Friday, September 23, 2016

DDB sets templates for cops to make ‘surrenderees’ talk | Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism





"x x x.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS ON CAM
DDB sets templates for cops 
to make ‘surrenderees’ talk
by Malou Mangahas
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2016

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS — the term has gained currency as a major criticism of the war on drugs of the Duterte administration. The proof of the crime: bodies felled by unidentified killers or vigilantes, in the dead of night or in the light of day.

Extra-judicial confessions — the term is known to men and women of the Philippine National Police (PNP) to be something that is inadmissible as evidence in court. The proof of the crime: affidavits signed by crime suspects, under duress or without assistance from a private lawyer or counsel of their choice.

Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled against extra-judicial or “voluntary” confessions secured by law enforcers as clear violations of a suspect’s inalienable constitutional rights. In one such ruling, the high court had also declared such confessions as inadmissible in evidence, saying,”(The) Constitution is clear — a confession obtained in violation of the rights of an accused cannot be used as evidence.”

In the last 10 weeks, by the hundreds of thousands — or 716, 704 to be exact as of last week (51,198 alleged drug pushers and 663,506 alleged drug users) – men, women, and even minors have reportedly surrendered to local village and police officials under “Project Tokhang,” the demand-reduction track of the war on drugs of President Rodrigo R. Duterte.

Confession templates

But it was only four weeks ago – or a month and a half after Duterte launched his war — that the authorities issued written “guidelines” on how the police should deal with the surrenderees.

Yet the guidelines do not seem to be meant to preserve and protect the rights of the surrenderees. Rather, they pertain mostly to snatching information from the surrenderees about the most personal details of their lives, and that of their alleged drug sources or pushers.

Even as the guidelines spell out procedures in the handling of surrenderees, they also offer form templates for securing sworn affidavits and waiver of rights from them. In addition, the guidelines provide police officers more templates for filing reports on the conduct of the voluntary surrender and receipt of “confessions.”

The templates, according to human-rights lawyers, are a certain formula for extracting “extrajudicial confessions” or even witch-hunting for drug suspects, on the say-so of other alleged drug suspects.

On Aug. 3, 2016, the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) released Board Regulation No. 3 Series of 2016 titled “Guidelines on Handling Voluntary Surrender of Drug Personalities.” It is one of a few pieces of written guidelines covering the war on drugs that agencies under the Duterte administration have belatedly issued.

Signed by then DDB chairman Secretary Felipe L. Rojas Jr. and attested by OIC Board Secretary Amador S. Pabustan, the six-page issuance came with quite a number of attached forms and templates for the police to use and which the surrenderees would be encouraged or “required” to sign. These include:

• Affidavit of Undertaking and Waiver (Annex A)
• Voluntary Confession Form (Annex B)
• Physical/Medical Examination Request Form (Annex C)
• Drug Test/Examination Request Form (Annex D)
• Booking Sheet (Annex E)
• Booking Mug Shots (Annex F)







The DDB was created in July 2002 as the policy-making and strategy formulation body for policies and programs on drug abuse prevention and control, under Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Chaired by the President, DDB’s 17 board members include the secretaries of 12 executive departments, the chief of the Philippine National Police chief; and representatives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the private sector who serve in ex-officio capacity.

Apart from the DDB executive director, two other DDB executive appointees are permanent members and another two, regular members. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency or PDEA is the DDB’s “implementing operational arm.”

DDB Regulation No. 3 is silent, though, on what issuance had covered those who had been compelled to yield to the police and village officials before Regulation No. 3 itself was produced and came into effect.

No rules before Aug. 3

Laws and administrative orders may not have retrospective application, for sure. But the situation is all the more problematic with the apparent absence of any guidelines on the surrender of alleged drug users and pushers from July 1 to Aug, 3, 2016, when DDB issued Regulation No. 3.

Then again, whether or not Regulation No. 3 has come into full force and effect is a mystery, too. For one, the DDB said the Regulation “shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation and after registration with the Office of National Administrative Register (ONAR), UP Law Center, Quezon City.” PCIJ checked with the ONAR and found no listing as yet of DDB Regulation No. 3, and could not at press time confirm its publication in the newspapers.

By all indications, Regulation No. 3 was an afterthought on the part of the DDB and the Duterte administration.

In the “whereas” section of the document, DDB said it was issuing Regulation No. 3 citing that “due to the strong commitment of the President to immediately address the country’s drug problem, there are unprecedented responses from both law enforcement and the public, and one of which is the voluntary surrender of self- confessed drug personalities nationwide.”

Regulation No. 3 had to be issued, DDB said, because “there is no provision in RA 9165 providing guidelines on handling voluntary surrender of drug personalities.”







Tell all on cam

But already from July 1 to 25, 2016 alone, or before Regulation No. 3 came, the PNP had reported that a total of 116,466 persons had “surrendered.”

By Sept. 13, 2016, the PNP said this number had ballooned to more than 700,000 people.

There are more worrisome issues about Regulation No. 3, however. For one, it allows the conduct of an “interview” with surrenderees by police and village officials that is practically a tell-all confession. It allows the authorities to require the “surrenderees” to bare their personal details, income, and life patterns, and to expose the same data about their alleged sources of illegal drugs.

(By the PNP’s manuals, “interview” means “the process of eliciting information from witnesses, suspects and confidential informants.”)

The regulation also allows the testimony of surrenderees to be recorded on video and their mug shots and fingerprints taken — as the police are wont to do with those who had committed crime.

The surrenderees will also have to promise to report once a week for six months to the authorities, undergo rehabilitation using his/her money, and sign an “Affidavit Of Undertaking And Waiver (Annex A) allowing the conduct of physical/medical examination and drug test that he/she is in good shape, and that he/she shall fully cooperate with law enforcement, among others,” says Regulation No. 3.

Through it all, Regulation No. 3 states that, “no clearance or certificate shall be issued to the surrenderer (sic).”

“Voluntary surrender by drug personalities,” according to Regulation No. 3, “shall not be an assurance that they will not be subjected to drug law enforcement operation when they engage in the illegal drug activity after their voluntary surrender.”

Question of counsel

To be clear, Regulation No. 3 also says that “the presence of a counsel of his choice/PAO (Public Assistance Office) lawyer, nearest (of) kin or any person, of legal age, who knows him/her personally shall be mandatorily required during the execution of the Affidavit” and that the “surrenderer should not be handcuffed.”

Note the word “or” in the sentence. The Revised Penal Code (R.A. No. 7438 or An Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation” provides in Section 2 (a) that “Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.”

In Section 2 (d), the Code provides that, “Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceedings.”

Note the word “and” in the sentence. The Revised Penal Code stipulates the presence of both the counsel of choice and a family member or responsible person in the community to assist the suspect, or in this case, the surrenderee.

Sundry questions

According to Regulation No. 3, “the investigator shall conduct interview on the surrenderer’s alleged involvement and elicit all vital information regarding his illegal drug activity,” over two dozen multi-part questions.

By the verbatim text of DDB Regulation No. 3, these questions include but “shall not be limited to” the following:

• Personal information including the sketch map of his/her house;
• How long has the subject been involved in illegal drug activities;
• How much does he/she earn from illegal drug activities;
• Specify his/her other source of income;
• Specify his/her participation in the illegal drug activity (user, pusher, courier, maintainer of drug den, etc.);
• Types of illegal drugs being used, sold and/or smuggled;
• If the surrenderer is a user, determine the subject’s frequency of use, volume of drug sold, cost of drug use per intake, and if he/she is an injecting drug user;
• Determine his/her source of illegal drugs (name of supplier and place
• of origin);
• Identify his/her cohorts;
• Identify his/her protectors and/or linkages (politicians, law enforcers,
• prosecution, etc.);
• Determine his/her area of operation;
• Identify his/her clients/consumers of illegal drugs being sold to;
• Determine if the subject has previous drug cases. Status of the case;
• Is he/she part of a drug group, if any: Determine the profile of the group
– Strength/manpower – Arms, equipment, and mobility
– Types of illegal drugs being distributed
– Modus operandi
– Area of operation – Links/connections of the group with politicians and/or police units, armed, terrorist group/s or organization/s and determine the identified connections, if there are any; and
• “Determine if the group is involved in manufacturing/production, smuggling, and/or distribution.
– If the group is into smuggling or distribution, source and/or place of origin of illegal drugs
– If the group is into manufacturing/production, where is the location of the laboratory?
– Are there Chinese or other foreign nationals involved? Production capability (small/kitchen type, medium scale or large scale)
– If the group is involved in marijuana plantation cultivation, where is the location of the mj plantation site/s? production capability per harvest.”

Seize mobile phones

After the “interview” with the surrenderees, Regulation No. 3 says, “the Office shall immediately conduct record check to verify if the surrenderer (sic) person is included in the PDEA and PNP Target List, Wanted List, and Watch List or has any other pending criminal case/s.

In addition, “the result of the interview with the surrenderer (sic) shall be prepared and shall be used as reference for validation and cross-validation with the existing target-list. If possible, get photographs/descriptions of the persons he/she named.”

But if the initial interview yields information that is “actionable,” Regulation No. 3 says “the surrenderer may be requested to submit his/her cellular phones for forensic examination to obtain more data and to support his/her voluntary confession.”

The seizure of the surrenderee’s mobile phone “has to be officially covered by a receipt and the procedure laid down in cybercrime law shall be followed for the evidence to be admissible in court.”

The DDB’s issuance also defined specific guidelines for surrenderees who are “high-value targets” or have pending warrants or arrest or criminal cases, or had not posted bail.

For these surrenderees, the DDB says, “the concerned Office shall have temporary custody pending verification of the status of the said warrant or charges before the Prosecutor’s Office.”

“If said warrant has not been secured,” says the DDB, “the surrenderee shall be delivered to the judicial authorities or Prosecutor’s Office.

‘High-value targets’

In case there is no pending warrant of arrest against the surrenderee, the DDB says the investigating office must do the following:

“If the surrenderer is a high-value target, the procedure under the general guidelines shall be observed. Further, his/her affidavit shall be subject to verification and investigation and he/she will be required to execute waiver to allow the Office where he/she surrendered to conduct financial investigation in coordination with the AMLC (Anti-Money Laundering Council) and declare or submit his/her assets and liabilities and related documents and an appropriate intervention shall be provided.”

The DDB regulation continues: “If the surrenderer (sic) is a pusher/protector and an appointed or elected official or government employee, the procedure stated under the general guidelines shall be observed. Further, a copy of his/her voluntary confession and other pieces of evidence gathered shall be endorsed to the appropriate court, tribunal or quasi-judicial body for the conduct of administrative disciplinary actions.”

“If the surrenderer is a minor,” Regulation No. 3 says, “he/she shall be immediately endorsed to the local social welfare office in accordance with Republic Act 9344, or Juvenile Justice Welfare Act of 2006.”

“If the surrenderer is an OFW who wanted to surrender abroad,” Regulation No. 3 says, “he/she shall submit her/himself to Labor Attache assigned in their respective embassies and same shall be referred to the Migrant Workers and Other Overseas Filipinos Resource Center and the procedure stated under the general guidelines shall be observed.”

Who or which agencies will take care of the surrenderees? DDB Regulation No. 3 states that they “shall be under the supervision of the LGUs thru the City or Municipal Anti-Drug Abuse Council (CADAC/MADAC), and shall report to the Chief of Police at least once a week for a period of six (6) months and may be subjected to random drug testing.”

Cache of confessions

What happens to the confessions of or interviews with the surrenderees? Regulation No. 3 says that “all law enforcement agencies shall maintain a separate file of drug personalities who voluntarily surrendered in their respective offices,” and the PNP shall have “one list of surrenderees” per area.

A massive file of these confessions will be harvested across the nation. Says DDB Regulation No. 3: “The PNP shall designate a Secretariat that will collate reports and maintain periodic statistics on drug personalities who voluntarily surrender to authorities for evaluation/analysis and continuing enhancement of processes and procedures.”

City and town police units shall then submit monthly reports “to the PNP Chain of Command” and “the Chief, PNP, thru the PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Group shall submit a consolidated report to the PDEA,” according to the regulation. — PCIJ, September 2016

x x x."

PNP Legal Service Advisory to lawmen: Know, follow law | Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism





"x x x.

Verbatim excerpts from the PNP Legal Service advisory follow:

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

Q. What is the value of voluntary surrender in the prosecution of a crime?

A. It is a mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code. If it can be established during trial “that the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents” (Article 13, paragraph 7, RPC) and such circumstance is appreciated by the court as mitigating, the imprisonment penalty imposed by the law for the crime committed may be reduced by the court.

Q. What is the value of voluntary surrender from the perspective of law enforcement?

A. The voluntary surrender of a suspect, if established by convincing evidence, will generally negate questions regarding the legality of his detention.

Q. What are the requisites of voluntary surrender?

A. The requisites of voluntary surrender are as follows:

a. That the offender had not been actually arrested;

b. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent; and

c. That the surrender was voluntary (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, 2006 Ed., p. 298)

Q. In the course of investigating a crime, if a person comes to the station and voluntarily surrenders himself claiming to be the perpetrator, what should police officers do?

A. It is advisable for our police officers to immediately enter the fact of his voluntary surrender into the blotter. By doing so, the blotter becomes an admissible documentary evidence to prove that the police did not effect any arrest but, on the contrary, it was the suspect who walked into the station. The entries in the blotter should include the reasons (e.g. guilty feelings, bothered by conscience, avoiding shame of being arrested, to insure personal security, or persuaded by family) given by such person, which impelled him to voluntarily surrender.

Moreover, the police officer who recorded such entry into the blotter may likewise execute an affidavit which may later be introduced in evidence to serve as basis of his testimony in court.

Q. When is surrender voluntary?

A. To be considered voluntary, the surrender must be spontaneous, showing the intent of a person to submit himself unconditionally to authorities, either because:

(a) He acknowledges his guilt, or

(b) He wishes to spare the authorities from the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture (People of the Philippines vs. Lagrana, No. -68790, January 23, 1987)

Q: May police officers take custody of a person who voluntarily surrendered himself and detain him?

A. No, if the corpus delicti of the crime is not established.

Q. What is the test of spontaneity?

A. The word “spontaneous” emphasizes the idea of an inner impulse, acting without external stimulus. The conduct of the accused, and not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense, determines the spontaneity of the surrender. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, 2006 Ed., p. 308)

EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

Q. What is extra-judicial confession?

A. It is a declaration of a person, given outside of court, acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, which may be used as evidence against him.(lifted from Section 33, Rule 130, Evidence)

Taking or accepting extrajudicial confessions from suspects during custodial investigation is governed by Constitutional provisions on the Bill of Rights and by the provisions of RA No. 7438.

Q. What is custodial investigation?

A. As an investigative process, custodial investigation can be traced to American jurisprudence, the landmark case of Miranda vs Arizona, where the US Supreme Court elaborated that, custodial interrogation means “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” (Miranda vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436)

Custodial investigation “presupposes that he is suspected of having committed a crime and that the investigator is trying to elicit information or a confession from him. The rule begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, and direction is aimed at suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.”

In Philippine jurisdiction, custodial investigation “includes the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is being investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed”.(Section 2, last paragraph, RA No. 7438)

Q. What are the essential requisites to fall within the meaning of custodial investigation?

A. There is custodial investigation when:

a. A person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way;

b. A law enforce took the said person into custody or deprived him of his freedom of action; and

c. A law enforcement officer initiated questioning such person in connection with the commission of an offense.

Q. Should a police officer take or accept an oral extra-judicial confession during custodial investigation?

A. No, this is not advisable. An oral extra-judicial confession only relayed to
a police officer has limited evidentiary value during trial.

RA No. 7438 provides that “any extra-judicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brotFhaexrNsoa.:n33d5s-0is30te8rs, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him.” (Section 2[d])

Q. A person came to the station and told the police officer that he wants to give a statement about his commission of a crime. He had no counsel and explained that he cannot afford one. The police officer also had no means to provide him with a counsel. Is it proper for the police officer to take the statement of said person?

A. No. Such statement is in the nature of an extra-judicial confession. RA No. 7438 provides that, when giving a statement about his commission of a crime, such person has the right to be assisted by counsel. This right should be explained to him by the police officer. The police officer must make sure such person understands this right. The law also requires such person to sign his extra-judicial confession in the presence of his counsel. Otherwise, such extra-judicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. (Section 2[d])

TIPS TO POLICE OFFICERS WHEN TAKING DOWN EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

1. In taking down extra-judicial confessions, police officers should quiz the suspect by asking several clear questions broken down into short inquiries.

2. “A long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights under the Constitution and our laws.” (People of the Philippines vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 473).

CAVEAT!

“An extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.” (Section 3, Rule 133, Evidence)

“Corpus Delicti” means the body or substance of the crime. In a primary meaning, it is the fact that a crime has been actually committed. In a secondary meaning, it is the subject of the crime and its visible effect. (Sadili & Peňa, Comprehensive Criminal Investigation Procedure, 1998 Ed. p. 297)

— PCIJ, September 2016

x x x."

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Jurisdiction over special proceedings cases | Atty. Alvin Claridades




"x x x.

Jurisdiction over special proceedings cases

The jurisdiction over cases covered by the Rules on Special Proceedings (RSP) is generally vested in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). However, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) exercises jurisdiction over the following cases:

Original jurisdiction in probate proceedings, whether testate or intestate, where the gross value of the estate does not exceed P300,000.00 or P400,000.00 in Metro Manila, exclusive of interests, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs;

Delegated jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition or contested lots where the value of which does not exceed P 100,000.00. Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals (CA), not to the RTC, since the MTC is equal to RTC in this instance; and

Special jurisdiction over petitions for writ of Habeas Corpus in case of absence of RTC judges.

The Supreme Court (SC) and the CA have original jurisdictions over habeas corpus cases, concurrent with the RTC.

x x x."

Supreme Court, to this day, continues to deny its shameful past during the Marcos dictatorship




"x x x.

Philippine Supreme Court, to this day, continues to deny its shameful past during the Marcos dictatorship
August 31, 2016 
By Raïssa Robles

As the Supreme Court prepares to rule on whether or not to allow a hero’s burial for Marcos, we have to keep in mind that the third branch of government has still not faced what it did to help legitimize the Marcos dictatorship.

In the past, I had pointed out how the High Court glossed over its shameful history during Martial Law.

After I pointed it out, the court removed the history. But it quietly posted the following on its website.

The history is still a cop-out (see those portions boldfaced in red.)

It calls the unconstitutional violation by Marcos in going beyond the Martial Law powers granted him by the 1935 Constitution as “the transition”.

It states that “This transition had implications on the Court’s composition and functions.” But it doesn’t bother to explain the implications. 

It also called President Corazon Aquino’s order for the Supreme court justices to submit their letters of resignation as “unprecedented” but doesn’t bother pointing out that Marcos could dismiss any of the justices anytime. He had them by the balls.

Here is the High Court’s history as stated in its website today:

The Supreme Court Under the 1973 Constitution

The declaration of Martial Law through Proclamation No. 1081 by former President Ferdinand E, Marcos in 1972 brought about the transition from the 1935 Constitution to the 1973 Constitution. This transition had implications on the Court’s composition and functions.

This period brought in many legal issues of transcendental importance and consequence. Among these were the legality of the ratification of a new Constitution, the assumption of the totality of government authority by President Marcos, the power to review the factual basis for a declaration of Martial Law by the Chief Executive. Writ large also during this period was the relationship between the Court and the Chief Executive who, under Amendment No. 6 to the 1973 Constitution, had assumed legislative powers even while an elected legislative body continued to function.

The 1973 Constitution increased the number of the members of the Supreme Court from 11 to 15, with a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. The Justices of the Court were appointed by the President alone, without the consent, approval, or recommendation of any other body or officials.

The Supreme Court Under the Revolutionary Government

Shortly after assuming office as the seventh President of the Republic of the Philippines after the successful People Power Revolution, then President Corazon C. Aquino declared the existence of a revolutionary government under Proclamation No. 1 dated February 25, 1986. Among the more significant portions of this Proclamation was an instruction for “all appointive officials to submit their courtesy resignations beginning with the members of the Supreme Court.”The call was unprecedented, considering the separation of powers that the previous Constitutions had always ordained, but understandable considering the revolutionary nature of the post-People Power government. Heeding the call, the members of the Judiciary—from the Supreme Court to the Municipal Circuit Courts—placed their offices at the disposal of the President and submitted their resignations. President Corazon C, Aquino proceeded to reorganize the entire Court, appointing all 15 members.

On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino, through Proclamation No. 3, also abolished the 1973 Constitution and put in place a Provisional “Freedom” Constitution. Under Article I, section 2 of the Freedom Constitution, the provisions of the 1973 Constitution on the judiciary were adopted insofar as they were not inconsistent with Proclamation No. 3.

Article V of Proclamation No. 3 provided for the convening of a Constitutional Commission composed of fifty appointive members to draft a new constitution; this would be implemented by Proclamation No. 9. The output of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 was submitted to the people for ratification, under  Filipino people then ratified the Constitution submitted to them by the Constitutional Commission on February 2, 1987.

Here is an excerpt from Marcos Martial Law: Never Again which discusses how Marcos controlled the Supreme Court:


“As a lawyer, Marcos well understood the need to ground whatever he did in legality, or the semblance thereof. By holding office for two terms, Marcos was able to appoint so many justices to the Supreme Court that when he declared Martial Law in 1972, only three out of 11 justices were not his choices.102 But even before Marcos packed the High Court, it had already tended to be deferential towards executive power, something which the President used artfully.

On August 21, 1971, two grenades were hurled at a political rally in Plaza Miranda, killing nine and injuring 95.*** Marcos used the occasion to promptly suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and order the arrest of dozens of suspects. It would prove to be a trial run for the imposition of Martial Law that would follow a year later. When those arrested challenged the constitutionality of the suspension, the Supreme Court upheld the President. Marcos would cite the Court’s decision as a precedent for justifying the abusive powers he would later wield.

Throughout Martial Law, Marcos kept the judiciary intact and working because it gave a veneer of legality and legitimacy to the dictator, the unspoken threat being that he would dismiss judges and justices anytime they made a decision that did not suit him. To rub it in, he specifically wrote a decree forbidding the judicial system from ruling on the validity of any decisions he made. To its eternal disgrace the Supreme Court meekly acceded and rejected an appeal filed by former Solicitor General and opposition Senator Lorenzo Tañada to stop Marcos’ blatant attempt to use Martial Law to suspend the 1935 Constitution and turn himself into a dictator. Among Marcos’ Supreme Court appointees whom Mijares identified were Fred Ruiz Castro, Enrique Fernando, Claudio Teehankee, Felix Makasiar and Antonio Barredo.104 The judicial branch essentially became a rubber stamp, a supine entity whose servile status was best exemplified by a photo, taken several years later, of Chief Justice Enrique Fernando holding an umbrella over Imelda Marcos to protect her from the rain.

Very much in the dictator’s pocket, the lick-spittle justices and judges, by their silence, acquiescence or active participation, would enable the regime to get away with wholesale murder, torture and atrocities.”

X x x."

Supreme Court to use disciplinary powers in war vs. corruption - Chief Justice. - Most recent statistical report.





"x x x.

The online news portal of TV5

MANILA, Philippines -- Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno said they will use the high tribunal's disciplinary powers to punish judges and court personnel engaged in corrupt practices.

“We are aware that corruption is an obstacle to development. It is a complex problem which has to be confronted through a variety of independent initiatives to strengthen integrity and prevent opportunities for corruption among members of the judiciary. One flank in this battle against corruption is the Supreme Court’s use of its disciplinary powers,” Sereno said.

From 2012 to date, the Supreme Court has dismissed 12 judges and one Sandiganbayan justice; suspended 13; fined 88; reprimanded 18; admonished 31; and forfeited the benefits of three.

She noted that 31 lawyers have also been disbarred; 194 suspended from the practice of law; 30 suspended from the practice of law and notarial practice; eight suspended from notarial practice; 32 reprimanded; three fined and reprimanded; 80 admonished; two censured; six warned; 313 fined and warned; 16 ordered arrested; and one dropped and stricken off the roll of attorneys – all for a total of 716 penalized lawyers since 2012.

Sereno said for lower court employees, since 2010, the SC has admonished 42; forfeited the benefits of 35; censured two; dismissed 116 from service; fined 240; reprimanded 221; and suspended 227.

She added that three of the most famous administrative investigations have been done "on our own initiative, or motu proprio, without a formal complainant".

She said she will be proposing more proactive and preventive measures against corruption.

“It is true that our people must have a reason to trust its government. That is why the Judiciary has been working harder than ever before. My earnest request is that our four-year effort to reform the judiciary and the justice system, and to bring about an era of honest service by the members of the bench and bar, be supported in the same way that any genuine reform effort in whatever sector must be supported. We have only one country to serve,” said Sereno.

Meanwhile, the Chief Justice also noted that from 2013 to date, the Court of Appeals (CA) has issued only a single temporary restraining order (TRO) against a government infrastructure project.

She said that in 2015, out of the 2,039 petitions for a TRO on various subject matters, only 50 TROs (none involving any government infrastructure project) were issued by the CA, or about 2.45 percent; and the Supreme Court since 2012 has only issued one TRO against a government infrastructure project.

She explained that since the 1990s, the Court has issued seven circulars to all its 2,400 lower courts reminding them of the prohibition in issuing TROs and writ of preliminary injunctions (WPIs) against government infrastructure projects.

"We are still at the preliminary stage of getting TRO data from the lower courts. Our initial impression is that the TROs being issued by the lower courts are not against government infrastructure projects,” she noted.

x x x."

Justice Carpio speaks on PH legal remedies vs. China to enforce favorable Unclos ruling on PH's EEZ rights in the WPS/SCS



“x x x.

On Friday, Philippine Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Caprio said that there are legal remedies available to assert Manila’s rights over its South China Sea claims, especially since China continues to cross into the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Caprio said that the Philippines can seek to cancel China’s rights to its seabed if Beijing continues to ignore The Hague’s July ruling on the Philippines-China South China Sea maritime dispute. According to Caprio, the Philippines can press legal rights even further.

On July 12, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, in a stinging rebuke, ruled “there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.” It added that there was also no legal basis to China’s claim to sovereignty over most of the South China Sea.

“We can ask the international seabed authority to suspend the exploration permits, the UN (United Nations) commission on the limits of the continental shelf to suspend the application of China,” he said at a forum at the University of the Philippines College of Law in Diliman, Quezon City, metro-Manila.

X x x.

“We can sue China if China brings a gas platform in the Reed Bank. We can sue China for damages to the marine environment,” he said, adding that there are many legal remedies to show China that the Philippines is not helpless.

“There may be other things. We have to be creative about this. I’d like the legal community to think about it, but we don’t have to do this right now. We have to think about it and let China know we are not helpless,” he said.

X x x.”

See:







Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Civil Service Commission; power to disapprove appointments, when improperly exercised



See - http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_96298_1991.html

G.R. No. 96298 May 14, 1991
RENATO M. LAPINID, petitioner,  vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY and JUANITO JUNSAY, respondents.

Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro & Arcilla Law Offices for petitioner.
Adolpho M. Guerzon for J. Junsay, Jr.
Evalyn L Fetalino, Rogelio C. Limare and Daisy B. Garcia-Tingzon for Civil Service Commission.


"x x x.

In Luego v. Civil Service Commission,1 this Court declared:

The issue is starkly simple: Is the Civil Service Commission authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the ground that another person is better qualified than the appointee and, on the basis of this finding, order his replacement by the latter?

x x x x x x x x x

Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred. This is a political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide.

x x x x x x x x x

Significantly, the Commission on Civil Service acknowledged that both the petitioner and the private respondent were qualified for the position in controversy. That recognition alone rendered it functus officio in the case and prevented it from acting further thereon except to affirm the validity of the petitioner's appointment. To be sure, it had no authority to revoke the said appointment simply because it believed that the private respondent was better qualified for that would have constituted an encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the city mayor.

The same ruling has been affirmed, in practically the same language as Luego, in Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744; Santiago v. Civil Service Commission, 178 SCRA 733; Pintor v. Tan, G.R. No. 84022 and G.R. No. 85804, March 9, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Galura v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 85812, June 1, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Zulueta v. Mamangun, G.R. No. 85941, June 15, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Remigio v. Chairman, Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 86324, July 6, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Aurora Macacua v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 91520, July 31, 1990, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Abdulwahab A. Bayao v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92388, September 11, 1990, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Orbos v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92561, September 12, 1990; Alicia D. Tagaro v. The Hon. Civil Service Commission, et al., G.R. No. 90477, September 13, 1990, En Banc, Minute Resolution;Elenito Lim v. Civil Service Commission, et al., G.R. No. 87145, October 11, 1990, En Banc, Minute Resolution;Teologo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92103, November 8, 1990; Simpao v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 85976, November 15, 1990.

Only recently, in Gaspar v. Court of Appeals 2 this Court said:

The only function of the Civil Service Commission in cases of this nature, according to Luego, is to review the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law, and when it finds the appointee to be qualified and all other legal requirements have been otherwise satisfied, it has no choice but to attest to the appointment. Luego finally points out that the recognition by the Commission that both the appointee and the protestant are qualified for the position in controversy renders it functus officio in the case and prevents it from acting further thereon except to affirm the validity of the former's appointment; it has no authority to revoke the appointment simply because it considers another employee to be better qualified for that would constitute an encroachment on the discretion vested in the appointing authority.

x x x x x x x x x

The determination of who among several candidates for a vacant position has the best qualifications is vested in the sound discretion of the Department Head or appointing authority and not in the Civil Service Commission. Every particular job in an office calls for both formal and informal qualifications. Formal qualifications such as age, number of academic units in a certain course, seminars attended, etc., may be valuable but so are such intangibles as resourcefulness, team spirit, courtesy, initiative, loyalty, ambition, prospects for the future, and best interests, of the service. Given the demands of a certain job, who can do it best should be left to the Head of the Office concerned provided the legal requirements for the office are satisfied. The Civil Service Commission cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Head of Office in this regard.

It is therefore incomprehensible to the Court why, despite these definitive pronouncements, the Civil Service Commission has seen fit to ignore, if not defy, the clear mandate of the Court.

We declare once again, and let us hope for the last time, that the Civil Service Commission has no power of appointment except over its own personnel. Neither does it have the authority to review the appointments made by other offices except only to ascertain if the appointee possesses the required qualifications. The determination of who among aspirants with the minimum statutory qualifications should be preferred belongs to the appointing authority and not the Civil Service Commission. It cannot disallow an appointment because it believes another person is better qualified and much less can it direct the appointment of its own choice.

Appointment is a highly discretionary act that even this Court cannot compel.1âwphi1 While the act of appointment may in proper cases be the subject of mandamus, the selection itself of the appointee—taking into account the totality of his qualifications, including those abstract qualities that define his personality—is the prerogative of the appointing authority. This is a matter addressed only to the discretion of the appointing authority. It is a political question that the Civil Service Commission has no power to review under the Constitution and the applicable laws.

Commenting on the limits of the powers of the public respondent, Luego declared:

It is understandable if one is likely to be misled by the language of Section 9(h) of Article V of the Civil Service Decree because it says the Commission has the power to "approve" and "disapprove" appointments. Thus, it is provided therein that the Commission shall have inter alia the power to:

9(h) Approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, to positions in the civil service, except those presidential appointees, members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, police forces, firemen, and jailguards, and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess appropriate eligibility or required qualifications. (Emphasis supplied)

However, a full reading of the provision, especially of the underscored parts, will make it clear that all the Commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. If he does, his appointment is approved; if not, it is disapproved. No other criterion is permitted by law to be employed by the Commission when it acts on—or as the Decree says, "approves" or "disapproves'—an appointment made by the proper authorities.

The Court believes it has stated the foregoing doctrine clearly enough, and often enough, for the Civil Service Commission not to understand them. The bench does; the bar does; and we see no reason why the Civil Service Commission does not. If it will not, then that is an entirely different matter and shall be treated accordingly.

We note with stern disapproval that the Civil Service Commission has once again directed the appointment of its own choice in the case at bar. We must therefore make the following injunctions which the Commission must note well and follow strictly.

Whatever the reasons for its conduct, the Civil Service Commission is ORDERED to desist from disregarding the doctrine announced in Luego v. Civil Service Commission and the subsequent decisions reiterating such ruling. Up to this point, the Court has leniently regarded the attitude of the public respondent on this matter as imputable to a lack of comprehension and not to intentional intransigence. But we are no longer disposed to indulge that fiction. Henceforth, departure from the mandate of Luego by the Civil Service Commission after the date of the promulgation of this decision shall be considered contempt of this Court and shall be dealt with severely, in view especially of the status of the contemner.

While we appreciate the fact that the Commission is a constitutional body, we must stress, as a necessary reminder, that every department and office in the Republic must know its place in the scheme of the Constitution. The Civil Service Commission should recognize that its acts are subject to reversal by this Court, which expects full compliance with its decisions even if the Commission may not agree with them.

The Commission on Civil Service has been duly warned. Henceforth, it disobeys at its peril.

x x x."

Rodrigo Duterte's popularity gives him free rein on drugs killings | afr.com





" x x x.

by Ronald D. Holmes and Mark R. Thompson

Since his inauguration on 30 June, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has been true to his campaign pledge of cracking down on drugs. He has ignored objections from within the Philippines and abroad about extrajudicial killings of supposed drug pushers and users by police and unknown assailants, which have already amounted to over a thousand deaths.

Why has a mounting body count and obvious violations of the rule of law and human rights failed to slow Duterte's 'war on drugs'?

One reason is his sky-high poll rating of 91 per cent. Official statistics show crime has risen and drug use is widespread. Duterte has played to a moral panic, arguing that criminality endangers the lives of people he vowed to protect.

Duterte's ability to flout fundamental principles of the rule of law is also grounded in the weakness of basic political institutions. Duterte was elected with only a handful of congressional allies. But because Philippine political parties are weak he now has the support of most legislators who simply switched sides after his victory in search of presidential patronage. This has left only a few critics in office to speak out against the crackdown, particularly the separately elected vice-president, Leni Robredo, and neophyte Senator Leila de Lima.

Duterte also feels he can ignore the Supreme Court because it has been politicised, in part via his predecessor Benigno 'Noynoy' Aquino's removal of the Chief Justice, widely seen as an act of political revenge.

Several leading Catholic bishops have voiced strong criticisms of the extrajudicial killings. But Duterte revels in pointing to the hypocrisy of the Church, particularly the institution's vast wealth and priests' abuse of children.

Civil society groups have also been outspoken critics of the extrajudicial killings but have become fractured, with many leading members crossing over to government. On the far left, the Communist Party charge Duterte for 'upturning the criminal judicial system and denouncing people for defending human rights'. But because Duterte has handed out several of their allies key cabinet positions, and because of their eagerness for a peace deal, the left's criticism has been muted.

Duterte has also kept the media off-balance. During the campaign, he warned reporters not to take his outrageous statements too seriously. He also dampened criticism by pointing to reporters' being complicit with corrupt politicians and criminals they were supposed to expose.

On the United States, Duterte called US Ambassador Philip Goldberg a 'gay son of a whore'. Duterte struck a note with many Filipinos by pointing to past US double dealings as a colonial and pos-colonial power in the Philippines and questioning whether the declining superpower would really back the Philippines if it came to an armed confrontation with China over competing territorial claims.

Duterte has thus far skilfully out-manouevred his opponents by exposing their own frailties. But there are signs that he may have difficulty sustaining his violent anti-drug campaign.

The human cost of the carnage has become all too evident. There have been a number of high profile 'mistakes' in the killings: many clearly innocent victims. Even those murdered who did use or sell drugs have been denied any kind of due process. The Philippine Daily Inquirer's 'Kill List', documenting the daily killings - recently averaging about 10 a day - points to the skewed nature of the victims: the overwhelming majority are poor and from disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

To divert attention from the criticism that the war on drugs has largely targeted the poor, the Duterte administration recently released a list of 150 police and military officials, politicians and judges accused of involvement in the drug trade. But targeting high-ranking officials carries risks of its own with the possibility that his elite enemies may regroup for a counterattack, endangering political stability.

A look at Thailand is instructive. An analysis of the 2003 anti-drug crackdown by then Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra shows that half of the nearly 3000 people killed extra-judicially were not linked to the drug trade. They were either accidental victims or targeted by corrupt police or vengeful vigilantes. Although the campaign lifted Thaksin's short-run popularity, elites soon turned on him, overthrowing his government in 2006 and his sister's government in 2014. Thai authorities are now talking of treating drug addiction as a health problem and are considering a partial decriminalisation of drugs as a more effective way of dealing with the problem.



This holds out the hope that Duterte will stop or slow the extrajudicial killings. Hopefully, the damage they have caused to the country's judicial system and law enforcement is not permanent and the administration will focus on the fundamental woes of poverty and feeble political institutions that breed uncivil social behaviour.

Ronald Holmes is a Research Scholar in the Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs at the ANU. Mark R. Thompson is director of the Southeast Asia Research Centre at the City University of Hong Kong. This article is part of a series from East Asian Forum (www.eastasiaforum.org) in the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University.

x x x."

Philippines' Duterte's drug war has killed nearly 1,800 people - Business Insider



"x x x.

When Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines' president, took office in June, he announced a sweeping crackdown on drug trafficking in the island nation.
In the seven weeks since, nearly 1,800 suspected drug dealers have been killed.
Under Duterte, 712 drug suspects had been killed in police operations since July 1, while 1,067 killings were carried out by vigilante groups during the same time frame, National Police Chief Ronald dela Rosa, told a Philippines Senate committee on Monday,according to The New York Times.
Senators have been questioning police on the killings as part of joint hearings by the Senate's Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs. The senators also heard from witnesses accusing police of gunning down their family members for being involved in illegal drugs.
Sen. Leila de Lima, head of the Senate Justice Committee, said that she's concerned that some law enforcers and vigilantes are using the campaign against drugs to "commit murder with impunity," since many killings had not been carried out legally, the Associated Press reported.
"We want to know the truth behind the killings and violence. What really happened and why does this continue to happen?" De Lima said in Tagalog. "I'm not saying the killings and the use of lethal force have no legal basis, but too many have been killed for us to not be suspicious and to not question whether the rules of engagement are being followed."
Between July 1 and August 15, 665 people were killed by police while another 899 were murdered by unknown killers, Dela Rosa reported to the committee last week, according to The Washington Post — a drastically lower number than the one reported on Monday.
Police didn't explain the sudden increase in deaths over the past week, but senators are expected to question them about the tally on Tuesday.
Relatives of slain people cover their faces as they attend a Senate hearing investigating drug-related killings at the Senate headquarters in Pasay city, metro Manila, Philippines August 22, 2016. REUTERS/Romeo Ranoco
Relatives of slain people attend a Senate hearing investigating drug-related killings at the Senate headquarters in Manila.Thomson Reuters

The spate of killings has alarmed human-rights groups, including UN-appointed human-rights experts who have urged the country to stop the killings.
But Duterte's foreign ministers later said that the Philippines would not do so, and the president threatened to withdraw from the UN.
Perfecto Yasay, the Philippines' foreign secretary, said that his country is "certainly not leaving the UN," CNN reported on Monday.
Duterte, known locally as "the Punisher," campaigned on a pledge to rid the country of drug dealers and won a landslide presidential election in May. The 71-year-old leader has publicly advocated the killing of suspected drug dealers, urging citizens to kill criminals if they feel it's necessary.
"Shoot him and I'll give you a medal," Duterte said in June, according to the AP.
afp duterte threatens to pull philippines out of un
President Rodrigo Duterte.AFP

Richard Javad Heydarian, a political science professor at De La Salle University in Manila, told The Times that Duterte's brazen stance is indicative of outsize public expectations.
Duterte's massive support in the Philippines "largely has to do with dissipated public trust in existing judicial institutions, a sense that the normal democratic processes are not coping with the magnitude of the crisis," said Heydarian.
He threatened to declare martial law in early August when the Philippines' Supreme Court questioned his authority to oversee judges who've been accused of taking part in drug-dealing activities, Al Jazeera reported.
Jennelyn Olaires, 26, cradles the body of her partner, who was killed on a street by a vigilante group, according to police, in a spate of drug related killings in Pasay city, Metro Manila, Philippines July 23, 2016. A sign on a cardboard found near the body reads:
"A Picture and Its Story: A Death in Manila."Thomson Reuters

During Monday’s hearing, one of the witnesses, Harra Bertes,said that policemen had beaten up, arrested, and killed her husband, a suspected drug dealer. 
Police raided Bertes' house, demanded the surrender of drugs that she did not have, and removed the underwear of her 2-year-old daughter to search for illegal drugs, Bertes told the committee, according to Philstar.com.
Bertes admitted that her husband was a drug dealer, but that he had been planning on surrendering to the authorities soon.
Approximately 600,000 suspected drug dealers or users have surrendered to the police since Duterte's drug crackdown began, Philippines' authorities said, according to The Times.
x x x."

Monday, August 22, 2016

The Daily Tribune News - It’s still genocide




"x x x.

Monday, 22 August 2016 00:00 


Toughie Rody can’t just brush aside being a member of human civilization the way he has been taking cavalier potshots at the United Nations (UN) or anybody who gets to raise the issue of human rights before him.

Even the mere of threat of killing those whom he considered as criminals presupposes his toleration of summary killings.

It was the turn of special rapporteurs of the United Nations (UN) to give Rody a piece of their mind regarding the way his war on drugs is being undertaken.

A UN statement bearing the statements of the two rapporteurs started with a warning: “Allegations of drug-trafficking offences should be judged in a court of law, not by gunmen on the streets.”

It said UN rights experts are urging the “government of the Philippines to put an end to the current wave of extrajudicial executions and killings in the context of an intensified anti-crime and anti-drug campaign targeting drug dealers and users.”

It noted that more than 850 people have been killed between May 10, when Rodrigo Duterte was elected President of the Philippines vowing to crackdown on crime, and August 11. Over 650 were killed in the last six weeks alone.

Independent sources of the toll on war on drugs put the figure higher of up to 1,500 dead since Duterte took over the reins of power.

The Philippine National Police has a running tally of those killed in police operations and the other vigilante-style deaths which are being termed derisively as carton justice due to the cardboard where an “I am a drug pusher” is scribbled and placed near the dead body.

Despite the tally, no charges except for one or two “surrenderers” have been filed before the courts.

UN Special Rapporteur on summary executions, Agnes Callamard said Philippine authorities should adopt with immediate effect the necessary measures to protect all persons from targeted killings and extrajudicial executions.

She reminded Rody that claims to fight illicit drug trade do not absolve the government from its international legal obligations and do not shield state actors or others from responsibility for illegal killings.

“The State has a legally binding obligation to ensure the right to life and security of every person in the country, whether suspected of criminal offenses or not,” she added.

Rody considers such reminders from the UN as “stupid interventions” on the affairs of the country when human rights is not only an international commitment but an obligation to the human race.

UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Dainius Puras said however necessary, responses to the illicit drug trade must be carried out in full compliance with national and international obligations and should respect the human rights of each person.

Puras also made reference to the mass slays of drug addicts who Duterte had said were mostly beyond rehabilitation as if justifying their execution.

Concerning drug-dependency, this should be treated as a public health issue and justice systems that decriminalize drug consumption and possession for personal use as a means to improve health outcomes, Puras said.

During his election campaign and first days in office, Duterte repeatedly urged law enforcement agencies and the public to kill people suspected of trafficking drugs who don’t surrender, as well as people who use drugs.

The UN statement said Duterte was heard “promising impunity for such killings and bounties for those who turn in drug dealers ‘dead or alive.’”

Callamard said directives of this nature are irresponsible in the extreme and amount to incitement to violence and killing, a crime under international law. It is effectively a license to kill. “Intentional lethal use of force is only allowed when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life and should not be used for common policing objectives,” she said.

“Incentives to violence such as bounties or the promise of impunity also seriously contravene the rule of law and must end,” the UN experts said. Even Duterte’s spokesman Martin Andanar appears unable to comprehend or is unwilling to what the UN wishes to convey to toughie Rody.

“President Duterte has time and again warned us during the (election) campaign that if you vote for me, this is going to be bloody,” he said, adding that there is “no war without casualties.”

The reasoning of toughie Rody and his Palace cohorts is as unsound as the warped minds of the drug dependents they brand as beyond redemption.

x x x."

Uphold due process, defend the Constitution | Inquirer Opinion





"x x x.

ALL FILIPINOS, whether public officials or ordinary citizens, have the right to due process. It is a human right guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution that President Duterte swore to uphold and defend.

It is sorely disappointing to see the President disregard this constitutional right as he voices no objection to the killing of suspected drug pushers by the police or by vigilantes, and accuses police officers, local executives, judges and other officials of being drug lords or their protectors without the benefit of a thorough, completed criminal investigation. Without presenting solid evidence to back up his public allegations, President Duterte, the most powerful public official of our land, has embarked on a chilling, sickening name-and-shame campaign that is in effect an unjust, unlawful and unconstitutional trial by publicity.

The most recent target of this campaign of the President is newly-elected and installed Sen. Leila de Lima. He has publicly accused her of having links to the illegal drugs trade and he has insinuated that her election campaign was funded with drug money.

This public shaming came on the eve of a Senate investigation that Senator De Lima had called to look into the spate of extrajudicial killings that have been spurred by the President’s declaration of war on drugs. The figures are simply too disturbing: 665 killings by the police, 889 by unknown assailants in a span of six weeks, per the Inquirer’s report (“UN exec accepts Palace challenge to visit PH,” Front Page, 8/20/16), and counting.

The accusation smacks of vindictiveness. It may be recalled that when she was still justice secretary and, before that, head of the Commission on Human Rights, Senator De Lima called for a probe on the vigilante killings by a group called the Davao Death Squad which was linked to President Duterte who was then mayor of Davao City. Of course, she was just doing her job as mandated by law. We thus find it alarming that she is now being publicly humiliated and pilloried precisely for doing her job.

The public shaming which, to repeat, is trial by publicity, does have a chilling effect on free and intelligent discourse which is essential to democracy.

President Duterte himself recently upped the stake in favor of freedom of information by signing an executive order binding on all officials and employees in the executive branch of the Philippine government, for them to make accessible public documents to the people. We thus expect him to be the first to uphold the law and allow the free market of ideas to flourish to better build an informed citizenry. Muzzling contrary opinions has no place in a democratic and civilized society such as ours.

We stand by the Senate of the Philippines as it pursues its mandate and duty to “check and balance” the executive branch, and to conduct, as part of its oversight function, investigations in aid of legislation on matters of public interest.

We stand by Sen. Leila de Lima in her decision to proceed with the Senate inquiry into the extrajudicial killings associated with the campaign against illegal drugs, and in her advocacy to protect human rights, including the right to due process.

We support our law enforcers who risk their lives to maintain law and order and protect our lives and property and human rights.

But we urge President Duterte to refrain from using his office to intimidate those who dare disagree with him; to conduct himself like a true statesman; to respect the privacy of individuals, including public officials; and to elevate the quality of public discourse. The presidency should never be used as a platform for revenge; it demeans the highest office of the land, and diminishes its dignity and credibility.

As well, to impugn a woman’s character by the same actions that would otherwise elevate a man’s status in society, and to apply a different standard of morality on a lady senator’s alleged extramarital relations from that of a President’s own well-known dalliances, is to box one’s self in stereotypes and sexist attitudes. Surely, with a daughter in public office, President Duterte knows better than to confine women in his box of antiquated roles and expectations.

We call on all Filipino men and women of good will to be discerning in responding to intemperate reports and issues raised, especially in social media. Let not these reports and issues bring out the worst in us. Let us pursue our discourse in a manner worthy of emulation by our youth and children.

Despite severe pressure from several quarters, let us be steadfast in respecting the rule of law; let us uphold due process and defend our Constitution, in words and in deeds.

This piece was signed by Rosanita Serrano, Narzalina “Narz” Lim, and 15 other women.

x x x."