocol III;
(c) The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, its First Protocol and its 1999 Second Protocol;
(d) The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and its 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict;
(e) The rules and principles of customary international law;
(f) The judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals;
(g) Relevant and applicable international human rights instruments;
(h) Other relevant international treaties and conventions ratified or acceded to by the Republic of the Philippines; and
(i) Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists and authoritative commentaries on the foregoing sources as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law.

The provisions of the Revised Penal Code and other general or special laws shall have a suppletory application to the provisions of the act (Sec. 16).
Section 17 provides that the State shall exercise jurisdiction over persons, whether military or civilian, suspected or accused of a crime defined and penalized in the act, regardless of where the crime is committed, provided, any one of the following conditions is met:

(a) The accused is a Filipino citizen;
(b) The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the Philippines; or
(c) The accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.

In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under the act if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.

No criminal proceedings shall be initiated against foreign nationals suspected or accused of having committed the crimes defined and penalized in the act if they have been tried by a competent court outside the Philippines in respect of the same offense and acquitted, or having been convicted, already served their sentence.
Section 18 states that the Regional Trial Court of the Philippines shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the crimes punishable under the act. Their judgments may be appealed or elevated to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court as provided by law.

The Supreme Court shall designate special courts to try cases involving crimes punishable under the act. For these cases, the Commission on Human Rights, the Department of Justice, the Philippine National Police or other concerned law enforcement agencies shall designate prosecutors or investigators as the case may be.
The State shall ensure that judges, prosecutors and investigators, especially those designated for purposes of the act, receive effective training in human rights, International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law.

Commission on Human Rights

In relation to my previous entry about the pendency in the Philippine Congress of a bill intended to enlarge and strengthen the powers of the constitutionally created Commission on Human Rights (CHR) of the Philippines, and for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog, perhaps it is useful to digest hereinbelow the 2004 case entitled COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION (CHREA) vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004, which expressly held that the CHR is “not a constitutional commission”, although it was constitutionally created by virtue of the relevant provisions in the 1987 Constitution creating the CHR.

Below are the salient doctrinal pronouncements of the Philippine Supreme Court in the aforecited case, thus:

1. The Court of Appeals incorrectly relied on the pronouncement of the CSC-Central Office that the CHR is a constitutional commission, and as such enjoys fiscal autonomy.

Palpably, the Court of Appeals’ Decision was based on the mistaken premise that the CHR belongs to the species of constitutional commissions. But, Article IX of the Constitution states in no uncertain terms that only the CSC, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit shall be tagged as Constitutional Commissions with the appurtenant right to fiscal autonomy. Thus:

Sec. 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Sec. 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.



2. Along the same vein, the Administrative Code, in Chapter 5, Sections 24 and 26 of Book II on Distribution of Powers of Government, the constitutional commissions shall include only the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit, which are granted independence and fiscal autonomy. In contrast, Chapter 5, Section 29 thereof, is silent on the grant of similar powers to the other bodies including the CHR. Thus:
SEC. 24. Constitutional Commissions. – The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.

SEC. 26. Fiscal Autonomy. – The Constitutional Commissions shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. The approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.

SEC. 29. Other Bodies. – There shall be in accordance with the Constitution, an Office of the Ombudsman, a Commission on Human Rights, and independent central monetary authority, and a national police commission. Likewise, as provided in the Constitution, Congress may establish an independent economic and planning agency. (Emphasis ours.)



3. From the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code, it is abundantly clear that the CHR is not among the class of Constitutional Commissions. As expressed in the oft-repeated maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of one person, thing, act or consequence excludes all others. Stated otherwise, expressium facit cessare tacitum – what is expressed puts an end to what is implied.[21]

4. Nor is there any legal basis to support the contention that the CHR enjoys fiscal autonomy. In essence, fiscal autonomy entails freedom from outside control and limitations, other than those provided by law. It is the freedom to allocate and utilize funds granted by law, in accordance with law, and pursuant to the wisdom and dispatch its needs may require from time to time. In Blaquera v. Alcala and Bengzon v. Drilon, it is understood that it is only the Judiciary, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Commission on Elections, and the Office of the Ombudsman, which enjoy fiscal autonomy. Thus, in Bengzon, we explained:

As envisioned in the Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the Judiciary, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Commission on Elections, and the Office of the Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation and pay plans of the government and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their functions.

. . .

The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based. In the interest of comity and cooperation, the Supreme Court, [the] Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman have so far limited their objections to constant reminders. We now agree with the petitioners that this grant of autonomy should cease to be a meaningless provision. (Emphasis supplied.)




5. All told, the CHR, although admittedly a constitutional creation is, nonetheless, not included in the genus of offices accorded fiscal autonomy by constitutional or legislative fiat.

Even assuming en arguendo that the CHR enjoys fiscal autonomy, we share the stance of the DBM that the grant of fiscal autonomy notwithstanding, all government offices must, all the same, kowtow to the Salary Standardization Law. We are of the same mind with the DBM on its standpoint, thus-

Being a member of the fiscal autonomy group does not vest the agency with the authority to reclassify, upgrade, and create positions without approval of the DBM. While the members of the Group are authorized to formulate and implement the organizational structures of their respective offices and determine the compensation of their personnel, such authority is not absolute and must be exercised within the parameters of the Unified Position Classification and Compensation System established under RA 6758 more popularly known as the Compensation Standardization Law. (Emphasis supplied.)


________________________________________

See:

Cruz, Philippine Political Law 243 (1996 ed.), citing Ex Parte Lewitt, 303 U.S. 633.
EASCO v. LTFRB, G.R. No. 149717, 07 October 2003, 413 SCRA 75.
Philippine Law Dictionary 21 (2nd ed.), citing Caw v. Benedicto, 63 OG 3393; 8 C.A.R. (2s) 814.
G.R. No. 143784, 05 February 2003, 397 SCRA 27, 35.G.R. No. 119155, 30 January 1996, 252 SCRA599.
G.R. No. 131529, 30 April 1999, 306 SCRA 593, 609.
Rep. Act No. 7354 (1992).
Canet v. Decena, G.R. No. 155344, 20 January 2004, 420 SCRA 388.
Blaquera v. Alcala, G.R. Nos. 109406, 110642, 111494, 112056 and 119597, 11 September 1998, 295 SCRA 366.
Article XXXIII, Rep. Act No. 8522, Special Provisions Applicable to all Constitutional Offices Enjoying Fiscal Autonomy.
Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 243 (1996 Ed).
G.R. No. 113079, 20 April 2001, 357 SCRA 30, citing Nestle v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86738, 13 November 1991, 203 SCRA 504.

European paranoia: the burqa debate.

Fresh reports from Paris state that a French parliament report has called for a ban on the full Islamic veil, saying Muslim women who wear the burqa were posing an "unacceptable" challenge to French values.

The panel of 32 French lawmakers recommended a ban on the face-covering veil in all schools, hospitals, public transport and government offices. It was deemed as the broadest move yet to restrict Muslim dress in France.

The commission however stopped short of proposing broad legislation to outlaw the burqa in the streets, in shopping centers and other public venues after raising doubts about the constitutionality of such a move.

The parliamentarians seem to connect the wearing of the burqa "as a symbol of the exportation of a radical brand of fundamentalism and sectarianism to France".

They feel that the all-encompassing veil was "contrary to the values of the republic".

The effect of such position, once converted in French law, would be "that women who turn up at the post office or any government building wearing the full veil would be denied services such as a work visa, residency papers or French citizenship".

The opposition Socialists refuse to endorse the final report to protest the government's launching of “a debate on national identity”, which has exposed French fears about Islam.

Critics of the "burqa debate" have warned that it risks stigmatizing France's six million Muslims and describe the wearing of the garment as a marginal phenomenon affecting few women.

To the credit of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, he reassures France's estimated six million Muslims, saying that freedom to practice religion was enshrined in the constitution.

"Our country, which has known not only wars of religion but also fratricidal battles due to state anti-clericalism, cannot let French Muslim citizens be stigmatized," he said at Notre Dame de Lorette cemetery in northern France yesterday.

This is the same Sarkozy who had set the tone for the debate in June last year when he declared the burqa was "not welcome" in France and described it as a symbol of women's "subservience" that cannot be tolerated in a country that considers itself a human rights leader.

According to French statistics, despite a large Muslim presence, the sight of fully-veiled women is not common in France. Only 1,900 women wear the burqa, according to the interior ministry. Half of them live in the Paris region and 90 percent are under 40.

It is not known to many but France is home to Europe's biggest Muslim minority,

It will be recalled that three months ago Swiss voters had approved a ban on minarets.

French support for a law banning the full veil is strong: a poll last week showed 57 percent are in favor.

It will be recalled that in 2004, France passed a law banning headscarves and any other "conspicuous" religious symbols in state schools after a long-running debate on how far it was willing to go to accommodate Islam in its strictly secular society.

It was also reported that Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria were studying measures to ban the full veil.




See:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100127-249719/French-parliament-report-calls-for-burqa-ban