Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.: January 2017

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES - A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC

See - A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, dated March 4, 2003

RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

Section 1. Scope - This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of te Philippines.

The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.

Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.

(a) Who may file. - A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. (n)

(b) Where to file. - The petition shal be filed in the Family Court.

(c) Imprecriptibility ofaction or defense. - An Action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage shall not prescribe.

(d) What to allege. - A petition under Article 36 of Family Code shall specially allege te complete facts showing the either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriages at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration.

The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.

Section 3. Petition for annulment of voidable marriages. -

(a) Who may file. - The following persons may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriage based on any of the grounds under article 45 of the Family Code and within the period herein indicated:

(1) The contracting party whose parent, or guardian, or person exercising substitute parental authority did not give his or her consent, within five years after attaining the age of twenty-one unless, after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabitated with the other as husband or wife; or the parent, guardian or person having legal charge of the contracting party , at any time before such party has reached the age of twenty-one;

(2) The sane spouse who had no knowledge of the other's insanity; or by any relative, guardian, or person having legal charge of the insane, at any time before the death of either party; or by the insane spouse during the a lucid interval or after regaining sanity, provided that the petitioner , after coming to reason, has not freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife;

(3) The injured party whose consent was obtained by fraud, within five years after the discovery of the fraud, provided that said party, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, has not freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife;

(4) The injured party whose consent was obtained by force, intimidation, or undue influence, within five years from the time the force intimidation, or undue influence disappeared or ceased, provided that the force, intimidation, or undue influence having disappeared or ceased, said party has not thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife;

(5) The injured party where the other spouse is physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other and such incapability continues and appears to be incurable, within five years after the celebration of marriage; and

(6) Te injured party where the other party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable, within five years after the celebration of marriage.

(b) Where to file. - The petition shall be filed in the Family Court.

Section 4. Venue. - The Petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing. Or in the case of non-resident respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at the election of the petitioner.

Section 5. Contents and form of petition. - (1) The petition shall allege the complete facts constituting the cause of action.

(2) It shall state the names and ages of the common children of the parties and specify the regime governing their property relations, as well as the properties involved.

If there is no adequate provision in a written agreement between the parties, the petitioner may apply for a provisional order for spousal support, the custody and support of common children, visitation rights, administration of community or conjugal property, and other matters similarly requiringurgent action.

(3) It must be verified and accompanied celebration of marriage. (b) Where to file.-The petition shall be filed in the Family Court.

Section 4. Venue. - The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing, or in the case of a non-resident respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines at the election of the petitioner.

Section 5. Contents and form of petition. - (1) The petition shall allege the complete facts constituting the cause of action.

(2) it shall state the names and ages of the common children of the parties and specify the regime governing their property relations, as well as the properties involved.

If there is no adequate provision in a written agreement between the parties, the petitioner may apply for a provisional order for spousal support, custody and support of common children, visitation rights, administration of community or conjugal property, and other matters similarly requiring urgent action.

(3) it must be verified and accompanied by a certification against forum shopping. The verification and certification must be signed personally by me petitioner. No petition may be filed solely by counsel or through an attorney-in-fact.

If the petitioner is in a foreign country, the verification and certification against forum shopping shall be authenticated by the duly authorized officer of the Philippine embassy or legation, consul general, consul or vice-consul or consular agent in said country.

(4) it shall be filed in six copies. The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, within five days from the date of its filing and submit to the court proof of such service within the same period.

Failure to comply with any of the preceding requirements may be a ground for immediate dismissal of the petition.

Section 6. Summons. - The service of summons shall be governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and by the following rules:

(1) Where the respondent cannot be located at his given address or his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service of summons may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and in such places as the court may order In addition, a copy of the summons shall be served on the respondent at his last known address by registered mail or any other means the court may deem sufficient.

(2) The summons to be published shall be contained in an order of the court with the following data: (a) title of the case; (b) docket number; (c) nature of the petition; (d) principal grounds of the petition and the reliefs prayed for; and (e) a directive for the respondent to answer within thirty days from the last issue of publication.

Section 7. Motion to dismiss. - No motion to dismiss the petition shall be allowed except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties; provided, however, that any other ground that might warrant a dismissal of the case may be raised as an affirmative defense in an answer.

Section 8. Answer. - (1) The respondent shall file his answer within fifteen days from service of summons, or within thirty days from the last issue of publication in case of service of summons by publication. The answer must be verified by the respondent himself and not by counsel or attorney-in-fact.

(2) If the respondent fails to file an answer, the court shall not declare him or her in default.

(3) Where no answer is filed or if the answer does not tender an issue, the court shall order the public prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties.

Section 9. Investigation report of public prosecutor. - (1) Within one month after receipt of the court order mentioned in paragraph (3) of Section 8 above, the public prosecutor shall submit a report to the court stating whether the parties are in collusion and serve copies thereof on the parties and their respective counsels, if any.

(2) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion exists, he shall state the on the finding of collusion within ten days from receipt of a copy of a report The court shall set the report for hearing and If convinced that the parties are in collusion, it shall dismiss the petition.

(3) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists, the court shall set the case for pre-trial. It shall be the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre-trial.

Section 10. Social worker. - The court may require a social worker to conduct a case study and submit the corresponding report at least three days before the pre-trial. The court may also require a case study at any stage of the case whenever necessary.

Section 11. Pre-trial. -

(1) Pre-trial mandatory. - A pre-trial is mandatory. On motion or motu proprio, the court shall set the pre-trial after the last pleading has been served and filed, or upon receipt of the report of the public prosecutor that no collusion exists between the parties.

(2) Notice of pre-trial. - (a) The notice of pre-trial shall contain:

(1) the date of pre-trial conference; and

(2) an order directing the parties to file and serve their respective pre-trial briefs in such manner as shall ensure the receipt thereof by the adverse party at least three days before the date of pre-trial.

(b) The notice shall be served separately on the parties and their respective counsels as well as on the public prosecutor. It shall be their duty to appear personally at the pre-trial.

(c) Notice of pre-trial shall be sent to the respondent even if he fails to file an answer. In case of summons by publication and the respondent failed to file his answer, notice of pre-trial shall be sent to respondent at his last known address.

Section 12. Contents of pre-trial brief. - The pre-trial brief shall contain the following:

(a) A statement of the willingness of the parties to enter into agreements as may be allowed by law, indicating the desired terms thereof;

(b) A concise statement of their respective claims together with the applicable laws and authorities;

(d) All the evidence to be presented, including expert opinion, if any, briefly stating or describing the nature and purpose thereof;

(e) The number and names of the witnesses and their respective affidavits; and

(f) Such other matters as the court may require.

Failure to file the pre-trial brief or to comply with its required contents shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial under the succeeding paragraphs.

Section 13. Effect of failure to appear at the pre-trial. - {a) If the petitioner fails to appear personally, the case shall be dismissed unless his counsel or a duly authorized representative appears in court and proves a valid excuse for the non-appearance of the petitioner.

(b) If the respondent has filed his answer but fails to appear, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial and require the public prosecutor to investigate the non-appearance of the respondent and submit within fifteen days thereafter a report to the court stating whether his non-appearance is due to any collusion between the parties. If there Is no collusion, the court shall require the public prosecutor to intervene for the State during the trial on the merits to prevent suppression or fabrication of evidence.

Section 14. Pre-trial conference. -At the pre-trial conference, the court:

(a) May refer the issues to a mediator who shall assist the parties in reaching an agreement on matters not prohibited by law.

The mediator shall render a report within one month from referral which, for good reasons, the court may extend for a period not exceeding one month.

(b) In case mediation is not availed of or where it fails, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial conference, on which occasion it shall consider the advisability of receiving expert testimony and such other makers as may aid in the prompt disposition of the petition.

Section 15. Pre-trial order. - {a) The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon termination of the pre-trial, the court shall Issue a pre-trial order which shall recite in detail the matters taken up In the conference, the action taken thereon, the amendments allowed on the pleadings, and except as to the ground of declaration of nullity or annulment, the agreements or admissions made by the parties on any of the matters considered, including any provisional order that may be necessary or agreed upon by the parties.

(b) Should the action proceed to trial, the order shall contain a recital of the following;

(1) Facts undisputed, admitted, and those which need not be proved subject to Section 16 of this Rule;

(2) Factual and legal issues to be litigated;

(3) Evidence, including objects and documents, that have been marked and will be presented;

(4) Names of witnesses who will be presented and their testimonies in the form of affidavits; and

(5) Schedule of the presentation of evidence.

(c) The pre-trial order shall also contain a directive to the public prosecutor to appear for the State and take steps to prevent collusion between the parties at any stage of the proceedings and fabrication or suppression of evidence during the trial on the merits.

(d) The parlies shall not be allowed to raise issues or present witnesses and evidence other than those stated in the pre-trial order.

The order shall control the trial of the case, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice.

(e) The parties shall have five days from receipt of the pre-trial order to propose corrections or modifications.

Section 16. Prohibited compromise. - The court-shall not allow compromise on prohibited matters, such as the following:

(a) The civil status of persons;

(b) The validity of a marriage or of a legal separation;

(d) Future support;

(e) The jurisdiction of courts; and

(f) Future legitime.

Section 17. Trial. - (1) The presiding judge shall personally conduct the trial of the case. No delegation of the reception of evidence to a commissioner shall be allowed except as to matters involving property relations of the spouses.

(2) The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be proved. No judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment shall be allowed.

(3) The court may order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons, including members of the press, who do not have a direct interest in the case. Such an order may be made if the court determines on the record that requiring a party to testify in open court would not enhance the ascertainment of truth; would cause to the party psychological harm or inability to effectively communicate due to embarrassment, fear, or timidity; would violate the right of a party to privacy; or would be offensive to decency or public morals.

(4) No copy shall be taken nor any examination or perusal of the records of the case or parts thereof be made by any person other than a party or counsel of a party, except by order of the court.

Section 18. Memoranda. - The court may require the parties and the public prosecutor, in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor General, to file their respective memoranda support of their claims within fifteen days from the date the trial is terminated. It may require the Office of the Solicitor General to file its own memorandum if the case is of significant interest to the State. No other pleadings or papers may be submitted without leave of court. After the lapse of the period herein provided, the case will be considered submitted for decision, with or without the memoranda.

Section 19. Decision. - (1) If the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Article 50 and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.

(2) The parties, including the Solicitor General and the public prosecutor, shall be served with copies of the decision personally or by registered mail. If the respondent summoned by publication failed to appear in the action, the dispositive part of the decision shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation.

(3) The decision becomes final upon the expiration of fifteen days from notice to the parties. Entry of judgment shall be made if no motion for reconsideration or new trial, or appeal Is filed by any of the parties the public prosecutor, or the Solicitor General.

(4) Upon the finality of the decision, the court shall forthwith issue the corresponding decree if the parties have no properties.

If the parties have properties, the court shall observe the procedure prescribed in Section 21 of this Rule.

The entry of judgment shall be registered in the Civil Registry where the marriage was recorded and In the Civil Registry where the Family Court'granting the petition for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage is located.

Section 20. Appeal. -

(1) Pre-condition. - No appeal from the decision shall be allowed unless the appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from notice of judgment.

(2) Notice of appeal. - An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may appeal from the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the adverse parties.

Section 21. Liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive iegltimes. - Upon entry of the judgment granting the petition, or, in case of appeal, upon receipt of the entry of judgment of the appellate court granting the petition, the Family Court, on motion of either party, shall proceed with the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, including custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.

Section 22. Issuance of Decree of Declaration of Absolute Nullity or Annulment of Marriage." (a) The court shall issue the Decree after;

(1) Registration of the entry of judgment granting the petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage in the Civil Registry where the marriage was celebrated and in the Civil Registry of the place where the Family Court is located;

(2) Registration of the approved partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, in the proper Register of Deeds where the real properties are located; and

(3) The delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes in cash, property, or sound securities.

(b) The court shall quote in the Decree the dispositive portion of the judgment entered and attach to the Decree the approved deed of partition.

Except in the case of children under Articles 36 and 53 of the Family Code, the court shall order the Local Civil Registrar to issue an amended birth certificate indicating the new civil status of the children affected.

Section 23. Registration and publication of the decree; decree as best evidence. - (a) The prevailing party shall cause the registration of the Decree in the Civil Registry where the marriage was registered, the Civil Registry of the place where the Family Court is situated, and in the National Census and Statistics Office. He shall report td the court compliance with this requirement within thirty days from receipt of the copy of the Decree.

(b) In case service of summons was made by publication, the parties shall cause the publication of the Decree once in a newspaper of general circulation.

(c) The registered Decree shall be the best evidence to prove the declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage and shall serve as notice to third persons concerning the properties of petitioner and respondent as well as the properties or presumptive legitimes delivered to their common children.

Section 24. Effect of death of a party; duty of the Family Court or Appellate Court. - (a) In case a party dies at any stage of the proceedings before the entry of judgment, the court shall order the case closed and terminated, without prejudice to the settlement of the estate in proper proceedings in the regular courts.

(b) If the party dies after the entry of judgment of nullity or annulment, the judgment shall be binding upon the parties and their successors in interest in the settlement of the estate in the regular courts.

Section 25. Effectlvity. - This Rule shall take effect on March 15, 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than March 7, 2003.

Appeal in nullity/annulment of marriage, as per A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; "motion for reconsideration" is required prior to "notice of appeal"

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC

"x x x.

Section 19. Decision. - (1) If the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Article 50 and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.

(4) Upon the finality of the decision, the court shall forthwith issue the corresponding decree if the parties have no properties.

If the parties have properties, the court shall observe the procedure prescribed in Section 21 of this Rule.

Section 20. Appeal. -

(1) Pre-condition. - No appeal from the decision shall be allowed unless the appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from notice of judgment.

(2) Notice of appeal. - An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may appeal from the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the adverse parties.

x x x."

Monday, January 30, 2017

COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY - Executive Order No. 226, s. 1995 - INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF “COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY” IN ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICES, PARTICULARLY AT ALL LEVELS OF COMMAND IN THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

See - Executive Order No. 226, s. 1995 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

Subject: EO 226, s. 1995 _ command responsibility in govt, pnp, law enforcement agencies

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 226

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF “COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY” IN ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICES, PARTICULARLY AT ALL LEVELS OF COMMAND IN THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

WHEREAS, strict and effective management and control of an organization by the supervisor is critical in ensuring responsive delivery of services by the government, especially in police matters;

WHEREAS, a supervisor/commander is duty-bound and, as such, is expected to closely monitor, supervise, direct, coordinate, and control the overall activities of his subordinates within his area of jurisdiction, and can be held administratively accountable for neglect of duty in taking appropriate action to discipline his men;

WHEREAS, in order to ensure a more effective, sustained, and successful campaign against erring government personnel, it is imperative that the doctrine of “command responsibility” be institutionalized and strictly applied in all government offices and at all levels of command in the PNP and other law enforcement agencies.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:

SECTION 1. Neglect of Duty Under the Doctrine of “Command Responsibility”. Any government official or supervisor, or officer of the Philippine National Police or that of any other law enforcement agency shall be held accountable for “Neglect of Duty” under the doctrine of “command responsibility” if he has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by others within his area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, he did not take preventive or corrective action either before, during, or immediately after its commission.

SECTION 2. Presumption of Knowledge. A government official or supervisor, or PNP commander, is presumed to have knowledge of the commission of irregularities or criminal offenses in any of the following circumstances:

a. When the irregularities or illegal acts are widespread within his area of jurisdiction;

b. When the irregularities or illegal acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his area of responsibility; or

c. When members of his immediate staff or office personnel are involved.

SEC. 3. Implementing Rules and Regulations. The National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) in coordination with the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations of this Executive Order within thirty (30) days after the issuance thereof.

SEC. 4. Administrative Liability. Any violation of this Executive Order by any government official, supervisor, officer of the PNP and that of any law enforcement agency shall be held administratively accountable for violation of existing laws, rules and regulations.

SEC. 5. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila this 17th day of February, in the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-five.

(Sgd.) FIDEL V. RAMOS

President of the Philippines

By the President:

(Sgd.) TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.

Executive Secretary

Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines - Ateneo Human Rights Center.

Download - Microsoft Word - Summary and Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines (AHRC) - UPR 3rd Cycle.docx

SUMMARY & EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS IN THE PHILIPPINES: A Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

For the Universal Periodic Review of the Philippines.(3rd Cycle, 27th Session, 2017).

Submitted by:

ATENEO HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER (AHRC)

G/F Ateneo Professional Schools Building

20 Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center

Makati City 1200, Philippines

Telefax: +63 2 899 4342

http://www.ahrc.org.ph

ahrc.law@ateneo.edu

PNP Command Memorandum Circular 2016-16: PNP ANTI-ILLEGAL DRUGS CAMPAIGN PLAN – PROJECT DOUBLE BARREL (Operation Tokhang).

Download - CMC 2016-16 PNP ANTI-ILLEGAL DRUGS CAMPAIGN PLAN – PROJECT DOUBLE BARREL.pdf

Philippine National Police (PNP) Command Memo Circular 2016-16 PNP ANTI-ILLEGAL DRUGS CAMPAIGN – PROJECT DOUBLE BARREL (Operation Tokhang).

Full text.

Available at:

http://didm.pnp.gov.ph/Command%20Memorandum%20Circulars/CMC%202016-16%20PNP%20ANTI-ILLEGAL%20DRUGS%20CAMPAIGN%20PLAN%20%E2%80%93%20PROJECT%20DOUBLE%20BARREL.pdf

Outsourcing murder | Inquirer Opinion

See - Outsourcing murder | Inquirer Opinion

"x x x.

PUBLIC LIVES

Outsourcing murder

By: Randy David - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 12:26 AM January 29, 2017

The ratio is about 2:1. For every drug suspect killed in an acknowledged police operation, at least two others are killed by unknown assassins. Why this seeming preference for anonymous murder in a campaign that has been authorized by no less than the country’s president?

Both types of killings are taking place mainly in the slums, targeting persons who are without the means to seek justice in a flawed legal system. In the usual “buy-bust” operation, the police routinely justify the killing as an act of self-defense. In the so-called “deaths under investigation,” the police shrug their shoulders, vaguely hinting that these killings are done by the drug syndicates themselves in the course of cleansing their ranks and fighting for turf.

No one believes this yarn. The police find bodies, contact funeral parlors, and record these events in their logbooks—as though these killings were normal happenings in their daily work. They have shown no concern that anonymous gunmen attack residents in neighborhoods that are supposedly under their protection. After more than 7,000 such killings, they have yet to produce any credible account of the nature of these “deaths under investigation.”

But, they know what is happening here.

An authorized police raid is tedious to mount. Not every policeman is ready to kill a defenseless human being in cold blood. Somebody in the team has to be designated to fire the fatal shots. In a large number of the cases, the killing happens at night while the intended victim is asleep with his family. If witnesses see the faces of the police killers, there could be legal suits later. Or, any of the victim’s relatives or friends can take revenge one way or another when things have settled down.

It thus makes sense to outsource murder. Assassins could be recruited from police forces assigned in remote areas, so they are not known in the neighborhoods where they have to do the killing. But even this has its complications. Given the long list of targets, culled from the names of those who had initially surrendered or from the information given by the latter, the police have their hands full. With every police district under pressure to show results, it would be easier to hire contract killers from the criminal underground itself to do the work for them.

This is what Swiss journalist Karin Wenger has found out from an interview with one such professional killer she met recently just outside Davao. We don’t know if her informant was merely bragging and had told her a fictional story fit for a thriller, or she had stumbled upon a plausible explanation for the 2:1 ratio in extrajudicial killings. Her chilling account of that interview with a hired gunman who kills drug suspects for money was broadcast on Swiss National Public Radio.

Here are some excerpts from that report: “Since Duterte’s drug war began, he received more orders. ‘I get all through middlemen, from the police. They have the odds, but they do not want to kill themselves. Someone could see and accuse them. That’s why they hire me.’ P30,000 per contract killing, that was the last deal with the police. Previously he was promised even more. ‘This is what really makes me angry. They have never kept their promises. Instead of money, they give me shabu and say: ‘Go sell the drugs, that’s how you make your money.’”

Stories like this sound almost surreal. But, that’s how the country is depicted nowadays by nearly every report on the war on drugs in mainstream media abroad. James Fenton’s essay, titled “Murderous Manila: On the Night Shift,” which appears on the latest issue of The New York Review, is a vivid account of the morbid normalcy of killing in the dimly lit alleyways of Manila. I cite it here for the way it somehow confirms the outsourcing of murder in this war on drugs.

“An EJK I covered went like this. It was the middle of the night and the family was asleep. Masked men barged in. ‘Where is Fernando?’ said an intruder. A woman answered: ‘There’s no one called Fernando here.’ At this point, an eight-year-old girl woke up her father, Ernesto. As he awoke, Ernesto said ‘Oh.’ He was shot immediately in the middle of the forehead. The intruders escaped.”

Never too soon, scene of the crime operatives appear to take photos, pick up slugs, and go through the motions of gathering evidence. But they never seem to be in a hurry to go after the killers. “At one such scene in the north of Manila,” Fenton writes, “a man had been shot in a warren of a building, where the passageway was almost too narrow for two people to pass. And there was only one exit, a set of awkwardly constructed steps. I was examining these steps and thinking what confidence it showed on the part of the killers, to choose a place that was so difficult to get out of, for their planned murder.”

That “confidence”—or brazenness—makes sense only in the light of the hidden public script we assume each time someone is shot by unknown assailants. It’s “EJK.” Those three letters have become shorthand for the war on drugs, plus all its complex and unintended consequences. People say these letters in whispers to communicate a knowingness that wishes to be spared the burden of explaining. And that is how this entire killing culture has become a cover for all kinds of malevolent intentions: for settling personal scores, for extortion, or for the sheer desire to sow fear.

As I reflect on what has happened to us since the last election, I am struck by the words of Elias Canetti: “That which can kill is feared; that which does not directly serve killing is merely useful. It is those who devote themselves to killing who have power.”

public.lives@gmail.com

x x x."

Our shepherds have not been silent. - "At the Fourth World Apostolic Congress on Mercy (Wacom4), you pleaded earnestly for an end to the slaughter and to the silence of the faithful." | Inquirer Opinion

See - Our shepherds have not been silent | Inquirer Opinion

"x x x.

Our shepherds have not been silent

By: Gemma Rita R. Marin, Liza L. Lim, Patrick Z. Falguera, SJ - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 12:16 AM January 28, 2017

Our beloved bishops: Much has been made in the mainstream media about your supposed silence on the calamity of killing that plagues our nation. But we who look to you for guidance and strength know you have not been silent.

Within weeks after the calamity began, as the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) you entreated our law enforcers to be careful with the rights and lives of suspected criminals, and you urged us not to tolerate, cooperate with, or participate in vigilantism. In September, the CBCP Permanent Council expressed solidarity with those killed and their families. As bishops of Negros Island and as individual bishops all over the country, you spoke and rang your church bells against the killings. At the Fourth World Apostolic Congress on Mercy (Wacom4), you pleaded earnestly for an end to the slaughter and to the silence of the faithful.

x x x.

For this you have been castigated and vilified. But for this, we who share your faith in a merciful and life-giving God owe you inexpressible thanks. You have strengthened and inspired us, especially when, like you, we have been tempted to despair by the mounting death toll, the lack of moral outrage over it, and the assaults of those who approve of it.

We cannot claim to be the majority of the faithful. But our numbers are growing. At Wacom4, Archbishop Villegas told our young people: “Do not be afraid to wait.” We say to you: “Do not be afraid to wait for us, the faithful.” The Holy Spirit moves ponderously among us, but with certainty.

We thank these bishops whose prophetic courage has fortified us: Bishops Alminaza, Bacani, Bastes, Baylon, Buzon, Cortes, David, Gutierrez, Maralit, Pabillo, and Santos; Archbishops Aniceto, Argüelles, Capalla, Cruz, Ledesma, and Villegas; Cardinals Quevedo and Tagle. We thank other bishops unnamed who may be witnessing to life even when no one seems to be watching.

Yet many in the Church have not spoken with such prophetic clarity. Perhaps we are rendered speechless by accusations that the Church herself is sinful, or doing nothing to help the poor or stop the scourge of drugs and crime.

We in the Church will be sinful until the final redemption. However much we do for the poor or the victims of drugs and crime, it will never be enough. But by keeping silence until we have built up drug rehabilitation programs and social service programs and viable alternative solutions that we think will give us the moral ascendancy to speak, we are heaping sin upon sin. To raise our voices against the carnage is not a right that comes from moral ascendancy or better solutions, but an obligation that comes from the mercy of God.

In June 2016, you said to us: “We must all ask ourselves whether or not by our silence … we may have contributed to the proliferation of crime and the increase in criminal activity.” We must ask ourselves now whether or not by our silence we are contributing to the butchery in the streets and poor settlements of our nation. We must ask ourselves whether or not by our silence we are leading the rest of the faithful into perdition, because we have not opposed the voices persuading them that violence is the way to peace and death the way to life. We must ask ourselves whether or not by our silence we are betraying the mercy that the Father has bestowed on us.

With you, our beloved bishops, we cast ourselves wholly upon the Father’s mercy. Continue speaking to us so that together we may discern what this mercy demands of us. Continue praying with us so that together we may have the courage and strength, in this merciless time, to speak and act freely according to our consciences, with the audacious and stubborn mercy of the Father.

Authors:

Gemma Rita R. Marin is executive director of the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues. Fr. Patrick Z. Falguera, SJ, is executive director of Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan. Dr. Liza L. Lim is executive director of the Institute of Social Order.

x x x."

Humanism and the death penalty | Inquirer Opinion

See - Humanism and the death penalty | Inquirer Opinion

"x x x.

For instance, we have never been critically minded. We do not question the lack of decency of some of our public officials. But what is more appalling is that all the violence right now unfolding before our eyes might only come as impersonal. We no longer see the victim as a human being. Indeed, we must ask: What has happened to humanist education in this country? Have we Filipinos misplaced all the values of humanity?

The current mood of the Filipino public is that it thinks any individual can be sacrificed for the sake of our brand of social solidarity. As such, as long as public interest is used to justify the death penalty for a boy as young as 12, some Filipinos might believe that no moral wrong is being committed. Most of us reason that this very young “criminal,” who has now become an enemy of the state, himself knows that what he has done can bring him instantaneous death. Yet, in so doing, we have disregarded the reality of unjust social structures that served as virulent preconditions for the anatomy of a crime.

It is unconscionable for many among us not to realize that bringing the tragic death sentence back, even to a person who is so young, only makes manifest that our society has not overcome the pangs of elitist rule, and this is because the poor will remain at the receiving end of the infirmities of our legal system. In reality, those who are in power are just taking advantage of our tragic sense of nationhood that has characterized our fate as a people.

Author:

Christopher Ryan Maboloc teaches philosophy at Ateneo de Davao University and is the author of “Ethics and Human Dignity.”

x x x."

Rule of force vs. Force of law. - Lawbreaker gov’t no better than felon it wishes to get rid of | Inquirer Opinion

See - Lawbreaker gov’t no better than felon it wishes to get rid of | Inquirer Opinion

"x x x.

Lawbreaker gov’t no better than felon it wishes to get rid of

By: Luis Ruben M. General - @inquirerdotnet

12:09 AM January 30, 2017

I’m sorry to admit that I didn’t get what lawyer Bryan Dennis Gabito Tiojanco was saying about lawyers not knowing that President Duterte “represents a legal principle that springs from a widely shared intuition” (“What lawyers don’t get about Duterte,” Opinion, 1/5/17). And that legal principle is necessitas legem non habet, meaning, necessity knows no law.

Although maybe this principle was “endorsed” by some of history’s great statesmen, what the author did not say is that it is a medieval concept, articulated first by St. Augustine, and debated upon by the philosophers of his time, including some popes, but made applicable not to state actors but to people who are precisely the victims of society’s injustice, if not government’s oppression.

A man whose family is starving can be justified under this principle to break into a house to steal food. Poverty knows no law, it is argued. Shades of Jean Valjean in “Les Misérables” which Victor Hugo made into a long-running argument for necessitas (but not anymore when he stole church articles from a convent for which he was nonetheless forgiven by the priest).

The principle somehow stayed as private law until Machiavelli made it as a recommended practice for his Prince, and which Hitler later made as his own justification in slaughtering Jews “to defend the Motherland”—the same words used by Tiojanco in explaining the principle which could as well be the same justification for Mr. Duterte’s “If you destroy my country, I will kill you.” Which then obviously makes the principle very dangerous if government, rather than its victims, invokes it.

Government then, contrary to its very nature, would be ironically advocating lawlessness. Even out of whatever necessity, grave or extreme, when government itself breaks the law, it would be no better than the criminal it wishes to eliminate. Government can never be justified to disregard the very laws that it has sworn to enforce or the Constitution that created it.

Necessitas was never intended for government or the powerful to appeal to. Law, or specifically the Constitution, grants power and at the same time limits it. While it is true that our Constitution recognizes necessity (not the necessitas principle though, which should be distinguished), it is necessity exercised within the bounds of the law, not necessity in defiance of the law. After all, the three inherent powers of government—police power, eminent domain and taxation—are all motivated by necessity. But limited always by constitutional precepts. Never the extrajudicial kind.

Even in the US war on terror, extrajudicial means have always been delicately approached, with former president Barack Obama insisting that “enhanced interrogation”—meaning, torture of suspected terrorists—must be avoided, and that government should not stoop down to the level of terrorists, necessity or even Donald Trump notwithstanding. Ever the constitutional law professor, Obama knew what Justice Louis Brandeis said of the government as “the omnipresent teacher” that teaches the people by example, and “if it becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it breeds anarchy.”

Or do we rather welcome authoritarianism “with thunderous applause,” if that is the “shared intuition” or the popular demand?

Tiojanco knows that no dictatorship lasts, and eventually all responsible will face reckoning; and that’s probably the reason he calls on Congress and the Supreme Court to grant “legality” to Mr. Duterte’s extrajudicial methods in dealing with a perceived necessity. Indeed, after five and a half years, Duterte will be swamped with all the nasty cases, and that would include his PNP chief, some of his Cabinet members, etc. So the law, after all, which necessitas denigrates, will then be another refuge for scoundrels.

At any rate, our Supreme Court—when it was at its highest in the national esteem after its reorganization post-Edsa—(speaking through the revered Justice Pedro Yap) shot down all logic and practicality of the necessitas principle in a case (Aberca vs Ver) finding Marcos henchman, Gen. Fabian Ver, liable for damages to their victims:

“In times of great upheaval or of social and political stress, when the temptation is strongest to yield—borrowing the words of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee—to take the law of force rather than the force of law, it is necessary to remind ourselves that certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and cannot be sacrificed to the transient needs or imperious demands of the ruling power. The rule of law must prevail, or else liberty will perish. Our commitment to democratic principles and to the rule of law compels us to reject the view which reduces law to nothing but the expression of the will of the predominant power in the community. Democracy cannot be a reign of progress, of liberty, of justice, unless the law is respected by him who makes it and by him for whom it is made.”

Author:

Luis Ruben M. General is a practicing lawyer based in Naga City. He teaches constitutional law at the University of Nueva Caceres.

x x x."

Rights of a ‘data subject’ | Inquirer News

See - IN THE KNOW: Rights of a ‘data subject’ | Inquirer News

"x x x.

Under Republic Act No. 10173, or the Data Privacy Act of 2012, individuals whose personal information is collected, stored and processed are called “data subjects.”

They are accorded rights and may invoke the law against abuses committed by the receiver of data, also called “personal information controller.”

Right to be informed

Data subjects should be informed before the processing of their data. Information such as the purpose, scope and method, recipients and period of data processing should be relayed to the data subject.

Right to object

Data subjects should be allowed to withhold consent, especially in cases of any amendment to their personal data.

Right to access

A data subject can demand access to her personal data that were processed as well as the names of the recipients of the data, manner and sources from which the data were obtained.

Right to erasure or blocking

Data subjects can withdraw or order the destruction of their data from the personal information controller’s system as long as there is substantial proof that the data are false, outdated, unlawfully obtained or are being used for an unauthorized purpose.

Right to damages

The data subject should be compensated for any harm or loss due to false, incomplete or unlawfully obtained unauthorized use of personal data.

These rights can be invoked by the heirs and assigns of the data subject who had passed away or is incapacitated, except when personal data are processed for scientific and statistical research, or criminal and administrative investigation.

—INQUIRER RESEARCH

Source: RA 10173

x x x."

National Privacy Commission (NPC) reminds bank on data privacy law | Inquirer News

See - Agency reminds bank on data privacy law | Inquirer News

"x x x.

The National Privacy Commission (NPC) has called the attention of a top universal bank in the country for a statement on its information sheet that asks customers to give up their rights to data privacy.

“You cannot waive a fundamental right,” NPC Chair Raymund Liboro said in a recent briefing with Inquirer editors and staff.

This was the principle behind the red flag given last September to Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) by the NPC for letting bank clients sign a statement waiving their rights to data privacy.

A boxed statement, which read, “I waive my rights to the Data Privacy Act,” was signed by customers as a form of consent and authorization for the bank to process information provided on the sheet, Liboro said.

Waiving such rights is against Republic Act No. 10173, enacted in 2012, which aims to protect the privacy of personal information in the government and private sectors as well as govern the processing of such data.

The law’s implementing rules and regulations were approved in August 2016.

A dialogue between NPC representatives and the bank was held after a BPI client raised the issue.

With the waiver, Liboro said BPI could have easily passed on the data it gathered to subsidiaries without first asking for the client’s consent.

People whose personal information is collected, stored and processed are called “data subjects” and are granted certain rights under the law.

BPI has promised to remove the waiver and make a new customer sheet, according to Liboro.

x x x."

Sunday, January 29, 2017

‘Ultramajority’ Duterte Supreme Court looms | Inquirer Opinion

See - ‘Ultramajority’ Duterte SC looms | Inquirer Opinion

"x x x.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

‘Ultramajority’ Duterte SC looms

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 12:04 AM January 28, 2017

In his letter, George del Mar wrote about a “supermajority” of 10 justices appointed by President Duterte by 2019 (“SC in Duterte’s pocket,” Opinion, 1/18/17). Actually, two more are up for appointment by him until 2022 (assuming he finishes his term). That’s 12 Duterte stand-ins in all out of the 15—an ultramajority. Indeed, what kind of “magistrates” are we to expect him to pack that Supreme Court with? Thinkers as wishy-washy and namby-pamby as he can make them.

Sample: When then presidential candidate Duterte was asked by then also presidential aspirant Mar Roxas to reveal the true condition of his health, he riposted that he (Roxas) show first that he was “circumcised.” That reminded us of the literally “below-the-belt,” gutter politics in Cebu a long time ago: Ingon nila pisot pa kuno ko sa politika. Hoy, pangutan-a ang inyong mga asawa kung pisot ba gyud ko”! (They say I’m uncircumcised [green horn and know nothing about politics]. They should ask their wives if that’s true!)

Duterte’s rah-rah boys were quick to explain he did not mean that Roxas was “supot”—just not “cut-out” for the presidency. And when, even as president already, he bragged that he was spanking the butts of women, they spun it around as if there was really nothing to it—their boss was just being “playful that’s all.” So, that’s the kind of twisted minds the Filipino people will have to deal with, presiding in the high court over their lives and fortunes. No sense of shame or delicadeza whatsoever.

But that’s not the scariest part. There is little doubt Duterte will be held accountable for his criminal excesses as soon as he steps down and sheds his executive immunity. What better way to insure his own protection and that of his trigger-happy minions than getting friendly flunkies in their 40s appointed to the Supreme Court who will be there to stay until they reach 70? Duterte has made no secret about his exclusive preference for sycophants to occupy sinecures under his watch.

Often enough, we have seen warrants of arrest being held in abeyance via petitions for “judicial determination of probable cause” which eventually wind up in the Supreme Court for a final say on whether or not the accused should be set free. The case of Sen. Ping Lacson was classic and precedent-setting: The warrants for his arrest on nonbailable murder charges in 2010 were rendered inutile by the Court of Appeals which found “no probable cause” to hold him for trial. Now imagine Duterte and his gunslingers before the new Supreme Court. . .

Get the picture?

REY C. ESCOBAR, rc_esco@yahoo.com

x x x."

Friday, January 27, 2017

Aquino blames Napeñas for Mamasapano debacle | Inquirer News

See - Aquino blames Napeñas for Mamasapano debacle | Inquirer News

"x x x.

“If I had a fault as President at the time, it would be this: It never occurred to me that [Director Getulio] Napeñas [the SAF commander] would lie to the President of the Philippines,” Aquino said in a statement in Filipino he issued in response to fresh questions about the botched counterterrorism operation on Jan. 25, 2015, that ended with government security forces sustaining their biggest single-day battlefield loss.

“I trusted a two-star police officer whom I had promoted. I believed that this [Philippine Military Academy] graduate would adhere to the school’s values of ‘Courage, Integrity, Loyalty,’” Aquino said.

Sacked

Napeñas was sacked after the loss of nine officers of the SAF strike force, the 84th Special Action Company (SAC), also known as Seaborne, and 35 officers of the blocking force, the 55th SAC, in “Oplan: Exodus,” the police operation to get Malaysian terrorist Zulkifli bin Hir, alias Marwan, and his Filipino aide, Basit Usman.

Marwan, who had a $5-million price on his head offered by the US government, was killed in the police raid on his hideout in Tukanalipao village, Mamasapano.

Usman got away, but was killed in a subsequent military operation with the cooperation of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the main secessionist rebel group in Mindanao that had signed a peace agreement with the government but whose fighters got involved in the Mamasapano clash despite a ceasefire.

The Ombudsman has brought graft and usurpation charges against Napeñas and former PNP Director General Alan Purisima, who planned the operation and directed its execution, although he was suspended at the time over a graft case.

Aquino offered no explanation for allowing Purisima to direct the police mission, but explained Purisima’s role in his response to charges filed against him over the Mamasapano massacre in the Office of the Ombudsman.

Relatives of the slain commandos, despite receiving assistance from the government, brought the charges, insisting that Aquino was responsible for the deaths of the policemen.

Mamasapano commission

President Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday announced the formation of a commission to take a fresh look at the massacre, and challenged Aquino to answer lingering questions about the covert police operation that ended in debacle.

Mr. Duterte wanted Aquino to explain why the SAF and not the Army was deployed when the police commandos were trained to combat urban terrorism.

He also wanted to know why Oplan: Exodus was kept a secret and why Aquino concealed the fact that it was a US Central Intelligence Agency operation apparently carried out with the former President’s blessing.

Mr. Duterte also asked who got the $5-million US bounty for Marwan.

In his statement on Thursday, Aquino said the SAF was not only an urban security force but also a rapid deployment force that could operate “anywhere in the country.”

He said he instructed Napeñas to coordinate with the military for armor, artillery, air and troop support in the event the mission was discovered and the Moro rebels responded in force.

But Napeñas, he said, informed the military about the mission only when the commando raid was already under way, instead of “days before” to give the military time to prepare.

Law enforcement

Aquino said the PNP carried out the mission because it had the “actionable intelligence” on the whereabouts of Marwan.

“A reminder: This was a law enforcement operation, and we were acting on the warrant of arrest for Marwan and Usman. We know that the PNP has the police power and has the duty to implement the arrest warrant,” Aquino said.

On the role of the United States in the operation, Aquino said: “I never talked to any American about the mission before and during the operation. As I understand it, the United States helped with the equipment, hardware and intelligence used in the mission.”

Aquino said his adviser on the peace process, Teresita Deles, did not stop him from ordering the military to intervene to save the trapped SAF commandos.

Deles, he said, had no role in the mission, as it was a law enforcement operation.

As for possible repercussions on the peace process, Aquino said it was the MILF that informed the government side about the clash in Mamasapano.

He gave no details, but the joint government-MILF ceasefire group worked to halt the fighting, which lasted nearly the whole day.

Orders to military

Aquino denied that he sent in the commandos to be slaughtered, saying he had witnesses who could testify to his insistence on coordination between the police and the military.

In Zamboanga City, where he received a briefing on the fighting, Aquino said he gave orders for military intervention, expecting the provision of ammunition for the commandos as the least military action.

On who got the bounty for Marwan, Aquino said: “I don’t know, because it was not our reward. Truth be told, we had no involvement in the reward.”

On the question why only two commandos were given the PNP Medal of Valor, Aquino said: “The conferment of the medal goes through a process. This is based on the recommendation of a PNP board.”

But if President Duterte could find a way to award the medal to all of the commandos, he said, “we will agree with that.”

x x x."

Aquino moves for dismissal of complaints | Inquirer News

See - Aquino moves for dismissal of complaints | Inquirer News

"x x x.

Former President Benigno Aquino III has formally denied having direct participation in the botched Philippine National Police Special Action Force (SAF) operation in Mamasapano, Maguindanao province, that led to the deaths of 44 police commandos on Jan. 25, 2015.

Aquino asked the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the three complaints filed by the relatives of the slain SAF commandos against him, saying he could not be directly faulted for the deaths of the policemen because of his limited involvement in the operation.

In his 27-page counteraffidavit, Aquino argued the case did not fall under the doctrine of command responsibility, as he had “reasonable basis” to presume the operation was being carried out with regularity.

He said he was not directly involved in the planning and execution of “Oplan: Exodus,” as these duties fell under the “sole discretion” of the ground commanders.

Aquino said he only received updates from the police officials, and was not even informed of the date during a Jan. 9, 2015, briefing.

“It was only on the morning of Jan. 25, 2015, that I learned that Oplan: Exodus had been implemented,” he said.

Aquino argued that his participation was “not the proximate cause” of the SAF troopers’ deaths.

He said the operation failed because of “poor planning, defective execution and lack of coordination” with the military.

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/865908/aquino-moves-for-dismissal-of-complaints#ixzz4Wx8WzyeX

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Families of slain Filipinos file Supreme Court challenge to Rodrigo Duterte’s drugs war | South China Morning Post

See - Families of slain Filipinos file Supreme Court challenge to Rodrigo Duterte’s drugs war | South China Morning Post

"x x x.

Families of alleged drugs suspects killed by Philippine police petitioned the Supreme Court on Thursday to force police to disclose evidence linking them to narcotics, in the first legal challenge to President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs.

Lawyers representing families of four men killed in a run-down Manila neighbourhood in August, and one survivor, urged the top court to allow scrutiny of police operations because the official accounts were “sheer incongruity” and read like film plots “from bygone days of Filipino cinema”.

Duterte’s war on drugs has caused an international outcry, with human rights groups alleging widespread summary executions by police operating with impunity.

The tough-talking president said he would stand by police if suspects were killed because they put up violent resistance.

More than 7,000 people have been killed since Duterte took office seven months ago, about 2,250 in anti-drugs operations and the rest still being investigated. Police say many of those deaths are gangs members killing each other though critics blame many deaths on vigilantes in cahoots with police.

The petition asks the top court to compel police to suspend drugs operations in parts of the Quezon City area of Manila, where the four were killed, and make available the surveillance material and intelligence reports that had initially identified the victims as being drugs dealers. The families deny their kin were involved in drugs.

x x x."

Thursday, January 26, 2017

The Supreme Court should automatically treat such congressional investigative reports detailing the criminal and unethical roles of scalawag lawyers as "formal administrative complaints" if it is sincere and serious in cleansing the PH Bar and the Justice System of unprofessional defilements.

Many of the masterminds and beneficiaries of corrupt and brutal criminal syndicates and felonious activities that take place under the Duterte regime are lawyers, e.g., DOJ, BI, NBI, PNP, Cabinet, et al.

Congress should make it a policy to automatically forward to the Supreme Court, by way of "de facto administrative complaints", all investigative committee reports and their supporting documents/exhibits and transcripts of hearings involving scalawag lawyers.

The Supreme Court should automatically treat such congressional investigative reports detailing the criminal and unethical roles of scalawag lawyers as "formal administrative complaints" if it is sincere and serious in cleansing the PH Bar and the Justice System of unprofessional defilements.

Our ideal to attain the primacy of the rule of law in the PH will always remain an empty dream if members of the PH Bar, out of greed for money and power, continue to cooperate with the totalitarian, fascistic and corrupt Executive and his Cabinet.

Remember the days of the Marcosian martial law.

Marcos had all the best lawyers in the PH from the best law schools under his mantle of political protection, compensation, and cronyism.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno cited the drop in the country’s ranking in the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index from 51st place in 2015 to 70th place last year as an “indicator of the serious erosion of trust in the criminal justice system, in the civil justice system and in regulatory agencies.”

See - Sereno: Unresolved killings weakening rule of law | Headlines | Philippine Star

"x x x.

The perception of the rule of law in the country has diminished due to unresolved killings of drug suspects, Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno said yesterday.

Breaking her silence on the issue after seven months of the Duterte administration, the Supreme Court chief lamented how their efforts to improve the perception of justice in the country through judicial reform initiatives suffered a setback due to the killings over the past months.