Saturday, September 1, 2018
Decisions written by and voting history of new Chief Justice Teresita De Castro
See - https://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/08/24/18/profile-teresita-de-castro
"x x x.
DECISIONS/PONENCIAS
March 2008
"x x x.
DECISIONS/PONENCIAS
March 2008
Upheld the presidential communications/executive privilege, a decision that kept the political branches of government “within constitutional bounds in the exercise of their respective powers and prerogatives, even if it be in the search for truth.” The case involves the Senate’s contempt and arrest order against National Economic and Development Authority director general Romulo Neri over its inquiry into the 2007 contract between the Department of Transportation and Communication and Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of equipment and services for the National Broadband Network (NBN) Project in the amount of U.S. $ 329,481,290 (approximately P16 Billion Pesos).
APRIL 2011
APRIL 2011
Reversed a Court of Appeals decision involving a libel case against Philippine Daily Inquirer officials and news personnel, and ruled to dismiss said case against publisher Isagani Yambot, editor-in-chief Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc, managing editor Jose Ma. Nolasco, news editor Artemio Engracia and senior reporter Volt Contreras in relation to an article about a supposed mauling incident involving a Makati Regional Trial Court judge.
JUNE 2011
JUNE 2011
Upheld the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts of General Santos City and Davao City to try a P1.3-billion damage claim by close to 500 plaintiffs against multinational companies Shell Oil Co., DOW Chemica Co., Occidental Chemical Corp. Standard Fruit Co., Standard Fruit & Steamship Co., Dole Food Co. Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Co., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Del Monte Tropical Fruit Co., Chiquita Brands International, Inc. and Chiquita Brands Inc. Plaintiffs allegedly sustained from exposure to harmful chemical, dibromochloropropane.
JUNE 2011
JUNE 2011
Affirmed the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit (COA) to conduct audit over the funds of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines, which the high court found to be a public corporation subject to COA’s audit jurisdiction.
OCTOBER 2011
OCTOBER 2011
Struck down the Retirement/Financial Plan (RFP) of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and affirmed a Commission on Audit (COA) decision to disallow some P66.63 million in retirement benefits to several of the state pension fund's officers and employees, stressing that the purpose of the RFP must be “to augment the retirement benefits [GSIS employees] would receive” and “not to encourage GSIS employees to retire before their retirement age.”
JANUARY 2012
JANUARY 2012
Affirmed the dismissal of a petition filed by the Philippine National Bank involving its tax refund claim against the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
JULY 2012
JULY 2012
Ordered the Province of Aklan, the Philippine Reclamation Authority, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to cease and desist from implementing phase 1 of its reclamation project in Barangay Caticlan, Municipality of Malay, Aklan intended for port expansion and commercial purposes.
JULY 2013
JULY 2013
Granted the petitions of the Coalition of Senior Citizens in the Philippines and reversed the party-list's disqualification by the Commission on Elections. The case, decided unanimously by the SC, is the same case raised at the House impeachment hearings against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, where Sereno was alleged to have altered the temporary restraining order recommended by De Castro in favor of said party-list petitioner. Sereno issued a TRO that covered not only the party-list petitioner, but one that prevented the proclamation of the remaining winners in the 2013 party-list race.
JANUARY 2015
JANUARY 2015
Junked the disqualification case against former president now Manila Mayor Joseph "Erap" Ejercito Estrada, ruling that the pardon granted him by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo restored his civil and political rights thereby enabling him eligible to run in the 2013 polls. De Castro was also part of the Sandiganbayan special division that convicted Estrada of plunder, the very case that was the subject of the presidential pardon.
JULY 2015
JULY 2015
Declared properties of the Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA), consisting of the “airport terminal building, airfield, runway, taxiway and the lots on which they are situated,” exempt from the real property tax imposed by the City of Lapu-lapu for being properties “of public dominion because they are intended for public use.” The decision also declared null and void the sale of 27 of MCIAA's properties, which were earlier sold in public auction for delinquency in realty tax obligations.
MARCH 2017
MARCH 2017
Struck down the Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) scheme of clustering nominees for multiple vacancies in the judiciary, thereby affirming the President’s power to make appointments in the judiciary. The case was also subject of the House impeachment hearings against ousted CJ Sereno, where then JBC chair Sereno was said to have caused the clustering scheme to favor her personal bets. The clusters clipped the President’s appointing power by limiting the President’s choice for each vacant position to each cluster of names submitted by the JBC instead of allowing him to choose from all shortlisted candidates.
JULY 2017
JULY 2017
Dismissed the petition pleading for the SC to order Congress to convene into joint session on President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the southern Philippine region. The ruling stressed that the 1987 Constitution has no provision mandating Congress to convene in joint session to determine the validity of the declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ.
VOTING HISTORY
December 2010
VOTING HISTORY
December 2010
Voted to strike down as unconstitutional President Benigno Simeon Aquino’s Executive Order No. 1, Creating the Truth Commission for limiting its scope only to the previous Arroyo administration thereby violating the equal protection clause in the 1987 Constitution
November 2011
November 2011
Voted in favor of the distribution of Cojuangco-owned Hacienda Luisita’s 4,915-hectare farmlands to farmer-beneficiaries
November 2013
November 2013
Voted to declare the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional
July 2014
July 2014
Voted to strike down as unconstitutional the Aquino administration’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and the budget department's Circular No. 541 that authorized the withdrawal of unobligated and unutilized funds. The decision also stated that government officials (authors, proponents, implementors of DAP) may be held liable for the release of public funds under the stimulus package.
March 2016
March 2016
Voted that Senator Grace Poe was not a natural-born Filipino and failed to meet the residency eligibility requirement to run for president in the May 2016 polls
November 2016
November 2016
Voted in favor of the burial of President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
October 2017
October 2017
Voted to uphold the arrest of Senator Leila De Lima over alleged involvement in the National Bilibid Prison illegal drug trade
December 2017
December 2017
Voted to uphold the constitutionality of President Rodrigo Duterte’s imposition of Martial law in Mindanao and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
February 2018
February 2018
Voted to uphold the constitutionality of President Rodrigo Duterte’s yearlong extension of Martial Law in Mindanao
June 2018 (final decision)
June 2018 (final decision)
Voted to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on petition for quo warranto, ruling that she was ineligible for the post for failure to faithfully file her annual sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth during her 20-year teaching stint at the University of the Philippines College of Law, and submitting only 3 instead of 10 SALNs upon her application for Chief Justice in July 2012
x x x."
x x x."
Profile of new Chief Justice Teresita de Castro
"x x x.
With a government service record spanning 45 years, De Castro formally accepted her nomination for Chief Justice on the last day for the submission of applications.
Should she be Duterte’s pick for the top judicial post, De Castro shall (1) have served at the helm of two collegial courts — the high court and the Sandiganbayan, having served as Presiding Justice of the latter from 2004 up to 2007; and (2) be the next lady Philippine Chief Justice, after the ouster of Maria Lourdes Sereno and the voiding of her appointment on ground of ineligibility.
De Castro, set to retire in October, was nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council and by retired Sandiganbayan Associate Justice and former JBC member Raoul Victorino, who nominated all incumbent high court magistrates.
De Castro’s entire professional career is in government, beginning right where she is now - the SC - in 1973 as law clerk, fresh from the 1973 Bar Examinations.
She finished law, among the top 4 in her class, in 1972 at the University of the Philippines.
Two years following her entry to the SC, De Castro was designated judicial assistant and member of the technical staff of Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, a position she held up to 1978.
Thereafter, she moved to the Department of Justice (DOJ) as State Counsel I up to 1981; she was promoted to State Counsel II in 1981.
Four years later, she was promoted to Senior State Counsel; she stayed in the post up to 1987.
In 1988, De Castro was promoted again as DOJ Supervising State Counsel and chief of the DOJ Legal Staff.
From 1988 to 1997, De Castro was designated by President Corazon Aquino and President Fidel Ramos as one of government’s international and peace negotiators. In 1998, Mr. Ramos awarded her with the Presidential Medal of Merit for Exceptionally Meritorious and Valuable Service Rendered and Remarkable Accomplishments that have served the interest of peace, unity and progress in Southern Philippines.
Her career at the DOJ culminated in her designation as Assistant Chief State Counsel in 1997, and on the same year she was appointed by Mr. Ramos as Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan.
Six years later, in 2004, she became the Sandiganbayan's Presiding Justice.
In 2012, De Castro was elected president of the International Association of Women Judges which has a membership of over 100 countries. She is also currently the president of the Philippine Women Judges Association.
At the high court, De Castro was the Working Chairperson of the First Division, Chairperson of the Management Committee of the Judicial Reform Support Project, Working Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards and of the Halls of Justice Coordinating Committee, Chairperson of the Committee on Computerization and Library, the Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary, and the Special Committee to Draft Rules on Sexual Harassment in the Judiciary, and Member of the Supreme Court Internal Rules Committee.
x x x."
California will become the first state to eliminate bail for suspects awaiting trial and replace it with a still murky risk-assessment system
See - http://time.com/money/5381527/california-first-state-end-bail/
"x x x.
"x x x.
California Just Became the First State to End Bail. Here’s What You Need to Know
By SOPHIA BOLLAG/ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 29, 2018
(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) California will become the first state to eliminate bail for suspects awaiting trial and replace it with a still murky risk-assessment system under a bill signed Tuesday by Gov. Jerry Brown.
Brown’s signature gives the state’s judicial council broad authority to reshape pretrial detention policies ahead of the new law’s October 2019 start date.
Based on the council’s framework, each county’s superior court will set its own procedures for deciding who to release before trial, potentially creating a patchwork system based on where a suspect lives.
Most suspects accused of nonviolent felonies will be released within 12 hours of booking, while those charged with serious, violent felonies will stay in jail before trial.
The new law gives judges wide latitude to decide what to do with other suspects based on their likelihood of returning to court and the danger they pose to the public.
It’s still unclear which suspects would fall into each category or how long they might spend in jail.
California’s new law is the latest development in the nationwide debate over bail, which many people say unfairly punishes people for being poor. Other states including New Jersey, Alaska and New Mexico have overhauled their bail systems, although no other state has completely eliminated bail.
Advocates of the California law say incarceration should depend on a suspect’s risk to public safety, not the ability to pay.
“Our path to a more just criminal justice system is not complete, but today it made a transformational shift away from valuing private wealth and toward protecting public safety,” the law’s author, state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, a Democrat from Van Nuys, said in a statement.
Opponents, including some social justice groups, argue the new law gives judges too much power to decide who should be released.
Gina Clayton Johnson, executive director of Essie Justice Group, which advocates for women with family members in prison, says she worries the policy will lead to mass incarceration. She said there’s not enough protection in the law to ensure it doesn’t perpetuate racial bias in the criminal justice system.
“This is a bill that has confused a lot of people because it does do something very positive, which is to end the bail industry,” she said. “Yet what we had to trade for that win actually sets us further back.”
Others, meanwhile, argue it will allow dangerous people to go free and perhaps not return for trial.
Such arguments are playing out in New Mexico after a judge decided to allow the release of several members of an extended family accused of child abuse at a desert compound.
The judge said her decision was tied to recent reforms that set a high bar for holding suspects without bail.
Her decision has caused political uproar. Prosecutors have alleged the group was training children to use firearms for an anti-government mission and are fighting to keep the suspects from being released.
New Mexico voters approved an overhaul of the pre-trial release system in 2016.
Other states have been watching California as they weigh overhauling their bail systems, said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, who works on criminal justice issues for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU has been in talks with more than 30 other states about bail overhaul and is now advising them to avoid using California as a model because its system won’t ensure due process and won’t prevent racial bias, she said.
In California, overarching rules will be set by the judicial council, the policy-making body for California’s courts headed by the state’s chief justice.
The new law lets counties set up their own pretrial assessment agencies or run their risk assessment programs through existing probation departments.
It gives officials 24 hours to determine whether a suspect should be released before trial. That time can be extended by 12 hours if necessary.
Some criminal justice reform advocates worry defendants will spend weeks in jail while their lawyers try to prove they should be set free.
x x x."
By SOPHIA BOLLAG/ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 29, 2018
(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) California will become the first state to eliminate bail for suspects awaiting trial and replace it with a still murky risk-assessment system under a bill signed Tuesday by Gov. Jerry Brown.
Brown’s signature gives the state’s judicial council broad authority to reshape pretrial detention policies ahead of the new law’s October 2019 start date.
Based on the council’s framework, each county’s superior court will set its own procedures for deciding who to release before trial, potentially creating a patchwork system based on where a suspect lives.
Most suspects accused of nonviolent felonies will be released within 12 hours of booking, while those charged with serious, violent felonies will stay in jail before trial.
The new law gives judges wide latitude to decide what to do with other suspects based on their likelihood of returning to court and the danger they pose to the public.
It’s still unclear which suspects would fall into each category or how long they might spend in jail.
California’s new law is the latest development in the nationwide debate over bail, which many people say unfairly punishes people for being poor. Other states including New Jersey, Alaska and New Mexico have overhauled their bail systems, although no other state has completely eliminated bail.
Advocates of the California law say incarceration should depend on a suspect’s risk to public safety, not the ability to pay.
“Our path to a more just criminal justice system is not complete, but today it made a transformational shift away from valuing private wealth and toward protecting public safety,” the law’s author, state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, a Democrat from Van Nuys, said in a statement.
Opponents, including some social justice groups, argue the new law gives judges too much power to decide who should be released.
Gina Clayton Johnson, executive director of Essie Justice Group, which advocates for women with family members in prison, says she worries the policy will lead to mass incarceration. She said there’s not enough protection in the law to ensure it doesn’t perpetuate racial bias in the criminal justice system.
“This is a bill that has confused a lot of people because it does do something very positive, which is to end the bail industry,” she said. “Yet what we had to trade for that win actually sets us further back.”
Others, meanwhile, argue it will allow dangerous people to go free and perhaps not return for trial.
Such arguments are playing out in New Mexico after a judge decided to allow the release of several members of an extended family accused of child abuse at a desert compound.
The judge said her decision was tied to recent reforms that set a high bar for holding suspects without bail.
Her decision has caused political uproar. Prosecutors have alleged the group was training children to use firearms for an anti-government mission and are fighting to keep the suspects from being released.
New Mexico voters approved an overhaul of the pre-trial release system in 2016.
Other states have been watching California as they weigh overhauling their bail systems, said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, who works on criminal justice issues for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU has been in talks with more than 30 other states about bail overhaul and is now advising them to avoid using California as a model because its system won’t ensure due process and won’t prevent racial bias, she said.
In California, overarching rules will be set by the judicial council, the policy-making body for California’s courts headed by the state’s chief justice.
The new law lets counties set up their own pretrial assessment agencies or run their risk assessment programs through existing probation departments.
It gives officials 24 hours to determine whether a suspect should be released before trial. That time can be extended by 12 hours if necessary.
Some criminal justice reform advocates worry defendants will spend weeks in jail while their lawyers try to prove they should be set free.
x x x."
RA 10175, Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012; rules on the issuance of warrants and related orders in connection with the enforcement of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
See - http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1046058
"x x x.
SC sets rules on issuance of warrants for Cybercrime law
By Christopher Lloyd Caliwan August 27, 2018, 3:30 pm
MANILA -- The Supreme Court (SC) has laid the rules in the issuance of warrants and related orders in connection with the enforcement of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
In a 28-page resolution dated July 3 unanimously approved by the SC magistrates, the High Court stated that the rules on warrants and orders involve “the preservation, disclosure, interception, search, seizure, and/or examination, as well as the custody, and destruction of computer data” under RA 10175.
The salient features of the rules of court on cybercrime offenses, as laid down by the SC are:
1. “The criminal actions for violation of Section 4 (Cybercrime offenses) and/or Section 5 (Other offenses), Chapter II of RA 10175, shall be filed before the designated cybercrime court of the province or city where the offense or any of its elements is committed, or where any part of the computer system used is situated, or where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took place, provided that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other courts. All other crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special laws, committed by, through, and with the use of ICT, as provided under Section 6, Chapter II of RA 10175, shall be filed before the regular or other specialized regional trial courts, as the case may be.
2. “An application for a warrant under this Rule concerning a violation of Section 4 (Cybercrime Offenses) and/or Section 5 (Other Offenses), Chapter II of RA 10175 shall be filed by the law enforcement authorities before any of the designated cybercrime courts of the province or the city where the offense or any of its elements has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, or where any part of the computer system used is situated, or where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took place. However, the cybercrime courts in Quezon City, the City of Manila, Makati City, Pasig City, Cebu City, Iloilo City, Davao City and Cagayan De Oro City shall have the special authority to act on applications and issue warrants which shall be enforceable nationwide and outside the Philippines.
3. “On the other hand, an application for a warrant under this Rule for violation of Section 6, Chapter II of RA 10175 (all crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special laws, if committed by, through, and with the use of ICT) shall be filed by the law enforcement authorities with the regular or other specialized regional trial courts, as the case may be, within its territorial jurisdiction in the places above-described.
4. “Once a criminal action is instituted, a motion to quash and other incidents that relate to the warrant shall be heard and resolved by the court that subsequently acquired jurisdiction over the criminal action. The prosecution has the duty to move for the transmittal of the records, as well as the transfer of the items' custody to the latter court.
5. “Before issuing a warrant, the judge must personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the applicant and the witnesses he may produce, on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the judicial affidavits submitted.
6. “Any warrant issued under this Rule shall only be effective for the length of time as determined by the court, which shall not exceed a period of ten (10) days from its issuance. The court issuing the warrant may, upon motion, extend its effectivity based only on justifiable reasons for a period not exceeding ten (10) days from the expiration of the original period
7. “Failure to timely file the returns for any of the issued warrants under this Rule or to duly turn-over to the court's custody any of the items disclosed, intercepted, searched, seized, and/or examined as prescribed hereunder, shall subject the responsible law enforcement authorities to an action for contempt, which procedures shall be governed by Rule 71 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, insofar as they are applicable
8. “Pursuant to Section 20, Chapter IV of RA 10175, failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV, specifically the orders from law enforcement authorities, shall be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829, entitled ‘Penalizing Obstruction Of Apprehension And Prosecution Of Criminal Offenders.’ The criminal charge for obstruction of justice shall be filed before the designated cybercrime court that has jurisdiction over the place where the non-compliance was committed.
9. “For persons or service providers situated outside of the Philippines, service of warrants and/or other court processes shall be coursed through the Department of Justice -Office of Cybercrime, in line with all relevant international instruments and/or agreements on the matter
10. “Pursuant to Section 13, Chapter IV of RA 10175, the integrity of traffic data and subscriber's information shall be kept, retained, and preserved by a service provider for a minimum period of six ( 6) months from the date of the transaction. On the other hand, content data shall be preserved for six ( 6) months from the date of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its preservation. Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension for another six ( 6) months: Provided, that once computer data that is preserved, transmitted or stored by a service provider is used as evidence in a case, the receipt by the service provider of a copy of the transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer data until the final termination of the case and/or as ordered by the court, as the case maybe. The service provider ordered to preserve computer data shall keep the order and its compliance therewith confidential.
11.“Pursuant to Section 14, Chapter IV of RA 10175, law enforcement authorities, upon securing a Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD) under this Rule, shall issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber's information, traffic data or relevant data in his/her or its possession or control within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of investigation. Section 4.2. Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD). -A WDCD is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to issue an order to disclose and accordingly, require any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber's information, traffic data, or relevant data in his/her or its possession or control. Section 4.3. Contents of Application for a WDCD.
12. If the judge is satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the facts upon which the application for WDCD exists, he/she shall issue the WDCD.
13. “Within 48 hours from implementation or after the expiration of the effectivity of the WDCD, whichever comes first, the authorized law enforcement officer shall submit a return on the WDCD to the court that issued it and simultaneously turn over the custody of the disclosed computer data or subscriber's information thereto. It is the duty of the issuing judge to ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, to summon the law enforcement officer to whom the WDCD was issued and require him to explain why no return was made, without prejudice to any action for contempt as provided under Section 2.6 of this Rule.
14. “Law enforcement authorities are allowed to retain a copy of the disclosed computer data or subscriber's information subject of the WDCD which may be utilized for case build-up or preliminary investigation purposes, without the need of any court intervention; Provided, that the details thereof are kept strictly confidential and that the retained copy shall be labelled as such. The retained copy shall be turned over upon the filing of a criminal action involving the disclosed computer data or subscriber's information to the court where such action has been instituted, or if no criminal action has been filed, upon order of the issuing court …. Upon its turn-over, the retained copy shall always be kept, destroyed, and/or returned together with the computer data or subscriber's information that was originally turned over to the issuing court under the first paragraph of this Section.
15. "Non-compliance with the order to disclose issued by law enforcement authorities shall be deemed non-compliance with the WDCD on which the said order is based, and shall likewise give rise to an action for contempt."
16. “A Warrant to Search, Seize and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD) is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to search the particular place for items to be seized and/ or examined. The verified application for a WSSECD, as well as the supporting affidavits, shall state the essential facts similar to those in Section 4.3 of this Rule, except that the subject matter is the computer data sought to be searched, seized, and examined, and all other items related thereto. In addition, the application shall contain an explanation of the search and seizure strategy to be implemented, including a projection of whether or not an off-site or on-site search will be conducted, taking into account the nature of the computer data involved, the computer or computer system's security features, and/or other relevant circumstances, if such information is available.
17. “If the judge is satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the facts upon which the application for WSSECD exists, he shall issue the WSSECD.”
The SC said the rule supplements the Rules of Criminal Procedure on the preliminary investigation and all stages of the prosecution of criminal action involving violations of RA 10175 with the use of information and communications technologies (ICT).
All crimes enumerated in RA 10175 are cognizable by the regional trial courts (RTCs) in the country and those courts specifically designated as “cybercrime courts.”
The SC said “the detection, investigation, and prosecution of cybercrime offenses necessitate a rule of procedure therefore, especially for the application, issuance, and implementation of court warrants technically-suited to the nature of cybercrime offenses.”
A person found guilty of violation of RA 10175 may be imprisoned from six years and one day to 12 years (prision mayor) or imposed a fine ranging from PHP200,000 to PHP500,000 or both.
If a violation is committed against critical infrastructure, the penalty is a prison term ranging from 12 years and one day to 20 years (reclusion temporal) or a fine of at least PHP500,000 or both.
If a violation involves child pornography, the penalty is one degree higher than that imposed in the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 under RA 9775. Corporate liability under RA 10175 is punishable by a fine ranging from PHP5 million to PHP10 million without prejudice to the criminal liability of corporate officers.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, also known as Republic Act No. 10175, aims to address legal issues concerning internet usage and online interactions in the Philippines.
Among the crimes punishable under RA 10175 are libel, cybersex, child pornography, and offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems like illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, cyber-squatting, computer related fraud, computer-related Identity theft, and unsolicited commercial communications.
The RA 10175 tasks the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police in the enforcement of the law, while the Department of Justice (DOJ) is mandated to create an Office of Cybercrime on matters related to international mutual assistance and extradition.
It also provided for the creation of an inter-agency body known as the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) under the Office of the President. (PNA)
x x x."
"x x x.
SC sets rules on issuance of warrants for Cybercrime law
By Christopher Lloyd Caliwan August 27, 2018, 3:30 pm
MANILA -- The Supreme Court (SC) has laid the rules in the issuance of warrants and related orders in connection with the enforcement of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
In a 28-page resolution dated July 3 unanimously approved by the SC magistrates, the High Court stated that the rules on warrants and orders involve “the preservation, disclosure, interception, search, seizure, and/or examination, as well as the custody, and destruction of computer data” under RA 10175.
The salient features of the rules of court on cybercrime offenses, as laid down by the SC are:
1. “The criminal actions for violation of Section 4 (Cybercrime offenses) and/or Section 5 (Other offenses), Chapter II of RA 10175, shall be filed before the designated cybercrime court of the province or city where the offense or any of its elements is committed, or where any part of the computer system used is situated, or where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took place, provided that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other courts. All other crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special laws, committed by, through, and with the use of ICT, as provided under Section 6, Chapter II of RA 10175, shall be filed before the regular or other specialized regional trial courts, as the case may be.
2. “An application for a warrant under this Rule concerning a violation of Section 4 (Cybercrime Offenses) and/or Section 5 (Other Offenses), Chapter II of RA 10175 shall be filed by the law enforcement authorities before any of the designated cybercrime courts of the province or the city where the offense or any of its elements has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, or where any part of the computer system used is situated, or where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took place. However, the cybercrime courts in Quezon City, the City of Manila, Makati City, Pasig City, Cebu City, Iloilo City, Davao City and Cagayan De Oro City shall have the special authority to act on applications and issue warrants which shall be enforceable nationwide and outside the Philippines.
3. “On the other hand, an application for a warrant under this Rule for violation of Section 6, Chapter II of RA 10175 (all crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special laws, if committed by, through, and with the use of ICT) shall be filed by the law enforcement authorities with the regular or other specialized regional trial courts, as the case may be, within its territorial jurisdiction in the places above-described.
4. “Once a criminal action is instituted, a motion to quash and other incidents that relate to the warrant shall be heard and resolved by the court that subsequently acquired jurisdiction over the criminal action. The prosecution has the duty to move for the transmittal of the records, as well as the transfer of the items' custody to the latter court.
5. “Before issuing a warrant, the judge must personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the applicant and the witnesses he may produce, on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the judicial affidavits submitted.
6. “Any warrant issued under this Rule shall only be effective for the length of time as determined by the court, which shall not exceed a period of ten (10) days from its issuance. The court issuing the warrant may, upon motion, extend its effectivity based only on justifiable reasons for a period not exceeding ten (10) days from the expiration of the original period
7. “Failure to timely file the returns for any of the issued warrants under this Rule or to duly turn-over to the court's custody any of the items disclosed, intercepted, searched, seized, and/or examined as prescribed hereunder, shall subject the responsible law enforcement authorities to an action for contempt, which procedures shall be governed by Rule 71 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, insofar as they are applicable
8. “Pursuant to Section 20, Chapter IV of RA 10175, failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV, specifically the orders from law enforcement authorities, shall be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829, entitled ‘Penalizing Obstruction Of Apprehension And Prosecution Of Criminal Offenders.’ The criminal charge for obstruction of justice shall be filed before the designated cybercrime court that has jurisdiction over the place where the non-compliance was committed.
9. “For persons or service providers situated outside of the Philippines, service of warrants and/or other court processes shall be coursed through the Department of Justice -Office of Cybercrime, in line with all relevant international instruments and/or agreements on the matter
10. “Pursuant to Section 13, Chapter IV of RA 10175, the integrity of traffic data and subscriber's information shall be kept, retained, and preserved by a service provider for a minimum period of six ( 6) months from the date of the transaction. On the other hand, content data shall be preserved for six ( 6) months from the date of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its preservation. Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension for another six ( 6) months: Provided, that once computer data that is preserved, transmitted or stored by a service provider is used as evidence in a case, the receipt by the service provider of a copy of the transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer data until the final termination of the case and/or as ordered by the court, as the case maybe. The service provider ordered to preserve computer data shall keep the order and its compliance therewith confidential.
11.“Pursuant to Section 14, Chapter IV of RA 10175, law enforcement authorities, upon securing a Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD) under this Rule, shall issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber's information, traffic data or relevant data in his/her or its possession or control within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of investigation. Section 4.2. Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD). -A WDCD is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to issue an order to disclose and accordingly, require any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber's information, traffic data, or relevant data in his/her or its possession or control. Section 4.3. Contents of Application for a WDCD.
12. If the judge is satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the facts upon which the application for WDCD exists, he/she shall issue the WDCD.
13. “Within 48 hours from implementation or after the expiration of the effectivity of the WDCD, whichever comes first, the authorized law enforcement officer shall submit a return on the WDCD to the court that issued it and simultaneously turn over the custody of the disclosed computer data or subscriber's information thereto. It is the duty of the issuing judge to ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, to summon the law enforcement officer to whom the WDCD was issued and require him to explain why no return was made, without prejudice to any action for contempt as provided under Section 2.6 of this Rule.
14. “Law enforcement authorities are allowed to retain a copy of the disclosed computer data or subscriber's information subject of the WDCD which may be utilized for case build-up or preliminary investigation purposes, without the need of any court intervention; Provided, that the details thereof are kept strictly confidential and that the retained copy shall be labelled as such. The retained copy shall be turned over upon the filing of a criminal action involving the disclosed computer data or subscriber's information to the court where such action has been instituted, or if no criminal action has been filed, upon order of the issuing court …. Upon its turn-over, the retained copy shall always be kept, destroyed, and/or returned together with the computer data or subscriber's information that was originally turned over to the issuing court under the first paragraph of this Section.
15. "Non-compliance with the order to disclose issued by law enforcement authorities shall be deemed non-compliance with the WDCD on which the said order is based, and shall likewise give rise to an action for contempt."
16. “A Warrant to Search, Seize and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD) is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to search the particular place for items to be seized and/ or examined. The verified application for a WSSECD, as well as the supporting affidavits, shall state the essential facts similar to those in Section 4.3 of this Rule, except that the subject matter is the computer data sought to be searched, seized, and examined, and all other items related thereto. In addition, the application shall contain an explanation of the search and seizure strategy to be implemented, including a projection of whether or not an off-site or on-site search will be conducted, taking into account the nature of the computer data involved, the computer or computer system's security features, and/or other relevant circumstances, if such information is available.
17. “If the judge is satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the facts upon which the application for WSSECD exists, he shall issue the WSSECD.”
The SC said the rule supplements the Rules of Criminal Procedure on the preliminary investigation and all stages of the prosecution of criminal action involving violations of RA 10175 with the use of information and communications technologies (ICT).
All crimes enumerated in RA 10175 are cognizable by the regional trial courts (RTCs) in the country and those courts specifically designated as “cybercrime courts.”
The SC said “the detection, investigation, and prosecution of cybercrime offenses necessitate a rule of procedure therefore, especially for the application, issuance, and implementation of court warrants technically-suited to the nature of cybercrime offenses.”
A person found guilty of violation of RA 10175 may be imprisoned from six years and one day to 12 years (prision mayor) or imposed a fine ranging from PHP200,000 to PHP500,000 or both.
If a violation is committed against critical infrastructure, the penalty is a prison term ranging from 12 years and one day to 20 years (reclusion temporal) or a fine of at least PHP500,000 or both.
If a violation involves child pornography, the penalty is one degree higher than that imposed in the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 under RA 9775. Corporate liability under RA 10175 is punishable by a fine ranging from PHP5 million to PHP10 million without prejudice to the criminal liability of corporate officers.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, also known as Republic Act No. 10175, aims to address legal issues concerning internet usage and online interactions in the Philippines.
Among the crimes punishable under RA 10175 are libel, cybersex, child pornography, and offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems like illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, cyber-squatting, computer related fraud, computer-related Identity theft, and unsolicited commercial communications.
The RA 10175 tasks the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police in the enforcement of the law, while the Department of Justice (DOJ) is mandated to create an Office of Cybercrime on matters related to international mutual assistance and extradition.
It also provided for the creation of an inter-agency body known as the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) under the Office of the President. (PNA)
x x x."
Justice Antonio Carpio: Withdrawal from International Criminal Court needs Congress nod
See - https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/30/1847090/carpio-withdrawal-icc-needs-congress-nod
"x x x.
Carpio: Withdrawal from ICC needs Congress nod
By Helen Flores (The Philippine Star) - August 30, 2018 - 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines — The withdrawal of the country’s membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC) cannot be done by the executive branch alone as it needs legislative approval, according to Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
Vice President Leni Robredo also rebutted yesterday Malacañang’s claim that President Duterte has sole discretion on the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC.
Carpio said this during the oral arguments last Tuesday night on the petitions of six opposition senators and Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC) led by former Commission on Human Rights chair Loretta Rosales seeking to revoke the withdrawal.
During interpellation on counsels of the PCICC, Carpio said the President cannot just withdraw from the ICC because it is a form of treaty that cannot be repealed without approval of Congress.
“The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the law. You said that a treaty has the status of a law. So the President has to faithfully execute a treaty, correct? And to faithfully execute the treaty does not mean that he can abrogate the treaty, correct?” he stressed.
“Because you are sworn to execute the treaty, to implement the treaty, you cannot obviously repeal the treaty yourself, correct? You cannot abrogate it, correct? You cannot do anything that will prevent the implementation of execution of the treaty, correct?” Carpio pointed out.
Carpio suggested that for the ICC membership – being a treaty – to be repealed, Congress must first pass a new law for such purpose.
“If it can amend a prior law, that means if there’s inconsistency, the later treaty will prevail, isn’t that the rule now?” he said.
“When a law is passed repealing a prior treaty, you don’t even need two-thirds, you don’t need a majority of all the members, you need only a majority of the quorum ... Is that correct?” Carpio added.
The oral arguments will continue on Sept. 4 for the arguments of the senators and the answer of the solicitor general for the Palace.
President Duterte announced last March the government’s withdrawal of its ratification of the Rome Statute, citing “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks” against him and his administration as the reason for his withdrawal as a state party.
The move came after ICC special prosecutor Fatou Bensouda started a preliminary examination on the alleged human rights violations amid the Duterte administration’s intensified war on drugs.
Senate approval needed
Robredo, for her part, also said “our membership in the ICC was not a sole discretion of the President. The membership is a decision of an entire body.”
“So if it’s not the sole discretion of the President to be part of it, it’s not also his sole discretion to withdraw from it,” Robredo, a lawyer, said in an interview at the House of Representatives yesterday.
“What is it that we fear in being a part of the ICC?” the Vice President said.
She said the county’s membership in the ICC also assures the people’s protection from human rights violations in their countries.
“So when the time comes that we can no longer defend ourselves (from human rights abuses), there will be other countries, who share our beliefs, to protect us,” she said.
“That’s the essence of joining such group,” she added.
Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea on Wedenesday said Duterte, as chief architect of Philippine foreign policy, could withdraw the country from the ICC without consulting with the Senate.
Beyond ICC jurisdiction
Chief Presidential Legal Adviser Salvador Panelo said Duterte cannot be put under the jurisdiction of the ICC for alleged extrajudicial killings related to the administration’s drug war as the Philippines already withdrew from the Rome Statute.
Panelo also reiterated Duterte’s argument that the Rome Statute “did not ripen to a law simply because it was not published in the Official Gazette or in newspaper of general circulation” and thus never had the effect of a measure.
Panelo said publication “is the requirement under the new Civil Code” and that it could not be enforced in the Philippines due to purported violations of the Constitution. – With Edu Punay, Christina Mendez
x x x."
Read more at https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/30/1847090/carpio-withdrawal-icc-needs-congress-nod#jEGAmGM7vo5XKGYw.99
"x x x.
Carpio: Withdrawal from ICC needs Congress nod
By Helen Flores (The Philippine Star) - August 30, 2018 - 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines — The withdrawal of the country’s membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC) cannot be done by the executive branch alone as it needs legislative approval, according to Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
Vice President Leni Robredo also rebutted yesterday Malacañang’s claim that President Duterte has sole discretion on the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC.
Carpio said this during the oral arguments last Tuesday night on the petitions of six opposition senators and Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC) led by former Commission on Human Rights chair Loretta Rosales seeking to revoke the withdrawal.
During interpellation on counsels of the PCICC, Carpio said the President cannot just withdraw from the ICC because it is a form of treaty that cannot be repealed without approval of Congress.
“The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the law. You said that a treaty has the status of a law. So the President has to faithfully execute a treaty, correct? And to faithfully execute the treaty does not mean that he can abrogate the treaty, correct?” he stressed.
“Because you are sworn to execute the treaty, to implement the treaty, you cannot obviously repeal the treaty yourself, correct? You cannot abrogate it, correct? You cannot do anything that will prevent the implementation of execution of the treaty, correct?” Carpio pointed out.
Carpio suggested that for the ICC membership – being a treaty – to be repealed, Congress must first pass a new law for such purpose.
“If it can amend a prior law, that means if there’s inconsistency, the later treaty will prevail, isn’t that the rule now?” he said.
“When a law is passed repealing a prior treaty, you don’t even need two-thirds, you don’t need a majority of all the members, you need only a majority of the quorum ... Is that correct?” Carpio added.
The oral arguments will continue on Sept. 4 for the arguments of the senators and the answer of the solicitor general for the Palace.
President Duterte announced last March the government’s withdrawal of its ratification of the Rome Statute, citing “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks” against him and his administration as the reason for his withdrawal as a state party.
The move came after ICC special prosecutor Fatou Bensouda started a preliminary examination on the alleged human rights violations amid the Duterte administration’s intensified war on drugs.
Senate approval needed
Robredo, for her part, also said “our membership in the ICC was not a sole discretion of the President. The membership is a decision of an entire body.”
“So if it’s not the sole discretion of the President to be part of it, it’s not also his sole discretion to withdraw from it,” Robredo, a lawyer, said in an interview at the House of Representatives yesterday.
“What is it that we fear in being a part of the ICC?” the Vice President said.
She said the county’s membership in the ICC also assures the people’s protection from human rights violations in their countries.
“So when the time comes that we can no longer defend ourselves (from human rights abuses), there will be other countries, who share our beliefs, to protect us,” she said.
“That’s the essence of joining such group,” she added.
Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea on Wedenesday said Duterte, as chief architect of Philippine foreign policy, could withdraw the country from the ICC without consulting with the Senate.
Beyond ICC jurisdiction
Chief Presidential Legal Adviser Salvador Panelo said Duterte cannot be put under the jurisdiction of the ICC for alleged extrajudicial killings related to the administration’s drug war as the Philippines already withdrew from the Rome Statute.
Panelo also reiterated Duterte’s argument that the Rome Statute “did not ripen to a law simply because it was not published in the Official Gazette or in newspaper of general circulation” and thus never had the effect of a measure.
Panelo said publication “is the requirement under the new Civil Code” and that it could not be enforced in the Philippines due to purported violations of the Constitution. – With Edu Punay, Christina Mendez
x x x."
Read more at https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/30/1847090/carpio-withdrawal-icc-needs-congress-nod#jEGAmGM7vo5XKGYw.99
Duterte's Supreme Court as a damaged institution explained by business columnist Tony Lopez
See - http://www.manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/274169/the-cj-and-the-judiciary-crisis.html
"x x x.
The CJ and the judiciary crisis
posted August 29, 2018 at 12:20 am
"x x x.
The CJ and the judiciary crisis
posted August 29, 2018 at 12:20 am
by Tony Lopez
Teresita Leonardo de Castro began yesterday her short stint as the second woman chief justice of the Philippines. A UP Law graduate 1972, she will serve only for a total of 42 days, from Aug. 28, 2018 when she took her oath before the Supreme Court en banc, until Oct. 8, 2018 when she turns 70.
A mix of joy, optimism, and anxiety has greeted Chief de Castro’s ascendancy to being the highest magistrate of the land.
Joy and optimism for four reasons: One, President Duterte seems to have restored the rule of seniority in appointing a chief justice (the President says he never talked to de Castro, does not know her, and that he based his appointment purely on seniority and not exactly on brilliance of the appointee or some other consideration); two, de Castro is eminently qualified to be chief justice; three, her colleagues in the high court welcomed her appointment as CJ (unlike the unlamented Maria Lourdes Sereno whose becoming chief justice despite being the most junior and the least experienced justice was vastly resented by the judiciary, not just in the Supreme Court); and four, finally, the Supreme Court can now move on for greater things after the judicial nightmare that was Sereno.
Why anxiety? For one, De Castro will serve for barely 42 days. Just what a chief of six weeks or three paydays can do?
The judiciary, which the Supreme Court administers, is widely perceived as slow-moving, incompetent and corrupt. Such notoriety partly explains why the Philippines ranks poorly among 190 countries in ease of doing business. There is no rule of law. There is impunity by the high, the mighty, and the lawless.
In the high court itself, some justices are better known as businessmen than jurists. Some know “sociology” better than the law. You know sociology—as in “sosyo”—“sosyo sa negosyo” or a business partner with whom one can cut a deal.
Among the three branches of government, the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary, the judiciary has the lowest trust rating and the highest distrust rating.
In its June 15-21, 2018 survey, Pulse Asia found 61 percent of its respondents had trust in the Senate (not exactly the best Senate in our history), 58 percent in the House of Representatives, and 54 percent in the Supreme Court. In terms of distrust, 6 percent distrust the Senate, a similar 6 percent distrust the House, and 7 percent the Supreme Court.
Distrust in the Supreme Court is highest among the regions, in Metro Manila, 10 percent of respondents (11 for the Senate and 8 for the House in the National Capital Region); among the three main islands, in the Visayas, 9 percent (5 for the Senate and 6 for the House), and among all income classes, in the elite ABC class, 12 percent (11 Senate, 9 House).
Among the four highest officials of the land, then Chief Justice Sereno had the highest distrust rating—35 percent.
President Duterte had a distrust rating of a minuscule 2 percent; then Senate President Koko Pimentel 6 percent, and then House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, 15 percent. Next highest in distrust rating (after Sereno)—Vice President Leni Robredo, with 17 percent.
How come our people trust more the men than their women leaders despite the men being certified SOBs?
How come the best educated, best prepared, most qualified, and most experienced branch of government is the least trusted institution? In this country no one can practice law without finishing law and passing the bar, while you can have a completely illiterate, inveterate dropout and even a certified grafter/womanizer for president, vice president, Senate president, and House speaker.
The answer to this puzzle lies in the slow pace of justice in the Philippines. The Supreme Court itself is the biggest violator of the dictum of “justice delayed is justice denied.”
The Supreme Court has a disposition rate of only 39 percent—5,685 cases out of total case load 14,411pending. That is not enough. Some 6,564 new cases were filed in 2017, outnumbering the cases, 5,685, decided, for a net addition of 879 cases per year. At this pace, the SC cannot clear is caseload of 14,411. SC’s target disposal rate, 5,860 is far less than new cases filed, 6,564 per year, meaning a case could sleep in the court forever. Ideally, a case should average just two and a half years before decision day.
I cannot imagine why a serious lawyer of note would want to be a justice of the SC. Working there is punishment. Case load per justice—476, and rising. Even if a justice were to work every day for 365 days, he would still end up with a backlog of 111 each year. A chief justice makes only P2.8 million a year, regularly.
The Court of Appeals has a disposition rate of 43 percent—14,179 cases out of 32,903 pending. There is some progress here. Some 13,006 new cases were filed, 1,173 cases fewer than those decided.
The Court of Tax Appeals has a disposition rate of 28 percent—502 cases disposed out of 1,786 pending. About 475 new tax cases are filed very year with the CTA.
The Regional Trial Courts have the lowest disposition rate—26 percent, or 229,627 cases decided out of 872,259 pending. The 229,627 decided cases is below the 253,390 cases filed per year.
The Philippines has more than 30,000 lawyers. It also has more than 15,000 laws. Two lawyers per law.
But half of the licensed lawyers do not practice law. Perhaps, out of sense of delicadeza? I mean there are better ways of making money than slowing down the wheels of justice.
biznewsasia@gmail.com
x x x."
Teresita Leonardo de Castro began yesterday her short stint as the second woman chief justice of the Philippines. A UP Law graduate 1972, she will serve only for a total of 42 days, from Aug. 28, 2018 when she took her oath before the Supreme Court en banc, until Oct. 8, 2018 when she turns 70.
A mix of joy, optimism, and anxiety has greeted Chief de Castro’s ascendancy to being the highest magistrate of the land.
Joy and optimism for four reasons: One, President Duterte seems to have restored the rule of seniority in appointing a chief justice (the President says he never talked to de Castro, does not know her, and that he based his appointment purely on seniority and not exactly on brilliance of the appointee or some other consideration); two, de Castro is eminently qualified to be chief justice; three, her colleagues in the high court welcomed her appointment as CJ (unlike the unlamented Maria Lourdes Sereno whose becoming chief justice despite being the most junior and the least experienced justice was vastly resented by the judiciary, not just in the Supreme Court); and four, finally, the Supreme Court can now move on for greater things after the judicial nightmare that was Sereno.
Why anxiety? For one, De Castro will serve for barely 42 days. Just what a chief of six weeks or three paydays can do?
The judiciary, which the Supreme Court administers, is widely perceived as slow-moving, incompetent and corrupt. Such notoriety partly explains why the Philippines ranks poorly among 190 countries in ease of doing business. There is no rule of law. There is impunity by the high, the mighty, and the lawless.
In the high court itself, some justices are better known as businessmen than jurists. Some know “sociology” better than the law. You know sociology—as in “sosyo”—“sosyo sa negosyo” or a business partner with whom one can cut a deal.
Among the three branches of government, the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary, the judiciary has the lowest trust rating and the highest distrust rating.
In its June 15-21, 2018 survey, Pulse Asia found 61 percent of its respondents had trust in the Senate (not exactly the best Senate in our history), 58 percent in the House of Representatives, and 54 percent in the Supreme Court. In terms of distrust, 6 percent distrust the Senate, a similar 6 percent distrust the House, and 7 percent the Supreme Court.
Distrust in the Supreme Court is highest among the regions, in Metro Manila, 10 percent of respondents (11 for the Senate and 8 for the House in the National Capital Region); among the three main islands, in the Visayas, 9 percent (5 for the Senate and 6 for the House), and among all income classes, in the elite ABC class, 12 percent (11 Senate, 9 House).
Among the four highest officials of the land, then Chief Justice Sereno had the highest distrust rating—35 percent.
President Duterte had a distrust rating of a minuscule 2 percent; then Senate President Koko Pimentel 6 percent, and then House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, 15 percent. Next highest in distrust rating (after Sereno)—Vice President Leni Robredo, with 17 percent.
How come our people trust more the men than their women leaders despite the men being certified SOBs?
How come the best educated, best prepared, most qualified, and most experienced branch of government is the least trusted institution? In this country no one can practice law without finishing law and passing the bar, while you can have a completely illiterate, inveterate dropout and even a certified grafter/womanizer for president, vice president, Senate president, and House speaker.
The answer to this puzzle lies in the slow pace of justice in the Philippines. The Supreme Court itself is the biggest violator of the dictum of “justice delayed is justice denied.”
The Supreme Court has a disposition rate of only 39 percent—5,685 cases out of total case load 14,411pending. That is not enough. Some 6,564 new cases were filed in 2017, outnumbering the cases, 5,685, decided, for a net addition of 879 cases per year. At this pace, the SC cannot clear is caseload of 14,411. SC’s target disposal rate, 5,860 is far less than new cases filed, 6,564 per year, meaning a case could sleep in the court forever. Ideally, a case should average just two and a half years before decision day.
I cannot imagine why a serious lawyer of note would want to be a justice of the SC. Working there is punishment. Case load per justice—476, and rising. Even if a justice were to work every day for 365 days, he would still end up with a backlog of 111 each year. A chief justice makes only P2.8 million a year, regularly.
The Court of Appeals has a disposition rate of 43 percent—14,179 cases out of 32,903 pending. There is some progress here. Some 13,006 new cases were filed, 1,173 cases fewer than those decided.
The Court of Tax Appeals has a disposition rate of 28 percent—502 cases disposed out of 1,786 pending. About 475 new tax cases are filed very year with the CTA.
The Regional Trial Courts have the lowest disposition rate—26 percent, or 229,627 cases decided out of 872,259 pending. The 229,627 decided cases is below the 253,390 cases filed per year.
The Philippines has more than 30,000 lawyers. It also has more than 15,000 laws. Two lawyers per law.
But half of the licensed lawyers do not practice law. Perhaps, out of sense of delicadeza? I mean there are better ways of making money than slowing down the wheels of justice.
biznewsasia@gmail.com
x x x."
Drug cases; Only 12% of the 289,295 drugs cases at the lower courts are disposed of in 2017. A big problem is that courts just can't keep up.
See - https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/210516-charts-number-drug-cases-disposition-philippine-courts
"x x x.
Drug cases take over PH courts, have low disposition rates
Only 12% of the 289,295 drugs cases at the lower courts are disposed of in 2017. A big problem is that courts just can't keep up.
By Lian Buan
@lianbuan
Published 10:00 AM, August 28, 2018
Updated 10:00 AM, August 28, 2018
According to the records of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) under the DOJ, the number of drug cases that prosecutors have filed in court shot up from 2009 to 2017.
As seen from the chart below, there were only 7,675 drug-related cases filed in court in 2009, way behind cases for estafa, theft, and bouncing checks.
But over the next years, drug cases took over other crimes so drastically that by 2017, they increased to 70,706 cases, with bouncing checks a far second at 21,760.
Success, disposition rates
But the prosecution success rate for drug cases remains one of the lowest, according to NPS data for 2016 and 2017, the only data publicly available. (READ: 19 cases of drug war deaths filed in court – DOJ)
In 2016, it had a prosecution success rate of 50.2%, and in 2017, it improved slightly to 52.5%.
Courts are also dismissing drugs cases by the thousands, which is a point of concern for Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra.
For example in 2016, of the 68,895 cases the prosecutors filed in court, 2,617 were dismissed. In 2017, the courts dismissed 5,270 cases out of the 70,706 cases filed, equivalent to about 7.5%.
Though the percentage is relatively low, Guevarra is worried the government may be losing cases because of flawed handling.
"Often the main reason for dismissal is technical – that is, failure to observe procedural requirements, particularly on the chain of custody of the drugs seized," Guevarra said.
Confronted with this question during the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) interview for Chief Justice, Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta said the court’s hands are tied because following procedures in drug evidence is the duty of the executive.
“What we should do is to have a summit among prosecutors, judges, and among those who are involved in the enforcement of the drugs law, and we should come to an agreement [on] what should be done. The laws are already there,” Peralta said.
Big picture
For the big picture, data released by the Supreme Court in its 2017 Judiciary Annual Report (JAR) revealed that over time, the lower courts had accumulated 289,295 drug-related cases.
And in 2017, the lower courts disposed of only 34,673 equivalent to a low 12% disposition rate.
One big problem is that the courts just cannot keep up, so much so that Peralta said, “We are failing in drug cases.”
There are 204,795 regional trial courts tasked to handle 289,295 drug cases alone, on top of everything else.
Under the Dangerous Drugs Act, trial of a drugs-related case has to be finished not later than 60 days from the filing of information.
“It is humanly impossible to come up with a termination of a criminal case when you start the counting of period from the filing of information,” Peralta said.
Peralta explained that when judges schedule trial dates when respondents are arraigned, they end up scheduling “6-7 cases” for hearing on the same day, when “they can only hear 3 cases on the same day.”
Ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno assigned hundreds of additional drug courts in 2016 when the campaign against drugs was launched.
Peralta suggested that there has to be a review of the continuous trial rules in drugs-related cases to address the problem, as well as more training of judges on how to address dilatory pleadings. – Rappler.com
x x x."
"x x x.
Drug cases take over PH courts, have low disposition rates
Only 12% of the 289,295 drugs cases at the lower courts are disposed of in 2017. A big problem is that courts just can't keep up.
By Lian Buan
@lianbuan
Published 10:00 AM, August 28, 2018
Updated 10:00 AM, August 28, 2018
MANILA, Philippines – Drug cases have taken over Philippine courts over the last 9 years, data from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Supreme Court show.
According to the records of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) under the DOJ, the number of drug cases that prosecutors have filed in court shot up from 2009 to 2017.
As seen from the chart below, there were only 7,675 drug-related cases filed in court in 2009, way behind cases for estafa, theft, and bouncing checks.
But over the next years, drug cases took over other crimes so drastically that by 2017, they increased to 70,706 cases, with bouncing checks a far second at 21,760.
Success, disposition rates
But the prosecution success rate for drug cases remains one of the lowest, according to NPS data for 2016 and 2017, the only data publicly available. (READ: 19 cases of drug war deaths filed in court – DOJ)
In 2016, it had a prosecution success rate of 50.2%, and in 2017, it improved slightly to 52.5%.
Courts are also dismissing drugs cases by the thousands, which is a point of concern for Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra.
For example in 2016, of the 68,895 cases the prosecutors filed in court, 2,617 were dismissed. In 2017, the courts dismissed 5,270 cases out of the 70,706 cases filed, equivalent to about 7.5%.
Though the percentage is relatively low, Guevarra is worried the government may be losing cases because of flawed handling.
"Often the main reason for dismissal is technical – that is, failure to observe procedural requirements, particularly on the chain of custody of the drugs seized," Guevarra said.
Confronted with this question during the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) interview for Chief Justice, Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta said the court’s hands are tied because following procedures in drug evidence is the duty of the executive.
“What we should do is to have a summit among prosecutors, judges, and among those who are involved in the enforcement of the drugs law, and we should come to an agreement [on] what should be done. The laws are already there,” Peralta said.
Big picture
For the big picture, data released by the Supreme Court in its 2017 Judiciary Annual Report (JAR) revealed that over time, the lower courts had accumulated 289,295 drug-related cases.
And in 2017, the lower courts disposed of only 34,673 equivalent to a low 12% disposition rate.
One big problem is that the courts just cannot keep up, so much so that Peralta said, “We are failing in drug cases.”
There are 204,795 regional trial courts tasked to handle 289,295 drug cases alone, on top of everything else.
Under the Dangerous Drugs Act, trial of a drugs-related case has to be finished not later than 60 days from the filing of information.
“It is humanly impossible to come up with a termination of a criminal case when you start the counting of period from the filing of information,” Peralta said.
Peralta explained that when judges schedule trial dates when respondents are arraigned, they end up scheduling “6-7 cases” for hearing on the same day, when “they can only hear 3 cases on the same day.”
Ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno assigned hundreds of additional drug courts in 2016 when the campaign against drugs was launched.
Peralta suggested that there has to be a review of the continuous trial rules in drugs-related cases to address the problem, as well as more training of judges on how to address dilatory pleadings. – Rappler.com
x x x."
Thursday, August 23, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)