Return of coco levy fund tops farmers’ wish | Inquirer News

See - Return of coco levy fund tops farmers’ wish | Inquirer News

"x x x.

The Presidential Commission on Good Government earlier estimated the coco levy assets to be worth about P83 billion—P73 billion in cash (liquidated shares from the food giant San Miguel Corp. or SMC) and P10 billion in shares of stock in the United Coconut Planters Bank and oil mills operated by the Coconut Industry Investment Fund.

The recovered fund is expected to benefit more than 20 million coconut farmers and their families from some 21,000 coconut-producing villages across the country.

x x x.

Farmers from Quezon, a major coconut-producing province, are believed to be the biggest contributors to the coco levy fund exacted during the Marcos regime.

The fund and its assets were sequestered by the government after the fall of the Marcos dictatorship in the people power uprising of 1986.

The Supreme Court has ruled the levy as public fund and should be used by the government for the benefit of coconut farmers and to develop the coconut industry.

Last March, President Aquino issued Executive Order No. 179, which governs the disposition and privatization of recovered coco levy-funded and EO No. 180, which provides the guidelines for the use of the recovered P74.3 billion from SMC. But its implementation was halted after coconut farmers obtained a restraining order from the Supreme Court.

Last October, the House of Representatives passed the Coconut Farmers and Industry Development Act, or House Bill No. 6135, creating a permanent trust to manage the coco levy funds for the benefit of local coconut farmers and the coconut industry.

Coconut farmers again rejected HB No. 6135, saying it was a copycat of EOs No. 179 and 180.

levy

THE LIFE of this coconut worker may be alleviated if the coconut levy is returned to him. DELFIN MALLARI JR./ INQUIRER SOUTHERN LUZON.

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/750721/return-of-coco-levy-fund-tops-farmers-wish#ixzz3vdkr85vw

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Prelude to a Duterte Constitutional Dictatorship.

Duterte entices Mindanao voters by proposing Federalism.

Filipino thinkers are open to the idea of examining the Federalism idea, without necessarily saying that they support Duterte.

Duterte’s idea requires a revision of the 1987 Constitution.

Please note that Duterte pushes for Constitutional Dictatorship as his preferred political system.

Duterte brags that he will abolish Congress.

His flirtation with Constitutional Dictatorship should be rejected by Filipinos.

It is undemocratic and unrepublican.

Its aim is to perpetuate Duterte and his political clique in power.

Duterte is the reincarnation of The Dictator Marcos.

Marcos fooled the Filipinos in the 1970s by exploiting “peace and order” and a “New Society” as urgent social issues requiring a “strong leader.”

They served as the sweet pretexts of Marcos to:

• A Supreme Court-blessed Dictatorship;

• The establishment of an authoritarian and presidency-tilted Unitary Parliamentary Form of Government (1973 Constitution); and

• The adoption of the totalitarian 6th Amendment in the 1973 Constitution (which granted Marcos, as head of state/president, full legislative powers);

Once a Constituent Assembly (Congress) or a Constitutional Convention is called, nothing prevents it from overhauling the entire 1987 Constitution.

It is a very risky prelude to a Duterte Constitutional Dictatorship.

That was how his model and idol, The Dictator Marcos, destroyed Philippine Democracy in the 1970s.

Our dark history will repeat itself if we ignore the past.

We will destroy Philippine Democracy if we allow ourselves to be fooled by this rabble-rouser and publicity-hungry demagogue and impostor from Davao named Duterte.

The annulment business - Rappler.Com

See - Part 1: The annulment business

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines – During a regular review of annulment cases, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) noticed something unusual. Courts in certain areas were issuing a large number of annulment decrees: in Imus, Cavite, Paniqui, Tarlac and as far as Cotabato, Mindanao.

“There are too many cases for such rural places. Are there that many people getting annulments there?” remarked Noel Segovia, OSG senior prosecutor.

As the designated “defender of the marital bond,” the OSG is charged with representing the state’s interest in protecting marriage as the basic family institution in annulment cases. The OSG also acts as the data repository of all annulment cases in the country. (SEE:INFOGRAPHIC: How to get annulled)

It was not only the OSG that was troubled by the numbers. The Supreme Court looked into some of these cases and confirmed the complicity of judges and court personnel in issuing annulment decrees in bulk.

In a Paniqui, Tarlac court under Judge Liberty Castañeda, the Supreme Court conducted a judicial audit or investigation “prompted by reports that Branch 67 is fast becoming a haven for couples” who want to sever marital ties.

A first investigation was conducted in October 2008. The judicial audit team found that out of the 1,123 total cases in Castañeda’s court, 73% involved nullity of marriage, annulment and legal separation. (SEE:EXPLAINER: Untying the marriage knot 101 on the differences between nullity of marriage, annulment and legal separation)

That was just the beginning of a long list of anomalies. How can a single-sala court (one that hears both criminal and civil cases) churn out a large volume of annulment cases?

The answers lay in the initial judicial audit’s findings of “blatant irregularities” in the decisions for nullity of marriage:

• Most of the parties in the annulment petitions were not actual residents of the areas under the territorial jurisdiction of Branch 67: Paniqui, Anao, Moncada and San Miguel, all in Tarlac.
• A number of the addresses of petitioners in the court documents were incomplete or vague, some were handwritten, typewritten or superimposed on blanks. Some were left completely blank.
• Most of the psychologists' reports were “pro forma” or followed a template and were mere photocopies. In some cases, the psychologists did not even testify in court.

(The full report may be accessed here.)

Moreover, some of the parties involved in the cases also raised the issue of improper venue.

One particular case cited in the Court documents named a certain Lea Borrero-Benaid who wrote a letter to the Chief Justice about a petition for nullity of marriage filed by her husband.

Borrero-Benaid declared that neither she nor her husband are residents of Tarlac, that she never received a court summons informing her of the proceedings, and that she had never met the psychologist whose report declaring her psychologically incapacitated was submitted as evidence. She further claimed that she had not undergone any psychological test of any kind.

Overzealousness

The Court noted that at the time of the audit
, Castañeda granted 175 cases involving nullity or annulment of marriage and legal separation with “extraordinary speed and overzealousness” and “reprehensible haste.” In one instance, 11 cases were decided between a period of 16 days to 4 months from the date of their filing.

As a result of these findings, Castañeda was placed on preventive suspension in November 2009.

In her defense, Castañeda denied that she failed to comply with the rules on nullity of marriage. She claimed that her predecessor left her a huge caseload apart from “rickety typewriters, limited office supplies and lack of personnel.”

She asserted that it is not the duty of the court to verify details like the addresses of the parties involved in an annulment proceeding. She insisted she checked all decisions she had rendered and blamed the court staff for improper documentation of cases.

For instance, Castañeda blamed her clerk-in-charge for forgetting to attach court orders requiring collusion investigations. (Annulment cases require an investigation of non-collusion between the two parties. The husband and wife are not supposed to agree to end their marriage.)

On petitioners' absence during pre-trials without a special power of attorney allowing their lawyers to represent them, Castañeda said that either the lawyers forgot to sign the minutes or the staff forgot to ask them to sign.

Similarly, the clerk of court, Paulino Saguyod, passed the blame for the miserable state of record keeping and the dismal condition of the office premises to his staff.

In March 2010, Castañeda wrote the Court saying that she had answered all their questions and that any lapses on documentation were the fault of her staff and not hers. She reported back to work without waiting for the Court’s reply and without a clear directive lifting her temporary suspension.

More than one decision a day

Back on the bench, Castañeda lost no time in granting annulment cases. Her preventive suspension did not curb the zealousness the Court had earlier noted in her handing out of decisions.

In 2010 Castañeda granted a total of 410 petitions of nullity or annulment of marriage or legal separation. These translate to about 34 annulment decrees per month or more than one annulment decision per day which was physically impossible.

Two years later, in October 2012, the Court found Castañeda guilty of dishonesty, incompetence, and ignorance of the law and procedure.

In its decision, the Court tagged “as most disturbing and scandalous of her infractions was the haste which she disposed of cases” and pointed out that “her reprehensible haste with which she granted petitions for nullity of marriage, annulment and legal separation despite non-compliance with appropriate rules and evident irregularities” was an indication of her utter lack of competence and grave abuse of authority.

As evidence, the Supreme Court cited cases that would usually be submitted for decision within a month from the filing of the petition and decided as quickly as two months, not allowing enough time for the required legal processes in an annulment proceeding such as testimonies of witnesses and lead time required for parties to respond to court summons.

Castañeda was ordered dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits. Her clerk of court, Saguyod, was suspended for 6 months for failing to perform his duty to supervise orderly management of court records. Other members of the court were fined P5,000 each for neglect of duties. ­ – Rappler.com

(To be continued: Part 2: Cotabato court issues spurious annulment documents)

This story is part of the series, “The annulment business”, on annulment mills and annulment scams. Reporting for this project was supported with a grant from the Journalism for Nation Building Foundation.

x x x."

Republic Act No. 10707; AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “PROBATION LAW OF 1976”, AS AMENDED - Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Republic Act No. 10707 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

[Republic Act No. 10707]

AN ACT AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “PROBATION LAW OF 1976”, AS AMENDED

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

SECTION 1. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant for a probationable penalty and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction: Provided, That when a judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision before such decision becomes final. The application for probation based on the modified decision shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since been re-raffled. In a case involving several defendants where some have taken further appeal, the other defendants may apply for probation by submitting a written application and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of conviction.

“The trial court shall, upon receipt of the application filed, suspend the execution of the sentence imposed in the judgment.

“This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of probation should he seek a review of the modified decision which already imposes a probationable penalty.

“Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.

“An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.”

SEC. 2. Section 9 of the same Decree, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:

“a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years;

“b. convicted of any crime against the national security;

“c. who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00);

“d. who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and

“e. who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.”

SEC. 3. Section 16 of the same Decree, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 16. Termination of Probation. — After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.

“The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the offense for which probation was granted.

“The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.”

SEC. 4. Section 24 of the same Decree is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 24. Miscellaneous Powers of Regional, Provincial and City Probation Officers. — Regional, Provincial or City Probation Officers shall have the authority within their territorial jurisdiction to administer oaths and acknowledgments and to take depositions in connection with their duties and functions under this Decree. They shall also have, with respect to probationers under their care, the powers of a police officer. They shall be considered as persons in authority.”

SEC. 5. Section 27 of the same Decree is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 27. Field Assistants, Subordinate Personnel. – Regional, Provincial or City Probation Officers shall be assisted by such field assistants and subordinate personnel as may be necessary to enable them to carry out their duties effectively.”

SEC. 6. Section 28 of the same Decree is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 28. Volunteer Probation Assistants (VPAs). — To assist the Chief Probation and Parole Officers in the supervised treatment program of the probationers, the Probation Administrator may appoint citizens of good repute and probity, who have the willingness, aptitude, and capability to act as VPAs.

“VPAs shall not receive any regular compensation except for reasonable transportation and meal allowances, as may be determined by the Probation Administrator, for services rendered as VPAs.

“They shall hold office for a two (2)-year term which may be renewed or recalled anytime for a just cause. Their functions, qualifications, continuance in office and maximum case loads shall be further prescribed under the implementing rules and regulations of this Act.

“There shall be a reasonable number of VPAs in every regional, provincial, and city probation office. In order to strengthen the functional relationship of VPAs and the Probation Administrator, the latter shall encourage and support the former to organize themselves in the national, regional, provincial, and city levels for effective utilization, coordination, and sustainability of the volunteer program.”

SEC. 7. Separability Clause. — If any provision of this Act is declared invalid, the provisions hereof not affected by such declaration shall remain in full force and effect.

SEC. 8. Repealing Clause. — All laws, executive orders, or administrative orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby amended, repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC. 9. Appropriations Clause. — The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be included in the General Appropriations Act of the year following its enactment into law.

SEC. 10. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — Within sixty (60) days from the approval of this Act, the Department of Justice shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 11. Effectivity. — This Act shall take effect immediately after its publication in the Official Gazetteor in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Republic Act No. 10706; “Seafarers Protection Act”. - Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Republic Act No. 10706 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

[Republic Act No. 10706]

AN ACT PROTECTING SEAFARERS AGAINST AMBULANCE CHASING AND IMPOSITION OF EXCESSIVE FEES, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR

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

SECTION 1. This Act shall be known as the “Seafarers Protection Act”.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — It shall be the policy of the State to promote and protect every Filipino seafarer desiring to work overseas by securing the best possible terms and conditions of employment. As some unscrupulous individuals have taken advantage of the plight of our seafarers who met an accident, illness or death in the course of their service by exploiting the compensation system, our seafarers have fallen prey to an unfair scheme where ambulance chasers charge exorbitant fees, with the promise of huge monetary award. Towards this end, such practice shall be declared unlawful.

SEC. 3. Prohibition on Ambulance Chasing. — It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in ambulance chasing or the act of soliciting, personally or through an agent, from seafarers, or their heirs, the pursuit of any claim against them employers for the purpose of recovery of monetary claim or benefit, including legal interest, arising from accident, illness or death, in exchange of an amount or fee which shall be retained or deducted from the monetary claim or benefit granted to or awarded to the seafarers or their heirs.

SEC. 4. Imposition of Excessive Fees. — When any contract or arrangement between a seafarer or his/her heirs, and a person who appears for or represents them in any case for recovery of monetary claim or benefit, including legal interest, arising from accident, illness or death before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) or any labor arbiter, the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) or its regional offices, or other quasi-judicial bodies handling labor disputes stipulates that the person who appears for or represents them shall be entitled to fees, such fees shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the compensation or benefit awarded to the seafarer or his/her heirs.

For purposes of this Act, fees referred to in this section shall mean the total amount of compensation of the person who appears for or represents the seafarer, or his/her heirs for services rendered.

SEC. 5. Penalties. — Any person who violates Section 3 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) but not more than one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), or by imprisonment of one (1) year but not more than two (2) years, or both fine and imprisonment. The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall be in collusion in the commission of the prohibited act in Section 3 hereof.

SEC. 6. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — Within ninety (90) days from the approval of this Act, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, in coordination with the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) and the POEA, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 7. Repealing Clause. — All laws, orders, issuances, decrees, rules and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC. 8. Effectvity Clause. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Republic Act No. 10708; “The Tax Incentives Management and Transparency Act (TIMTA)” - Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Republic Act No. 10708 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10708]

AN ACT ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY IN THE MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING OF TAX INCENTIVES ADMINISTERED BY INVESTMENT PROMOTION AGENCIES

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

SECTION 1. This Act shall be known as “The Tax Incentives Management and Transparency Act (TIMTA)”.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote fiscal accountability and transparency in the grant and management of tax incentives by developing means to promptly measure the government’s fiscal exposure on these grants and to enable the government to monitor, review, and analyze the economic impact thereof and thereby optimize the social benefit of such incentives.

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:

a. Investment Promotion Agencies (IPAs) shall refer to government entities created by law, executive order, decree or other issuance, in charge of promoting investments, administering tax and non-tax incentives, and/or overseeing the operations of the different economic zones and freeports in accordance with their respective charters. These include the Board of Investments (BOI), Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), Clark Development Corporation (CDC), John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC), Poro Point Management Corporation (PPMC), Bataan Technology Park, Inc. (BTPI), Cagayan Economic Zone Authority (CEZA), Zamboanga City Special Economic Zone Authority (ZCSEZA), Phividec Industrial Authority (PIA), Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority (APECO), Authority of the Freeport Area of Bataan (AFAB), Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA), and ail other similar authorities that may be created by law in the future;

b. Tax incentives shall refer to fiscal incentives such as those which come in the form of income tax holidays (ITH), exemptions, deductions, credits or exclusions from the tax base, as provided by law, to registered business entities; and

c. Registered business entity shall refer to any individual, partnership, corporation, Philippine branch of a foreign corporation, or other entity incorporated and/or organized and existing under Philippine laws and registered with an IPA.

SEC. 4. Filing of Tax Returns and Submission of Tax Incentives Reports. — All registered business entities are required to file their tax returns and pay their tax liabilities, on or before the deadline as provided under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, using the electronic system for filing and payment of taxes of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

For registered business entities availing of incentives administered by the IPAs, they shall file with their respective IPAs a complete annual tax incentives report of their income-based tax incentives, value-added tax and duty exemptions, deductions, credits or exclusions from the tax base as provided in the charter of the IPA concerned, within thirty (30) days from the statutory deadline for filing of tax returns and payment of taxes.

The IPAs shall, within sixty (60) days from the end of the statutory deadline for filing of the relevant tax returns, submit to the BIR, their respective annual tax incentives reports based on the list of the registered business entities who have filed said tax incentives report.

The details of the tax incentives reports, as provided in the preceding paragraphs, shall be provided in the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of this Act.

The foregoing provisions shall be without prejudice to the right of the BIR and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to conduct assessment within the prescribed period provided in the NIRC, as amended, and the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), as amended, respectively.

Sec. 5. Monitoring of Tax Incentives. — The BIR and the BOC shall submit to the Department of Finance (DOF), notwithstanding any law to the contrary: (a) the tax and duty incentives of registered business entities as reflected in their filed tax returns and import entries; and (b) actual tax and duty incentives as evaluated and determined by the BIR and the BOC.

The DOF shall maintain a single database for monitoring and analysis of tax incentives granted.

For purposes of monitoring and transparency, the DOF shall submit to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) the aggregate data on a sectoral and per industry basis of: (1) the amount of tax incentives availed by registered business entities; (2) the estimate claims of tax incentives immediately preceding the current year; (3) the programmed tax incentives for the current year; and (4) the projected tax incentives for the following year. Such information shall be given to the Oversight Committee created under Section 9 of this Act.

The aforesaid data shall be reflected by the DBM in the annual Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF), which shall be known as the Tax Incentives Information (TII) section: Provided, That the TII shall be limited to the aggregate data related to incentives availed of by registered business entities based on the submissions of the DOF and the concerned IPAs, categorized by sector, by IPA and type of incentive.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or limit, in whatever manner, the amount of incentives that EPAs may grant pursuant to their charters and existing laws; or to prevent, deter, or delay the promotion and regulation of investments, processing of applications for registrations, and evaluation of entitlement of incentives by IPAs.

SEC. 6. Conduct of Cost-Benefit Analysis on Investment Incentives. — The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) is mandated to conduct cost-benefit analysis on the investment incentives to determine the impact of tax incentives on the Philippine economy.

For this purpose, all heads of the IPAs shall submit to the NEDA the aggregate tax incentives, based on the submissions of registered business entities as provided in Section 4 of this Act, and aggregate investment-related data, both on a sectoral or per industry basis, which may include, but not limited to, investment projects, investment cost, actual employment and export earnings.

SEC. 7. Penalties for Noncompliance with Filing and Reportorial Requirements. — Any registered business entity which fails to comply with filing and reportorial requirements with the appropriate IPAs and/or which fails to show proof of filing of tax returns using the electronic system for filing and payment of taxes of the BIB shall be imposed the following penalties:

a. First (1st) violation — payment of a fine amounting to one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00);

b. Second (2nd) violation — payment of a fine amounting to five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00); and

c. Third (3rd) violation — cancellation of the registration of the registered business entity.

Provided, That if the failure to show such proof is not due to the fault of the registered business entity, the same shall not be a ground for the suspension of the ITH and/or other income-based tax incentives availment.

Any government official or employee who fails without justifiable reason to provide or furnish the required tax incentives report or other data or information as required under this Act shall be penalized, after due process, by a fine equivalent to the official’s or employee’s basic salary for a period of one (1) month to six (6) months or by suspension from government service for not more than one (1) year, or both, in addition to any criminal and administrative penalties imposable under existing laws.

SEC. 8. Funding. — Such amount necessary to carry out the implementation of this Act shall be sourced from the current General Appropriations Act (GAA).

SEC. 9. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. — A Joint Congressional Oversight Committee, herein referred to as the Oversight Committee, shall be constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The Oversight Committee shall be composed of the respective Chairpersons of the Committees on Ways and Means of the Senate and of the House of Representatives and four (4) additional members from each House, one of whom shall be the Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Trade, Commerce and Entrepreneurship and the Chairperson of the House Committee on Trade and Industry to be designated by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, respectively. The Oversight Committee shall monitor and ensure the proper implementation of this Act.

SEC. 10. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — The Secretaries of the DOF and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), in coordination with the NEDA Director-General, Commissioners of the BIR and BOC, and heads of concerned IPAs, shall, within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate rules and regulations to faithfully implement the intent and provisions of this Act: Provided, That the failure of the Secretaries of the DOF and DTI to promulgate the rules and regulations shall not prevent the implementation of this Act upon its effectivity.

SEC. 11. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act is subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional, other provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.

SEC. 12. Repealing Clause. – All other laws, acts, presidential decrees, executive orders, issuances, presidential proclamations, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are contrary to and inconsistent with any provision of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SEC. 13. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication either in the Official Gazette or in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation.

Republic Act No. 10709; leave benefits of first-level trial judges - Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Republic Act No. 10709 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

[Republic Act No. 10709]

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THIRTY (30) DAYS FORFEITABLE LEAVE PRIVILEGES ANNUALLY TO ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS

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

SECTION 1. Forfeitable Leave Privilege. — Judges of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Shari’a Circuit Courts, all known as first level courts, shall be entitled annually to thirty (30) days forfeitable leave with pay in addition to the fifteen (15) days vacation leave and fifteen (15) days sick leave privileges provided for by law. In the computation thereof, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall be excluded.

The forfeitable leave privilege under this Act shall be noncumulative and nonconvertible to cash.

Sec. 2. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty (30) days after the effectivity of this Act, promulgate the rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act.

SEC. 3. All laws, decrees, executive orders, issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC. 4. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official Gazetteor in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Executive Order No. 192, s. 2015; jurisdiction over health maintenance organizations. - Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Executive Order No. 192, s. 2015 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 192

TRANSFERRING THE REGULATION AND SUPERVISION OVER HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO THE INSURANCE COMMISSION, DIRECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, the President, under Article VII, Section 17 of the Constitution, has the power and control over executive departments, bureaus and offices, as well as the continuing authority under existing laws to reorganize such executive departments, bureaus, and agencies;

WHEREAS, Section 31, Chapter 10, Title III, Book III of Executive Order (EO) No. 292 (s. 1987), otherwise known as the “Administrative Code of 1987,” grants the President the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President;

WHEREAS, Section 3(8), Chapter 1, Title IX, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 mandates the Department of Health (DOH) to regulate the operations of and issue licenses and permits to hospitals, clinics, dispensaries, and other establishments, which include Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs);

WHEREAS, pursuant to PD No. 612 (s. 1974), as amended, otherwise known as the “Insurance Code of the Philippines,” and Republic Act No. 9829, otherwise known as the “Pre-Need Code of the Philippines,” the Insurance Commission (IC) supervises and regulates the operations of insurance companies, insurance and reinsurance brokers and intermediaries, mutual benefit associations, trusts for charitable uses, and pre-need companies;

WHEREAS, insurance companies, pre-need companies, and HMOs function under a common concept of receiving compensation, either through premiums or contributions, and in turn, promise certain contractual benefits in the future; and

WHEREAS, there is a need to streamline and consolidate functions related to the regulation of HMOs to eliminate redundancy, simplify the organizational structure of the executive department, improve accessibility and accountability, provide efficient use of specialized expertise, realize savings in administrative costs, and promote effective sharing of best practices.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order and direct:

Section 1. Transfer of the Regulation and Supervision over HMOs. Jurisdiction over HMOs shall be transferred from the DOH to the IC in order to regulate and supervise the establishment, operations and financial activities of HMOs.

Section 2. Definition of HMO. In accordance with DOH Administrative Order No. 34 (s. 1994), an HMO refers to a juridical entity legally organized to provide or arrange for the provision of pre-agreed or designated health care services to its enrolled members for a fixed pre-paid fee for a specified period of time.

Section 3. Organizational Structure and Personnel Augmentation. The IC, in coordination with the Department of Budget and Management, is hereby authorized to streamline and augment its human resource component to enable it to effectively and efficiently perform its functions and exercise its powers under this Order.

Section 4. Authority of the IC over HMOs. The IC shall have the authority to exercise the following functions over HMOs:

a. Issue rules and guidelines, with respect to the establishment of HMO minimum capitalization, net worth, reserve funds and security deposit requirements, as well as the criteria for qualification and disqualification of directors, officers and marketing personnel, and the procedure for the submission of reportorial and/or examination requirements, registration of contracts and plans, adjudication of claims, and other relevant matters, as necessary;

b. Approve, amend, renew, decline, suspend, or revoke any license, registration, or certificate of authority issued in favor of HMOs;

c. Fix, assess, collect, and utilize fees and/or charges as it may find reasonable in the exercise of regulatory powers;

d. Regulate, supervise, and monitor the operations and management of HMOs to ensure compliance with this Order, existing laws, rules, and regulations, and such other directives and circulars issued by the Insurance Commissioner;

e. Issue orders to prevent fraud and injury to the HMO plan holders and industry stakeholders;

f. Order the examination of documents, papers, files, tax returns, books of accounts and other records, in whatever form, of any entity, person, or any HMO under investigation, including persons, entities and/or corporations with related interests;

g. Pursuant to existing laws, rules, and regulations, impose sanctions, and/or appropriate penalties;

h. Enlist the aid and support of and/or deputize any and all law enforcement agencies of the government in the implementation of its powers and in the exercise of its functions under this Order;

i. Issue appropriate directives, such as but not limited to the appointment of conservators, receivers or liquidators, to HMOs which fail to comply with this Order, related laws, rules, regulations, orders, and circulars issued pursuant thereto;

j. Prepare, approve or amend, rules, regulations, orders, and circulars, and issue opinions, provide guidance on and supervise compliance with such rules, regulations, orders, and circulars;

k. Formulate policies and recommendations on issues concerning the health maintenance industry, including proposed legislations; and

l. Exercise such other powers as may be provided by law as well as those which may be implied from, or which are necessary or incidental to carry out the express powers granted the IC to achieve the objectives and purposes of this Order.

Section 5. License to Operate. All HMOs, whether investor-based, community-based or cooperative, are hereby required to comply with the regulatory requirements of procuring a License to Operate from the IC. The IC shall honor previously issued “Clearance to Operate” by the DOH, subject to modifications, revisions, adjustments, and changes as may be provided in the implementing rules and regulations.

Section 6. Funding. Funds needed to carry out the provisions of this Order shall be taken from the current appropriations of the IC. Subsequent funding requirements to implement this Order shall be incorporated in the annual budget proposal of the IC.

Section 7. Efficient Transition. To the extent necessary to fully implement the intent of this Order, the DOH and the IC may enter into inter-agency agreements, to ensure the full and appropriate transfer of all functions related to HMOs including, but not limited to, temporary detail of DOH personnel concerned to the IC.

Section 8. Transitory Matters. All books, contracts, correspondences, documents, papers, records, other associated items, and pending business in any way pertaining to the powers, duties, rights, and responsibilities related to the functions of the DOH over HMOs shall be turned over, transferred, and delivered to the IC for. continuation, modification, or termination; Provided, however, that the delivery of such information shall not violate any applicable confidentiality constraints.

The IC shall constitute a special team to handle all matters related to HMOs and shall secure and transfer all the HMO-related files and records of the DOH to the IC within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Order. Personnel under the DOH affected by this Order shall continue their service with the DOH. They may, however, be detailed to the IC for efficient transition and effective discharge of the functions provided under this Order.

Section 9. Creation of Oversight Committee. To ensure the effective transfer of the jurisdiction and regulation over HMOs to the IC, an Oversight Committee composed of the Secretary of Finance, as Chairman, with the Secretary of Health and the Insurance Commissioner, as members, is hereby constituted. The Oversight Committee shall exist until 30 June 2016.

Section 10. Role of the DOH. All issues relating to medical matters including, but not limited to, practice of the medical profession, medical procedures and standards, and health programs, policies, services, and facilities, shall be referred to the DOH.

Section 11. Implementing Rules and Regulations. The IC shall formulate, adopt and implement such rules, regulations, and other issuances as may be necessary in the effective implementation of the provisions of this Order.

Section 12. Repeal. All orders, issuances, or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Order, are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 13. Separability. If any provision of this Order is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the other provisions not affected thereby shall remain valid and subsisting.

Section 14. Effectivity. This Order shall take effect immediately upon publication in a newspaper of General Circulation.

DONE, in the City of Manila, this 12th day of November, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Fifteen.

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

By the President:

(Sgd.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.Executive Secretary

PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION ELECTION RULES - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/262-2015.pdf

See - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/262-2015.pdf

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 262-2015 

PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION 

ELECTION RULES

Download from this link - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/262-2015.pdf