More on the new partylist decision | Inquirer Opinion

see - More on the new partylist decision | Inquirer Opinion


"x x x.

The controversial party-list cases have been remanded by the Supreme Court to the Commission on Elections for review. What the Comelec is required to do is to decide two related questions: (1) Which organizations may participate in the party-list system? (2) Who are qualified to represent the party-list organizations?

My column last week was an attempt to answer the first of the above questions. Let me summarize: (a) The inspiration of the system is social justice understood in both the economic and political sense. (b) Participation in the system is not limited to the sectors enumerated by the Constitution or law, i.e., “labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law.” (c) The enumerated sectors must be economically marginalized because that is what disables them from successfully engaging in the political struggle. (d) The national and regional organizations need not be economically marginalized but they must be politically or ideologically disadvantaged or marginalized.  (e) Traditional political parties, if they wish to participate, must renounce participation in district elections. (f) Segments of political parties, if they wish to participate, must be separately incorporated and must be independent of their original parties.

In all of this, the Comelec must be guided by what the Supreme Court has said about the common denominator of participating organizations, namely: “The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that they cannot expect to win in legislative district elections but they can garner, in nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes that winning candidates can garner in legislative district elections. The party-list system will be the entry point  to membership in the House of Representatives for both these non-traditional parties that could not compete in legislative district elections.”

And that is the difficult part causing concern, because it involves the evaluation of difficult factual issues. It is relatively easy to determine whether a sectoral party—e.g., of security guards—is economically marginalized and underrepresented and thus does not have much of a chance to win in a district election. But if the security guards of the country band together they might win one of the seats in the 20 percent share of party-list organizations. The same would be the case of other sectoral parties or a combination of them. But how does one measure the strength of nontraditional or regional parties?

The concern of some, however, is that nontraditional national or regional parties might guzzle up all of the 20 percent share of party-list organizations if the nonsectorals happen to have the support of moneyed individuals. Realistically, however, where are these nontraditional parties  who are so vote-rich and so economically affluent as to be able to wipe out the economically marginalized and underrepresented?

The point is that the party-list system was designed for groups that “cannot expect to win in legislative district elections but can garner, in nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes that winning candidates can garner in legislative district elections.” These are the disadvantaged who wish to win but cannot win representation through district elections. They are the beneficiaries of social justice in the 1987 Constitution which favors those who have less in life, either economically or politically.

Pluralism is a characteristic of a democracy. “To require all national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the ‘marginalized and underrepresented’ is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system. How will these ideology-based and cause-oriented parties, who cannot win in legislative district elections, participate in the electoral process if they are excluded from the party-list system? To exclude them from the party-list system is to prevent them from joining the parliamentary struggle, leaving as their only option the armed struggle.”

Moreover, I repeat my question: Where are the wealthy national or regional organizations capable of burying the sectors under an avalanche of votes?  Will the Comelec be able to uncover them?

I now come to the qualifications of a party-list representative. This is a relatively easier puzzle for the Comelec. A party-list representative, of course, must have the qualifications of a district representative except for the residence requirement because he or she does not represent a district. But one must be a bona fide member of the party or organization which one seeks to represent at least 90 days before the election. In the case of sectoral parties, to be a bona fide party-list representative one must either belong to the sector represented, or have a track record of advocacy for such sector. In other words, to represent a party of farmers, one need not be a farmer but must have a track record of advocacy for farmers.

Ultimately, however, let us remember that the party-list system was meant to be an experiment. Next time we review the Constitution, let us take a good hard look at the results of the experiment.

x x x."

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/51203/more-on-the-new-partylist-decision#ixzz2R9idYFeK
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Child Protection Training - FindLaw

see - Child Protection Training - FindLaw


"x x x.

Child Protection Training: Talking With Your Kids about Crime

Many parents and adults feel uncomfortable about talking to their kids about the crime that goes on everyday. Often times, parents feel that talking about crime could lead their kids to become too fearful of the outside world, but at the same time want their kids to know about the dangers they could face. Finding the correct balance is crucial, and this often will only happen when parents themselves feel comfortable with crime in the world.

Passing on fears and anxieties to children won't help them in the long run to deal with hard situations. Instead of accepting that crime is inevitable, parents should instead show their children that hard work can deter and prevent crime. Parents that join self-defense training classes with their children and also join neighborhood watch programs are often much better able to discuss crime with their children.

If you still feel uncomfortable about talking with your children directly about crime, one of the best steps to take as a parent to protect your child is to build up your child's self-esteem and self-worth. Studies have show that the criminals, such as child molesters, will often target children that do not feel loved, or have low self-esteem or feel abandoned by their parents. Show your child that they are worth fighting for, and they may have a reduced chance of being a victim.

Lastly, when talking to your kids about self-protection training and crime, you should always be clear that the child should exercise their self-protection skills against whomever threatens them. A majority of all child-abduction crimes are perpetrated by someone the child knows or likes. Because of this, it is important to prepare your child to use his or her skills whenever it is necessary.

What follows are some times that you can use to talk to your child about crime and self-protection:

The lessons about crime and self-protection should be ongoing. Learning about different types of crime and where they occur, as well as ways to defend against crime is not something that can be picked up in one or two sittings. Instead, plan on having talks and lessons at least a few times a month, for as long as you have them in the house. Just like almost everything else that is learned, the knowledge and lessons about crime and prevention will fade from memory unless stimulated.

Keep your talks age-appropriate. This is not to say that you shouldn't describe how a crime is committed or what steps could be taken to avoid being a victim of a crime. Instead, this means that you should confine your lessons to words and concepts that the child can comprehend.

Be sure not to teach lessons that are hypocritical. Do not tell your children to do something, and then go and do it yourself. For example, one of the biggest lessons ever told to children is to not talk to strangers. However, this lesson may be for nothing if your kids routinely see you talking to strangers while waiting in line at the bank or grocery store. Instead, try to give your kids lessons and rules that you can follow as well. For example, "don't get in cars with strangers," and "don't take candy from strangers," are probably better lessons that the children can take to heart when they see you putting them in practice.

Remember the golden rule that "you can't listen when your mouth is open."Instead of always talking at your children, be sure that the communication goes two ways. Be open to and welcome questions from your children. If a child is scared about a recent armed robbery, talk to them truthfully about it. If your child thinks that a criminal is loose in the neighborhood, be sure to walk around the house with them and show the child all the security measures that your house has in place (all doors locked, windows locked, security system armedetc).

In addition, always be sure that you fully understand what your child means when they are talking with you. Growing children often do not have full vocabularies and can pick up words without understanding their meanings.

Be aware what your children watch on TV and discuss it with them. Children, especially young children, often have a hard time differentiating between what they see on TV and the real word. Cartoons and other shows often depict avengers brandishing swords and guns to thwart their enemies. Kids often think that this is how real life should be and can wield sticks and fake guns in imitation. Oftentimes, kids find real guns and use them in similar ways with very tragic consequences.

You have a variety of options when it comes to how your children interact with the television. Many TVs are now equipped with parental control chips that you can program so that children can only watch certain, pre-approved shows. In addition, you can also restrict TV time, or take TVs out of the house altogether. However, if your child watches TV and starts to imitate what he or she sees on the screen, you should have a sit down and discuss with your child what they watched. Feelings should be hashed out and you should make it clear that the TV is not real, and the things on TV should, in most cases, not be imitated.

Don't make the police into a threat. Parents, especially those that are tired from a long day at work, often use the police as a threat to keep their kids quite and well behaved. Try not to use threats like, "If you don't stop shouting, I'm going to call the police to take you away!" Although it may be a quick means to get your kids to behave well, it can also have the adverse side effect of teaching your children that the police are the bad guys. Children should always feel that the police are there to protect them in case of emergencies and should not view the police as a punishment.

Children are not angels. You should expect them to break the rules. We were all children at one point and had to abide by our parent's rules. However, we all broke them along the way and usually felt tremendously guilty and ashamed. We would often feel so ashamed that we would never admit to breaking a rule, like when we went biking in the street at night, alone.

Oftentimes, children do not know that the rules are in place for their own protection, not merely as a restriction on their freedom. If your child breaks a rule, they should feel comfortable enough to tell you about it. In order for this comfort to be there, it is important that parents attempt to temper anger about broken safety rules and talk to their children honestly about why the rules are in place. When children know that the rules are there for their own safety, they may feel more comfortable talking to their parents when something bad happens as a result of their breaking those rules.

Child Protection Training: Self-Protection Skills

Martial arts and other self-protection classes have become a popular means for parents to give their kids some self-protection skills. However, this is probably not enough. Parents should encourage children to trust their own instincts when dangerous situations appear. For example, parents should encourage children to run away from strangers that seem like they mean harm. Getting away and out of a situation can prevent a child from becoming a statistic. This lesson ties back into another lesson that was mentioned above giving children a strong sense of self-worth. The more a child trusts his or her own instincts, the more likely it is that they will follow them instead of waiting around, wondering if they are right or not.

One of the hardest parts for parents in teaching their children self-protection skills is acknowledging that they will not always be around to protect their children. This realization is often as hard, if not harder, on the parent that it is on the child. However, to make it easier on the child, it is important to give them motivation to learn to protect themselves. This could mean that, instead of telling them to take the self-protection class so that they have skills when you are not around, tell the children that class is an aid for them to help protect the family. Empower your children and show them stories about how kids their own age helped prevent a crime from happening by calling 9-1-1 or yelling and running away.

Although classes like karate and jujitsu are great for building self-confidence and protection skills in children, many argue that these classes give kids a false sense of security and even the idea that they can combat a much larger adult. However, most martial arts and self-defense classes always teach that fighting is almost always the last resort, and that the children should always try to remove themselves from dangerous situations instead of becoming involved in a struggle. You, as the parent, can reinforce this lesson by always teaching your child to run for help instead of struggling, and only fighting back as a last resort.

The Child Assault Prevention Training Center, as well as various other self-defense and martial arts programs, teach their students the No! Go! Yell! Tell! system.

No! If a stranger approaches a child, teach them to keep a safe distance away from the person. Teach them that they have a zone of comfort that is all their own. If a stranger or another person invades that space in a threatening manner, the child should step back and shout "NO!" as loudly as possible.

Go! If the "NO!" did not change the situation in favor of the child, the child should be instructed to turn and walk/run as quickly as possible to a safe destination. It is helpful for children to know safe spots to run to, such as the house of a Block Parent, a school, a restaurant or a gas station.

Yell! This yell should not be a scream or a high-pitched screech, instead it should be a loud and forceful yell. If your child can form a word with the yell, like "STRANGER!", all the better, but making a loud, forceful sound should be the ultimate goal. This is discussed in more detail below.

Tell! Once the child gets to a safe area, instruct the child that they should tell a parent, adult, teacher or other trusted person about what happened. Telling should be very stressed, and the child should be made aware that they should tell even if a person tells them not to. Assure the child that they are loved and that no matter what happened to them, they will not be blamed.

The Yell is perhaps one the most important step in the No! Go! Yell! Tell! system. Parents should stress that the yell should not be used when playing, and that it is a special call that is only used in emergencies and dangerous situations. The yell should be:

• Low. Like a singer belting out a long note, the yell originates deep down, below your stomach, not in your throat. It is not the sound you make when running around with friends, shrieking when a water balloon burst on your back. Instead, think of the sound a dog makes when protecting someone important, but instead of growling, make a low-pitched "huh" sound, or a word if you are able to (like "STRANGER," or "ATTACK").
• Loud. Practice the yell with your children until they are able to understand that the more their lungs are expanded, the louder the yell can be. Take a deep breath before yelling and force the air out in the loudest way you know how.
• Long. Yells can last a very long time, and the longer it can last (while still being loud), the better it is. After you run out of breath, take another breath and let rip. Yell as long as you are able to until someone comes to get you to safety.

The Yell is a very useful tool that can be used to deter attackers as well as bring help. Attackers and other criminals often become frightened by yells and will just drop the crime. In addition, yells will draw the attention of those around you, bringing wanted help in time.

Lastly, the Yell can act as a battle cry to get you going. Battle cries were not only tools that soldiers used to sound their entrance into a battle, but were also used to throw off fear and get their feet moving. By yelling, you are filling your body with oxygen and getting the adrenaline pumping through your body, thereby allowing you to overcome your fear and start running. Many martial arts use forms of yelling (called "Kiai") to do the same thing, getting blood oxygenated and focusing the mind.

Child Protection Training: Make Sure Children Know Where to Go to Get Help

Perhaps the most basic of all the safety skills is to make sure that children know where they can go to get help when they need it. Small children are routinely taught in school how to pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1 in case of emergencies, but you can teach your children more.

Phone Calls Perhaps one of the easiest ways to teach children to get help is to enable them to make phone calls when they need to. Be sure that there is at least one phone within your home that your child can reach easily (without the need of a stool) and that there is a list with important phone numbers beside it. This list should include the numbers to:

• The police department
• The fire department
• The ambulance service or other medical emergency center
• Your and your spouse's work as well as cell phones
• Family if any family lives close by
• A trusted neighbor or friend that knows the child

Children should be able to use the phone at a young age, perhaps 5 or 6. By this time, they should know their own phone number and street address. In addition, children should be encouraged to learn the numbers of their parent's cell phones and work numbers. Be sure that the phone that is accessible to your child has large digits that are easy to press in case of an emergency.

Whether or not you decide to give your child a mobile phone, make sure that they know how to use one in case they ever need to report or get out of a dangerous situation.

If your child has to call 9-1-1, the emergency dispatcher will probably ask your child a series of questions. Be sure that you child can answer these questions by practicing with them. These questions will probably include:

• What is your name?
• Where do you live (address)?
• Where are you right now?
• What happened?
• Is someone hurt?

One of the most important things for the dispatcher is that the child remains on the line until the dispatcher says it is okay to hang up, or until help arrives. In either case, be sure to teach your child not to hang up the phone unless the dispatcher says "goodbye" or help arrives.

Help from the neighborhood. If your neighborhood already has a neighborhood watch system in place, then there may already be a designated safe house that children should go to in case of an emergency. If not, you should get in touch with your neighbors and make a plan and agree upon a safe house or location that children should go to in case of a threat or crime.

x x x."

2011, 2012 bar exams compared.- Opinion, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

see - Barring dreams | Opinion, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com


"x x x.

The Bar exam is administered by the Supreme Court through the Bar Examination Committee composed of a sitting Justice as chairman and examiners for the eight bar subjects. The Committee determines the level of difficulty of the Bar exam both in terms of questions asked and the manner of checking. Compare the passing rate of the 2012 Bar exam (17.76% although the original figure was supposedly a single digit) to that of the previous year (31.95%). 2012 produced 949 lawyers while the year before, more than double that number (1,913) passed. So what accounts for the difference since both 2011 and 2012 employed the same 60% MCQ – 40% essay format? Was 2011’s high success rate — the highest since 2001 — the result of a new system being test-run for the first time? Were the 2012 questions exponentially more difficult than those in 2011, or were the latter just better calibrated? Was batch 2011 smarter or better prepared than their 2012 counterparts, or did the disparity simply result from strictness or leniency of checking?

x x x."

Foreclosure - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/179665.pdf

see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/179665.pdf


"x x x.


The En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, Re: Procedure in
Extrajudicial or Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgages, further
stacks the odds against SBI and MFII. Issued on February 20, 2007, or
some two months before the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision in
this case, the resolution embodies the additional guidelines intended to aid
courts in foreclosure proceedings, specifically limiting the instances, and
citing the conditions, when a writ against foreclosure of a mortgage may be
issued, to wit:


(1) No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction
against the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued
on the allegation that the loan secured by the mortgage has been paid or is
not delinquent unless the application is verified and supported by evidence
of payment.

(2) No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued on the allegation that the interest on the loan is unconscionable, unless the debtor pays the mortgagee at least twelve percent per annum interest on the principal obligation as stated in the application for foreclosure sale, which shall be updated monthly while the case is pending.

(3) Where a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against a
foreclosure of mortgage, the disposition of the case shall be speedily
resolved. To this end, the court concerned shall submit to the Supreme
Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, quarterly reports on
the progress of the cases involving ten million pesos and above.

(4) All requirements and restrictions prescribed for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction, such as the
posting of a bond, which shall be equal to the amount of the outstanding
debt, and the time limitation for its effectivity, shall apply as well to a
status quo order.47

x x x."

Credibility of witness - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/201449.pdf

see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/201449.pdf


"x x x.


[T]he issue raised by accused-appellant involves the credibility of
witness, which is best addressed by the trial court, it being in a better
position to decide such question, having heard the witness and observed
his demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. These
are the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses
and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting
testimonies. Through its observations during the entire proceedings, the
trial court can be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion,
whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe. Verily, findings
of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless
some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked,
misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the
disposition of the case. x x x (Citation omitted.)

Thus, it has been an established rule in appellate review that the trial
court’s factual findings – including its assessment of the credibility of the
witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions
drawn from the factual findings – are accorded great respect and even
conclusive effect. These factual findings and conclusions assume greater
weight if they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.42

In this case, the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, gave more
weight and credence to the testimony of Perlie compared to that of accusedappellants and their witnesses. There is no reason for the Court to overturn the judgment of the trial and the appellate courts on the matter.
Perlie is more than just an eyewitness, she is a surviving victim of the
crime. Her testimony, as described by the RTC, was “categorical and
straightforward.”43 Perlie had positively identified both accused-appellants and described specifically the role each played, together with De la Cruz, in the commission of the crime. The physical injuries Perlie and her sister Nely suffered were consistent with Perlie’s account of the events of October 3, 2003. In People v. Pabillano,44 the Court similarly accorded credence and weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially the deceased victim’s son, who gave an eyewitness account of the crime, ratiocinating as follows:

No reason or motive was adduced by appellants why any of the prosecution witnesses should falsely accuse them. Where there is no evidence to show that the principal witnesses for the State were actuated by ill-motive, their
testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. The natural interest of a witness who is a relative of the victim, (such as Jose Roño, III, the son of Jose Jr.) in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating a person other than the true culprit. Jurisprudence recognizes that victims of criminal violence, such as Jose Roño, III himself, have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers and remembering them. We have no reason to disturb the trial court’s finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible, and that their identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the
crime has been reliably established. (Citations omitted.),

x x x."

Supreme Court poaching on Comelec territory | Inquirer Opinion

see - Supreme Court poaching on Comelec territory | Inquirer Opinion


"x x x.

Question: Who is running the elections?

Answer: The Commission on Elections.

Wrong. It is the Supreme Court. At least that’s how it appears to us.

The Constitution says election matters are the domain of the Comelec. It is supposed to be the expert in elections. But lately, the Supreme Court has been arrogating unto itself important policy matters on elections, and Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes is understandably so frustrated and flabbergasted that he is on the verge of resigning.

“Who’s running the elections?” he asked. “Is it the Comelec or the Supreme Court?”

Why shouldn’t he be discouraged and disappointed when in the last couple of months the high court reversed four Comelec decisions on crucial poll issues?

Last March 5, the high court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on a Comelec letter ordering the Diocese of Bacolod to remove its oversized tarpaulin identifying “Team Patay” and “Team Buhay” senatorial candidates to guide its flock on who to vote for or to reject.

Then just last week, the high court issued a status quo ante (SQA) order on a Comelec decision disqualifying some party-list groups. (An SQA orders litigants to go back to the situation before the assailed order was given.) It ordered the Comelec to look once more at the qualifications of the party-list groups seeking accreditation. Meaning, until the Comelec finishes looking at the qualifications of the party-list groups under the new parameters given by the high court, the party-lists already disqualified are back in contention. Can the Comelec finish the job in the few remaining days before the polls?

Earlier, the Supreme Court also suspended a Comelec decision declaring the winner in the mayoralty elections in Imus, Cavite, and remanded the case back to the Comelec.

The last straw that made Brillantes think of quitting is the high court’s decision a few days ago to issue another SQA order on Comelec rules limiting air time on political ads.

That’s four “outs” in as many times at bat. Brillantes understandably feels as angry and despondent as a coach or manager of a losing baseball team.

The trouble with the tribunal’s TROs and SQAs is that these did not resolve the cases on the merits but merely suspended the Comelec rules when the elections are less than a month away. The orders partake of dilatory tactics used by lawyers to postpone defeat in the trial courts. That leaves the Comelec hanging, in limbo, as Brillantes rues.

Decide the cases on the merits quickly, Brillantes asked the high court, so we will know what to do before the elections overtake us, which is less than a month away.

“Are we (the Comelec) wrong or are we right?” A ruling on the merits will decide that, the Comelec chair said. “If the court rules with finality on the merits, that we are wrong, then that’s it, we are wrong. But don’t leave [the Comelec and litigants] hanging, so we will know what to do” and avoid confusion and wrong interpretations.

Brillantes wondered why it took the tribunal two months to make a ruling on the case, and then only an SQA. The petition questioning the Comelec order limiting the air time for political ads—to make the playing field even for all candidates, rich or poor—was filed last February. But the tribunal issued its SQA only a few days ago, when there are only a few days left before the elections.

“I wouldn’t wait for two months and then just come out with a status quo ante order” which does not solve anything, Brillantes said.

Indeed, the courts—from the Supreme Court down to the trial courts—have been quick to issue TROs and SQAs and then take an eternity to decide on the merits, often after the decision becomes academic.

For example, the Comelec declared the real winner in the mayoralty elections of Imus, Cavite, after recounting the votes. But the high court remanded the case back to the Comelec and told it to recount the votes yet again, giving the mayor’s seat back to the loser. By the time the nth recount is finished, the elections would be over, and there would be a new mayor.

That is the case with most election-protest cases. By the time the real winner is proclaimed, only a few weeks or less of the term remains. The loser occupies the elective post for most of the whole term, and collects all the salaries and allowances, and pork barrel, to which he has no right, and which should have gone to the winner.

It is, happily, a little different in the case of the election protest of Koko Pimentel against Migz Zubiri in the last senatorial elections. Rather than delay and prolong the case, as most losers do, Zubiri, like a true gentleman, decided to resign when the recount showed that he was losing, and Pimentel was able to assume his senatorial seat two years before it is to expire. Zubiri and Pimentel are again running against each other in the May elections. Who will win this time?

x x x."

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/50981/supreme-court-poaching-on-comelec-territory#ixzz2Qtch2PAc
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Retired SC justices can now practice law | Inquirer News

see - Retired SC justices can now practice law | Inquirer News


"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines—Justices of the Supreme Court can now practice law after when they retire.

This after the high tribunal lifted the suspension on law practice of retired justices primarily for “humanitarian reasons.”

“SC lifts suspension on law practice previously imposed on retired Supreme Court Justice Ruben Reyes for, among others humanitarian reasons,” high court’s information chief Theodore Te said Thursday.

Reyes was meted with an indefinite suspension as a member of the Bar in 2009 for leaking an unpromulgated decision involving questions on the citizenship of Negros Oriental Representative Jocelyn Limkaichong.

However, while Reyes could go back to private law practice, he remains disqualified from entering public service and barred from teaching law.

The high court found Reyes guilty of grave misconduct on February 24, 2009 for leaking his draft decision that would have unseated Limkaichong on the ground that she was a Chinese citizen.

Reyes, the high court said, violated Rles 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Reyes was among the members of the Bar sanctioned by the high court. Aside from Reyes, retired Supreme Court Justice Fidel Purisima was censured for failure to disclose that his nephew took the 1999 Bar Examination.

x x x."

Miners warn: Rules change costly - Manila Standard Today

see - Miners warn: Rules change costly - Manila Standard Today


"x x x.

Mining companies have asked the Supreme Court to dismiss petitions seeking to strike down Republic Act 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 over constitutional issues that the high tribunal has already resolved with finality in a landmark ruling in 2004. They said “there is a price to pay in changing the rules in the middle of the game.”

Interviewed before the oral arguments held at the court’s summer session hall in Baguio City on Tuesday, lawyer Tito Lopez, counsel of Australian mining firm Oceana Gold that operates in Nueva Vizcaya, warned of massive repercussions to the national economy should the high court nullify the law and cancel all Financial and Technical Assistance Agreements and Mineral Production Sharing Agreements.

“Can you imagine the possible impact of canceling the FTAA or MPSA? These foreign companies have already invested a lot in their explorations and actual operations and you will cancel their permits. Will that not discourage foreign investments?” he stressed.

He said that one of the respondents in the case, has already invested in its operations—just like other foreign mining firms.

Lopez also assailed the move of petitioners to seek relief from the high court in pushing for an equitable sharing of revenues.

He said such call is already being addressed by the executive and legislative branches.

On technical ground, the lawyer said the arguments of petitioners were already resolved by the high court in its Dec. 2004 ruling in the case of La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association vs. Ramos administration. He said their case, in particular, was also already adjudged in 2006 where a division of the high court upheld the legality of their contract with the government.

“All these claims had already been raised and passed upon by the honorable court in the earlier cases, where rulings were already declared final,” he stressed.

One of the petitioners, Bayan Muna party-list Representative and senatorial bet Teddy Casiño admitted in a press conference before the oral argument yesterday that it would take a “flip-flopping” by the SC for them to win their case.

Apart from Casiño, other petitioners in the case are Quezon  Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III and former Akbayan party-list Rep. and Liberal Party senatorial bet Risa Hontiveros.

The respondents—including the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Hallmark Mining Corp. and Austral-Asia Link Mining Corp.—stood by the constitutionality of the assailed law during the hearing.

Justice Marvic Leonen did not participate in the oral argument. He inhibited from the case since he served as legal counsel of La Bugal in the earlier case.

In their petition filed in 2008, the group was joined by several persons affected by mining activities in Davao Oriental in filing the petition in asking the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the law.

The groups urged the Court to bar the DENR from acting on any application for MPSA, which covers 17,215.4474 hectares within the three municipalities of Mati, San Isidro and Governor Generoso, both in the Davao Oriental province.

They also asked the SC to nullify the seven MPSAs that it had already reassigned to respondent mining firms.

Petitioners argued that R.A. 7942 is unconstitutional arguing that it violates Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution which provides that “all lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests, timber, wildlife, flora and fauna and other natural resources are owned by the State.”

 x  x x."

De Lima decries dismissal of plunder case vs retired AFP generals | Inquirer News

see - De Lima decries dismissal of plunder case vs retired AFP generals | Inquirer News


"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines—The Office of the Ombudsman missed a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to go after plunderers in the military, Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said Wednesday.

De Lima issued the statement following the Ombudsman’s ruling dismissing the criminal complaint against retired Armed Forces chiefs of staffs Generals Diomedio Villanueva, Roy Cimatu and Efren Abu and Major Generals Carlos Garcia and Jacinto Ligot in connection with the alleged misspent P2.3 billion in military funds from 2000 to 2005.

“The Rabusa case is the single biggest military corruption case ever in Philippine history. The wide array of investigative (encompassing fact finding and case build up) should be brought to bear on those responsible,” De Lima said in a text message to reporters.

The Ombudsman, in dismissing the case that stemmed from the allegations of former military Budget Officer Colonel George Rabusa, said that even if Rabusa handed the money to the military officials, there was no proof that the money came from converted funds.

“With respect to the Ombudsman, if indeed Rabusa’s own testimony and voluminous documentary exhibits were not sufficient enough for a probable cause finding, they should have availed of, or maximized, the use of their case build up mechanisms/powers to strengthen the case, instead of dismissing the case or absolving the respondents at this point,” De Lima said.

x  xx."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/392225/de-lima-decries-dismissal-of-plunder-case-vs-retired-afp-generals#ixzz2QklbO1hI
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

SC: Only 1 member of Congress should be at JBC | Inquirer News

see - SC: Only 1 member of Congress should be at JBC | Inquirer News


"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court stood pat on its earlier ruling that only one member of Congress should be at the  Judicial and Bar Council.

Voting 9-3-3, the high court, in dismissing the appeal filed by Congress, maintained that the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) should only have 7 instead of 8 members.

The JBC is constitutionally mandated to screen aspirants for the Judiciary and the Office of the Ombudsman. Then, they submit a short list of nominees to the President who then will make the appointment.

In its July 2012 ruling, the high court said “to allow the Legislature to have more quantitive influence in the JBC by having more than one voice speak, whether with one full vote or one-half a vote each, would, as one former congressman and member of the JBC put it, ‘negate the principle of equality among the three branches of government which is enshrined in the Constitution.”

Senator Francis Escudero and Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr. are both members of the JBC representing Congress.

The case stemmed when former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez questioned the JBCcomposition saying Section 8 (1) of Article VIII of the Constitution states that “a member of Congress” should represent the JBC.

The 9 justices who voted to dismiss Congress’ appeal were Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, MartinVillarama, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, Bienvenido Reyes and Estela Perlas-Bernabe,

Those who dissented were Associate Justices Roberto Abad, Marvic Leonen and Mariano Del Castillo.

Meanwhile, Chief Justices Maria Lourdes Sereno, Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco and Arturo Brion inhibited from the case.

The Court held that the use of the singular letter “a” preceding “representative of Congress” in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction. The word “Congress” is used in its generic sense. Considering the language of the subject constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to extrinsic aids such as the records of the Constitutional Commission.

The Court noted that the Framers of the Constitution intended to create a JBC as an innovative solution in response to the public clamor in favor of eliminating politics in the appointment of members of the Judiciary. To ensure judicial independence, they adopted a holistic approach and hoped that, in creating a JBC, the private sector and the three branches of government would have an active role and equal voice in the selection of the members of the Judiciary. “ declared the Court.

The Court also held that the JBC’s seven-member composition “serves a practical purpose, that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting.”

It further held that under the doctrine of operative facts where actions prior to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized as a matter of equity and fair play, all JBC’s prior official acts are valid.

The Court ruled that it is not in a position to determine as to who should remain as sole representative of Congress in the JBC and that such is best left to the determination of Congress.

x x x."


Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/391775/sc-only-1-member-of-congress-should-be-at-jbc#ixzz2QkkfNZJY
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Notary public disqualification rule - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/9514.pdf

see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/9514.pdf


"x x x.


Notary public; disqualification rule  -

"Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is beyond dispute. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily admitted that he notarized the complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the notarial act, since two of the affiants or principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Given the clear provision of the disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing the document. We cannot agree with his proposition that we consider him to have acted more as counsel of the affiants, not as notary public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The notarial certificate  at the bottom of the complaint-affidavit shows his signature as a notary public, with a notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012. He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.

On the second charge, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the affiants personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported by the definition of a “jurat” under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A “jurat” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document. In this case, Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s wife; Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is his wife’s sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of the Brosas family. Atty. Revilla, Jr. knows the three affiants personally. Thus, he was justified in no longer requiring them to show valid identification cards. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for failing to indicate such fact in the “jurat” of the complaint-affidavit. No statement was included therein that he knows the three affiants personally.

Let it be impressed that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was clearly disqualified to notarize the complaint-affidavit of his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. While he has a valid defense as to the second charge, it does not exempt him from liability for violating the disqualification rule.

x x x."

PH to stick with arbitration under UNCLOS to pursue Spratly claims | Inquirer Global Nation

see - PH to stick with arbitration under UNCLOS to pursue Spratly claims | Inquirer Global Nation


"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines reiterated, on Thursday, its commitment to the peaceful settlement of its claims in the West Philippine Sea or the South China Sea area through arbitration proceedings under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.

Speaking before the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ foreign ministers meeting in Bandar Seri Begawan, Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario emphasized on Thursday, that “the Philippines’ recourse to arbitration is firmly rooted in the tradition of good global citizenship.”

“The Philippines shall always adhere to the peaceful settlements of disputes through lawful, non-coercive and transparent means that promote the healthy functioning of an equitable and rules-based international system,” said the Department of Foreign Affairs head.

Del Rosario asserted that Manila’s arbitration initiative, “when objectively considered, will benefit all parties.”

“For the Philippines, it will clearly define what is legitimately ours, specifically maritime entitlements under the UNCLOS with regards to our fishing rights to resources and our right to enforce our laws within our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),” he said.

For China, “an arbitration award will finally clarify its lawful maritime entitlements in the South China Sea,” he pointed out.

“This will enable China to provide responsible leadership towards fostering stability in the region,” according to Del Rosario.

At the same time, he reiterated that “the Philippines’ desire to have a legally binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea has not changed.”

“We will continue to work with ASEAN and China in crafting the COC and in implementing our commitments under the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC),” he said, adding ASEAN should “focus on solidarity in taking a stronger position on violations of the DOC.”

In a related development, the DFA said China had yet to respond to the Philippines’ request for clarification of its new maritime rules in the West Philippine Sea.

Beijing “did not reply to our note (verbale),” Assistant Secretary Raul Hernandez told the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Sometime in late December, China sent its first patrol vessel to disputed parts of the West Philippine Sea ahead of its enforcement of new rules that authorized Chinese border police to board search and expel foreign vessels from waters Beijing considers its territory.

The patrol chief Haixun 21 reportedly sailed into the high seas under the administration of the Maritime Safety Administration of Hanan Province from which China administers the West Philippine Sea.

Del Rosario then said that if the reports proved correct, the Philippines would ask the Chinese why they were patrolling and in what areas.

The new rules came into effect on January 1, but ASEAN nations and the United States had asked China for clarification on their purpose and extent.

China claims almost the entire West Philippine Sea, but the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei claim parts of the sea within their EEZs. Taiwan also claims some islands in the same sea.

The Philippines and Vietnam are the more strident claimants, both pressing for the resolution of their claims according to UNCLOS and for a code of conduct in the region to prevent the conflicting claims from erupting into armed clashes.

x x x."

Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/71879/ph-to-stick-with-arbitration-under-unclos-to-pursue-spratly-claims#ixzz2QHPCOddb
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

SC rejects plea to compel DFA to press Sabah claim | Inquirer Global Nation

see - SC rejects plea to compel DFA to press Sabah claim | Inquirer Global Nation


"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition that called on the high court to compel the government through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to formally push for the Philippines’ claim on Sabah.

During its en banc (full court) summer session in Baguio, the high court has decided to dismiss the case for lack of merit.

The high court said they cannot compel a co-equal branch of government to make a political decision as it pointed on the separation of powers.

The petition was filed by taxpayer Louis “Barok” Biraogo urging the high court to order Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Del Rosario to elevate the Sabah claim to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague or any other international fora authorized under international laws.

Biraogo said the Philippines, not Malaysia owns Sabah based on historical records.

Earlier, Biraogo also filed a petition urging the high court to compel the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to prohibit political dynasties. The petition was, however dismissed by the high court.

Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/71843/sc-rejects-plea-to-compel-dfa-to-press-sabah-claim#ixzz2QHNtocn5
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
x x x."

Lawyer suspended - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/march2013/9615.pdf

see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/march2013/9615.pdf


"x x x.


Similarly, in Small v. Banares, 22 the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years for failing to file a case for which the amount of P80,000.00 was given him by his client;to update the latter of the status of the case;and to return the said amount upon demand.

Likewise, in Villanueva v. Gonzales, 23 the Court meted the same punishment to the respondent lawyer for (1) having failed to serve his client with fidelity, competence and diligence; (2) refusing to account for and to return his client’s money as well as the titles over certain properties owned by the latter; and (3) failing to update his client on the status of her case and to respond to her requests for information, all in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Considering the foregoing relevant jurisprudence, the Court finds it
appropriate to adopt the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to
suspend Atty. Jizfrom the practice of law for two (2) years. With respect to
the amount that he should refund to Gloria, only the sum of ₱45,000.00 plus legal interest should be returned to her, considering the finding that the initial payment of ₱17,000.00 was reasonable and sufficient remuneration for the actual legal services he rendered.

The Court notes that in administrative proceedings, only substantial
evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required.24 Having carefully scrutinized the records of this case, the Court therefore finds that the standard of substantial evidence has been more than satisfied.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonardo E. Jiz, having clearly
violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and disobeyed lawful orders of the
Commission on Bar Discipline, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to return to
complainant Gloria P. Jinon the full amount of ₱45,000.00 with legal
interest of 6% per annum from date of demand on September 22, 2004 up to the finality of this Decision and 12% per annum from its finality until paid.

x x x."

New doctrine on party-list election. - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/203766.pdf

see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/203766.pdf


"x x x.


Thus, we remand all the present petitions to the COMELEC. In
determining who may participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the following parameters:

1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1)
national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations,
and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.

2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent
any “marginalized and underrepresented” sector.

3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they
register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in
legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that
fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in partylist elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register
under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and
underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political constituencies.”
It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest
and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are “marginalized and
underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies”
include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.

5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a
majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack
“well-defined political constituencies” must belong to the sector they
represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the “marginalized and underrepresented,” or that represent
those who lack “well-defined political constituencies,” either must
belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of
advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and
regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such
parties or organizations.

6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be
disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that
they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 partylist elections those that did not satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral groups or organizations must represent the “marginalized
and underrepresented” sectors, and (2) all nominees must belong to the
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector they represent. Petitioners may have been disqualified by the COMELEC because as political or regional parties they are not organized along sectoral lines and do not represent the “marginalized and underrepresented.” Also, petitioners' nominees who do not belong to the sectors they represent may have been disqualified, although they may have a track record of advocacy for their sectors. Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties may have been disqualified because they do not belong to any sector. Moreover, a party may have been disqualified because one or more of its nominees failed to qualify, even if the party has at least one remaining qualified nominee. As discussed above, the disqualification of petitioners, and their nominees, under such circumstances is contrary to the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.

This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply its provisions
faithfully, and desist from engaging in socio-economic or political
experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has ordained. Judicial
power does not include the power to re-write the Constitution. Thus, the
present petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC not because the
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners may now possibly qualify to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the new parameters prescribed by this
Court.

x x x."

Philippine Judicial Academy. - ‘Japan is back’ | Inquirer Opinion

see - ‘Japan is back’ | Inquirer Opinion


"x x x.

Days ago, I visited the Supreme Court of Japan to advise the justices of the construction and full operation of the Philippine Judicial Academy (Philja) Training Center in Tagaytay. I handed to Justice Masaharu Ohashi (Chief Justice Hironubu Takesaki was out of town) an album of photos and brochures showing the completed center and how it provides continuing education for our judges.

A little background. Seven years ago—on Jan. 26, 2006, during my term as chief justice—Japan gave our Supreme Court P300 million to build the Philja Center. The check for the whole sum was handed to me by then Japanese Ambassador Ryuichiro Yamazaki with a short, straightforward letter, without any condition whatsoever, not even a timetable or requirements to hire Japanese architects and contractors, or to use Japanese equipment.

At that time, we had no architectural plans and specifications yet, but the no-strings grant was given on my verbal assurance that the project would be built on the best terms and within the shortest time possible. Under the careful watch of then Philja Chancellor Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera, the center was planned, constructed, completed and inaugurated.

This was actually my second trip to Japan, the first being in May 2007 (a few months after I retired) when I gave then Chief Justice Hiro Shimada the architectural plans and perspectives. I went on my second trip last week to advise the Japanese court of the completion and full operation of the center.

Incidentally, neither our Supreme Court nor the Japanese government asked me to undertake the two trips. I traveled on my own initiative, using my personal funds, without any expense on the part of the Philippines or Japan. Precisely because of the absolute trust reposed in me, I felt it my duty, even in retirement, to advise the grantors that their donated funds were used fully and prudently for the purpose intended.

May I, however, thank our Ambassador to Japan Manuel M. Lopez and Consul Kit de Jesus for facilitating my visit to the Japanese court.

Largest donor. Despite its sluggish economy during the last 10 years (China dislodged it as the world’s second biggest economy), Japan is still resilient, helpful and vibrant. In fact, it continued to be our largest aid donor, giving about $700 million annually to fund general infrastructures (like roads and bridges) to generate private investments and grassroots projects like classrooms and clinics.

Though Japan changed prime ministers almost yearly, the efficient permanent civil servants kept the Japanese government humming. Now, newly recycled Prime Minister Shinzo Abe injected, to quote the Financial Times, “a real sense of electricity” in Tokyo.

His battle cry, “Japan is back,” hopes to uplift the Land of the Rising Sun to its rightful place in the world by being “a leading promoter of rules… a guardian of the global commons… united more closely with the US, Korea, Australia and other like-minded democracies…”

His “Abenomics” included a $220-billion stimulus package; depreciated the yen by 15 percent, thereby pushing Japanese exports (the lifeblood of the Japanese economy) and attracting tourists by droves; and named longtime Philippine resident and former president of the Asian Development Bank Haruhiko Kuroda governor of the Central Bank of Japan.

Relevantly, 216,284 Filipinos who live in Japan remitted to our country over $1 billion in 2012. Under the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (Jpepa), 25 Filipino nurses and 43 caregivers have passed rigid examinations (which even Japanese nationals must hurdle) and found lucrative jobs there. More are expected to pass the tests and easily find employment.

x  x x,"

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/50177/japan-is-back#ixzz2Pj1mPfru
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

No midnight appointments, Aquino says of new judges | Inquirer News

see - No midnight appointments, Aquino says of new judges | Inquirer News


"x x x.

President Benigno Aquino III on Friday disputed reports that branded his naming of 61 judges last week as “midnight appointments” similar to that of impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona’s by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, saying conditions surrounding the two moves were different.

First, Mr. Aquino said, Corona’s appointment violated the Constitution since he was appointed by Arroyo during the election period in 2010.

Secondly, he said, he signed the judges’ appointments on March 26, three days ahead of the start of the ban on presidential appointments stretching from March 29 to May 13.

“Now, on top of that, there is a letter from the chair of the Comelec (Commission on Elections), and it embodies Comelec Resolution No. 13-0331 dated March 5, 2013,” the President said.

He added, “It states, basically, that appointments to the judiciary as provided by Article 8, Section 4, Subsections 1 and 9, which is the judiciary portion of the Constitution, are not covered by the election ban in Section 261, subsection G of the Omnibus Election Code.”

He made this clarification in an interview in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, where he campaigned for local candidates of the ruling party and those in its senatorial slate.

“There is a huge difference [between the judges’ appointment] and the appointment of Corona,” the President said.

He called attention to Article 7, Section 15, of the Constitution, which stated: “Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to the executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”

Mr. Aquino said the controlling rule was, “two months before and up to the end of the term” wherein a sitting President could no longer fill vacancies in the government.

“Corona was appointed one week after elections. My [appointments] happened when an election has yet to take place,” he said.

He also disclosed that he signed the appointments of the 61 judges on Tuesday, March 26.

The judges have been assigned to municipal and regional trial courts in the provinces of Camarines Sur, Camarines Norte, Sorsogon, Pampanga, Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Zambales, Vigan, Quirino, Aurora, Leyte, Zamboanga del Norte, Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Iloilo and Negros Occidental.

He also appointed judges to preside over courts in the National Capital Region, in the cities of Caloocan, Makati, Mandaluyong, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Pasig.

Mr. Aquino added: “I am not a minister. I have a search committee that acts on the recommendations of the judiciary search [committee]. Well, the JBC (Judicial and Bar Council) sends a list.

“I am given a choice [to pick from] three [nominees] per court.”

Saying that the nominees were not the result of “hocus pocus,” he added, “Of course, we thoroughly study [the list] as much as possible.”

He enumerated some of the factors considered in judicial appointments: Grade in the bar examinations, output in terms of decisions as judge and the “crises he/she handled as a lawyer.”

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/386327/no-midnight-appointments-aquino-says-of-new-judges#ixzz2PiwzFf7P
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook