Right of Way

>> Pede ga patanong pre pag isa lang titulo tas ayaw mag bigay ng right og way nung nasa una
may laban a kame?

----- Based on the foregoing, the owner of the land or person demanding a right of way must
establish the following to be entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way: (1) that the dominant
estate is surrounded by other immovable and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) that proper
indemnity has been paid; (3) that the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant
estate; (4) that the right of way claimed is at point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, in so far as
consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the
shortest (Cresencia Cristobal, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. (1)25339, June 22, 1998).

TRAIN Law

>> Under Section 82 of the TRAIN Law, jeepney franchise holders are entitled to fuel vouchers;
while minimum-wage earners and the poorest 50 percent of the population are qualified for fare
discounts, discounted National Food Authority rice and free skills training.

Immorality

>> Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with
rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or
shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community
and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare. (Madredijo vs. Loyao, Jr., 375 Phil.
1, 17 (1999), citing Alfonso vs. Juanson, A.M. No. RTJ-92-904, December 7, 1993, 228 SCRA 239)

>> The “disgraceful and immoral conduct” consists of having extra-marital relations with a
married person. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, the
sanctity of marriage is constitutionally recognized and likewise affirmed by our statutes as a special
contract of permanent union. (Concerned Employee vs. Glenda Espiritu Mayor, A.M. No. P-02-1564,
November 23, 2004)

>> Had respondent indeed not known that Leano was married when they commenced their
relationship, such lack of awareness may constitute a valid defense for her actions. It is not beyond belief
that she would not have known of Leano’s existing marriage.

The legal effect of such ignorance deserves due consideration, if only for intellectual clarity. The
act of having sexual relations with a married person, or of married persons having sexual relations outside
their marriage is considered “disgraceful and immoral” conduct because such manifests deliberate
disregard by the actor of the marital vows protected by the Constitution and our laws. (supra)

Admissions

>> In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or by showing they were
made by mistake. The party may also establish that the response that formed the admission was made in
a jocular, not a serious manner; or that the admission was made in ignorance of the true state of facts.
Yet, petitioner never offered any rationalization why such admissions had been made, thus leaving them
unrebutted. In addition, admissions made under oath, as in the case at bar, are evidence of great weight
against the declarant. They throw on him the burden of showing a mistake. (Ladiana vs. People, G.R. No.
144293, December 4, 2002)

“I Second the Motion”

>> The seconder may state “I second the motion” or “second” without first being recognized by
the chair. He may remain seated but in larger assemblies, especially in those where non-members may be
seated in the hall, the seconder should stand. After hearing a second, the chair then states the question
and the motion is placed before the assembly for discussion.

Members of the Court as Collegial Body

>> The Members of the Court are beholden to no one, except to the sovereign Filipino people
who ordained and promulgated the Constitution. (Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)

Prosecutorial Powers for CHR Recommended (April 9, 2018)

>> The consultative committee created by President Rodrigo Duterte to review proposed changes
to the 1987 Constitution is considering giving the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) prosecutorial
powers and expanding its jurisdiction to include non-state actors.

Former Chief of Justice Reynato Puno, the committee chair, told a radio interview on Saturday
that the CHR would be elevated to a body similar to the Office of the Ombudsman and other constitutional
commissions, which have prosecutorial powers.

The expansion of the CHR’s mandate, he added, was in consonance with the committee’s decision
to include socioeconomic and environmental rights, as well as the right to privacy, in the Bill of Rights in
the proposed new Charter.

“If we see the evolution of human rights, even political and civil rights, it’s not only the
government that violate them. More non-state actors do. That is why the mandate [of the CHR] to go
after all violators, whether government or non-government actors,” Puno said.

He added that the defense of environmental rights should not be left to individuals, considering
the violators are big corporations.

This is why, he said, a government body with plenty of resources, such as the new CHR, should be the one
fighting for such rights on behalf of the people.

Puno said the committee was also looking into the composition of the CHR for possible inclusion
of members from sectors where human rights violations are prevalent, such as urban and rural poor and
indigenous peoples.

Puno said the CHR would also investigate and prosecute violations of right to privacy.
 SC: No Need for Court to Declare Missing Soldiers Dead Before Spouses Can Get
Benefits (July 3, 2018)

The Supreme Court (SC) has pronounced that there is no need for a missing soldier to be declared
presumptively dead before his spouse could collect benefits from the Philippine Veterans’ Affairs Office
(PVAO) or the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

This was despite denying the petition of Estrelita Tadeo-Matias, who admittedly just wanted to
claim benefits, to have her husband Wilfredo Matias declared presumptively dead for having gone missing
since 1979.

In a recent 21-page decision, the SC 3rd Division sustained the Court of Appeals’ March 20, 2017
ruling that denied Tadeo-Matias’ petition. It affirmed the Tarlac City Regional Trial Court (RTC) gravely
abused its discretion when it granted the petition in a January 15, 2012 decision.

This was because the petition, whose sole objective was to declare Matias dead under the Civil
Code, was “not a viable suit in our jurisdiction,” as established by long-standing jurisprudence.

But, the SC said it had to address the “misconception” that Tadeo-Matias needed a court
declaration to secure her husband’s death benefits. It said Tadeo-Matias had been “misguided” and forced
to prosecute “an otherwise simple claim for death benefits either before the PVAO or the AFP.”

It said the PVAO and the AFP “can make their own determination, on the basis of evidence
presented by the claimant,” on whether the spouse could secure the serviceman’s death benefits under
Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code without having to go to court.

“The Court is hopeful that by the foregoing guidelines, the unfortunate experience of the
petitioner would no longer be replicated in the future,” read the decision penned by Associate Justice
Presbitero Velasco Jr.

Misconduct

Misconduct has a legal and uniform definition. Misconduct has been defined as an intentional
wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government
official. A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant
disregard of established rule are present. Otherwise, a misconduct is only simple. (Imperial, Jr. vs.
Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 191224, October 4, 2011, citing Vertudes vs. Buenaflor,
G.R. No. 153166, December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 210, 233)

Perjury

Perjury is the “willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a
proceeding”. Perjury relates to “any material matter.” It is sometimes called “LYING UNDER OATH”; that
is, deliberately telling a lie in a proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that
the false statement be material to the case at hand – that it could affect the outcome of the case.
“Material Matter” refers to the main fact which was the subject of the inquiry.
 DOJ circular used by De Lima vs. ex-Pres. Arroyo unconstitutional – SC (July 17, 2018)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld its April 2018 decision declaring as unconstitutional a
Department of Justice (DOJ) circular used by then Justice Secretary Leila De Lima to stop former President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo from leaving the country in 2011.

DOJ Circular No. 41 allowed the former Justice Secretary to stop from traveling abroad any
suspects who are the subjects of a DOJ investigation.

The high court last April said the circular is unconstitutional because it violates the right to travel
under Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution.

“The Court, in interpreting Article III, Section 6, determined that there was no legal basis for
Department Circular No. 41 because of the absence of a law authorizing the Secretary of Justice to issue
Hold Departure Orders (HDO), Watchlist Orders (WLO) and Allow Departure Order (ADO),” the high court
said.

“As a consequence, all issuances released pursuant to said DOJ Department Circular are null and
void,” said the decision was penned by Associate Justice Andres Reyes Jr.

The circular was used by De Lima as the basis for three watchlist orders against Arroyo and her
husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo and former PAGCOR Chairman Ephraim Genuino.

The wheelchair-bound Arroyo and her husband were stopped by immigration authorities on
November 6, 2011 from boarding a Hong Kong-bound plane.

They were unable to leave the country despite a temporary restraining order issued by the SC
against the circular.

The camp of De Lima earlier submitted a motion for reconsideration seeking a reversal of the April
2018 ruling of the Supreme Court.

However, this motion was dismissed by the high court during Tuesday’s en banc (full court)
session for failure to raise new arguments.

Puno: Proposed federal charter expands meaning of human rights (July 22 2018)

To ease concerns about the disappearance of “human rights” from the Declaration of Principles
and State Policies in the proposed federal Constitution, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno
said the definition of the concept was actually expanded in the draft Charter.

Puno, chair of the consultative committee created by President Duterte to revise the 1987
Constitution, on Saturday said critics were merely “nitpicking” about the omission of the therm.

“In our draft Constitution, we actually broadened the definition of human rights,” he said in a
symposium organized by Partido Federal ng Pilipinas. “These are far from the protections given by the
1987 Constitution to Filipinos.”
 The present Constitution says the State “values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights.”

In the proposed charter, the phrase “full respect for the person and the right of all citizen to
participate in all government process.”

Three categories

Puno maintained that even without the explicit use of the term, the draft Charter expanded the
meaning of human rights in the new Bill of Rights.

He said the proposed Bill of Rights had 28 sections – six more than what is provided by the present
Constitution – divided into three categories: civil and political rights, social and economic rights, and
environmental and ecological rights.

He said the proposed Constitution protected the first, second and third “generations” of human
rights.

The first generation refers to civil and political rights, while the second generation covers
socioeconomic rights. The third generation goes beyond civil and social rights.

The current Constitution guarantees only the first generation, according to Puno.

Puno said that the draft Charter gave more power to the Constitution on Human Rights.

The proposed Federal Commission on Human Rights can investigate and recommend the
prosecution of both state and nonstate actors.

It can also establish a witness protection program, which only the Department of Justice can grant
at present, he said.

Warning

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), which is critical of the Duterte administration’s
human rights record, warns that the proposed Constitution could lead to “strongman rule.”

In a statement on Friday, the group said the proposed Charter’s transitory provision would grant
the President absolute power over the three branches of government through the transition commission
that would be set up.

“Despite being cushioned by good and progressive provisions here and there, it effectively grants
the incumbent authoritarian powers [and] gives his transition commission the legislative powers to
promulgate laws and decrees,” the group said.

NUPL also said the proposed Constitution would allow the President to appoint all members of
the independent Constitutional Commissions and “practically thousands of government officials, which
could include the judiciary, while exercising both executive and legislative powers.”
‘Lawless violence’

The group also questioned the expansion of the basis for the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus to include “lawless violence,” which would become a ground for declaring martial
law under the proposed Constitution.

“The Filipino experience under the Marcos dictatorship and the arbitrary and wanton exercise of
this power under the incumbent President are experiences that should never happen again, much less
constitutionalized,” the group said.

Puno said the opposition to the draft Constitution was due to a lack of information, which could
be dealt with by a massive information drive once it is endorsed by the President.

A recent survey showed 7 out of 10 Filipinos oppose federalism.

Several university heads and more than 500 academics from various schools also were against a
constituent assembly to change the Charter, saying the abundance of political dynasties in Congress
created conflicts of interest.

Rule of Law

The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and

established laws.

Beyond federalism, ConCom’s notable forms (Artemio V. Panganiban; July 29, 2018)

Beyond and apart from its controversial federalism proposals, the consultative committee
(ConCom) nonetheless deserves credit for crafting notable reforms that can be seriously discussed and
eventually adopted now or in the future, whenever constitutional amendments or revisions are at hand.

Let me briefly outline some. First, in Article I of its draft constitution, the ConCom defined our
“National Territory” in clearer language, unmistakably upholding our sovereignty and sovereign rights in
the South China Sea, thus: “[The Philippines] has sovereignty over islands and features outside it
archipelagic baselines pursuant to the laws of the Federal Republic, the law of nations, and the judgments
of competent international courts or tribunals.”

Moreover, our country “has sovereign rights over that maritime expanse beyond its territorial sea
to the extent reserved to it by international law, as well as over its extended continental shelf, including
the Philippine Rise.”

And, without directly mentioning our claim over Sabah but implicitly alluding to it, the ConCom’s
draft stressed that our country “likewise has sovereignty over other territories belonging to the Philippines
by historic right or legal title.”
 This definition of our national territory should calm down even those who attack the Duterte
administration for alleged timidity in asserting our arbitral maritime victory over China, and the current
and previous administrations’ alleged neglect in pushing for our “historic right or legal title” over Sabah.

Second, in its Article II, “Declaration of Principles and State Policies,” the draft unequivocally
clarifies, “The government is the protector of the people and the Federal Republic” while the “Armed
Forces of the Philippines shall secure the sovereignty of the Republic and the integrity of its national
territory.”

The foregoing replaces the ambiguous “declaration” of the present Charter that says, “The Armed
Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State.” This provision is being misused by
political adventurers to justify a military coup against supposedly abusive civilian regimes.

Third, Article III, the “Bill of Rights,” starts with a major amplification: “The rights under this article
are demandable against the state and nonstate actors, and their enforcement shall be consistent with
international standards.”

This is significant because, under our prior constitutions, the Bill of Rights was traditionally
demandable and enforceable only against the state and state actors. We now know that there are
“nonstate actors” – like large multinational companies, international organizations, some local
conglomerates and even powerful individuals – who/which can and do violate fundamental rights,
especially of the poor and the weak.

Fourth, recognizing our people’s right to prosperity and wellbeing, “Social and Economic Rights”
as well as “Environmental and Ecological Rights” are expressly enumerated and cherished in the draft.

Fifth, to correct injustices in precipitate acquittals, the draft provides clear exceptions to the
double jeopardy rule, “where the offended party is deprived of due process or where there is a finding of
mistrial, or when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion…”

Sixth, for the first time in our constitutional history, the draft contains a definition of “political
dynasty” and self-executing prohibitions for the members thereof from running for, or being appointed
to, or for being declared ineligible for a public office.

Seventh, in line with worldwide trends to propel the economy, the draft retains the nationalistic
provisions of the 1987 Charter but allows the legislature – taking into account the evolving national
interest – to change the ownership percentages as well as the management and control prerogatives that
can be allowed to foreigners.

Eighth, the various methods of amendment or revision are worded simply and clearly, especially
the separate voting requirements in the bicameral legislative branch.

These are some more well-conceived reforms, but my space is limited. I will take them up at
another time. (chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com)

Con-Com’s proposed 4 high courts bad for justice system (Rappler; August 2, 2018)
 MANILA, Philippines – The creation of 3 high courts aside from a Federal Supreme Court will lead
to the “impoverishment of the judicial process,” said former Supreme Court associate justice Vicente
Mendoza.

Mendoza was speaking at a forum about the Consultative Committee’s draft federal constitution
on Thursday, August 1 in Quezon City.

The Duterte-formed Con-Com proposed in its draft to create 4 high courts under a federal
Philippines – a Federal Supreme Court, Federal Constitutional Court, Federal Administrative Court, and
Federal Electoral Court.

Mendoza argued that the creation of multiple courts will lessen the prestige of the Supreme
Court, thereby compromising the ability of the judicial branch to hold the other two branches
accountable.

The creation specifically of a Federal Constitutional Court will make the Federal Supreme Court
“but a shadow of the present Supreme Court.”

“The creation of a Constitutional Court is done at the expense of the present Supreme Court. The
present Supreme Court will be reduced to an ordinary court. It will lose its importance, it will lose its
prestige,” said Mendoza.

In the draft constitution already submitted to Congress, the Federal Constitutional Court has
“exclusive and original jurisdiction” over questions of constitutionality of laws, treaties, orders,
proclamations and other government issuances. It also hears impeachment cases and exercises
jurisdiction over cases involving writ of habeas corpus, writ of amparo, writ of habeas data, and writ of
kalikasan.

The Federal Supreme Court, on the other hand, exercises original jurisdiction over conflicts
between branches and agencies with the Federal Government or between the Federal Government and
regions. They decide on cases involving petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and
render final judgments on decisions by lower courts – except those within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
other 3 high courts.

‘Caricature’ Constitutional Court

Even the way the proposed Constitutional Court is set up won’t inspire the same awe and respect
given to the current Supreme Court, said Mendoza.

Whereas the current Supreme Court “incidentally” decides on constitutional questions as it

resolves ordinary cases, there will be times when the proposed Constitutional Court would have to solve
constitutional questions without concrete cases, such when they are asked to decide on the
constitutionality of a law or executive order.

“It will not be like the Supreme Court in its prominence, in its role in government… They lack the
flesh and bones of actual cases that alone can impart to the judicial process the impact of actuality. It will
not have that. It will just be an academic discussion in the classroom,” said Mendoza.
 The former justice also sees a scenario in which the Constitutional Court’s advisory opinion on the
constitutionality of a law could contradict the decision of the Supreme Court which has an impact on
constitutionality. It could even contradict itself if an actual case with the same constitutional questions is
put before it.

“Now you are going to license the Constitutional Court to flipflop. You will now give the
Constitutional Court, even without explanation, to say that, ‘Ah yeah the law is now like this. Yesterday it
was like this. Today I see it differently. Because the court will not be bound by its own opinion. It will not
bind parties because it is rendered as an advisory opinion but it will not bind either the Supreme Court to
render a very different opinion or even a contradictory opinion on a constitutional question,” said
Mendoza.

A situation could also arise wherein the Constitutional Court would have to resolve ordinary legal
cases, such as ejectment cases, just because there is a question of constitutionality (such as the
constitutionality of the Rent Control Act of 2009).

“It renders the Constitutional Court a caricature,” said Mendoza.

Way to solve backlog

One reason given by the Con-Com for its creation of multiple high courts is to resolve the perennial
problem of backlog in the Supreme Court’s dockets.

But Mendoza said there are simpler solutions.

“The solution is not to create mini Supreme Courts which are not really Supreme Courts but to
increase certiorari discretion of the court and practice it properly,” he said.

One way to do this is by limiting appeals to the Supreme Court from the lower courts on questions
of law.

“If it’s certiorari jurisdiction, it is discretionary therefore the court can reject cases that are
unmeritorious and devote its time on those which really concern the law in its most profound national
aspect,” he explained.

Another way is to “curb the penchant of lawyers and courts to resort to special civil actions” in
order to “get the newspaper headlines,” said the former justice.

Draft charter downgrades Supreme Court (Vicente V. Mendoza; August 4, 2018)

Arguably the most renowned court in the world today is the Supreme Court of the United States.
Its importance lies in the fact that it stands at the top in a hierarchy of state and federal courts, while its
prestige owes to the fact that it has the power to determine the constitutional validity of the acts of the
other departments of the government, legislative and executive.

The Constitution of the United States vests “the judicial power of the United States . . . in one
Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain to establish.”
The Constitution does not speak of “a Supreme Court,” but “one Supreme Court,” and “inferior courts” to
emphasize the intention to make it the highest and the most important court.

The U.S. Supreme Court owes its prestige from the fact that it possesses the power of judicial
review, by virtue of which it has the power to pass upon the validity of the acts of the other departments
of the government.

Although not expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court, by declaring in its
1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison that it is “emphatically the province and the duty” of courts to say
what the law is, established their power to declare acts of the other branches contrary to the Constitution
to be void.

This declaration had far reaching significance. Although for decades since its organization the U.S.
Supreme Court was only “occasionally involved” in important political events in the early days of the
American Republic, it soon became a significant branch of the American government. Since then, hardly
had a political question arisen which was not sooner or later decided as a judicial question, as the French
writer Alexis de Tocqueville observed in his travel to America.

Repudiation of one Supreme Court

We have patterned our Supreme Court after that of the United States.

Although it cannot be quite compared with its American counterpart, our Court has nevertheless
captured some of the influence of that Court.

We have adopted the concept of One Supreme Court in our Constitutions from the 1935
document to the present one. On this ground the Supreme Court invalidated a law disqualifying from the
consideration of treason cases members of the Court who had served during the war and temporarily
replacing them with lower courts judges.

Now this idea of One Supreme Court is compromised in the proposed Constitution by the creation
of 3 special courts in addition to a Federal Supreme Court: a Federal Constitutional Court, a Federal
Administrative Court, and a Federal Electoral Court.

What was done is to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over some cases and transfer it to
the special courts.

Under the proposed Constitution, “disputes or matter” involving constitutional questions and
petitions for the writ of habeas corpus, writ of amparo, writ of habeas data, and writ of kalikasan are
cognizable by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Appeals from the decisions of the Federal Commission on Human Rights, Federal Commission on
Audit, Federal Ombudsman Commission, and Federal Competition Commission and other administrative
regulatory agencies are placed under the jurisdiction of a Federal Administrative Court. Electoral cases
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President, Vice-President, Members of Congress,
as well as elective regional, provincial, city, municipal and barangay officials are placed under the
jurisdiction of a Federal.
 The Federal Supreme Court is but a shadow of the present Supreme Court.

Its jurisdiction is limited to appeals from the decisions and orders of lower courts not cognizable
by the special courts, cases involving questions of jurisdiction and errors or questions of law, or the legality
of any tax, impost, assessments, or toll or nay penalty imposed in relation to it, cases involving conflicts
between the Federal Government and the federated regions, those involving ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and quo warranto.

The purpose for the creation of additional courts is said to be to solve the backlog of cases in the
present Court.

This is a problem that has been with the Supreme Court since 1946. Attempts to solve it have
been by increasing the membership of the Court from 11 as provided in the 1935 Constitution to fifteen
as provided in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and/or allowing the Court to sit in divisions.

Mini supreme courts

But creating mini supreme courts, however great the apprehension that a crowded docket may
impair its essential function may have been, has never been advanced as solutions because it is contrary
to the idea of One Supreme Court.

Instead of additional supreme courts, attention should be paid to the method of work of the
Supreme Court.

Only cases of general importance should be heard and decided by it. For this purpose, appeals
from the decisions of lower courts of the Supreme Court should be limited to petitions for review on
certiorari of questions of law or questions of fact and law, leaving ordinary appeals on questions of fact
to such appellate tribunal as may be created by law.

The difference between these modes of appellate review is that jurisdiction under certiorari is
discretionary enabling the Court to select the cases it will review, while jurisdiction under ordinary appeal
is obligatory. Although review by certiorari is provided in the 1997 Rules of Court, this mode of review can
be made more effective not only by limiting review to questions of law and mixed questions of fact and
law as at present done in practice, but also by screening them before they are placed in the regular docket
of the Court.

Limited jurisdiction

Indeed, it is the power of judicial review which has enabled the Supreme Court to play an
important role in our system of government.

It is a power which constitutes a significant intervention into the political process. As Bishop
Hoadly said in his Sermon to the King of England on March 31, 1717: “Where hath an absolute authority
to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, to all intent and purpose, and
not the person who first spoke or wrote them.” In truth, only self-restraint stands between timidity and
interventionism.
 This power is most effective in the hands of the courts because it is exercised in the course of
doing their regular business of deciding ordinary cases. It makes them powerful institution. It is this aspect
of the American Court’s function that we have sought to endow our own Supreme Court with. It has
somehow made them more than a regular court.

A special court of limited jurisdiction, like the Constitutional Court, to which this role is given, is
not likely to wield the same influence in government that the present Supreme Court does, not only
because its doctrines are not evolved in the ordinary course of business but also because of the types of
cases that are likely come before it. Under Article IX, Section 11, the Federal Constitutional Court is given
exclusive and original jurisdiction over “disputes involving the constitutionality of a law” as well as
“disputes or matter involving questions of constitutionality.” This means that even ejectment cases, which
involve questions of the constitutionality of a law or a constitutional question, can be brought only in the
Federal Constitutional.

In addition, most likely the proposed Constitutional Court will be swamped with requests for
advisory opinions on pending legislation and executive action.

The proposed Constitution provides that its opinions will not bar private parties from questioning
the validity of laws declared valid by the Constitutional Court. Its authority will certainly suffer if it can
repudiate its opinions and flip-flop in the decision of actual cases and controversies. The result will be the
impoverishment of the judicial process.

On the other hand, the Federal Supreme Court may be relieved of its heavy caseload, but it will
become an ordinary court and its status as a coequal and coordinate branch of government will be
undermined. It will become a mere shadow of its original self.

Constitutional courts, such as the Verfassungsgerichtshop in Austria, were instituted in Europe

because the ordinary courts did not have power “to say what the law is.” As their only function was to
apply the law, it became necessary to establish special courts with power to interpret the constitution.
Constitutional questions were referred to them and the cases in which the constitutional questions were
raised had to await their resolution before the ordinary court could proceed. There is no reason to have
a special Constitutional Court with exclusive to decide constitutional cases such as that proposed in the
draft constitution.

‘Demandable’ rights

Three categories of rights are placed under the Bill of Rights in the proposed Constitution: Civil
and political rights, social and economic rights, and environmental and economic rights. Its drafters,
following some European writers, refer to the three categories as first, second, and third generation rights,
respectively.

Article III, Section 1, provides that, The rights under this article are demandable against the State
and non-state actors and their enforcement shall be consistent with international standards.

By declaring these rights to be “demandable against the State,” the draft Constitution in effect
make them enforceable in the courts, because under Article IX, Section 1 it is “the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.”
 Political questions are excluded from the constitutional grant of power to the courts because their
resolution is committed to the other branches of the government or there are no “judicially manageable
or discoverable standards” for resolving them.

There is no question that civil and political rights can be enforced in courts in proper cases. But
the judicial enforcement of social and economic rights and environmental and ecological rights are
problematical.

For example, can an action be filed in the Federal Constitutional Court to demand from the
government “adequate food” based on the right of every person under Section 26(a) to “Adequate food”?
Or, can a citizen bring an action against the government to demand that Manila Bay be cleaned up because
under Section 28(a) he has a right to a “healthful environment and balanced ecology, clean air, clean
water, clean soil, and clean surroundings?”

Indeed, social and economic rights are different from the civil and political rights because they
require the positive furnishing of resources which courts obviously cannot do. in contrast, actions for the
enforcement of civil and political rights, all cast in the negative as “don’ts, involve the redress of wrongs
which courts are eminently suited to hear and decide.

After declaring that rights under Article III, Section 1 to be “demandable against the State and no-
state actors,” that provision states that “their enforcement shall be consistent with international
standards.” This is vague. Does the phrase “in accordance with international standards” mean standards
for resolving issues otherwise political by non-judicial method, such as by simply referring complaints for
violations of Environmental and Ecological Rights to appropriate agencies of the executive department for
compliance perhaps by the writ of kalikasan?

The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights does not provide for the
judicial enforcement of these rights, doubtless because those who wrote them were aware that these
rights are not justiciable. Instead the Covenant relies for the enforcement of these rights on the good faith
of states parties to the treaty.

The attempt to enforce these rights by court action can only cause frustration of expectations
because of the declaration in Article III, Section 1 that the rights are “demandable against the State and
[even] non-state actors.”

In the present Constitution some of the so-called second and third generation rights are found
elsewhere than the Bill of Rights, obviously because the drafters of the 1987 Constitution were aware of
non-justiciable character of these rights. For example, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
found in the Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), in which it is declared to be not a right
of the people but a duty of the state to protect and promote.

I think provisions for so-called second and third generation rights can be best located in the
Proposed Constitution elsewhere than in the Bill of Rights.

Tale of two Pauls from the Marcos nightmare (August 10, 2018)
 Two characters, both named Paul, who played key roles in a dark chapter in Philippine history,
were in the news recently.

Let’s start with the one who just passed away.

Paul Laxalt was a Republican U.S. senator from Nevada and a close ally of former American
President Ronald Reagan.

In February 1986, he played a brief but critical role in Philippine history. In the final hours of
Ferdinand Marcos, another Reagan ally, it became Laxalt’s job to convince the corrupt dictator that it was
time to give up power.

In 1986, Marcos cheated his way to yet another term as president, sparking massive protests that
threatened to explode into a full-blown rebellion. As the situation grew more volatile, the dictator called
Laxalt, whom he had met a few months before in Manila. Marcos was already barricaded in his palace
when they had the phone conversation.

“Should I step down? Senator, what do you think?” Marcos asked.

Laxalt replied: “Mr. President, I am not bound by diplomatic restraints. I am talking only for myself.
I think you should cut and cut cleanly. I think the time has come.”

There was a long pause. Then Marcos said, “I am so very, very disappointed.”

It was a dramatic turn of events for a Philippine president who is now remembered as one of the
most corrupt leaders in history.

Roughly three years earlier, in 1982, Marcos was at the height of his power. Reagan himself
welcomed him to Washington: “Mrs. Reagan and I have been looking forward to returning the hospitality
you showed us on our 1969 visit to your country.”

“Mr. President, under your leadership the Philippines stands as a recognized force for peace and
security in Southeast Asia,” Reagan added.

The year before his state visit, Reagan’s No. 2, Vice-President George Bush stunned the world,
particularly the human rights community, when he sang praises for a president known for some of the
most atrocious violations of human rights in Southeast Asia and for routinely rigging elections.

“We stand with the Philippines, we stand with you, sir,” Bush said during a visit to Manila. “We
love your adherence to democratic principles and to the democratic processes . . . . We will not leave you
in isolation . . . . It would be turning our backs on history if we did.”

As it turned out, Reagan’s team did eventually turn their backs on Marcos, swiftly dumping the
dictator when it became clear that he had become major liability and a PR embarrassment for his
administration.
 The other Paul is currently in jail. Paul Manafort now on trial for bank and tax fraud charges. He
is known as Donald Trump’s former campaign manager. In the 1980s, he also played a prominent role as
a lobbyist and fixer for Marcos.

As Politico reported in a 2016 article “Paul Manafort’s Wild and Lucrative Philippine Adventure,”,
“Manafort and his associates advised the couple on electoral strategy, and in Washington, where they
worked to retain goodwill by tamping down concerns about the Marcos regime’s human rights record,
theft of public resources, and ultimately their perpetration of a massive vote-rigging effort to try to stay
in power in the Philippines’ 1986 presidential election.”

Unfortunately for Marcos, despite Manafort’s efforts, Washington eventually abandoned him,
sending the other Paul to tell him, “Tine to go.”

PA Journal

Empowering Women
According to Steven Metz, women’s empowerment is a vital component of any strategy against
insurgency, not least because it provides a ‘brake on the aggression of disillusioned young males. (57)
Historical evidence tends to support this argument, suggesting that cultures with a propensity to repress
women are more susceptible to violence. (58) There has been substantial progress towards the
empowerment of women in the Philippines, as illustrated in the increasing role and influence of women
in politics, the media, academia and other sectors. The role of women continues to warrant serious
political consideration, not only as a factor in addressing the insurgency, but as a general approach for
social re-engineering that promotes social cohesion.

Job Creation and Development

Carles Boix’s study of the economic roots of insurrection throughout the world highlights the role
of economic development in the alleviation of conflict. This study reveals that ‘the use of openly violent
means in the political arena will most likely occur in countries that are highly unequal and where wealth
is mostly immobile. (59) Understandably, for those who are economically disadvantaged, violence is an
easy option for effecting political change, particularly where a large proportion of the economy is
controlled by the wealthy. (60) In any counterinsurgency strategy, ‘businesses started and jobs created
are as much “indicators of success” as insurgents killed or intelligence provided.’ (61) Economic and social
development provides the best antidote to agitation and subversion and effectively work to eliminate the
breeding ground for insurgency. A human security framework provides freedom from fear as much as
freedom from want.

Agrarian Reform
The agrarian reform programme is also key to the elimination of the seeds of insurgency. The slow
pace of agrarian reform and the inefficiency of its implementation are currently among the major
platforms of the revolutionary movement. In fact, the CPP has launched its own version of revolutionary
land reform, albeit with limited success. The government must signal that it intends to address issues of
concern with the implementation of the agrarian reform programme, one of the major thursts of the 1987
Constitution.

Adherence to Humanitarian Law

 The last six years have seen hundreds of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, prompting an
investigation by a United Nations Special Rapporteur. Most of those killed have been linked to the
communist insurgency, or at least perceived to be sympathetic to the movement. Members of
organizations known as ‘fronts’ of the CPP/NPA have been systematically targeted and the criminal justice
system has become a tool of the counterinsurgency. The AFP refuted the findings of the United Nations
Special Rapporteur and blamed NPA ‘purges’ for the killings. But the AFP response was widely condemned
as a ‘cynical attempt to displace responsibility.’ (62) Government forces must be seen as the true
guardians of humanitarian laws and principles. To this end, members of the armed forces must be trained
in the enforcement of basic human rights, and mechanisms to ensure compliance with human rights must
be reinforced.

National Strategy and Budget Reform

The policies and strategy proposed in this paper will not require additional government funding,
but rather a re-examination of current priorities. Counterinsurgency allocations have been a regular
feature of the Philippine defense budget for many decades. What is now needed is the reallocation of
funds to different activities. For example, with the stopping of the armed response to the insurgency, the
AFP will have the freedom to realign funds intended for combat operations to intelligence and civil-
military operations. The refocusing of efforts to securing the communities and economic centers would
still require operational funds, but to a lesser degree than when an all-out war was in effect.
This paper argues that the government should pursue its priority programmes, like the PDR,
despite the insurgency. It proposes that government proceeds with its business of governance even if the
insurgency is not fully resolved. The main idea is for government projects to proceed unhampered by the
insurgency.

Counterinsurgency Center
The AFP must create a Counterinsurgency Centre for the purpose of the research, study,
development, and employment of effective counterinsurgency tactics, operations, and strategy. (63) This
will provide much-needed focus on the development of appropriate tactics for counterinsurgency
operations. The Counterinsurgency Center can be established using existing AFP personnel and resources,
with minimal supplemental budget from the government.

National Development Command

The creation of AFP National Development Command in 2007 to orchestrate development
projects in insurgency-affected areas is commendable in intent, but its role must be clarified as transitory
in nature, and it must support the formation of appropriate agencies and organizations to perform the
essential development roles. (63) Allowing the AFP to retain this role for an indefinite period runs contrary
to the institutional approach.

Broadening the Concept of Security

According to Kit Collier, governments must avoid relying on military and paramilitary repression
and pursue the meaningful institutionalization of security sectors. This involves broadening the concept
of internal security from the traditional militarist view, which is in itself often associated with the abuse
of power, and instead promote a healthy, holistic appreciation of the nexus between security
development and human rights policy. It is only through ensuring government and military accountability
and developing the role of civil societies, national institutions and international humanitarian
organizations that the overall infrastructure of security is strengthened. (64)

Challenges for Reform an Policy

 Admittedly, the road to economic and government reform is fraught with danger. For a weak state
such as the Philippines which lacks a monopoly over the use of force (as evidenced by the number of
armed groups across the country), and lacks the capacity even for efficient tax collection, the risks even
greater. History has shown that reform invites political turmoil and often forces leaders to seek the safety
of political expedience, rather than confront the nation’s most pressing dilemmas. A weak state that seeks
reform usually suffers some form of destabilization, yet, only reform can solve its problems. The reform
programme must be accompanied by another delicate process; state-building. The state must consolidate
its sovereignty; it must monopolize the use of force by disarming the insurgent groups, and enforce tax
collection effectively so that it can afford economic development. (67)
A further issue with protracted conflicts is that they spawn new problems. One is that the political
and economic elite may view actions to resolve insurgency as a threat to their status. They may have
become so used to the conflict that they view it as a lesser evil than a strong and effective armed forces.
History shows that coups d’etat have brought down more governments than insurgencies. Perhaps
predictably, weak regimes then seek to keep their armed forces inept and fragmented. (68)
Collier’s point is that only when the roles of civil societies, national institutions and international
humanitarian organizations are fully developed can the country consider its overall security strengthened,
steering away from the repressive practices of security forces. Kothari further argues that the state must
be informed on order to be relevant, and it must be transformed in order to be relevant, and it must be
informed by the transformation of civil society, not vice versa. It is therefore crucial that regimes establish
and nurture the trust and confidence of civil society – however tenuous that may be – not just to secure
support for its policies but, more importantly, to derive the genuine strength and lasting stability that are
the result of constructive interaction with civil society.
The rationale of stopping the conflict and shifting from military to political warfare includes
opening up civil society’s participation in the political discourse. The process will not be easy, but in the
end, the quality of discourse between the state and civil society is what defines a nation.

Conclusion
The new transformative policy this paper puts forward is derived from the realization that the
Philippine state today is perhaps at its weakest, largely as a result of the protracted communist insurgency.
Ultimately, ‘to break free, the nation must transform itself’, Indeed, as Kothari proposes, the state must
be transformed, and that transformation can be achieved in four ways.
First, the transformation of the state must come after, and be informed by, the transformation of
civil society, not vice versa. Second, there must be acceptance and realization of the decline in the role of
the state. Apart from those functions reserved for the central authority, the state must operate in tandem
with other players in civil society. Third, the state should be empowered to break free from the claws of
dominant interest groups and elite classes, and it should be slowly reconfigured and remodeled away
from its image as an instrument of oppression on the process, however, the survival of the state must be
safeguarded, and it must be strengthened by this process, as a moderating player in conflicts that
necessarily occur among key players in civil society as the discourse proceeds. Fourth, the nation-state
concept that has inspired authoritarianism and hegemonism in recent times must be reconceptualized. It
must be recognized that, as long as the state rules with an iron fist, ‘the masses cannot and will not come
into their own.’
The need for the nation-state will continue, not least as a player facing the threats and challenges
of globalization. Yet, as the state is transformed, it will once again be regarded as an instrument of
freedom, equity and liberation – its original reason for being. To regain that role, however, it needs to be
informed from below by the new political forces developing within its constituency – the people it serves.
In this way, the state becomes part of, and not a hindrance to, the people’s aspirations, and becomes
relevant to them once again.
 The protracted communist insurgency and the government’s counterinsurgency response are
clearly destined for more violent collisions over the immediate future unless a new paradigm is introduced
to create conditions conducive to the resumption and successful conclusion of the peace process.
The insurgency has survived the evolution of the government response from the military victory
model to the pacification and demobilization model. The trend is now towards the weakening of the
insurgents, and it is time a new policy and paradigm is introduced to adopt the institutional peace-building
approach that will not only hasten, but also prepare for, the much needed resolution of the conflict.
The strategy that this paper proposes to stop the conflict and restart the peace process is aimed
also at paving the way for more meaningful government reform and accelerated development. In the end,
only peaceful means can really win the war and only reform and development can preserve the peace.

Homeless vacate NHA housing project peacefully (September 2, 2018)

Informal settlers who occupied a low-cost housing area intended for police and military personnel
vacated the area on Friday, August 31, without a fuss, a day after they started a camp-out.
Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (Kadamay)-Negros Occidental secretary-general Ereneo
Luminos said the National Housing Authority failed to come up a win-win solution to address their concern
after a dialogue was held Friday, August 31.
“Before our meeting, they already have a decision to evict us in the housing project area and give
us an ultimatum to vacate the area by 3 p.m.,” Luminos said.
The NHA insisted that the informal settlers cannot occupy the housing units that were awarded
to the uniformed personnel at Barangay Felisa in Bacolod City.
NHA Architect Susana Nonato, head of the project implementation team of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines-Philippine National Police (AFP-PNP) housing project, met with Kadamay-Negros, Social
Action Center (SAC) head Fr. Chris Gonzales, along with the representatives from AFP, PNP, Bureau of Fire
Protection (BFP), Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Bureau of Corrections (BuCor), Mayor
Evelio Leonardia, Congressman Greg Gasataya, Vice Mayor El Cid Familiaran and other city officials.
The dialogue ended up with Nonato issuing an ultimatum to Kadamay-Negros to vacate the
“Ciudad Felisa” by 3 p.m.
The policemen along with the BFP secured the area and at about 4 p.m., the informal settlers
agreed to vacate the area after their negotiation with the representatives of NHA.
The group cleaned up the area and vacated it peacefully.
Nonato explained the housing project for the uniformed personnel is still unoccupied because the
process to install electric and water connections are still ongoing.
“We are coordinating with the service providers, not NHA,” Nonato said.
Ciudad Felisa has a total of 1,498 units. Of the number, 45 percent of the units were awarded to
the members of the AFP, another 45 percent to the members of the PNP and the remaining 10 percent
were awarded to the members of the BJMP, BFP, and the BuCor.
Nonato said it’s a row house, which was constructed in 2012 and completed in 2015, with a floor
area of 22 square meters and expandable to 33 square meters, with a monthly amortization of P200 for
25 years.
“They signed an individual loan agreement with the NHA with the commitment that they will pay
once they retire. Many had paid in full so legally, when it is awarded to you, allocated to you and later you
paid it, the ownership really belongs to the prospective beneficiaries from the AFP, PNP, BJMP, BFP, and
BuCor,” she said.
 Nonato recalled that last year, several members of Kadamay also forcibly occupied idle housing
units in Pandi, Bulacan, where President Rodrigo Duterte granted the house to them, but now it will not
happen again.
“Pinagbigyan lang sila so if there is a housing need in Bacolod City, we can repackage them for our
future projects, but not now because these are all intended for uniformed personnel. They should vacate
the area because they cannot occupy the housing units,” Nonato said.
She said: “there was an order from President Duterte na pinagbigyan land sila and it will not
happen again. It’s an anarchy, if they really want to avail the housing project, they should have an
endorsement from the local government unit or the city mayor.”
The NHA will hold another dialogue with leaders of Kadamay-Negros and representatives from
AFP, PNP, BFP, BJMP and BuCor on September 7.
Kadamay meantime said they already submitted their legal basis for occupying the property citing
the Joint Resolution No. 2 signed by President Duterte in May this year.
The resolution authorized NHA to award to other qualified beneficiaries the unoccupied housing
units whose ownership and possession are surrendered by their respective awardees and housing units
whose respective awards were cancelled by the policemen, army, firemen and jail personnel.
“They (NHA) disregard our legal basis to avail the housing program. They are not sincere for the
implementation of this project,” Luminos said.
For his part, Leonardia said the City Government has enough relocation site for the informal
settlers that were ejected through court order or those who are living in danger zone, then relocated to
the Progreso Village in Barangay Vista Alegre.
“It is one of our priority projects to improve the relocation site that is why we are applying for a
loan to develop the area. With or without the NHA, we will go on with that, however, if the NHA will offer
a housing project in Bacolod, we welcome that. Hopefully, in the end, this will accelerate the negotiation
between the city and NHA and they could prove housing projects in Bacolod City,” he said.
He added that as of the moment, the City Government is only providing a lot and the beneficiaries
should comply with all the requirements with the Bacolod Housing Authority (BHA).

Is our ICC withdrawal valid? (September 3, 2018)

Will the International Criminal Court (ICC) still have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute
crimes against humanity committed in the Philippines after March 17, 2019?

This is essentially what’s at stake in the case pending in the Supreme Court that questions the
validity of our country’s withdrawal from the ICC. Oral arguments were heard on Tuesday.

On Nov. 1, 2011, the Philippines became a state party to the ICC. On Feb. 8, 2018, the ICC
prosecutor announced that she would conduct a preliminary examination of the Philippine situation
following reports of extrajudicial killings in the government’s “war on drugs” campaign.

On March 17, 2018, or just 37 days after the ICC prosecutor’s announcement, the Philippine
government submitted its notice of withdrawal from the ICC. If the withdrawal is held valid by the high
court, the Philippines will cease to be a party to the ICC on March 17, 2019, or one year from notice.

It is interesting to note that the Duterte administration invokes as its reason for withdrawal the
alleged noncompliance with the requirement of Philippine law, because the ICC statute was not published
in the Official Gazette. But Malacañang contradicts itself when it argues that the withdrawal is valid
notwithstanding its noncompliance with the Philippine law requiring Senate concurrence on the move.

The paradigm embedded in our Constitution is that the requirements to do an important act are
the same requirements needed to undo the same act, even if it’s not so expressly stated. A law is passed
by a majority vote of Congress, and it is repealed also by a vote of Congress passing a contradictory new
law. A new constitutional provision is approved through a people’s plebiscite, and it is replaced by an
amendment also approved by plebiscite.

When the Constitution requires a different procedure to undo a different procedure to undo an
act, the Constitution expressly spells out the dissimilar procedure to undo it. The President is installed in
office through election, but may be removed through impeachment. The Supreme Court justices are
appointed by the President from a Judicial and Bar Council shortlist, but they may be removed by
impeachment.

The Constitution requires Senate concurrence for the President to enter into a treaty (like our ICC
membership). The Constitution does not spell out a different procedure four our disengagement from a
treaty. Hence, the embedded paradigm kicks in. Senate concurrence is required to give validity to a
presidential action withdrawing our membership in the ICC.

During the oral arguments, one of the justices mentioned that the nonfiling of complaints by the
victims’ families may be the reason there are virtually no cases pending in court despite so many killings.
The comment was made because, if our country’s justice system is working to address the killings, there
is really no need for the ICC to exercise its complementary jurisdiction.

However, even if our courts are functioning, the police and prosecutors (both supervised by the
President) may not be performing their duties of investigation and prosecution, thus preventing cases
from reaching the courts. Even if the victims’ families are not filing complaints because of fear, the police
and prosecutors must perform their duties.

The reason criminal cases are titled “People of the Philippines vs (name of the accused)” is
because crimes are offenses against the nation’s populace, so the police and prosecutors must investigate
and file charges using scene of the crime reports, forensic evidence and witnesses’ statements other than
those of the frightened families of the victims.

Even when death happens during a police operation, the police manual requires policemen to
mandatorily submit their reports to the prosecutors for investigation, because there is no presumption of
regularity in police killings.

Any pervasive absence of police and prosecutor efforts to perform their duties may show inability
or unwillingness on the part of our government to address the killings. That gives way to the ICC to exercise
complementary jurisdiction, and rightfully beyond March 17, 2019.

SC justices ask: Is Senate concurrence required to withdraw from treaty? (September

5, 2018; Inquirer.net)
 The 1987 Constitution did not explicitly state that the concurrence of the Senate is required for
the country to withdraw from a treaty, so is it only implied.

The justices of the Supreme Court debated on this at the resumption of the oral arguments
tackling the Philippine’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

“Neither the constitution and the law contains provision on treaty withdrawal,” Associate Justice
Estela Perlas-Bernabe said during the hearing.

“Senate concurrence can be speculated upon by this Honorable Court,” Associate Justice Marvic
Leonen said, adding that it is better if the actual members of the body, referring to the Senate, articulate
the reasons why there is a need for Senate concurrence.

Former party-list Represnetative Ibarra Gutierrez, counsel for the minority senators, maintained
that the ratification of a treaty requires Senate concurrence; therefore, withdrawal requires the same
process.

However, Associate Justice Noel Tijam expressed apprehension that if they rule in favor of the
Senate, it might be interpreted as an intrusion to its powers.

“Had the Senate asserted its authority to demand concurrence in the withdrawal from the Rome
Statute?” Tijam asked. Gutierrez said no.

Senate Minority Leader Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan said the Senate has started crafting a policy that
will include a clause in 17 treaties that there has to be a Senate concurrence before it is withdrawn.

However, he admitted that there is no such clause in the Rome Statute of the ICC treaty.

“No clause is present in Senate resolution 546 (Rome Statute of the ICC treaty),” Pangilinan told
the SC justices.

“How can we assert a right which has not been asserted by the body [Senate]?” Leonen asked.

Aside from Pangilinan, Senators Franklin Drilon, Leila de Lima, Bam Aquino, Antonio Trillanes IV,
and Risa Hontiveros also filed petitions to revoke President Rodrigo Duterte’s order to withdraw from the
ICC.

Leonen then called the petitioners’ lawyer and former Akbayan party-list Rep. Barry Gutierrez to
the podium to explain the legal standing of the Senators.

“Their principle of basis for standing is in their capacity as senators of the Republic,” the lawyer
said.

In his comment, Solicitor General Jose Calida said the opposition senators have no legal standing
to file the case at SC simply because of the lack of official stance of the Senate as a collegial body, which
divided the senators on the issue.
 Calida agreed that the Senate resolution which sought to invoke Senate’s concurrence to the
withdrawal was not passed and has actually been shelved.

The oral arguments will continue on Sept. 18 at 2 p.m. The solicitor general is due to present his
position.

President Duterte announced the government’s withdrawal of its ratification of the Rome Statute,
a United Nations (UN) treaty creating the ICC, last March.

In its diplomatic note to the United Nations secretary general, the government explained that the
“decision to withdraw is the Philippines’ principled stand against those who politicize and weaponized
human rights, even as its independent and well-functioning organs and agencies continue to exercise
jurisdiction over complaints, issues, problems and concerns arising from its efforts to protect the people.”

The chief executive cited “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks” against him and his
administration as the reason for his withdrawal as a state party.

CJ De Castro: No local law that put Rome Statute in effect (September 5, 2018;
Rappler)

MANILA, Philippines – Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro said on Tuesday, September 4,
that no local was passed to put the Rome Statute into a full effect.

De Castro said this during the 2nd day of oral arguments in the Supreme Court on petitions
questioning the validity of President Rodrigo Duterte’s unilateral withdrawal from the International
Criminal Court (ICC). The Rome Statute – which the Philippines ratified in 2011 – created the ICC.

Duterte said the Rome Statute was never valid, citing many grounds.

De Castro appeared to have added one more.

“It would seem there are provisions in the Rome Statute which will require domestic legislation
to put them into effect. As of now, I think it is conceded that we do not have any implementing legislation
yet,” said De Castro.

De Castro added: “So the question is whether or not the Rome Statute is already in force and in
effect as of this time, and what will be the consequence of this to the power of the President to withdraw
from the Rome Statute?

Lawyer Barry Gutierrez, representing the opposition senators, said that the Rome Statute does
not require an implementing domestic law to be considered binding and in effect. Gutierrez insisted that
it only needed the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the Senate, after which it transformed
into a local law itself.

“And in fact, we believe that the fact that Congress…has enacted the appropriations that would
offset our financial obligations is indicative that Congress itself recognizes that the Rome Statute is in full
force and effect here without need for an implementing legislation,” Gutierrez said.
International Humanitarian Law
In its petition, the Philippine Coalition for the ICC or PICC noted that Republic Act 9851 or the
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) penalized the crimes covered in Articles 5, 668, 769, and 870 of the
Rome Statute like genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

So is the IHL the local law that De Castro said is required? No, said the Chief Justice, because the
IHL was passed in 2009, before the Rome Statute was ratified in 2011. An implementing legislation should
come after the treaty, and not before, said De Castro.

“The IHL was passed before we acceded to the Rome Statute, so the status as of now is we do not
have any domestic legislation implementing the Rome Statute,” said De Castro.

De Castro told the petitioners to answer the issue in their memoranda. The next hearing is on
September 18, where Solicitor Calida is set to present Malacañang’s side.

Contract to Sell

A Contract to Sell refers to an agreement between a seller and a buyer. The contract shows that
the seller promises to sell something to the buyer and the buyer also promises the seller the buy the
property. However, the contract does not instantly transfer the right to the buyer even when this contract
is signed. There are still conditions that have to be fulfilled by one or both parties before transfer of
ownership can take place. The Deed of Absolute sale will only be executed once the conditions stated in
the Contract to Sell have been met.

Alejano wants probe on ‘flawed’ record-keeping of DND (September 7, 2018;

Inquirer.net)

Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano is poised to file a resolution calling for an investigation into the
“flawed” documentation and record-keeping system of the government, especially of the Department of
National Defense (DND).

The opposition lawmaker would make such move as he noted how the unavailable copy of
Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s amnesty application had become the basis of President Rodrigo Duterte’s
Proclamation No. 572, which revoked amnesty of his fiercest critic.

“Sa madaling salita, nawawala ng Department of National Defense ang kanilang kopya,” Alejano
pointed out.

This, he added, is “a laughable basis for an issue with this gravity” especially since there were
documents and videos showing that the senator filed an application for amnesty.

The lawmaker also pointed out that losing important government documents could be considered
a crime under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code, and Section 40 of Republic Act 9470 or the National
Archive of the Philippines Act.
 “Kung papeles nga na ganito kalaking kaso ay nawawala, papaano pa ang mga tala ng mga
ordinaryong indibidwal?” he asked.

“The documentation and record-keeping system of the government must be looked into
especially the offices which handle documents of high importance. I intend to file a resolution calling for
an inquiry on this, specially the case of DND,” he added.

Mr. Duterte’s directive issued on August 31 cited Trillanes’ failure to file an application for
amnesty and admit his guilt over his involvement in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and 2007 Manila Peninsula
siege as grounds for the repeal of the senator’s reprieve.

Proclamation No. 572 stated that their grounds were based on a certification issued by Lt. Col.
Thea Joan Andrade which says “there is no copy of his application for amnesty in the records.”

Still no warrant from second court asked for Trillanes arrest (September 7, 2018; GMA
News Online)

The second branch of the Makati Regional Trial Court which the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
asked for a warrant of arrest against Senator Antonio Trillanes IV will not issue the warrant on Friday
despite the DOJ’s “very urgent” motion.

Lawyer Diosfa Valencia, the Clerk of Court of the Makati Regional Trial Court’s Branch 150,
confirmed the court had received the DOJ’s motion seeking the senator’s arrest, but added the court staff
would still have to retrieve case records.

Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque has said that President Rodrigo Duterte will await the
issuance of an appropriate warrant of arrest against Trillanes.

Judge Elmo Alameda of Branch 150 handled the rebellion case against Trillanes and dismissed it
pursuant to the amnesty granted by former president Benigno Aquino III to the military and police
personnel, including Trillanes, who were involved in the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the 2006 Marines stand-
off, and the 2007 Manila Peninsula Siege.

The DOJ has also moved for Trillanes’ arrest and travel ban before the Makati RTC’s Branch 148,
which handled the coup d’etat case and dismissed it for the same reason.

Judge Andres Soriano of Branch 148 has given Trillanes five days to comment on the DOJ motion.
He will hear the motion on September 13.

In a presidential proclamation published Tuesday, Duterte “revoked” and declared “void ab initio”
the amnesty granted to Trillanes for his participation in military uprisings during the Arroyo
administration.

The proclamation alleges Trillanes, a staunch Duterte critic, failed to comply with the “minimum”
requirements for amnesty: an official application and admission of guilt. Trillanes has denied the charges
and shown supposed proof to the contrary.
 He has also asked the Supreme Court to block the implementation of what he called the
“unconstitutional” proclamation.

DND summons officer who processed Trillanes amnesty (September 7, 2018; GMA
News Online)

The Department of National Defense (DND) on Friday summoned the officials involved in the
processing of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s application for amnesty back in 2011.

According to Chino Gaston’s report on “24 Oras”, they included former DND Ad Hoc Committee
Secretariat Colonel Josefa Berbigal.

Berbigal was the one who administered the oath to Trillanes after he applied for amnesty in 2011.

Her signature was also stamped on the document that was presented by the senator to prove
that he had applied for amnesty.

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesperson Colonel Edgardo Arevalo said that the AFP
was convening a court martial to try Trillanes.

“The AFP is on the process of constituting the General Court Martial in compliance with the
mandated task under Presidential Proclamation 572,” AFP said in a statement.

Signed by Duterte on August 31, 2018, Proclamation No 572 states that the amnesty extended to
Trillanes, a vocal critic of the administration, was void from the start because the lawmaker did not comply
with the “minimum requirements to qualify under the amnesty proclamation.”

Duterte also directed the Department of Justice and Court Martial of the AFP to pursue all criminal
and administrative cases filed against Trillanes in connection with the Oakwood and Manila Peninsula
incidents.

The senator is now placed under the custody of Senate President Vicente Sotto III. His legal
counsel will file the necessary petition before the Supreme Court to challenge Duterte’s proclamation.

On the Trillanes case: Who is Judge Elmo Alameda? (September 7, 2018; Rappler)

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – The judge who handled the rebellion case against Senator
Antonio Trillanes IV and 17 others in relation to the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege is no stranger to high-
profile cases.

Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 150 Judge Elmo Alameda is a University of the East
alumnus. He was a prosecutor for 16 years and has been a judge for over a decade, according to Clerk of
Court Diosfa Valencia.

Alameda was a trial court judge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, before being assigned to the Makati
RTC in February 2005.
 Besides the rebellion case versus Trillanes and the soldiers in the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege,
Judge Alameda has handled two other notable cases:

>> Serious illegal detention case against Janet Lim Napoles and Reynald Lim in relation to the prok
barrel scam
>> Homicide case versus former Batangas governor Antonio Leviste

In addition, Alameda issued a search warrant in August against the Time in Manila bar in Makati
City. The bar was suspected of selling party drugs to its customers.

The police’s implementation of the search warrant on August 16 sparked a row with the bar’s
lawyers. Makati police arrested the lawyers for supposed “obstruction of justice” and later filed a
complaint against them for “constructive possession of illegal drugs.” The lawyers maintained they were
just monitoring the police’s inventory of the bar.

Trillanes, et al: Rebellion case

On November 29, 2007, Trillanes – deemed resigned from the military because he ran and won
as senator – together with then brigadier general Danilo Lim walked out of the courtroom during a hearing
at Makati City RTC Branch 148.

That day, Trillanes was on trial for earlier coup d’etat charges in connection with the Magdalo
group’s 2003 Oakwood mutiny, while Lim was a witness for the defense panel as one of the government’s
negotiators.

Moments later, the pair and other Magdalo soldiers took over a hotel in Ayala Center, Makati.
The Manila Peninsula siege sought the ouster of then-president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo over corruption
allegations.

The group surrendered after government forces stormed the Manila Peninsula. Trillanes, Lim, and
16 others were arrested and sued for rebellion.

Despite rebellion being a non-bailable offense, Judge Alameda in February 2010 granted bail to
Trillanes and his co-accused because he found insufficient evidence. Trillanes and the rest of his group,
however, remained in jail at the time because of the earlier coup d’etat charges.

Trillanes was given provisional liberty in December 2010, after then-president Benigno Aquino III
signed Proclamation No. 75, which granted amnesty to military and police personnel involve in the 2003
Oakwood mutiny, the 2006 Marines standoff in Fort Bonifacio, and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege. The
proclamation also extinguished their criminal liabilities in both the coup d’etat and rebellion cases.

Senator Trillanes, who was granted amnesty in January 2011, was reelected in the May 2013
national elections.

Five years later, in August 2018, President Rodrigo Duterte revoked the amnesty granted to
Trillanes. In relation to this, Department of Justice has filed petitions before the Makati courts to revive
the 2003 coup d’etat case (under Branch 148) and the 2007 rebellion case (under Judge Alameda of Branch
150), and issue warrants against the opposition senator.
Napoles: Serious illegal detention case

On March 22, 2013, agents from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) rescued pork barrel
scam whistle-blower Benhur Luy from the Pacific Plaza Towers in Taguig.

Luy had reportedly been detained there by his former boss Janet Lim Napoles and her brother
Reynald Lim since December 2012. Napoles was tagged as the alleged mastermind of the scandal involving
lawmaker’s pork barrel or lump-sum discretionary funds.

Shortly after his rescue, Luy filed a serious illegal detention case against Napoles and Lim.

On April 14, 2015, Judge Alameda sentenced Napoles to reclusion perpetua or a jail term up to 40
years. Lim, however, remains at large.

The Court of Appeals, however, overturned Alameda’s ruling in May 2017, saying that Napoles’
guilt “was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

Napoles remains detained due to separate plunder cases before the anti-graft court
Sandiganbayan.

Leviste: Homicide case

On January 12, 2007, the body of Rafael de las Alas was found slumped in a chair in the office of
former Batangas governor Jose Antonio Leviste at LPL Tower in Makati City.

De Las Alas, Leviste’s long-time aide, had gun shot wounds in the head. Leviste later admitted that
he fired at De las Alas, but only out of self-defense.

Initially charged for murder (also a non-bailable offense), Leviste was allowed to post bail in May
2007 by Judge Alameda, citing weak evidence presented by the prosecution.

But in January 2009, Judge Alameda convicted Leviste of homicide, a lesser offense compared to
murder, because the death of De Las Alas “did not appear to be premeditated.” The Court of Appeals
affirmed Alameda’s decision in May 2010.

In 2011, Leviste made the news again after being spotted near the LPL Tower when he should be
serving 6-12-year sentence inside the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.

He was reported to be given special treatment in prison, including a “sleep-out” privilege not
allowed in jail management protocol. Five prison officials were dismissed by the DOJ due to the incident.

Esperon contradicts DND, says Trillanes no longer a soldier (September 7, 2018;

Rappler)

MANILA, Philippines – National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr says Senator Antonio
Trillanes IV is no longer a soldier, contradicting the Department of National Defense (DND) and Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) when they said the lawmaker has “reverted to active duty” after the voiding
of his amnesty.

“Who is saying he is a soldier again? The AFP does not deserve his kind. Coup plotter, arrogant,
megalomaniac,” Esperon said in a message to Rappler on Friday, September 7.

Rappler had asked for him to comment on documents that showed he himself recognized
Trillanes’ resignation from the military in 2007 when he filed a certificate of candidacy to run for senator.
Esperon was then the AFP chief of staff. Thus, Trillanes left the military 4 years before he was even granted
amnesty by Benigno Aquino III.

“I didn’t recognize his resignation in relation to an amnesty that would come 4 years later. My act
was in keeping with the provisions of the existing Omnibus Election Code,” said Esperon.

DND spokesman Arsenio Andolong had said Duterte’s Proclamation No 572 also voided Trillanes’
retirement from the military thus, still being in active duty, he can be tried by military courts in relation
to the coup attempts against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

While Esperon no longer considers Trillanes a soldier, he insisted that military courts have
jurisdiction over him.

“Nonetheless, his resignation did not mean the Court Martial had lost jurisdiction over him. He
committed offenses when he was still in the active service. His filing for candidacy for senator (or even for
any elective positions such as councilor or barangay kagawad) did not extinguish his liabilities that may
arise from his offenses,” he said.

However, military courts cover only soldiers, not civilians.

While Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra had said a military arrest is faster, Duterte decided to
not use that option and instead wait for a civil court to issue an arrest warrant for Trillanes.

Some Cabinet members had insisted during a Thursday meeting with him in Jordan that Trillanes
could be tried by a military court.

“The other alternative was to invoke the military court proceedings and for the military to
immediately re-acquire jurisdiction over him. It was explained that it can be done because unlike civil
courts, the proceedings in court martial was pending,” said Roque in a Friday press briefing in Jordan.

Little-known fact: AFP chief Galvez got amnesty for 1989 failed coup (September 7,
2018; Rappler)

MANILA, Philippines – Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff General Carlito Galvez Jr was
a rebel in his younger years – a little-known fact that came to light after the government voided the
amnesty granted to his fellow ex-rebel, Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.
 It’s not lost on the military, too, that Galvez is away – as he joined President Rodrigo Duterte in a
historic visit to Israel. His deputies are now left to handle the Trillanes crisis sparked by Duterte’s order to
arrest Trillanes, put him back under armed forces jurisdiction, and try him in a military court.

Galvez has so far not issued any statement on Trillanes.

In the December 1989 bloody coup against then president Corazon Aquino, when rebles had
already controlled Fort Bonifacio, headquarters of the Army and the Marines, it was the young Lieutenant
Galvez who lead a team that occupied Gate 2 of the camp to force senior army officers to board a Land
Cruiser that brought them to a detention room instead of their offices.

This was after he joined fellow rebel Scout Rangers who held hostage key officers and commanded
vital installations to control the camp.

Galvez later joined the Rangers in occupying posh hotels in Makati, prolonging the coup to 9 days.

Army chief, too

Galvez would spend years in detention in Fort Bonifacio, along with some of his 1985 classmates
at the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) such as the current Army chief, Lieutenant General Rolando
Bautista.

They were among those granted amnesty by President Fidel Ramos in 1996.

The role of Galvez is detailed in a report of a fact-finding commission, headed by former chief
justice Hilario Davide Jr, that was organized after the failed coup.

Galvez was present in at least one meeting held by then Major Abraham Purugganan and Captain
Danilo Lim to plan the coup months prior.

They all belong to the elite First Scout Ranger Regiment of the Army, which joined the 1989 coup
lock, stock, and barrel. Their involvement caused the high command to temporarily disband them later.

“The first meeting was reportedly held at the office of Purugganan. In attendance were Col Luisito
Sanchez, Capt Rogelio Bonifacio, Capt Lim, Capt Nestor Flordeliza, Capt Joe Cruz, Lt Stephen Flores, Lt
Charles Galvez and enlisted personnel including MSgt Demabildo. It was mentioned that an ‘activity’ may
happen sometime,” read the report.

At the time, Galvez had just spent 4 years in the field and was said to be a member of the
Rebolusyonaryong Alyansang Makabansa, Soldiers of the Filipino People, Young Officers’ Union (RAM-
SFP-YOU).

Agitated by Left influence

The young soldiers were agitated by what their rebel officers, such as then colonel Gregorio
Honasan, described them a s leftist infiltration of the Cory Aquino Cabinet. Honasan, like Trillanes, is now
a senator.
 Frustrated with continued patronage politics and corruption after the military helped boot out
dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, the young soldiers became easy recruits for at least 7 coup attempts
against Cory Aquino.

It was December 1989 coup that came close to toppling her government, forcing her to ask the
US to fly its fighter jets over rebel positions.

The mutineers took control not only of Fort Bonifacio but also attacked the general headquarters
of the military at Camp Aguinaldo and seized the Villamor Air base, headquarters of the Air Force.

Other rebel units took control of air assets from Sangley Point in Cavite and flew to the capital to
strafe key locations, such as Malacañang, while government-controlled F-5s ran after them. Simultaneous
attacks were launched in various camps nationwide.

The rebels were eventually overpowered by government troops.

Fidel Ramos was then defense chief, who got elected president in 1992, while the military chief
of staff at the time was Renato de Villa, who ran for president in 1998 but lost to Joseph Estrada. The
commander of pro-government troops that defended Metro Manila was then Colonel Rodolfo Biazon,
who became AFP chief of staff in 1991 and was elected senator in 1992.

99 dead, 570 wounded

The report of the Davide Commission that investigated the coup recorded 99 dead, including 30
civilians, and 570 were wounded.

“Lives were lost; property was destroyed; the tourism industry suffered a very serious blow; and
for several days the financial life of Metro Manila, and to a considerable extent of the entire country, was
paralyzed,” the report reads.

Financial loss from the mutiny was estimated at P800 million to P1 billion, according to the Davide
report.

The esprit de corps among the Rangers also played its part in the involvement of Galvez, according
to an officer familiar with what happened at the time.

Another office said Aquino’s perceived softness towards the Communist Party of the Philippines
and the New People’s Army didn’t help her popularity in the military.

The coups that plagued the Aquino administration triggered soul-searching in the military. The
leadership also recognized that those involved in the coups were promising officers, according to an
officer.

Under Ramos’ Proclamation 723, the members of the RAM-SFP-YOU were granted amnesty “for
the attainment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace under the rule of law and in accordance with
constitutional processes.”

Galvez would rise in the military hierarchy to occupy key positions.

 These include being named commander of the Army’s 104th Brigade in Basilan, chief of the 6th
Infantry Division in Maguindanao, and commander of the Western Mindanao Command before becoming
AFP chief of staff.

Duterte blames Gazmin for flaws in Trillanes’ amnesty papers (September 8, 2018;
Inquirer.net)

DAVAO CITY – President Duterte said Saturday the flaw surrounding the amnesty given to his critic
Senator Antonio Trillanes IV was traced to former Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, who himself
recommended and approved the amnesty for the mutineer, a sole duty he described only of the President
under the country’s Constitution.

Speaking at the Davao International Airport here from his trips to Israel and Jordan, Mr. Duterte
revealed it was Solicitor General Jose Calida who did the research to support his issuance of Proclamation
572, which voided the amnesty granted to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

“Ang totoo niyan ang nagresearch si Calida, like ‘yung kay Sereno,” he said, referring to Ma.
Lourdes Sereno who was ousted from the Supreme Court through a quo warranto petition filed by Calida.

“Ito ngayon ang problema. It was Gazmin, whom probably one of those who investigated … then
recommended and approved for the amnesty. Ganun yan eh. I hope that it would not get this far.
Remember we did not start the ruckus,” the President added.

President Duterte explained the granting of pardon and amnesty as the constitutional mandate
of the President.

“It cannot be delegated to anybody else,” he said.

“Pag sinabi ng Solgen may mali, it has to be corrected. I cannot refuse. He is a government lawyer.
I cannot insist in the view of the fact it was already recorded as a public paper. Kung sinabi niya,
paniwalaan ko,” the President added, referring to Calida.

Duterte said Gazmin had been his friend. Whenever the former military official was in Davao City
when he was still the mayor, they talked and drunk.

But Gazmin had explained earlier that the amnesty of Trillanes and other former mutineers went
through the proper course.

President Duterte has voided the amnesty given to Trillanes, one of his fiercest critics, via
Proclamation No. 572 issued on August 31, citing alleged failure of the legislator to file an application for
amnesty and express admission of guilt.

The senator was absolved for is involvement in two failed mutinies in 2003 and 2007, which was
staged to protest the alleged corruption during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and was
granted amnesty – along with other mutineers – via Proclamation No. 75 issued by Aquino. Mrs. Arroyo
is now the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
 DOJ hounds Trillanes, turns to another court (September 8, 2018; Inquirer.net)

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday asked another regional trial court (RTC) in Makati City
to reopen the rebellion case filed against Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV in connection with the 2007 Manila
Peninsula hotel siege, order his rearrest and issue a hold departure order (HDO) against him.

State prosecutors filed the motion as President Duterte, who was ending an official visit to Jordan,
decided not to seek Trillanes’ arrest by the military without a warrant of arrest issued by a civilian court.

3-day standoff

The decision eased a three-day standoff between Mr. Duterte and Trillanes, who spent a sleepless
night in the Senate on Friday expecting to be arrested.

The President issued Proclamation No. 572 on Tuesday revoking Trillanes’ amnesty and ordering
his immediate arrest.

The DOJ had said that Mr. Duterte voided Trillanes’ amnesty because the senator did not file a
proper application and admit his guilt for his role in coup attempts against President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo in 2003, 2006 and 2007.

Documents

Trillanes on Tuesday showed the media documents to prove that he applied for amnesty in
January 2011.

But presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said on Friday that the President decided to abide by
the rule of law and wait for a civilian court to issue an arrest warrant against his fierce critic “after a long
discussion” with members of his Cabinet on Thursday night.

“The President decided that he will abide by the rule of law. He will await the decision of the
court, the [RTC], if they will issue a warrant of arrest,” Roque said in a news briefing in Amman, Jordan.

Mr. Duterte does not want the military to arrest Trillanes and try him in a court martial because,
being a former prosecutor, the President knows the proper criminal procedure, he said.

“[The military] should await the warrant of arrest,” Roque said.

The presidential spokesperson had earlier said that under the proclamation, Trillanes could be
arrested on orders of either the Makati RTC or the military, which “continues to have jurisdiction over the
senator.”

The mutineer-turned-senator has been holed up in the Senate since Tuesday.

 Acting Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon and State Prosecutor Mary Jane Sytat filed
the “very urgent” four-page motion for the issuance of an alias warrant of arrest and HDO against Trillanes
before Judge Elmo Alameda of Makati RTC Branch 150.

The court handled the rebellion case of Trillanes and his coaccused in the hotel siege.

The DOJ previously failed to get an arrest warrant against the former Navy junior officer from
Makati RTC Branch 148, which handled the coup d’etat case against Trillanes in connection with the 2003
Oakwood mutiny.

No court order

But luck was not on the side of Fadullon and Sytat as Branch 150 also failed to grant their request
on the same day.

The branch’s clerk of court, Diosfa Valencia, said Alameda did not issue any order on Friday as the
court had yet to retrieve the case documents from a Makati warehouse.

Alameda dismissed the rebellion case against Trillanes on Sept 7, 2011, after then President
Benigno Aquino III issued Proclamation No. 75 on Nov. 24, 2010, which granted amnesty to the military
officers and enlisted men involved in the 2003, 2006 and 2007 rebellions.

In seeking an arrest warrant from a second court, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra denied
that his office was engaged in “forum shopping.”

The term relates to a practice in which litigants who get an adverse judgment from a court go to
another court hoping to win a favorable decision.

Guevarra welcomed Trillanes’ filing of a petition on Thursday asking the Supreme Court to issue
a temporary injunction against Duterte’s proclamation.

“Proper move indeed, instead of arguing his case in the media,” Guevarra said.

Noting that Branch 148 had scheduled the hearing of the DOJ motion on Sept 13, Guevarra said
that “the case has, in fact, been revived.”

Sources at the Supreme Court said a special raffle for Trillanes’ petition was held on Friday with
Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta chosen as member in charge.

The state prosecutors informed Branch 150 of the President’s proclamation, which said the
amnesty given to the senator was void from the start.

According to court records, the rebellion case in connection with the Makati hotel siege did not
reach the trial stage because of Aquino’s amnesty grant.

‘Means to flee’
 In justifying its request for an HDO, the DOJ said that Trillanes had the “means and resources” to
flee to another country in order to escape Philippine criminal jurisdiction.

On Trillanes’ petition to the Supreme Court seeking the invalidation of Proclamation No. 572 and
the issuance of a temporary injunction, Fadullon said that until the injunction was issued, there was no
reason for the RTCs not to continue with the proceedings “because the cases were criminal in nature.”

On Trillanes’ complaint of possible double jeopardy, Fadullon said no retrial was needed since the
facts of the case had been established.

Court martial can take custody of reprieved soldier once amnesty is lifted – AFP
(September 9, 2018; GMA News Online)

A court martial can once again take custody of a reprieved soldier if and when a supervening
event, such as the grant of amnesty, is lifted, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) said on Sunday.

AFP Public Affairs Office chief Colonel Noel Detoyato made the remark on Sunday following the
revocation of the amnesty granted to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV in 2011.

In an interview with Super Radyo dzBB, Detoyato explained the functions of a court martial, whose
role in the case of Trillanes has caused public confusion.

According to Detoyato, all persons under sentence adjudged by court martial will remain under
the jurisdiction of the latter until the case was either dismissed, acquitted, convicted, sentenced, or halted
by a supervening event.

“Halimbawa, nabigyan ng amnesty. E ‘di putol na ‘yung jurisdiction ng court martial sa kanya,” he
said.

“Pero kapag nawala ‘yung supervening event na ‘yun, ‘yung amnesty, the court martial will
resume his case,” he added.

For instance, Detoyato said a soldier who took an absence without leave (AWOL) can claim that
he is civilian already and not covered by the court martial anymore.

“Pero after a few months nakita siya. Huhulihin siya ng sundalo, dadalhin siya sa court martial,
ita-try siya. Hindi niya pwedeng sabihin na civilian ako kasi nag-AWOL ako. Hindi. Kasi nung ni-commit niya
‘yung offense na ‘yun, siya ay sundalo pa,” he said.

But for Magdalo party-list Representative Gary Alejano, the court martial likewise no longer has
jurisdiction over Trillanes, as he was already a civilian in 2007 when he ran for national elections that
same year, Alejano noted.

Trillanes was issued an AFP Command Clearance in 2007, and received his separation benefits,
Alejano said, noting that a retiring or separated soldier with a pending case cannot claim benefits from
the AFP.
 “If indeed the military is not being politicize by the Duterte administration, then it must know that
they cannot make arrests without a warrant and that they have no jurisdiction over Senator Trillanes,”
Alejano said.

“The AFP should not be used in pursuit of political ends against a personal nemesis of the
President,” he added.

Duterte has already said the military should wait for an order from a competent court before it
can carry out the arrest of Trillanes.

Trillanes present list of laws for military, police (September 9, 2018; Inquirer.net)

Senator Antonio Trillanes IV on Sunday released a list of laws and projects he pushed for the
military and police in a bid to belie President Rodrigo Duterte’s claim that he did nothing for the welfare
of state forces.

In the list distributed to media, among the listed laws relating to military and other uniformed
personnel which were authored and sponsored by Trillanes were Joint Resolution No. 5 which Increased
the Subsistence Allowance of Uniformed Personnel from P90 to P150; the New AFP Modernization Act;
the Salary Standardization Law 3, which increased the salaries of the uniformed personnel and pensions
of the retirees; and RA 10649 which increased the Burial Assistance for Veterans from P10,000 to Php
20,000.

In addition to these, he also introduced 18 AFP-related bills which are still pending at the
committee level.

The senator also distributed a list of infrastructure projects for the military which were financed
through his assistance which include construction of barracks, mess halls and quarters for enlisted
personnel, club rooms and quarters for officers, and multi-purpose buildings in different camps around
the country.

“Duterte is so insecure that he needed to compare his contributions to the military to mine. Well,
first of all, there shouldn’t be any competition about this, both of us are expected to look out for the
welfare of our soldiers. Wala dapat kompetisyon. But for him to say that I contributed nothing, is one big
lie,” Trillanes, one of the President’s staunchest critics, said in a statement.

Duterte on Saturday said the former military officer turned senator did little to help the Armed
Forces despite being close to former President Benigno Aquino III.

“It was all Trillanes, pretending to be a crusading soldier when as a matter of fact, wala naman
silang ginawa,” Duterte said upon his arrival from Israel and Jordan.

He added that Trillanes abandoned the cause of the military and instead took advantage of his
position for personal gain.
 Trillanes, who figured in two failed uprisings against former President Gloria Arroyo, said “If
Duterte thinks that he can buy the loyalty of the military and use them as instruments of oppression, he’s
dead wrong,” saying soldiers would remain faithful to their constitutional mandate.

“Instead of persecuting his critics, Mr. Duterte should just focus his remaining energy to solving
the major problems confronting our countrymen, foremost of which is the rising cost of living,” he added.

Duterte has repeatedly been forced to sideline his official functions and duties to respond to
criticisms and claims of Trillanes, who has accused the President of corruption.

In November 2017, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed a plunder case filed by Trillanes
against Duterte.

“There was no evidence to support the claim” of Trillanes, said Solicitor General Jose Calida.

Duterte’s plan for retrial of senator over failed coups ‘could split Philippine military’
(September 9, 2018)

President Rodrigo Duterte’s order to arrest Philippine opposition senator Antonio Trillanes and
try him in a military court for crimes he has already been pardoned for could split the military, a defense
and security analyst warned.

“The military will split” if Duterte pushes the Armed Forces of the Philippines to court martial
Trillanes for taking over the upscale Oakwood hotel in 2003 and the Manila Peninsula hotel in 2007, said
military historian Jose Antonio Custodio.

Custodio, who once worked in the military’s planning office, said if Duterte forces the issue, “there
would be factions which would agree with him and factions which would not agree with him”, as well as
a “faction that is not necessarily pro-Trillanes but pro-institution”.

He noted there is “some hostility toward Trillanes” among his seniors because they feel he
disrespected his former superior, Armed Forces chief Angelo Reyes, during a Senate hearing. However,
Trillanes still has support from his Philippine Military Academy batch and younger soldiers.

“The government should actually back off, but it seems to want to proceed. If it proceeds,”
Custodio said, “[It] will have to deal with military instability.”

He described Duterte’s hold on the military as “tenuous”, despite cash dole outs, salary increases
and promise of new buildings. Custodio noted, in particular, that the spike in basic goods prices has eroded
the livelihoods of the ordinary soldier.

Since Duterte’s order to arrest and court martial Trillanes was published in a newspaper on
Tuesday, the 47-year-old senator has taken refuge in his office at the Senate building by Manila Bay.

Even though Duterte said on Saturday he would wait for the court to issue an arrest warrant,
Trillanes is taking no chances.
 Members of the police intelligence unit staked out the Senate on the morning Duterte’s
proclamation revoking the senator’s amnesty was printed. They left, but two mornings later, two
truckloads of soldiers parked outside the building. Duterte justified this saying Trillanes’ amnesty was void
since no documents could be found to show he had applied for it and he had admitted he was guilty.

Asked whether he was scared of being arrested again, Trillanes told South China Morning Post he
was not: “It may sound unnatural but I’m the kind of person to submit to God’s will or basically I’m a
fatalist. I deal with situations as they come and face it as part of my life’s journey.”

He described his daily routine: “I start with a press conference and to make the daily updates and
if there are issues that arose the previous night I address them. After that I continue my meeting with
different support groups, political leaders, family and friends and my lawyer. Normally, then before the
day ends, we assess the day that just passed and plan for the next day and succeeding days.”

Besides his staff, the senator is supported by his group – the Magdalo – a band of ex-military
officers who joined him in the two failed mutinies against former president Gloria Arroyo. They may have
left the service years ago, but they still sport crew cuts. One has a faded tattoo which he etched with a
knife inside his arm when he joined the Magdalo.

Trillanes employs many people and his office is crammed like a ship’s quarters.

He has been sleeping on a black leather couch, while others sleep on the floor in cubicles.

The office does not looks like those of his fellow senators, but more like a bachelor’s pad,
crammed with the sofa, a long conference table, a modest desk and cushioned stools and chairs. It is a
room built for meetings, or, as the government has accused him, plotting conspiracies.

Senate President Vicente Sotto III has promised to protect Trillanes from a warrantless arrest but
told him to behave himself by limiting the number visitors and not having any religious meetings or mass
actions. Four supporters who held up signs calling Duterte a “coward” were evicted.

X-ray scanners in the Senate lobby have had to deal with a steady stream of relatives, visitors
pledging support, reports and food deliveries.

“The sergeant-at-arms of the Senate is providing the security. It is more than adequate,” Trillanes
said.

Duterte was in Israel when his orders against Trillanes were published. When he returned on
Saturday, the president accused Trillanes of conspiring with “the yellows, liberals (a reference to
supporters of former president Benigno Aquino) and also the [communist] politburo …[and] a foreign
power” he did not name.

Duterte said he was confident Trillanes no longer had support in the Armed Forces because he
had done nothing for the military.

“Only he benefited and he forgot his companions” when he became senator, the president said.
 Trillanes called it “one of the lies of President Duterte”. He pointed out that he was the principal
author of the Armed Forces Modernization Law and a law raising the soldiers’ subsistence allowance. He
also used state funds to build barracks in various army camps.

Custodio agreed the Magdalo, which includes Trillanes, Congressman Gary Alejano and former
congressman Ashley Acedillo, has done a lot for the military.

Custodio also said the military “blinked”. Now, instead of arresting Trillanes outright, Armed
Forces spokesman Edgard Arevalo said it would wait for a warrant. Until then, it would not issue any more
statements about Trillanes.

“By the mere fact that they ‘blinked’ means a considerable number were not happy [with
Duterte’s move],” Custodio said.

The defence department also said it may have just misplaced Trillanes’ amnesty application.

Duterte now appears to be distancing himself from the issue, saying: “The truth is, it was [Solicitor
General Jose] Calida who did the research on Trillanes’ case. When the SolGen says there’s something
wrong, it has to be corrected. I cannot refuse.”

Trillanes also blamed Calida – who is facing corruption allegations – accusing him of trying to derail
a Senate inquiry that was supposed to happen the day news of Duterte’s proclamation broke.

“[On Tuesday] I was supposed to conduct a hearing for Calida’s corrupt activities,” Trillanes said.
“So, it’s probably a pre-emptive move to prevent me from conducting the hearing.”

Court-martial proceedings vs Trillanes put on hold – AFP chief (September 10, 2018;
Inquirer.net)

The Armed Forces of the Philippines has deferred court-martial proceedings against Sen. Antonio
Trillanes IV to wait for the Supreme Court decision on his petition for the invalidation of President
Duterte’s order voiding the amnesty given to him as a military rebel in 2011.

In a statement on Sunday, Gen. Carlito Galvez Jr. said: “The AFP submits to the majesty of the
Supreme Court and yields to its wisdom as it tackles the petition pertaining to Presidential Proclamation
No. 572 filed by Senator Trillanes.”

Galvez declined to comment on Trillanes’ petition.

“We hope other parties [will] follow,” said the AFP chief of staff.

Wait for court decision

“With the recent pronouncement of the Chief Executive, general court-martial proceedings will
be held in abeyance until the Supreme Court has ruled on the legality of Presidential Proclamation 572,”
he added.
 President Duterte has stepped back from the confrontation with his archcritic to give way to the
legal process, ordering the military and the Philippine National Police not to arrest Trillanes without a
court-issued warrant.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has applied for a warrant with the Makati Regional Trial Court
(RTC) Branch 148, which has set a hearing for Sept. 13.

The DOJ has also asked the Makati RTC Branch 150 to reopen Trillanes’ rebellion case, but the
court has not responded pending a look at the case.

Both courts dismissed the charges against Trillanes in 2011 after he was granted amnesty.

The head of the Department of National Defense temporary committee that proceed the
applications for amnesty of Trillanes and other participants in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny, the 2006
Marines standoff, and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege maintained on Sunday that Trillanes applied for
amnesty, contrary to the government’s claim that he did not.

‘I did my job’

In a message to reporters, former Defense Undersecretary Honorio Azcueta said, “I can honestly
say that as chair of the ad hoc committee on amnesty, I conscientiously did my job in accordance with
Proclamation No. 75 and its rules.”

Azcueta was referring to former President Benigno Aquino III’s 2010 offer of amnesty to
participants in military uprisings against his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The amnesty committee was tasked with receiving and processing application for amnesty for the
subsequent approval of the defense secretary.

Azcueta said Trillanes “obviously” applied for amnesty. “That’s why on record he was granted
amnesty.”

Supreme Court denies Trillanes’ plea, but orders no warrantless arrest (September 12,
2018; CNN Philippines Staff)

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, September 11) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied the
petition of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the proclamation
of President Rodrigo Duterte that voided his amnesty.

Supreme Court Acting Spokesperson Maria Victoria Gleorestry Guerra said “at least a majority” of
the justices voted to deny Trillanes’ motion for TRO and writ of preliminary injunction. Associate Justice
Antonio Carpio, Justice Marvic Leonen, Noel Tijam, and Alexander Gesmundo were on leave.

The high court took judicial notice of Duterte’s earlier commitment that there will be no military
arrest for Trillanes, therefore, the Supreme Court en banc sees no reason why there should be an
injunction.
 “The Court takes judicial notice of the categorical pronouncement of President Duterte that
Senator Trillanes will not be apprehended, detained, or taken into custody unless a warrant of arrest has
been issued by the trial court. There is no extreme and urgent necessity for the Court to issue an injunctive
relief considering that the respondents have acknowledged Senator Trillanes’ right to due process,” it
said.

Duterte on September 7 said there will be no military arrest for Trillanes, as the President defers
to the civilian court’s decision. The military also gave its word that it will not arrest Trillanes without a
warrant from Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branches 148 and 150, where the Department of Justice
filed urgent motions for the courts to issue alias warrant and hold departure order against the senator.

The Supreme Court decision did not mention if Proclamation No. 572, which voided the senator’s
amnesty, is still in effect. It also directed concerned government officials to comment on the petition
within 10 days.

Despite the junking of his plea, Trillanes welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court, which he
said is suspected of being partial to the Duterte administration.

“We are grateful Supreme Court showed some semblance of independence,” he said.

Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said Trillanes failed in his attempt to get the high court
on his side.

“There is no legal impediment now to implement Proclamation 572, but the President has
previously decided that he will await action of the Regional Trial Court, but I do not want to preempt the
President,” he said.

President Duterte mentioned Trillanes’ case in an interview with Chief Presidential Legal Counsel
Salvador Panelo Tuesday.

“(Ex-defense chief Voltaire) Gazmin signed the amnesty itself. It is not possible to do that. Why?
Because an act of pardon or amnesty is an act of state. It cannot be delegated to anybody but only to the
president,” he said.

Former Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda responded to Duterte in a statement also on

Tuesday, saying, “Let there be no argument: President Aquino, in his personal and official capacity,
granted amnesty to political offenders, which was concurred in by both Houses. That much is found in
Proclamation No. 75 and that much is in compliance with the amnesty requirements under the 1987
Constitution.”

Makati court to proceed with hearings

The Supreme Court said the case “appears to be factual in nature,” in which only a trial court or
the Court of Appeals can try facts. It will be up to the Makati courts to check if Trillanes filed his
requirements to be granted an amnesty.
 “It is appropriate that the Makati RTCs should be given leeway in exercising their concurrent
jurisdiction to hear and resolve the pleadings/motions filed by the parties as regards the partiality of
Proclamation No. 572,” is said.

RTC Branch 148 will hear Trillanes’ case on September 13, while Branch 150 will hear the case the
next day.

Duterte on August 31 voided Trillanes’ amnesty for alleged failure to comply with the minimum
requirements to qualify under the Amnesty Program.

The Duterte administration said Trillanes never admitted guilt for the coup attempts, and there
are allegedly no records to show he applied and complied with the amnesty requirements. Duterte also
questioned why former Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin approved Trillanes’ amnesty, alleging he
committed usurpation of authority.

Without saying why, Calida called Lorenzana for Trillanes’ amnesty records
(September 10, 2018; Rappler)

(3rd UPDATE) ‘He (Calida) asked me personally by phone to get his (Trillanes’) amnesty records,’
says Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana.

MANILA, Philippines (3rd UPDATE) – Solicitor General Jose Calida called up Department of National
Defense (DND) Secretray Delfin Lorenzana about Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s amnesty records on
August 16, Lorenzana himself announced in an impromptu press conference on Monday, September 10.

“He (Calida) asked me, he asked me personally by phone to get the amnesty records niya
(Trillanes) sa (at the) Department of Defense and sa AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines), so I provided
him,” Lorenzana said in Camp Aguinaldo.

Lorenzana did not elaborate during the briefing on what he “provided” Calida, since the solicitor
general himself later told President Rodrigo Duterte that the senator’s application form was missing. This
was one of the reasons cited by Duterte in voiding Trillanes’ amnesty.

Asked to clarify by reporters, Lorenzana backtracked, saying he did not give any records, but only
access to a staff of Calida who went to the DND.

“I did not say I provided him any records. What I said was he asked me if we at DND have a record
of amnesty of Trillanes and his group. I replied I don’t know as this happened in many years ago. I asked
our JAGS (Judge Advocate General’s Service) to assist the SOLGEN. Solgen Calida sent one of his staff to
the JAGS,” he said in a text message.

It is unclear when Calida’s staff member went to the JAGS, which acts as a secretariat for military
administrative cases.

He said that it was only later on August 31 that the AFP General Headquarters’ personnel division
(J1) gave a certification that Trillanes’ amnesty records were missing.
 When wasa the call? Lorenzana said Calida phoned him on August 16, or 15 days before Duterte
issued Proclamation No. 572 voiding Trillanes’ amnesty for two reasons: one was the supposed missing
application form and two, the government’s allegation that Trillanes did not admit guilt for his
involvement in mutinies against the Arroyo administration. Documents later obtained by Rappler showed
he did both.

Lorenzana said he did not know at the time of the call why Calida was asking for the senator’s
amnesty records.

He said he did not ask simply because Calida is the government’s top lawyer.

The defense chief admitted that Duterte issued the proclamation without consulting him.

Lorenzana added that Calida also aksed for the amnesty papers of 100 ex-mutineers who belong
to the so-called “Trillanes group.”

When news on the President’s order broke last September 5, a military spokesman said it was
Calida who had asked the military for the certification on Trillanes’ amnesty records.

Trillanes fails to get relief from SC (September 11, 2018; Inquirer.net)

The Supreme Court denied Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s bid to stop the implementation of
Proclamation 572.

“The Court resolved to deny petitioner Senator Trillanes’ prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order,” acting SC Spokesperson Atty. Gleo Guerra
said in a press conference.

The high court holds as a guarantee the assurance of President Rodrigo Duterte that Trillanes will
not be arrested unless an arrest warrant has been issued by the trial court.

“The Court takes judicial notice of the categorical pronouncement of President Duterte that
Senator Trillanes will not be apprehended, detained or taken into custody unless a warrant of arrest has
been issued by the trial court,” Guerra said, quoting the high court’s ruling.

“Thus, there is no extreme and urgent necessity for the Court to issue an injunctive relief
considering that the respondents have acknowledged Senator Trillanes’ right to due process,” the high
court added.

The high court added that the question of whether Trillanes has complied with the requirements
to qualify for an amnesty or not is factual in nature, it will be best that the “Makati RTCs (Regional Trial
Courts) be given leeway in exercising their concurrent jurisdiction to hear and resolve the
pleadings/motions filed by the parties as regards the legality of Proclamation 572.”
 The Makati RTC Branch 148 handles the coup d’etat case against Trillanes and other Magdalo
soldiers for the 2003 Oakwood mutiny while the Makati RTC Branch 150 is handling the rebellion case or
the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.

Meanwhile, the high court ordered respondents, through Solicitor General Jose Calida to submit
a comment within 10 days.

Upon issue of warrant, Sotto should bring Trillanes to Camp Crame (September 11,
2018; Rappler)

MANILA, Philippines – If a warrant of arrest is issued against Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, it should
be Senate President Vicento Sotto III who should personally bring him to Camp Crame, Department of the
Interior and Local Government (DILG) Officer-in-Charge Eduardo Año said on Tuesday, September 11.

“In fact, we encourage kung sakaling magkaroon (ng warrant), si senate president na lang yung
maghatid sa Crame. Ganun lang kasimple,” Año said in a press briefing in Quezon City.

(In fact, we encourage, that if a warrant is issued, the senate president should be the one to bring
Trillanes to (Camp) Crame. It’s that simple.)

Why Sotto? The DILG Chief said there was “nothing special” about the case and that the
department would continue to uphold the rights of Trillanes.

Should a warrant be issued against the senator, Año said this would be a “very simple arrest.”

“Wala tayong problema diyan. (We have no problem with that) Everyone here is fair under the
rule of law,” he said.

Año said that there was no need to place in the Senate a “strong presence” of the Philippine
National Police. The PNP is under the jurisdiction of the DILG. He said the DILG would likewise wait for the
courts to decide on Trillanes’ case.

Last week, Trillanes was ordered arrested by President Rodrigo Duterte, after the President signed
Proclamation No. 572, which voided the amnesty granted to the senator. The proclamation ordered the
military to pursue all criminal charges against the senator and help in arresting him.

Since then, Trillanes has been holed up in his Senate office.

The Supreme Court on September 11, denied Trillanes’ petition stopping the implementation of
the order, but said the senator cannot be arrested without a warrant.

The two courts in Makati have yet to issue a warrant against him.

Trillanes stays put in Senate after SC ruling (September 12, 2018; Inquirer.net)
 Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV on Tuesday said he would stay in the Senate building because statements
from Malacañang and information he received from the military that he would be arrested following the
Supreme Court ruling.

Trillanes said he was also advised by his fellow senators from both the minority and the majority
to remain in the Senate building.

He said he had a “direct engagement” with the Armed Forces of the Philippines and was told that
the order to arrest him remained.

The Supreme Court recognized the military’s statement that it was deferring court-martial
proceedings against Trillanes until the courts could settle the controversy over the amnesty granted to
the senator as a military rebel in 2011.

Trillanes said, however, that the military had not categorically said whether it would arrest him.

He also noted Malacañang’s statement on Tuesday that the Supreme Court ruling meant there
was no more legal impediment to the enforcement of Proclamation No. 572.

Earlier, Trillanes began considering going home after the ruling came down.

‘Carefully worded decision’

The court showed “some semblance of independence” with its “carefully worded decision” that
allowed the President to save face, he said.

Trillanes said the bottom line of his petition was to stop his arrest, and the government took back
its order before the Supreme Court could hand down a decision.

The court mooted his petition for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, but
the effect was still the same, he added.

Public commitment

Trillanes’ lawyer Rey Robles said the Supreme Court ruling made it clear that there was a public
commitment by the President not to have Trillanes arrested without a court-issued warrant.

“There were instances in the past that promises have been broken, things that were said were
taken back. Sometimes they would say that it’s a joke, that’s why we chose not to allow Senator Trillanes
to go home in the meantime. Now, it’s the Supreme Court saying there is a public commitment. If they
still defy this, it means nothing is respected in our country,” Robles said,

It’s not over

While grateful for the Supreme Court decision, Trillanes said his fight was far from over.

“This ordeal is not yet over by any stretch of the imagination. The Duterte administration is hell-
bent on putting me away in whatever form. But, nonetheless, I am very, very grateful to all those who
have been with us physically here, those who spent a lot of time joining the vigil outside and those
extending their prayers all over the world for my safety and the well-being of our democracy,” he said.

NDFP on ‘Red October’: Duterte, military ‘scaring themselves to death’ (September 24,
2018; Inquirer.net)

DAVAO CITY – The National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) on Monday belied
Malacañang’s pronouncement that the communist group is conniving with Liberal Party and other critics
of President Rodrigo Duterte in the so-called “Red October” destabilization plot, citing intelligence reports
from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

“There is no conspiracy between the CPP-NPA-NDFP and LP for the purposes claimed by Duterte
and the military. Duterte and the military are scaring themselves to death,” said Fidel Agcaoili, chairperson
of the NDFP peace panel.

In a Palace press briefing on Monday, Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said: “We have no
doubts that the AFP has intelligence information on this. We have no doubts that the CPP-NPA
[Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army] has been out to overthrow the government
since they were founded. We have no doubts that there are power-hungry individuals in the opposition
who would like to resort to extra-constitutional means to bring down the government of President
Duterte. And we have no doubts that the Magdalo group are addicted to coup d’etats.”

But Agcaoili described the AFP’s intelligence report as foolish and even slammed the AFP’s
proposal of creating a task force in a bid to end the communist insurgency in the country.

“They are poised to do extremely foolish things like militarizing civil agencies of the government
under a task force, making Bongbong Marcos the VP, and declaring martial law or state of emergency
nationwiede,” he said.

Agcaoili said the Palace-backed creation of an anti-communist insurgency body would only ignite
what he called “people’s uprising.”

“These are the things that will precisely ignite a people’s uprising. The military will be wasting its
personnel by trying to command civilian agencies and will be sucking up the tax revenues of the
government by trying to increase personnel and so-called military-civilian operations,” he stressed.

“Duterte is really crazy by trying hard to bring the country to perdition or hell. Peace negotiations
would have been a more economical effort of the Duterte regime were it not for its mania for fascist
dictatorship,” Agcaoili added.

The student performs the given task/s diligently; willing to learn and explore new things that may help
improve his skills related to his course.

Trillanes made admission of guilt, JAGO officer confirms in affidavit (September 24,
2018; Inquirer.net)
 Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV made his general admission of guilt before he took his oath on his filled-
out amnesty application form, a military official said in an affidavit submitted before the Makati City
Regional Trial Court.

Col. Josefa C. Berbigal, currently a commissioned officer of the Judge Advocate General’s Office
(JAGO), said she was the one who processed the application for amnesty filed by those who benefitted
under Proclamation No. 75 of then President Benigno Aquino III.

“Among the applications for amnesty which our committee processed was that of Sen. Antonio
Trillanes IV which was filed on Jan. 5, 2011,” Berbigal’s affidavit said.

“Before accepting his application, I asked Sen. Trillanes to read the pre-printed statement
contained therein making general admission of his guilt for his alleged offenses before asking him to take
his oath for the said amnesty application,” Berbigal said.

Besides Berbigal’s affidavit, Trillanes also submitted before the court the affidavit of Honorio S.
Azcueta, former undersecretary of the Department of National Defense (DND). Azcueta was also the
chairman of the DND Ad Hoc Amnesty Committee that processed the applications for amnesty filed under
Proclamation 75 of Aquino.

He said he was tasked with receiving the applications and reviewing them to determine who were
qualified.

“As such, the amnesty applications which were recommended to be for approval by the
Committee, including that of Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV, underwent the necessary and the applicable
procedures set in Proclamation No. 75 and the DND circular,” Azcueta said.

The Trillanes camp reiterated that the sole basis of President Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation No.
572 revoking the amnesty given to Trillanes was a certification from a certain Lt. Col. Thea Joan N.
Andrade, chief of Discipline, Law and Order Division of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, J1.

The senator’s lawyers told the court that even the certification issued by Andrade failed to state
that Trillanes did not file an application.

They pointed out that the only thing stated in the certification was that “there is no available copy
of his application for amnesty in the records.”

The affidavits of the two officials, as well as other evidence, were included in the rejoinder
submitted before the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 as Trillanes maintained that the case for
rebellion has long been dismissed and can no longer be revived by Duterte’s proclamation.

With the submission of the rejoinder, the motion submitted by the Department of Justice (DOJ)
to order the senator’s arrest, issue a hold departure order and resume the trial on the rebellion case has
been submitted for resolution.

Aside from Makati RTC Branch 150, the DOJ also has a similar motion filed before Makati RTC
Branch 148 which handles the coup d’etat case for the 2003 Oakwood mutiny.
 Cleared of corruption? Martires will no longer appeal to Supreme Court (September
24, 2018; Rappler)

MANILA, Philippines – Another good news for charged public officials. If you’re able to win before
a lower court, the Office of the Ombudsman will no longer pursue your conviction at the Supreme Court.

This is contained in Ombudsman Samuel Martires’ newest office order signed on Monday,
September 24.

This covers dismissal of cases and acquittals by both the trial courts and the anti-graft court
Sandiganbayan, as well as reversals secured at the Court of Appeals.

“I have to put an end to this practice of bringing up to the Supreme Court judgments of acquittal
from the Sandiganbayan,” Martires told reporters on Monday.

Ombudsman before Martires appealed their losses before the Supreme Court, a procedural
practice to exhaust all remedies for appeals. “I have to put an end to this practice,” Martires said.

“Tama na. Ano pa bang interes namin, magpakulong ng isang tao na sabi ng husgado ay walang
kasalanan? (Enough is enough. What is our interest, to jail people who have been judged by a court as
innocent?) If I bring this to the Supreme Court, I’ll just be clogging the dockets of the Supreme Court,”
Martires said.

Under the law, the Ombudsman can also suspend or dismiss officials it will find guilty of
administrative charges like gross neglect of duty. The Ombudsman can also order preventive suspensions,
and these are usually elevated by officials to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Sometimes, officials secure reversals and reinstatement orders at the CA. Martires said that from
now on, they will also no longer challenge the CA’s reinstatement orders at the Supreme Court.

“This is for the simple reason that it already violates the right of an accused against double
jeopardy. This is a basic constitutional right of every accused, I don’t want to be impeached because I
disregarded the constitutional right of an accused,” Martires said.

An exception to Martires’ new policy is if the Office of the Ombudsman “was clearly deprived of
due process and if there was a mistrial.”

Respondent friendly?

This is Martires’ latest policy deemed by critics as favoring respondents. But Martires just brushed
it off, saying he’s not out to please his critics.

So far, Martires has: “Recalled the suspension orders of local executives charged with violating
the Solid Waste Management Law; Put a stop to the practice of filing a motion for suspension against
officials charged at the Sandiganbayan; Ordered the termination of all fact-finding investigation that have
gone beyond a year; Limited media access to complaints and resolutions.

“In my own imperfect and limited ways, I will do everything within my power to be fair to
everyone,” said Martires.

He added: “Mahirap magkunwari at mahirap umusig sa isang taong walang kasalanan. Dahil
pagdating ng gabi, konsensya mo rin ang inuusig kapag naghahabol ka o nagbibintang ka ng isang
kasalanan sa isang tao.”

(It’s hard to pretend and it’s hard to judge a person who’s really innocent. Because at night, your
own conscience will disturb you if you keep on running after a person who committed no crime.)

Martires said that an official cleared by a court is already deemed innocent in the eyes of the law.

“Para lang ipangalandakan sa inyo na kami ang anghel at ang mga akusadong ito ang demonyo?
Hindi ba ng lumalabas kami ‘yung demonyo kapag pinagpatuloy naming gawin ang kamaliang ito?”
Martires said.

(Is this to show you that we’re angels and the accused are devils? Don’t we appear like the evil
ones if we continue doing this wrong this?)

Martires said the problem will be solved by enhancing the capacity of Ombudsman investigators
and prosecutors to actually win cases in court.

The latter years of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales were tainted by a deluge of lost cases,
many of which were due to inordinate delay. The Supreme Court has since come up with a ruling excluding
the period of fact-finding investigation from the determination of whether there was delay or not.

“Bakit natin ipipilit magsampa ng isang kaso na sa simula’t simula ay alam natin ay wala, para
lang ipaalam natin sa publiko, sa taumbayan na ginagawa natin ang ating trabaho at bahala na husgado
kung sila’y magpapawalang-sala? Ayokong magkunwari. Gusto ko, yung totoo lang,” Martires said.

(Why would we force ourselves to file a case that we knew from that start lacks evidence? Just so
we could inform the public that we are doing our jobs, and we’re passing on the burden to the justices
and judges to acquit them? I don’t want to pretend. I just want to be real.)

AFP still mum on Trillanes case (September 27, 2018; Inquirer.net)

The Armed Forces of the Philippines on Thursday reiterated that it would not issue comments on
the case of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.

“We respect the rule of law and court decisions and processes. This includes the case of Senator
Antonio Trillanes IV. The matter is already in the purview of the courts. And to the civil courts we defer.”
AFP spokesperson Col. Edgard Arevalo said in a statement.
 “We will not issue further statements related to the case,” he added.

On Wednesday, Trillanes dared the defense and military leadership to stand up against President
Rodrigo Duterte’s revocation of his amnesty, mainly because of an application form that went supposedly
missing from military records.

Despite the allegations that thee AFP had been politicized, Arevalo said they will never allow
themselves “to take direct or indirect participation in any political actions against the present duly
constituted authorities.”

Those who will be caught involving themselves in political actions “will be dealt with severely and
personnel who will get involved will be immediately relieved from their posts, investigated, and meted
stiff penalties where warranted,” he added.

11 mayors, 6 vice mayors have been killed under Duterte administration (October 2,
2018; GMA New Online)

At least 11 mayors and six vice mayors have been killed under the Duterte administration so far,
according to a report on Unang Balita.

In 2016, Samsudin Dimaukom, the mayor of Datu Saudi Ampatuan in Maguindanao was killed in
an armed encounter.

On November 5, 2016, Albuera Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa Senior was killed in an armed
encounter inside his cell.

The following month, Pantar Lanao del Norte Mayor Mohammad Exchan Limbona was killed in an
ambush.

The mayor of Marcos town in Ilocos Norte, Arsenio Agustin, was also killed in an ambush.

Balete, Batangas Mayor Leovino Hidalgo was shot dead amid a basketball competition.

In July 30, 2017, Ozamiz City Mayor Reynaldo Parojinog was killed during a raid.

This year, five mayors were killed.

Buenavista, Bohol Mayor Ronald Lowell Tirol, who was killed in a cockpit arena while Tanauan
City, Batangas Mayor Antonio Halili was shot dead during a flag raising ceremony in front of city hall.

General Tinio, Nueva Ecija Mayor Ferdinand Bote was killed in an ambush while Ronda, Cebu
Mayor Mariano Blanco was killed inside the town hall.

The latest incident is the ambush of Sudipen, La Union Mayor Alexander Buquing.
 The case of Bien Unido, Bohol Mayor Gisela Bendong-Boniel was not included in the list, although
it is believed that she was killed for personal reasons, her body has not yet been found.

The following are the vice mayors who died from August 2016 to July 2018.
>> Pamplona, Cagayan Vice Mayor Aaron Sampaga
>> Datu Saudi Ampatuan, Maguindanao Vice Mayor Anwar Sindatuk
>> Roxas, Oriental Mindoro Vice Mayor Jackson Cinco Dy
>> Ronda, Cebu Vice Mayor Jonah John Ungab
>> Trece Martires, Cavite Vice Mayor Alexander Lubigan
>> Sapa-Sapa, Tawi-Tawi Vice Mayor Al-Rashid Mohammad Ali

Let court decide on Galvez’s amnesty statements, says military (October 4, 2018;
Inquirer.net)

The military on Wednesday said the appreciation of its chief’s confirmation that Sen. Antonio
Trillanes IV applied for amnesty was best left to the court as Malacañang insisted that the best proof of
that was the former military rebel’s application form, which is missing.

Gen. Carlito Galvez Jr., chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, on Tuesday told a
Senate hearing on the military’s 2019 budget that Trillanes formally applied for amnesty for his
involvement in past military mutinees, based on an amnesty officer’s account.

Galvez said the amnesty officer, Col. Josefa Berbigal, who had submitted an affidavit attesting to
Trillanes’ application, handled the process at the military’s general headquarters.

He said he suspected that there had been “lapses” in the handling of the amnesty documents and
as a result these were not forwarded to the AFP deputy chief of staff for personnel, or J1.

‘Declaration’

On Wednesday, Brig. Gen. Edgard Arevalo, spokesperson for the military, said Galvez’s testimony
was “a declaration” that Trillanes “applied for amnesty.”

“It is akin to the affidavit executed by Col. Josefa Berbigal attesting that Senator Trillanes IV
applied for amnesty,” Arevalo said.

“We defer to the wise discretion of the court to where the case has been submitted as to how it
will appreciate that statement,” he added.

Arevalo said the military would not speak further about the matter.

“Since that may bear on the merits of the case, we will not issue further statements with due
regard to the sub judice rule,” he added.

Galvez’s statement, based on Berbigal’s affidavit, contradicted President Rodrigo Duterte’s

reasons for voiding Trillanes’ amnesty.
 The President said he voided Trillanes’ amnesty and ordered his arrest because the senator had
failed to file a formal amnesty application and acknowledge guilt.

Malacañang on Wednesday said Wednesday said Galvez’s statement in the Senate did not affect
the President’s declarations.

Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said it was “not disputed” that Trillanes “supposedly
applied” for amnesty.

“But the issue now is where is his application [form], because it’s important, as it stated his
admission of his offense,” Roque said.

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana told the Senate on Tuesday that the defense department had
opened an investigation into the loss of Trillanes’ amnesty application form.

‘Hearsay’

Sen. Panfilo Lacson on Wednesday said Galvez’s statement would be of little help to Trillanes
because it was “hearsay.”

Lacson said Galvez “relied on the statement of his subordinate officer who should be in the best
position to testify based on personal knowledge.”

The Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 150 has reopened the rebellion case against Trillanes
on a motion that has been brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The DOJ has also asked Makati RTC Branch 148 to reopen the coup d’etat case against Trillanes.

At the Senate hearing on the DOJ’s 2019 budget on Wednesday, Trillanes appealed to justice
officials to stop allowing the department to be used as an “instrument of injustice.”

He cited how the DOJ was used to lock up Sen. Leila de Lima on drug charges after she opened an
inquiry into the President’s brutal war on drugs.

“Let me be the last casualty” of injustice,” Trillanes told Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, who
was at the hearing.

Allegation of CPP recruitment at schools attack on academic freedom (October 4,

2018; GMA Online News)

Bagong Alyansang Makabayan secretary general Renato Reyes on Thursday condemned the
military’s accusation that communist groups are tapping students from various universities for the “Red
October” ouster plot.
 In a statement sent to GMA News Online, Reyes said the military’s move was “irresponsible and
dangerous.”

“It is an attack on academic freedom, free speech and the right to organize. The Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP) desperately tries to link protests on various issues to an imagined destabilization
plot,” the Bayan leader said.

“Even film screenings on Martial Law and protests against extrajudicial killings are now being
linked to an alleged destabilization plot by the Reds,” Reyes added.

On Wednesday, Brigadier General Antonio Parlade Jr., AFP deputy chief of staff for operations,
claimed that the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) is recruiting students from various universities
in Metro Manila to join the alleged destabilization plot against President Rodrigo Duterte.

The Bayan leader deemed the military’s move as an “attack on the rights of students and faculty
to take up social issues.”

“This is intended to stifle all forms of dissent. This is meant to scare school administrators and
student groups and dissuade them from joining any action critical of the regime.”

Some universities already dismissed the claim of the military. Officials from the University of Santo
Tomas said that the AFP must prove its accusations against the schools.

Meanwhile, Ivy Taroma, University of the Philippines Student Regent, said the Duterte
administration has exposed students to “grave peril” after the military’s red-tagging of some academic
institutions.

Reyes said the attacks on schools would only open the eyes of the youth to the anti-democratic
character of the regime.

Professors promoting ‘rebellious’ ideas may face contempt – Albayalde (October 4,

2018; Inquirer.net)

Professors who are encouraging their students to entertain “rebellious” ideas could find
themselves facing contempt charges, Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Director General Oscar
Albayalde said.

Albayalde’s warning came after the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) claimed that the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) has allegedly started organizing 18 universities and colleges in
Metro Manila and have allegedly started organizing students to join the “Red October” plot which aims
to oust President Rodrigo Duterte.

“Eh kung kasuhan kaya natin yung teachers na nag-iinstigate ng mga estudyante? Diba? They
should be also charged for contempt, dahil kung anu-anong itinuturo sa mga [estudyante], kung meron
mang faculty members,” he said in a press briefing.
 (What if we charge those teachers instigating students? Right? They should be also charged for
contempt, because they are teaching such things to our students, if there are indeed faculty members wo
do that.)

Albayalde said that such professors are spreading false information to their students, whom he
said are the “crème of the crop” and the “hope of the land.”

“Kung kami nga nagpapakamatay na para sa ating bansa (Even us who are dying for the country).
We are trying to save generations dito, and yet ganoon ang mga itinuturo natin sa ating mga estudyante
(we are teaching these things to our students),” he said.

He also reminded students in state universities that they should not rebel against the government
which gives them free education.

“These youth are given free education by no less than the government… and yet hindi ka pa guma-
graduate (and yet you have not graduated) you are doing that against the government that gives you free
education,” he said.

He also noted that schools are the “second home” of students while professors are their “second
parents.”

Election experts: Disqualification based on corrupt, narco list ‘unconstitutional’

(October 4, 2018; CNN Philippines)

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, October 4) – Election experts on Thursday said only the court
has the final judgment to decide whether or not candidate can be disqualified from the 2019 midterm
polls.

Former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman Sixto Brillantes said the Department of
Interior and Local Government’s (DILG) proposal to disqualify politicians allegedly involved in corruption
and illegal drugs should not be allowed.

Brillantes noted that as long as the aspirants are qualified to run under the constitution, then the
department cannot interfere with the poll process.

“The only ground for disqualification is when there is a final decision from the judiciary or the
courts… or if there’s a final and executory decision on administrative cases for local position,” Brillantes
told CNN Philippines.

“Kung gagawing basis ang narco list nila, parang sila ang nagdetermine kung sino pwedeng
tumakbo o hindi,” he added.

[Translation: If we use their narco list as basis, then it would be as if we let them determine who
can run for the elections.]
 Undersecretary Eduardo Año, officer-in-charge of the Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG), on Wednesday said he will ask Comelec to look into the candidates who are
supposedly part of the administration’s list of corrupt and drug-linked officials.

While the DILG is keen on passing the recommendation, election lawyer Romulo Macalintal said
it will be “unconstitutional” to disqualify candidates without final judgment from the courts.

“it will be a waste of time for DILG to ask Comelec to disqualify candidates in the 2019 elections
based merely on an alleged list of persons allegedly involved in illegal drugs,” Macalintal said in a
statement Thursday.

“To (disqualify) based on said list will violate the constitutional right of a person to presumption
of innocence and right to due process or opportunity to be heard in any case be it criminal or
administrative.”

The DILG earlier said it will use the government’s existing “narco list” and corruption reports.

President Rodrigo Duterte in 2016 said the list contains 1,000 names of mayors, governors,
congressmen, barangay captains, and police officers.

Other mutineers’ cases up to Duterte, but Trillanes a priority – DOJ chief (October 7,
2018; Inquirer.net)

A day after the military revealed that the amnesty records of some 276 other mutineers are
missing, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra on Saturday said the government would prioritize the case
involving the voiding by President Rpdrigo Duterte of the presidential pardon given to Sen. Antonio
Trillanes IV 2012.

Guevarra said he would leave it up to the President to decide what to do with the other former
mutineers, who also faced the revocation of their amnesty.

“For now, the focus is on Senator Trillanes’ amnesty grant. It is up to the President what he wants
to do with the grant of amnesty to other individuals,” Guevarra said in a brief statement.

Department of National Defense (DND) officials on Friday told a Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC)
hearing that Trillanes’ revived coup d’etat case that all records related to the amnesty given to the senator
and 276 other mutinous military officers covered by Proclamation No. 75 of President Benigno Aquino III
were missing.

The records included minutes of deliberations and transcripts of stenographic notes.

Norman Daanoy, chief of legal affairs at the DND, and head of records Arlene Manjares said the
documents could not be found in their respective offices.

Option not to act

 Guevarra said the President, as part of his power to grant executive clemency, had the option not
to act on the disclosure about the missing records.

“Executive clemency involves the exercise of discretion, and the President as Chief Executive and
Commander in Chief enjoys a lot of freedom in exercising this prerogative,” the justice secretary said.

The President issued Proclamation No. 572 on Sept. 4 voiding Trillanes’ amnesty due to the
senator’s failure to apply for amnesty and admit guilt for his role in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and 2007
Peninsula Manila siege during the term of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The President cited Trillanes’ missing application form in ordering his arrest, although video
footage and pictures presented by the senator showed that he applied for amnesty and that his
application was found to be in order by the DND.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) later ordered government prosecutors to revive the coup d’etat
an mutiny cases originally lodged in the two Makati courts against Trillanes and to file motions for hiss
rearrest.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines also moved to reconvene Trillanes’ court martial, which was
discontinued in 2012 following Aquino’s grant of amnesty.

Galvez admission

Gen. Carlito Galvez Jr., chief of staff of the AFP, admitted in a Senate budget hearing on Tuesday
that Trillanes, the President’s fiercest critic in Congress, indeed applied for amnesty.

But the President’s chief legal counsel, Salvador Panelo, rejected Galvez’ statement, saying it was
“mere hearsay” since the general based his remarks on the affidavit of Col. Josefa Berbigal, the former
head of the amnesty secretariat.

On Sept. 21, Judge Elmo Alameda of Makati RTC Branch 150 issued an arrest warrant against the
senator and reopened the rebellion case against him. But Alameda allowed Trillanes to post bail.

After almost eight0hour hearing on Friday, Judge Andres Soriano of Makati RTC Branch 148 asked
Trillanes’ camp to file its formal offer of evidence on Tuesday next week while giving the prosecution a
day to file their comment.

Only then will he decide whether to order the senator’s arrest, Soriano said.

PNP won’t ‘engage’ heads of ‘Red-tagged’ schools (October 8, 2018; Inquirer.net)

The Philippine National Police will stand down, at least for now, amid the military’s allegation that
18 universities in Metro Manila are being infiltrated by communist rebels hoping to recruit students for
the “Red October” plot to topple President Rodrigo Duterte.
 National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) chief Director Guillermo Eleazar, Commission on
Higher Education (CHEd) Commissioner Prospero de Vera III, and PNP spokesperson Senior Supt. Benigno
Durana Jr. – who met over dinner on Saturday – agreed that De Vera would consult first with heads of the
universities before the police could “engage” or talk to them directly.

No intrusion

Eleazar also sought to allay fears about the police encroaching on school grounds, a sensitive issue
for many of the universities with a storied activist tradition, saying in an interview on Sunday that the
NCRPO would not “meddle in their business or [trample on] their civil rights.”

“We are not generalizing the students, who each have their own rights,” Eleazar said. “We work
within the limits of the law.”

The Armed Forces of the Philippines disclosed to the public last week that it believed 18
universities, including the University of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila University and De La Salle
University, were the site of recent recruitment drives by the Communist Party of the Philippines and its
armed wing, the New People’s Army.

The students and administrators of these schools quickly denounced the AFP announcement as
an uncorroborated scare tactic that might be later used to justify the repression of student activists.

Last week, PNP Director General Oscar Albayalde said that the PNP would hold talks with the
university heads to “find out and know what help we can give them.”

Counterpropaganda

He added that the police could help them inform students about the real situation in the country
and counter the wrong information being fed to them by communists.

Albayalde initially asked Eleazar to “engage directly” with the universities, but this was deemed
impractical.

“It would be difficult to schedule a dialogue with every school,” said Eleazar who added that he
did not want to delegate the task to police district directors either, out of fear that this would make it
harder to get things done.

The compromise reached was that the NCRPO chief could participate in dialogues with the
university presidents, but only after the latter have had separate consultations with thee CHEd
commissioner.

Not limited to Metro schools

Eleazar added that De Vera would not restrict himself to the list of 18 schools given by the AFP,
and would consult with school heads even outside of Metro Manila.

He declined, however, to say when these consultations would take place.

 “There’s no need to rush it,” Eleazar said. “I want to reach out to the universities to work this out,
and let them know the police are here to help.”

Senate Oks bill increasing Filipino veterans’ pension by 300% (October 8, 2018;
Inquirer.net)

The Senate has passed on the third and final reading a bill that will increase the monthly pension
of Filipino war veterans by 300 percent – from P5,000 to P20,000.

All 20 senators present on Monday’s session voted to approve Senate Bill No. 1766, or An Act
Increasing the Monthly Pension of Veterans – which will benefit around 6,000 veterans of World War II,
Korean War, and the Vietnam War.

Senator Gregorio Honasan, who authored and sponsored the proposal, said it is a tribute for
soldiers who placed their lives on the line for peacekeeping efforts.

“The passage of this measure would be a fitting tribute and an act of gratitude to our World War
II veterans, the Philippine Expeditionary Forces veterans of the Korean War and the Philippine Civic Action
Group veterans of the Vietnam War who sacrificed much so that we, their descendants, may live in peace
and freedom,” Honasan said.

If enacted, the measure is the first increase for the veterans’ pension since 1994, or more than
two decades ago.

“Soldiers, unlike ordinary mortals, for a great part of the prime of their lives, lived in battlefields,
away from their loved ones, where, as a World War II veteran writes, they ‘learn the ache of loneliness,
the ache of exhaustion, the kinship of misery,’” the senator, a former soldier himself, said.

“For our senior veterans, this stoicism is carried to this day as they find themselves in another
forlorn arena, battling old age and debilitating ailments as well as financial difficulties,” he added.

The additional pension is still non-transferable to any of the veteran’s relatives or dependents. In
case of the veteran’s death, the pension that his or her surviving spouse will receive remains at P5,000.

Veterans who have not been receiving their monthly pension from the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) are also entitled to this adjustment.

The propose law’s initial implementation will require a budget of P1.18 billion, which will be
sourced from 2018 budget of the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO), while the budget for the
succeeding years would be included in the General Appropriations Act.

Senate passes bill reforming SSS charter (October 9, 2018; Inquirer.net)

 The Senate on Monday approved on third and final reading a bill that would amend the charter
of the Social Security System (SSS), giving more overseas Filipino workers (OFW) a chance to avail of the
agency’s programs.

All of the 20 senators present voted in favor of the bill’s passage, the Senate said on Tuesday. If
enacted, Senate Bill 1753 or the “Social Security Act of 2018,” would allow the coverage of land-based
and sea-based OFWs, as long as they are not over 60 years old.

“The passage of the bill would expand, protect and increase the SSS fund so that when the time
comes, there would be available pension for the people,” bill author and sponsor Senator Richard Gordon
said.

“The bill is an enhancement of the previous law; it ensures hope that the people would not be a
burden to the country, that they are partners of the government not by way of exaction of taxes but by
their contribution so that their welfare is assured,” he added.

According to Gordon, who chairs the Senate committee on government corporations and public
enterprises, only 500,000 OFWs are covered by SSS. With the proposal, projected SSS membership among
OFWs, including Filipinos who were naturalized in other countries, will rise around 3.5 million.

He added that the measure tasks the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Labor
and Employment to negotiate for OFWs, while Philippine embassies will collect the SSS contributions.

Aside from widening its coverage, another provision allows SSS to increase the salary credit and
contribution of employees.

“The bill envisions a benefits-based system – what you invest is what you get; no investment, no
benefit – through which the SSS contributions could be raised without seeking the approval of the
President or the endorsement of Congress,” Gordon said.

“The discretion to increase contributions could be left to the better judgment of the SSS board of
directors provided it would generate more suitable pensions,” he added.

He also said that SSS can also invest its Reserve Funds to increase its capability as it acquires
wealth. However, he noted that investments must comply with the requirements of liquidity, safety and
security, and yield to ensure the proper utilization of funds.

“The bill does not promise an abundance of wealth but to secure people in case they would
encounter unwanted situations in their lives through a lifeline that they themselves created through their
contribution,” Gordon said.

CHR: Gov’t should address ‘culture of killings’ in PH (October 9, 2018; Inquirer.net)

Following the killings of five anti-drug agents who were ambushed by unidentified assailants in
Lanao del Sur on Friday, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) hopes that the government “will show
stronger resolve to address the culture of killings.”
 “With this cycle of violence that victimizes and puts in peril even state forces, we hope that the
government will show stronger resolve to address the culture of killings,” CHR Spokesperson Jacqueline
de Guia said in a statement on Monday.

The CHR, which “srongly” condemned the deaths of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) agents, said that the killing show that “the growing culture of impunity has pervaded every
segment of our society.”

“From the poor folks, youth, local executives, human-rights defenders, media, police officers, and
now the anti-narcotics agents,” she said.

De Guia noted that “only through the rule of law and due process” that the government can
restore an atmosphere “that will dissipate the cycle of violence and foster an environment that honors
the sanctity and value of each life” be created.

Meanwhile, the CHR extended its “utmost sympathies” to the families, friends, and colleagues of
the slain agents.

The CHR also assured that the case is now being investigated by their sub-office in Region 10.

‘Dead on arrival’: Senate leaders reject Arroyo’s draft charter (October 9, 2018;
Rappler)

MANILA, Philippines – Top Senate leaders on Tuesday, October 9, rejected the draft charter of
former president and Speaker Gloria Arroyo, saying time was running out under the 17th Congress.

Senate President Vicente Sotto III, Senate President Pro-Tempore Ralph Recto, and Minority
Leader Franklin Drilon all said there was simply no time to discuss federalism or charter change.

“We don’t have time to even talk about it,” Senate President Vicente Sotto III said in a text
message to reporters, when asked about the House’ draft constitution.

“Why do you think so much of that? I don’t think anything will happen to that… Wala na, patay
na ‘yung federalism na yan, patay na yung cha-cha. Next Comgress na pag-usapan yan. Wala na ‘yan,
futile (Federalism is already dead, cha-cha is already dead. They should talk about it in the next Congress.
It’s nothing now, it’s futile),” Recto said in an interview.

It’s dead on arrival…simply because we have no more time. Even looking at the merits, of which I
have very serious reservations personally, I don’t find the proposal logical. I’m sure they realized there is
simply no time. It doesn’t take rocket science to realize that,” Drilon told reporters.

Arroyo’s proposal has no counterpart in the Senate. What had been pending in the chamber is a
resolution calling for a separate voting of a Constituent Assembly, which has no counterpart in the house.
 Drilon said that before going into the details of the revisions, Congress has to decide first whether
or not to amend the Constitution and which mode to do it.

Line of succession issues

Sotto is set to benefit from Arroyo’s draft federal constitution as it puts the Senate President –
not Vice President Leni Robredo – as President Rodrigo Duterte’s successor should be fail to lead the
country during the transition government.

The proposal also removes the two-term limit for senators and a 3-term limit for district and party-
list representatives.

Asked about being a beneficiary, Sotto said in jest: “We don’t even know if I’m still SP (Senate
President) by then.”

Drilon, a former Senate president, refuted the claim of House committee on constitutional
amendments chairman Vicente Veloso that choosing Sotto over Robredo would avoid the threat of
“instability” over the electoral protest filed against her.

“The Senate President is subject to election and change anytime by the 23 senators…. Precisely if
they want to achieve stability, the stability is to follow the rule of succession; otherwise there will be
instability, because the Senate President can be replaced anytime,” Drilon said.

Congress is set to adjourn on October 13 until November 11, in time for the filing of the
Certificates of Candidacy for the 2019 polls. They will resume session for a month, from November 12, to
December 14. By then, senators are expected to be busy with 2019 budget deliberations and approval.

After Christmas and New Year, Congress will briefly hold session from January 14 to February 8,
just before the start of the 2019 campaign. A recess will follow from February 9 until May 19, or the
election season.

If Arroyo’s proposal is not passed in the current Congress, it would have to be refiled in the 18 th
Congress, which starts in July 2019.

Calida shows heart, says Trillanes is forgiven (October 9, 2018; Inquirer.net)

Solicitor General Jose Calida on Tuesday said he will just forgive Senator Antonio Trillanes IV for
accusing his of stealing the legislator’s amnesty papers.

“We’ll, we should forgive those who have sinned against us,” Calida told reporters.

Trillanes accused Calida of stealing his amnesty papers after Secretary of National Defense Delfin
Lorenzana revealed that Calida called him and inquired about the amnesty documents of the senator.

Lorenzana said he told the Judge Advocate General to assist Calida.

 Calida then issued a statement telling Trillanes to apologize to him or he will file a libel case against
the legislator, and even seek damages.

Trillanes, however, refused to budge despite Calida’s threat.

“He said he won’t apologize. Maybe I will just forgive him,” Calida said.

Duterte, Uson not NPA targets for assassination – Joma Sison (October 10, 2018;
Inquirer.net)

LUCENA CITY – Neither President Rodrigo Duterte nor former Presidential Communications
Assistant Secretary Mocha Uson are targets for assassination by the New People’s Army (NPA), according
to Jose Maria “Joma” Sison, the exiled founding chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).

In a statement posted on Facebook, Sison said Uson was fantasizing her fear that the NPA was out
to kill her.

“Such a verbal stunt or fantasy of Mocha will not gain her a seat in the Senate but a hand wave of
dismissal or a passing chuckle at a low-kind of absurdity,” Sison said.

Sison made the remark after Uson declared that if ever she would suddenly killed there would no
one to blame but the NPA.

The NPA is the CPP’s armed wing.

According to Uson, who has declared that she would run in the 2019 elections, she doesn’t want
security for herself.

But her manager, who is also her chief of staff, told Uson that she would need personal security
because she was already going against the NPA.

“Kaya ‘pag ako namatay, kilala niyo na kung sino. NPA nagpapatay sa akin,” Uson said.

[So if I die, you know who had me killed. It’s the NPA.]

Sison retorted: “After being used up and thrown away as rubbish by her master Duterte, Mocha
Uson wants to raise her political stock at the expense of the CPP and NPA which she falsely accuses of
wanting to kill her.

Sison said there was “absolutely no reason” for CPP and NPA “even to wish the untimely death of
Mocha.”

“She is at best allowed to expose herself as an excrescence, the mere vomit of an abominable
monster like Duterte,” Sison said.
 He added: “She may not be as bad as Duterte in terms of outright violence against the poor, but
she has been responsible for a lot of fake news and the vulgarity of the regime.”

Meanwhile, Sison also assured the President that the NPA would not target him for assassination.

“Even the abominable monster Duterte, who many people want to get rid of because of the
soaring prices of food and other basic goods, the mass murder of people in urban slums and countryside
and the rampant corruption, has been assured by the CPP and NPA that they wish to keep him alive so
that he will be able to pay for his crimes in prison,” Sison said.

Sison also criticized Duterte’s declaration on Tuesday that he diagnostic test showed he was free
from cancer.

“Duterte may or not have cancer. But he is certainly a cancerous growth on the Philippine ruling
system,” Sison said.

Sison likened Duterte to “an abominable monster to the Filipino people” who are suffering the
consequence of his policies and actions.

PNP: Talks with schools on to avert communists’ recruitment of students (October 8,

2018; CNN Philippines)

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, October 8) – The police are closely coordinating with education
authorities to protect students from the influence of leftist groups, police officials said Monday.

“We have initiate consultations with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and started
opening lines of communication with school authorities to help discount the possibility of campus
infiltration by extremist groups with their violent ideals,” Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Dir. Gen.
Oscar Albayalde told the media.

“We’re just concerned about the welfare and education of our students dahil napakadaling
maimpluwensya an gating mga kabataan [because our youth are easily influenced],” he added.

Metro Manila Police C/Supt. Guillermo Eleazar said they spoke with CHED Officer-In-Charge Popoy
De Vera on Saturday on engaging school authorities in dialogue with the PNP.

“Through our consultation with CHED makikipag-ugnayan din sa iba’t-ibang mga presidents at
authorities ang mga universities not only here in Metro Manila, kundi pati na rin sa ibang rehiyon and
then from there mag-eencourage sila ng dialogue between the PNP and the leadership of these
universities,” Eleazar said.

[Translation: Through our consultation with CHED, they will coordinate with the presidents and
authorities of the universities, not only in Metro Manila but in other regions as well, and from there they
will encourage dialogue between the PNP and leaders of these universities]
 The dialogue will be conducted in clusters in the presence of the PNP Chief under the supervision
of CHED. Eleazar said they are expecting De Vera to approach university leaders within the week regarding
this proposal.

This comes after Albayalde criticized students of state universities who are involved in protests
against the government.

“In state universities, you are given free education by the government. And yet, hindi ka pa naka-
graduate [you haven’t graduated yet], you are already going against the same government that gives you
free education,” Albayalde said on Thursday.

The statement was in response to a military official releasing information that said 18 universities
were “notorious for school activism” and are being used by the Communist Party of the Philippines to
recruit more members.

However, Albayalde maintained that the police respects student activism for as long as they abide
by the rule of law.

“The police recognize that student activism is a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy which our
country now [has] but to the extent of taking up arms or inciting to take up arms against the government
is definitely in conflict with the law, that the PNP is duty-bound to address with appropriate police
response,” he said.

He assured that the PNP will not intervene nor suppress academic freedom of expression in school
campuses.

“I assure you that there will be no police intervention to suppress academic freedom of speech,
expression and other fundamental liberties expressed in our campuses,” Albayalde said.

Carpio: Out of ICC, PH helpless vs China (October 10, 2018; Inquirer.net)

Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio warned that the Philippines would be
giving up a “very strong” lega; deterrent against a possible China invasion of the West Philippine Sea if it
withdrew from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

At the last round of oral arguments on Tuesday, Carpio listed that implications of President
Rodrigo Duterte’s order in March to pull out from the international treaty creating the ICC on the maritime
dispute with China.

Carpio told Solicitor General Jose Calida in open court that the Philippines could sue China’s
leaders, led by President Xi Jinping, at the ICC for alleged crimes against humanity should China invade
Philippine-occupied Pag-asa Islanf or Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal.

Keep hands off

 He said such an action was tantamount to the crime of aggression, which, under the Rome Statute,
fell under crimes against humanity.

“In withdrawing from the Rome Statute, we will be giving up this very strong legal deterrent,”
Carpio told Calida.

“We cannot sue Xi Jinping [before the ICC] if he invades Pag-asa or if he builds a military base on
Scarborough Shoal” if the Philippines withdrew from the ICC, he added.

Calida replied he was not ready to cite other international tribunals where the Philippines could
take legal action under Carpio’s scenario.

In his opening statement, Calida told the justices to keep their hands off the President’s decision
to pull out from the ICC claiming the issue “involved a political question and thus not subject to judicial
review.”

He added that the Constitution did not explicitly state that the Senate had to concur with the
President’s withdrawal from an international treaty.

No violation

“The President did not violate the Constitution,” Calida said.

“What he did was to exercise his constitutional prerogative as the chief architect of the country’s
foreign policy,” Calida insisted.

Opposition senators and human rights advocates had questioned the constitutionality of the
President’s order to withdraw from the Rome Statute since he did not get the Senate’s approval.

Mr. Duterte gave the order in March after the ICC prosecutor began a preliminary probe into a
complaint accusing him and 11 of his officials of committing crimes against humanity for the thousands
of deaths in the President’s war on drugs.

Cha-cha may not see approval in 17th Congress – Suarez (October 10, 2018; GMA News
Online)

As far as House Minority Leader Danilo Suarez is concerned, the proposed Charter change as part
of the shift to federal form of government may not see fruition in the 17th Congress.

Suarez made the remark on Wednesday after the House Committee on Constitutional
Amendments came up with its own draft federal charter.

“Frankly, I think amending the Constitution now will take a gargantuan effort for both houses,”
Suarez told reporters at a press conference.
 “With this limited time of [the] 17th Congress, baka hindi matapos. Baka sa 18th Congress na ito,”
he added.

In the House panel’s draft, which is different from that of the presidential Consultative
Committee’s, the President and Vice President will have a four-year term with one reelection.

Lawmakers will also have a term of four years, but with no limit.

Suarez said that even though Charter change may not push through in this Congress, President
Rodrigo Duterte may still certify it as urgent.

“If there will be an appeal from the leadership to fast track it, then the minority will support it,”
he said.

However, senators have crossed party lines and expressed doubt that the House Committee on
Constitutional Amendments’ draft federal charter will advance in the chamber.

DOJ opposed Trillanes’ proof he applied for amnesty (October 10, 2018; GMA News
Online)

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally opposed Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s evidence
supporting his claim that he applied for amnesty in 2011.

State prosecutors on Wednesday submitted their comment/opposition to Trillanes’ formal offer

of documentary evidence at the Makati Regional Trial Court’s Branch 148, where the opposition senator
faced now-dismissed coup d’etat charges.

In a bid to block the court’s admission of Trillanes’ evidence, the prosecutors manifested their
objections to the documents the senator’s lawyer submitted to the court on Tuesday.

This is the latest development in the aftermath of President Rodrigo Duterte’s revocation of his
staunch critic’s amnesty, which the latter received in 2011 for his involvement in failed Arroyo-time
military uprisings.

In a whole-day hearing last October 5, Trillanes’ lawyer Reynaldo Robles presented, among others,
the chair of the Department of Defense committee that processed amnesty application and the head of
secretariat of the same panel.

Colonel Josefa Berbigal, the head of secretariat, testified that she personally administered the
oath to Trillanes when he filed his application for amnesty. For his part, former Defense undersecretary
Honorio Azcueta, chair of the committee, said he remains convinced that the former Navy officer
complied with the requirements for the presidential grant.

Robles also submitted documents including the certificate of amnesty issued to his client, but the
DOJ objected to its admission as evidence, saying it was never identified by any of the defense witnesses
during the October 5 hearing.
 Trillanes’ formal offer of documentary evidence is now deemed submitted for resolution, only
after which the motion itself of the Department of Justice seeking Trillanes’ arrest will, in turn, be up for
decision.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said the judge may rule on the two matter in one order, or
in two successive directives.

Another court, the Makati RTC Branch 150, already ordered Trillanes’ arrest for a similarly
dismissed rebellion case but allowed him to post bail by virtue of the same court’s granting of his petition
for bail in 2010.

Being punishable by reclusion perpetua, coup d’etat is a non-bailable offense if the evidence of
guilt is strong.

Reopening of Trillanes’ coup d’etat case now up for resolution (Inquirer.net; October
10, 2018)

The Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 148 might issue a ruling soon on whether or not to reopen
the dismissed coup d’etat case against Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

This developed after the court submitted for resolution on Wednesday the motion of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to revive the coup d’etat case against Trillanes.

The same motion by the DOJ is also asking for a warrant of arrest against the senator.

Last Tuesady, Trillanes’ camp submitted its formal offer of evidence while the DOJ on Wednesday
submitted its comment/opposition.

“The DOJ’s comments/objections revolve around the admissibility of the defense evidence under
the rules of court,” Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra told INQUIRER.net in a text message.

“It is the judge who will rule on whether or not to admit Senator Trillanes’ documentary exhibits,”
he said.

Amnesty voided

Trillanes is being pressed for leading failed uprisings in the past after President Rodrigo Duterte
issued Proclamation 572, revoking his amnesty and ordering his arrest.

Duterte said he voided Trillanes’ amnesty and ordered his arrest because the senator had failed
to file a formal amnesty application and acknowledge guilt. Trillanes has strongly denied the President’s
claims and has shown defense department documents and news reports to counter them.

Human Rights Watch said Trillanes’ arrest was “part of the persecution of critics of the Duterte
administration, the latest in the relentless campaign to silence the president’s murderous ‘drug war.’”
 Duterte has long expressed anger against Trillanes, who has accused him of large-scale corruption,
involvement in illegal drugs and extrajudicial killings in an anti-drug crackdown that has left more than
4,800 suspects dead since the president took office in 2016. Duterte has denied the allegations.

Trillanes, 47, was jailed for more than seven years for involvement in at least three Army uprisings,
including a 2003 mutiny against then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo when he and other young officers
rigged part of a shopping center in the Makati financial district with bombs and took over an upscale
residential building.

Trillanes used the military budget hearing at the Senate to ask Armed Forces chief Gen. Carlito
Galvez whether he had formally applied for amnesty. The military chief cited a former military amnesty
officer as stating she had administered an oath to Trillanes but that the senator’s amnesty papers never
reached the military personnel office, called J1.

“Josefa Berbigal is the one who administered your oath,” Galvez told trillanes. “Apparently sir,
there (are) some lapses so the documents were never brought to J1, which is basically the repository of
all the documents.”

When the government’s solicitor-general inquired about Trillanes’ amnesty documents recently,
Galve said a military officer “did not find any paper and certified that there was none.”

Presidential spokesman Harry Roque dismissed Galvez’s statement in a news conference. “It
doesn’t matter, he is not a lawyer,” Roque said of Galvez and stressed that Trillanes has failed to show his
original amnesty application papers. “It’s the best evidence.”

Oust plot

Duterte has also accused Trillanes, without showin evidence, of plotting with other opposition
politicians, including the Liberal Party, and communist rebels to oust him. Trillanes and opposition groups
have dismissed the claim as a lie and asked Duterte to focus instead on addressing poverty, inflation, rice
shortages, traffic jams and a decline in the value of the peso currency.

Asked by Liberal Party president, Sen. Francis Pangilinan, if there was such a rebel-opposition
alliance, Galvez replied, “Sir, none, sir.”

Galvez himself has been linked to a failed coup attempt in 1989 as a young officer. He was
detained but was later granted an amnesty.

Lorenzana on amnesty applications of Magdalo soldiers: We do not know where they

are (GMA News Online; October 10, 2018)

The application for amnesty of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and the rest of Magdalo soldiers are
all missing, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said Wednesday.
 Lorenzana made the statement in defending Solicitor General Jose Calida from the accusations of
Trillanes that is was Calida who stole Trillanes’ application for amnesty which he submitted to the Defense
department.

“Wala kaming Makita roon sa DND (Department of Defense) eh. We do not know where they are,”
Lorenzana said in an interview when asked if all the amnesty applications of Magdalo soldiers are missing.

“All we could find in the Defense department is the Proclamation 75 of [then] President [Benigno]
Aquino [III], plus the documents that were signed by [then Defense] Secretary [Voltaire] Gazmin. ‘Yun lang
nakita naming eh. So ‘yung accusations that the application form was stolen by SolGen Calida is untrue.
Hindi totoo ‘yun,” Lorenzana added.

Lorenzana was referring to Aquino’s Proclamation 75 which granted amnesty, with the
concurrence of Congress, to Magdalo soldiers who participated in failed coup attempts in 2003, 2006 and
2007, as well as the January 2011 letter of Gazmin which states that the AdHoc committee of the DND
found the amnesty application of Trillanes and 38 others in order.

News videos have also shown that Trillanes submitted his application for amnesty wherein he
ticked a box stating that he is admitting guilt in violation of all laws.

Trillanes was also videoed presenting his certificate of amnesty which he had framed.

Still, Lorenzana won’t concede that Trillanes applied for amnesty.

“I cannot confirm that [Trillanes] applied because I did not see it. Sabi ng AdHoc Committee [ng
DND] nag-file siya, but we cannot find the application forms, We’re still looking kung meron tayong
Makita,” Lorenzana said.

Despite the presence of such records from the Defense department, President Rodrigo Duterte
recently voided the amnesty granted to Trillanes did not apply for amnesty and did not admit guilt for his
past crimes.

It was Lorenzana who said that it was Calida who asked for the amnesty records of Trillanes, a
staunch critic of Duterte.

DILG picks Con-com’s draft deferral Charter over Arroyo’s version (Inquirer.net;
October 10, 2018)

The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) said Wednesday that it prefers Charter
drafted by the Consultative Committee (Con-com) over the proposal being offered by Speaker Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo and her allies at the House of Representatives.

Assistant Secretary Jonathan Malaya said that while they welcome the efforts of the House
leadership, there are “political and electoral reforms” necessary for the government’s federalism
proposal.
 “We appreciate the effort of the House of Representatives to fast-track deliberations on the
proposed reforms in our Constitution so we could realize President Duterte’s agenda of a shift to the
federal system of government but we ask the House not to sacrifice the political and electoral reforms
that our country urgently needs,” the DILG spokesperson said in a statement.

According to Malaya, he also does not understand why the House opted to remove the Vice
President from the line of succession when it has not shifted to a parliamentary form of government.

Under Article 17, Section 4 of the draft Charter filed by Mrs. Arroyo and her allies on Sunday, the
Senate President will take over the presidency in case it becomes vacant, and not the Vice President,
during the transition period and until a new President is elected.

Other legislators and lawyers have raised concern over this seemingly deliberate plan to strip Vice
President Leni Robredo of her mandate. Robredo called this proposal to remove her from succession a
“desperate move” to unseat her.

“We ask both the Senate and the House to fully consider all the features of the draft submitted
by the Con-com to President Duterte. It’s the product of a non-partisan body with no vested interests,”
Malaya said.

“We hope that because of the continuing action by the two chambers of Congress, we shall finally
see a new Constitution that embodies our yearning for a modern and vibrant Philippines,” he added.

Bicam-approved bill to make SSS coverage compulsory for OFWs (GMA News Online;
October 10, 2018)

A bill waiting for the ratification of the Senate and the House of Representatives and President
Rodrigo Duterte’s signature will make Social Security System (SSS) coverage compulsory for OFWs.

Under the proposed Social Security Act of 2018, SSS coverage will be compulsory for sea- and
land-based OFWs as long as they are not 60 years old and above.

This, however, does not include Filipino permanent migrants, including Filipino immigrants,
permanent residents and naturalized citizens, whose coverage will remain on a voluntary basis.

For sea-based OFWs, manning agencies, according to the bill, are “jointly and severally or
solidarily liable with their principals with respect to the civil liabilities incurred for any violation of the SSS
Law.”

“Persons having direct control, management or direction of the manning agencies shall be held
criminally liable for any act or omission penalized under the SSS Law,” the bill said.

Sea-based OFWs, the bill added, are “considered in the same manner as regularly employed
persons (with employer-employee share).”
 Meanwhile, the bill tasks the SSS, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Department of
Labor and Employment to ensure compulsory coverage of OFWs “through bilateral social security and
labor agreements and other measures for enforcement.”

The DFA and DOLE are also mandated to negotiate bilateral labor agreements with the OFWs’
host countries to ensure that the employers of land-based OFWs pay the required SSS contributions.

“[T]hese land-based OFWs shall no longer be considered in the same manner as self-employed
persons in this Act,” the bill said.

“Instead, they shall be considered as compulsorily covered employees with employer and
employee shares in contributions that shall be provided for in the bilateral labor agreements and their
implementing administrative agreements.”

The bill likewise said that in countries which already extend social security coverage to OFWs, the
DFA through the Philippine embassies and the DOLE shall negotiate further agreements to serve the best
interests of the OFWs.

Also under the bill, OFWs who contracts were terminated may continue to pay contributions on
a voluntary basis to maintain their rights to full benefits.

The same bill also increases the monthly SSS contribution rates from 11 percent of one’s salary to
12 percent in the next two years.

The scholar as a rebel (Inquirer.net; October 11, 2018)

Philippine National Police chief Oscar Albayalde recently warned university professors that they
can be charged for “instigating” students with rebellious ideas. Echoing a talking point commonly used by
the Duterte administration, he also castigated students of state universities who “are given free education
by no less than the government” and yet are going “against the government that gives [them] free
education.”

The context of his statements is an alleged communist plot being hatched in Metro Manila
universities to oust the government. But with the Armed Forces of the Philippines itself admitting that the
allegations are “unsubstantiated,” the statements instead raise fears of an academe being threatened
into silence – and an imaginary plot being used as a pretext for further draconian measures. Lest we allow
such a narrative to be invoked anew, we must recognize its danger for the following reasons:

First and foremost, statements like Albayalde’s conflate “rebellion” with “resistance,” and
opposing President Duterte with opposing the state. The President may delude himself with the thought
that the country belongs to him (note his frequent use of the possessive: “my country,” “my soldiers”),
and the police may indulge his delusions, but he is making a mistake. He is not the state, he is not even
the government.

Calling for the ouster or resignation of Mr. Duterte is different from plotting to oust the
government. While the latter may truly be seditious, the former is a legitimate exercise of democratic
freedom. Given what Mr. Duterte has done to our country – from extrajudicial killings to the current
economic hardships – is it not a reasonable position to call for his resignation, to call him a tyrant, and to
call out the police and military for supporting his authoritarian ways?

Second, they paint those who espouse socialist or progressive views as enemies of the state, when
much of what activists are fighting for are vital to our democracy – from voicing the predicament of the
“lumad” to warning against the detrimental effects of the TRAIN Law; from highlighting the dark side of
capitalism to demanding more rights and benefits for workers. One does not have to agree with the Left
to recognize the legitimacy of their voice within the national political discourse.

Third, Albayalde’s statements assume that state universities are accountable to the government.
The opposite is true, in fat: State universities are supposed to hold government to account. Indeed,
alongside its mandate for teaching and research, universities are meant to be safe spaces for discussing
the burning issues of the day and evaluating government policies and programs.

And so when a research consortium of Ateneo, UP and La Salle professors report on the ominous
patterns of extrajudicial killings, should we not take heed? When the deans and faculty members of
various law schools call the quo warranto proceedings against former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno
unconstitutional, should we not listen? And when UP Diliman’s department of history call on the public
to oppose the revisionism of Marcos’ martial law, should we not respond?

Finally, these allegations miss the broader raison d’etre of universities: The whole point of
learning is to be “rebellious” – that is, to nurture ways of thinking that challenge long-held assumptions,
and in the process improve human society. From Galileo to Mendel, Einstein to Marx, Jose Marti to Jose
Rizal, the best thinkers of their day were called “revolutionary” precisely because they helped build their
societies upon ideas – ideas that were nurtured in universities, and viewed as rebellious at the time of
their inception.

The PNP has since clarified its stand, saying it is not cracking down on academic freedom, only
those who “take advantage of the students’ idealism to propagate hatred, violence and armed struggle
against the government.” Well and good. But in these tyrannical times when students like Carl Arnaiz are
labeled “drug addicts” and activists like Victoria Tauli-Corpuz are labeled “terrorists,” who gets to decide
which ideas are “radical” or “rebellious”?

Through pedagogy, research, public engagement and yes, activism, universities have served the
people and protected our loftiest democratic ideals. They must be defended, not intimidated, by our
military and police force.

House falls back on plan to take out Robredo from line of succession (Inquirer.net;
October 11, 2018)

Facing a deluge of criticisms, the House of Representatives on Wednesday backpedaled on its

proposal removing Vice President Leni Robredo as President Rodrigo Duterte’s constitutional successor
during the transition to the proposed federal form of government.
 Cebu Rep. Raul del Mar, Robredo’s party mate in the Liberal Party, moved to “recommit” the
Resolution of Both Houses No. 15 to the House committee on constitutional amendments.

He said there was a need to “introduce perfecting amendments to the failure to include the Vice
President in the first line of succession which led to some misunderstanding.”

Majority Leader Rolando Andaya Jr. did not oppose Del Mar’s move, saying the administration
lawmakers would also present its own revisions to the proposal to amend the 1987 Constitution.

“On the part of the majority, at the proper time, we will submit an amendment to the committee
as requested by … Del Mar,” Andaya said.

‘Uncertainty’

The proponent, Leyte Rep. Vicente Veloso, had argued that the transitory provision was meant to
address the “uncertainty” about the vice presidency created by the electoral protest of former Sen.
Ferdinand Marcos Jr. against Robredo’s victory.

In Bacolod City, Robredo described the House proposal as desperate.

“They did not succeed in the elections, so they are trying to do it through other means. We know
that the Filipino people will not allow this,” Robredo said at the 5th Negros Occidental Small Fishers
Alliance Congress.

Amusing agreement

Robredo said she found the argument of Veloso, chair of the House committee on constitutional
amendments, amusing.

She reminded Veloso that she won over Marcos by more than 200,000 votes, and that his electoral
protest against her “won’t prosper.”

The Vice President also pointed out that Veloso, who won by less than a 100 votes over his
opponent, was also facing an election protest.

“Does this mean he should not sit as congressman and carry out his mandate because there is a
protest?” she said.

Robredo said she was happy that senators, including Senate President Vicente Sotto III, and
congressmen had spoken out against the proposal.

Ako Bicol Rep. Rodel Batocabe said taking out the Vice President as President Duterte’s successor
during the transition period to a federal form of government further politicized the proposed new charter.

Batocabe said it was just logical for a sitting Vice President to replace a President as spelled out in
the 1987 Constitution and the previous Charters.
 “If we are going to amend the Constitution, it should not be tainted with politics because the
Constitution should stand the test of time regardless of political affiliation, partisanship and ideologies,”
Batocabe told the Inquirer.

Makati judge sets hearing of Trillanes appeal vs. arrest order on Friday (GMA News
Online; October 11, 2018)

The trial court judge who ordered Senator Antonio Trillanes IV arrested last month on rebellion
charges will hear the lawmaker’s appeal on Friday.

Judge Elmo Alameda of the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 set for hearing on October 12
Trillanes’ motion seeking the setting aside of the “premature” arrest order for its supposed lack of legal
and factual basis.

Trillanes has, through counsel, entreated the court to “take a second look” at its September 25
arrest order that effectively revived a dismissed rebellion case against him over the 2007 Manila Peninsula
Siege.

He asked the court to vacate and set aside the arrest order, to set the case for hearing for the
proper reception of evidence, and to ultimately deny the government’s motion seeking an arrest and a
hold departure order against him.

Alameda’s ruling, Trillanes said, sets “dangerous, deep-seated and wide-ranging implications” on
the country’s judicial and legal system.

“To put it simply, the assailed ruling of the Honorable Court is tantamount to a total and complete
surrender of the independence of the judiciary and a tragic capitulation to the President of the judicial
power lodged upon the Courts by the Constitution,” Trillanes’ motion states.

In late August, Duterte declared “void ab initio” the amnesty granted to Trillanes in 2011 on the
basis of his alleged failure to file an application and to admit to his guilt over the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny
and the 2007 Manila Peninsula Siege.

The publication of the proclamation on September 4 set in motion the Department of Justice’s
efforts to pursue the revival of coup d’etat and rebellion cases against the staunch Duterte critic, which
were dismissed after he was amnestied.

Grounds

Trillanes’ appeal before Judge Alameda argued that the court’s finding that he did not apply for
amnesty had “totally and absolutely no basis at all,” as the prosecution’s claim that he did not file an
application was anchored on “mere innuendo.”

It claimed that there was nothing in the certificate issued by Lieutenant Colonel Thea Joan
Andrade – which states there is no available copy of Trillanes’ amnesty application – that the senator did
not apply at all.
 The pleading also states that the prosecution failed to offer enough basis to overturn the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty – that is, that the senator would not have
been granted amnesty if he did not comply with all the requirements.

Further, the Trillanes motion claimed that the GMA News Online article that the prosecution
cited as basis that he did not admit his guilt was susceptible to misquotation and misreporting, and
amounted to “double hearsay.”

It also said that four defense witnesses – two of whom were part of the committee that processed
amnesty applications – and the supporting documents the Trillanes camp submitted to the court “should
clearly prevail over the specious and self-serving insinuations of the prosecution.”

Lorenzana denies handing over Trillanes amnesty form to Calida (Inquirer.net; October
11, 2018)

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana on Wednesday denied that his department’s record-keeping
was flawed following the sudden disappearance of the amnesty records of more than 200 mutineers,
including Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.

Lorenzana explained that the Department of National Defense (DND) kept documents for many
years until such time when keeping them was no longer necessary.

“I don’t think that [our records-keeping is] flawed, because we do not [even] throw away our
records immediately,” he told reporters at Villamor Air Base in Pasay City.

“These days, we do not throw away records anymore. We scan them into digital form and then
throw away the hard copy,” he added.

Calida request

Lorenzana also strongly denied accusations that he handed the amnesty application forms to
Solicitor General Jose Calida, who had earlier requested them.

“We didn’t find them in the DND, so we do not know where they are,” he said.

Proclamation No. 75

The DND’s legal affairs chief and head of records on Oct. 5, told a Makati Regional Trial Court that
all the records, minutes and other documents related to the amnesty given to Trillanes and 276 other
mutineers under President Benigno Aquino III’s Proclamation No. 75 were missing from the DND archives.

They said the records could not be found in their respective offices.
 On Sept. 21, the DND Legal Affairs Office submitted a letter to the Department of Justice stating
that there were no available documents, transcript of stenographic notes and minutes of deliberation
related to the amnesty application.

Lt. Col. Thea Joan Andrade also told the court that Trillanes’ amnesty application form could not
be found in the Office of the Deputy Staff for Personnel, or J1, the Armed Forces’ repository of documents.

Andrade’s certification became one of the bases of President Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation No.
572, voiding Trillanes’ amnesty and ordering his arrest.

Lorenzana also said he could not confirm that Trillanes and the other mutineers applied for
amnesty.

Why usual dissenter Leonen leans toward Duterte in ICC pullout case (Rappler;
October 11, 2018)

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the consistent
dissenter against President Rodrigo Duterte, seems to be leaning toward the executive department this
time over the country’s unilateral withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Leonen indicated on Tuesday, October 9, during the ICC oral arguments that the petitions
questioning the withdrawal may have been filed too late, because the ICC, as well as the United Nations,
have already accepted the withdrawal.

“The right time to file a petition would have been before (the withdrawal) was deposited, and in
order for us to become a party again, we need to sign the treaty again, and we need to ratify again. As I
said other may not want the political result, but this may be what our law requires,” Leonen said.

Leonen also said the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, does not make it clear if it’s possible
to retract a withdrawal. Even if it does, the justice said it would cause the Philippines international
embarrassment.

Citing a previous Supreme Court decision, Leonen said “the existence of a political question can
occur if there is potential embarrassment in foreign relations, that was very clear.” Political question is
usually invoked by the executive department if it doesn’t want its acts stepped on by the judiciary.

Leonen added that there are other provisions in the Rome Statute that allow for a withdrawal of
a member country, which, the justice said, means the Philippines’ withdrawal does not violate jus cogens
or the peremptory norm. In international law, jus cogens means a globally-acknowledged law that parties
cannot turn away from.

“At best it is only an articulation of customary law,” Leonen said.

No to judicial dictatorship
 Leonen practically guided Solicitor General Jose Calida through the one-hour long interpellation,
providing all the answers for the government lawyer.

For a justice who has issued scathing dissents against Duterte-interest cases before, and who, at
one point even called the Supreme Court an enabler of an “emboldened authoritarian” – referring to
Duterte over martial law in Mindanao – Leonen seemed to want to just allow Duterte to use his own
discretion on this one for now.

The reason? He wants to practice judicial restraint, and avoid turning the Court into “judicial
dictators.”

“We are averse to the dictatorship of anybody, whether it be the president having the powers, or
on the other hand, the judiciary as dictators,” Leonen said.

Under this concept, the Supreme Court, a non-elective body, is advised not to supersede the
policies of the elected officials, policies which can be interpreted as being the same as the will of the
people who elected them.

“Between the executive and this Court, it is the executive that represents, the Court only
interprets. None of us were elected by a majority in a free election. We have to keep in mind that our
interpretation must always, that we always interpret the law and the Constitution with the caution that
we can overturn or replace the discretion of a political agency,” the justice said.

To further explain himself, Leonen said that while the result of the restraint may not be what the
justice wants, “the justice or the judge (must) be able to rule differently because that’s what the law of
the Constitution says.”

Longtime debate

It is a debate that has confronted the Court ever since, and in fact, an issue that is asked of jurists
applying for the Supreme Court even today.

During the term of former president Diosdado Macapagal, the chief executive slammed the Court
for overturning his decision to fire one of his Cabinet members.

Macapagal’s justice secretary at the time, Juan Liwag, said he “dreaded to see the day the
Supreme Court would virtually run the affairs of the government under the guise of judicial review.”

“Macapagal felt that way. How could the Supreme Court block his appointments, his choices of
people to run the government, and with whom he was going to work to reform the economy and society?
How could the unelected overrule a popularly elected official?” wrote veteran journalist Marites Vitug in
her groundbreaking book, Shadow of Doubt: Probing the Supreme Court.

Just this August, Leonen was the lone dissent when the Supreme Court issued new rules allowing
for a precautionary Hold Departure Order of HDO, the reason being, that it amounted to judicial
legislation.
 On Tuesday, Leonen once again ventured into that. The justice reiterated that it’s better for the
Senate to first pass a resolution expressly requiring concurrence in the withdrawal of a treaty. (It was a
resolution already drafted but blocked by administration ally Senator Manny Pacquiao in Febraury 2017.)

The lack of a Senate concurrence in the withdrawal is one of the main points in the petitions
questioning it, and Leonen doesn’t believe that the Supreme Court should settle the issue for the Senate.

“The Constitution has already said that the legislative power is vested only in one body, and the
legislative power is vested only in the Congress of the Philippines. We have to be careful for the judiciary
not to actually replace our political discretions because we are not elected representative,” Leonen said.

Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza has pointed out before that the ICC pullout case would test the
power of presidential discretion. For Duterte, it is a power that has consistently prevailed in the Supreme
Court.

Leonen stressed that there is no way that the ongoing ICC preliminary examinations into the war
on drugs would be affected by the Philippine withdrawal. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio thought
so too, and even got Calida to agree.

“Is it just notice that the Rome Statute (may be) void from the start?” Carpio asked, to which
Calida replied, “I agree with you.”

Groups have expressed fear that leaving the ICC for good would be detrimental to upholding
human rights in the Philippines. Leonen said this is a “colonial” mindset of relying on others rather than
our own courts, and stressed that one must think of the long term.

“This Court should have a longer vista that political winds can change, and when that happens
then it might be the reverse, that another group that does not want a future president’s policy will again
want this Court to veto. And therefore we always have to anchor our views on principles and the words
that we find in the Constitution and statutes, rather than on the political result that we want,” said
Leonen.

Leonen: President can cancel ICC treaty (Inquirer.net; October 15, 2018)

SINGAPORE – The final hearing last Oct. 9 on Senate concurrence in treaty terminations was the
strangest and most boring in recent Supreme Court history. Justice Marvic Leonen asked questions for 50
minutes. Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio took another seven. No other justice spoke.

Petitioners argue the Constitution requires Senate concurrence when terminating a treaty – here
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – not just when entering into one. The second
hearing saw Leonen relentlessly raise an Infinity Gauntlet of substantive and procedural
counterarguments, with former party-list representative Barry Gutierrez and Centerlaw’s Romel Bagares
and Gilbert Andres holding firm.

Carpio and Justice Francis Jardeleza and Alfredo Caguioa gently argued in favor. Others explored
Leonen’s arguments.
 Strangely, Gutierrez joined late, in the second hearing. Centerlaw’s youngest member Gil Anthony
Aquino, for petitioner Integrated Bar of the Philippines, joined only the final hearing, too late to speak.

The final hearing was Solicitor General Jose Calida’s turn to rebut them. But after Leonen already
raised every conceivable counter, we only wondered if he held the last Infinity Stone.

Echoing this column, Leonen reframed that the narrow issues are whether (1) our Constitution
requires concurrence and (2) the Supreme Court even has jurisdiction. Everything else is irrelevant.

(He raised a multitude of peripheral points, anyway).

Leonen very aggressively claimed only the Senate as a body may sue, not individual senators
represented by Gutierrez, and a resolution signed by 14 of 23 senators is not enough basis.

He argued withdrawal is a “political question” left to the president. For him, classic US decision
Baker vs Carr clearly recognizes a political question in potential international embarrassment, such as a
Philippine ruling that cannot bind the United Nations and others countries that accepted a withdrawal.

He added the Philippines abhors dictatorships so unelected justices should not dictate political
decisions.

Leonen’s remedy is to sign the treaty afresh.

On substance, he rebuffed Gutierrez’ innovative argument that withdrawal for arbitrary grounds
violates pacta sunt servanda, the requirement to honor international obligations in good faith. He
countered treaties themselves provide withdrawal mechanics so using these is surely in good faith.

Leonen also claims a treaty can conflict with a domestic statute so it makes sense for only the
executive branch to have the power to withdraw from a treaty.

Calida argued domestic court rulings requiring concurrence, such as when South Africa withdrew
from the Rome Statute and when the United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union, come from
different systems and do not apply.

He added we borrow from US thinking, and Goldwater, and other US decisions imply concurrence
is not required.

Leonen seemed lighthearted. Calida said yes to all his questions and teased that the petitions are
a “legal abomination,” quoting his quo warranto case dissent, which criticized every side there.

Leonen teased back, asking if Calida now accepted that dissent against his last petition.

Leonen even made fun of his using more airtime than all the other justices combined. He
announced his last set of questions would take three hours, then added, “just kidding.”
 Carpio never jokes. He made Calida agree that if a law and a subsequent treaty conflict, the latter
prevails. He posits a treaty is on par with a statute, and cannot be withdrawn without legislative
concurrence.

Carpio also made Calida disclaim the theory that the Rome Statute is void because it was not
published in a newspaper pursuant to our Civil Code.

Three hearings and an infinity of belabored peripheral arguments later, we have a genuinely open
constitutional question. All agree there is nothing explicit in the Constitution on withdrawal. It remains
difficult to guess how many justices will vote with Leonen.

DOJ wants court to expunge additional pleading of Trillanes (Manila Bulletin; October
13, 2018)

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked a Makati City Regional Trial Court (TRC) to exclude
additional pleadings filed by Senator Antonio Trillanes IV concerning the issue of his amnesty.

The DOJ has filed before the Makati RTC Branch 148 an opposition and ex-parte motion seeking
to expunge the memorandum filed by Trillanes.

The Department reminded that the court conducted an Oct. 5 hearing over the reception of
evidence concerning whether or not Trillanes complied with the requirements in the grant of his amnesty
including the filing of the application and his admission of guilt over his participation in the 2003 Oakwood
mutiny.

“In the same proceedings, both parties agree not to file any more pleadings as this Honorable
Court would like case as there are sensitive considerations to be made,” the DOJ said.

After the Oct. 5 hearing, the DOJ recounted that the court only gave Trillanes more time to file a
written formal of evidence on Oct. 9 while the court allowed the DOJ only 24 hours to file its comment
over the Trillanes formal offer of evidence.

“In addition, a perusal of the memorandum filed by accused Trillanes shows that it is nothing but
a mere rehash of the arguments raised in his pleadings, as well as in open court,” the DOJ said.

The hearing conducted by the RTC stemmed from the motion filed by the DOJ seeking for the
issuance of an arrest warrant and hold departure order (HDO) against Trillanes.

The DOJ filed the motion as it sought to revive the cases against Trillanes after Presiddent Rodrigo
Duterte issued Proclamation No. 572 which declared as “void ab initio” or void from the start the amnesty
granted to Trillanes over his participation in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula
siege.

Makati RTC Branch 148 is handling the coup d’etat case against Trillanes concerning his
participation in the Oakwood mutiny.
 Gov’t denies pressure on court to rule vs Trillanes (Inquirer.net; October 14, 2018)

The Department of Justice (DOJ) denounced on Sunday the allegation of Magdalo Rep. Gary
Alejano that Judge Andres Soriano of the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 148 is being pressured
by the government to rule against Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

“The DOJ takes very strong exception to Rep. Alejano’s allegation that Makati RTC Judge Andres
Soriano is being pressured by the government to rule against Sen. Trillanes in the coup d’etat case against
the senator,” Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra in a statement.

“The DOJ does not interact with the judge except through the pleadings file and arguments raised
in open court,” he added.

Guevarra said Alejano’s allegations “tend to impede the orderly administration of justice, unfairly
cast aspersion on the integrity and professionalism of the Department of Justice and its state prosecutors,
and contumaciously influence Judge Soriano’s decision-making process.”

The Justice Secretary also pointed out that the statements against their “side” are “unfair” and
that it is the camp of Trillanes who is trying to influence the decision-making of Soriano.

“I just find it unfair that Sen Trillanes’ camp continually makes unfair statements against our side,”
Guevarra said.

“Come to think of it, sila yung (they are the one) clearly trying to influence the decision-making ni
(of the) judge. The DOJ has not engaged them in sub judice argumentation in the media, but they’re just
going a bit too far,” he added.

Earlier, Alejano claimed that Soriano was pressured by the government to rule against Trillanes in
the coup d’etat case against the latter.

Soriano is set to rule on the motion filed by the DOJ seeking the arrest of the senator on charges
of coup d’etat for the 2003 Oakwood mutiny.

SC orders reinstatement of dismissed PNP officer (Manila Bulletin; October 15, 2018)

Noting his length of service, unblemished record, and numerous awards received during his 29
years in active service, the Supreme Court (SC) has modified its 2017 decision that affirmed the dismissal
of Senior Supt. Rainier A. Espina as it ordered his reinstatement to his rank at the Philippine National
Police (PNP).

But the SC said that while Espina’s reinstatement is “without loss of seniority rights and all rights
appurtenant thereto,” he is not entitled to back salaries.
 The ruling was contained in a “per curiam” resolution that granted Espina’s motion to reconsider
the March 15, 2017 SC decision that reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) and affirmed his dismissal from
the service ordered by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2012.

The resolution was issued last month but was made public only today.

A “per curiam” decision or resolution of the SC is handed down unanimously and the writer of the
ruling is not identified.

Espina, then acting chief and head of the PNP’s management division, was charged criminally and
administratively, along with several other police officers, in connection with the P400 million supply of
materials and repair of combat vehicles.

After investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found Espina administratively liable for grave
misconduct and serious dishonesty. He was dismissed from government service.

While the Ombudsman dropped the charges against Espina and the other PNP officers for
violation of the Government Procurement Reform Act in July 2013, it affirmed their dismissal for their
administrative liability.

He elevated his case before the CA which ruled in his favor in a decision dated Feb. 27, 2014.

The CA found Espina guilty of simple misconduct and “there being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance,” it imposed on him a three-month suspension reckoned from the time he was actually
dismissed from service.

The Office of the Ombudsman elevated the case to the SC. In its March 15, 2017 decision, the SC
reversed the CA as it found Espina guilty of gross neglect of duty and ordered his dismissal from the
service.

Espina filed a motion to reconsider the SC decision. He pleaded for the reduction of penalty by
considering the mitigating circumstances such as first offense, length of service and the awards and
commendations he has received.

In his motions, Espina also denied having failed to exercise due diligence when he signed the
inspection report forms (IRFs) covering “ghost deliveries” subject of the case against him.

Reiterating its 2017 decision, the SC said that contrary to Espina’s claim “his notation-signature
on the IRFs just below the statement “NOTED” did not simply indicate that he took cognizance of the
existence of the IRFs, but the he confirmed: (a) the PNP’s receipt of the tires and other supplies when
there were actually no such items delivered; and (b) the performance of repair and refurbishment works
on the V-150 Light Armored Vehicles when the works procured have not actually been rendered when
such IRFs were signed.”

“To reiterate, given the amounts involved and the timing of the alleged deliveries, the
circumstances reasonably imposed on Espina a higher degree of care and vigilance in the discharge of his
duties. However, he failed to employ the degree of diligence expected of him considering the high position
he occupied an the responsibilities it carried,” the SC said.
 In its resolution that granted Espina’s motion for reconsideration, the SC said:

“Be that as it may, the presence of mitigating circumstances should be appreciated in favor of
Espina, meriting the reduction of the penalty to be imposed on him. Section 48, Rule X of the Revised
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) grants the disciplining authority the discretion
to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty.

“Hence, in several cases, the Court has reduced the imposable penalty of dismissal from service
for humanitarian reasons in view, among others of respondent’s length of service, unblemished record in
the past, and numerous awards.

“Considering that it is Espina’s first offense in his 29 straight years of active service in the Armed
Forces of the Philippines and the PNP which were attended with numerous awards or service
commendations, and untainted reputation in his career as a police officer that was not disputed, the Court
is equally impelled to remove him from the severe consequences of the penalty of dismissal from service,
following jurisprudential precedents and pursuant to the discretion granted by the RRACCS.

“Consequently, the Court hereby reduces the penalty imposed on him to one year suspension
from service without pay, reckoned from the time that the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) Joint
Resolution dated December 19, 2012 in OMB-P-A-12-0532-G was implemented.

“However, it is well to point out that a public official is considered to be on prevented suspension
while the administrative case is on appeal. Such preventive suspension is punitive in nature and the period
of suspension becomes part of the final penalty of suspension or dismissal eventually adjudged.

“Thus, the period within which Espina was preventively suspended prior to the promulgation of
this Decision shall be credited in his favor, and he may now be reinstated to his former rank as Police
Senior Superintendent without loss of seniority rights and all rights appurtenant thereto.”

DILG defends CIDG’s probe of LGU corruption (Inquirer.net; October 17, 2018)

The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) defended its decision to let the
Philippine National Police (PNP) investigate allegations of corruption among local government units
(LGUs), saying it was legal.

“The DILG is conscientious in exercising its powers vested by law. The Department would not give
a directive to the PNP that is outside the bounds of the law,” Spokesperson and Assistant Secretary
Jonathan Malaya said in an interview on Tuesday.

He cited R.A. 10973 – a newly passed law which amended the DILG Act of 1990 – allowing the PNP
Chief, and the Director and Deputy Director of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) to
look into allegations of corruption.
 “The DILG’s directive to the PNP is under the Bantay Korapsyon program of the government, And
the CIDG’s issuance of subpoena is authorized under RA 10973. It is needed for subpoenas to be issued
because that is inherent in investigations,” Malaya added.

R.A. 10973, signed by President Rodrigo Duterte on March 1, 2018, says that the police “shall have
the power to administer oath, and issue subpoena and subpoena duces tucum in relation to its
investigation.”

Previously, DILG Acting Secretary Eduardo Año directed the PNP to investigate LGUs for possible
irregularities in the disbursement of public funds, based on complaints received through the 8888 hotline
and Presidential Complaints Center.

According to the DILG, 37 municipalities and cities are being scrutinized by the CIDG.

Malaya noted that the Ombudsman and Commission on Audit do not have the monopoly of
conducting investigations on supposed abuses by public offices.

“The Commission on Audit and the Office of the Ombudsman do not have the exclusive authority
to investigate corruption cases. It is concurrently shared with other government agencies like the PNP,”
he explained.

“The DILG’s hands are full already with concerns and reform agenda in the interior and local
government sectors. The least the Department wants is to get embroiled in an issue on usurpation of
authority,” he added.

IP youth group to PNP chief: Our teachers were full-time NPA members (Inquirer.net;
October 17, 2018)

Members of the Indigenous People Youth (IP Youth) told Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief
Director General Oscar Albayalde on Wednesday that their alternative schooling system teachers are
members of the New People’s Army (NPA).

“Ang maestro naming, full-time NPA. ‘Yong library namin, mababasa mo sa libro, paano ‘yong mga
kasaysayan ng NPA, mga picture ni Ka Parago,” a male Lumad, around his late 20s, said during talks inside
the PNP Headquarters at Camp Crame.

(Our teacher is a full-time NPA. Our library has books on the history of the NPA and pictures of Ka
Parago).

“Tinuturuan kami pa’no mag-rally, pa’np makipaglaban, para hindi makapasok ang mga project
ng gobyerno,” he added.

(We were taught how to participate in rallies, how to fight, how to block government projects).
 He was referring to slain NPA leader Commander Leoncio Pitao, known as “Ka Parago.” Pitao, who
was close to President Rodrigo Duterte back when he was still mayor of Davao City, was killed after an
encounter with the military in June 2015.

After revealing the circumstances of their supposed indoctrination and recruitment, the male
Lumad then sang a supposed “new version” of the national anthem allegedly composed by the Communist
Party of the Philippines (CPP) to replace the present national anthem following an overthrow of the
government.

Meanwhile, a female IP Youth member also clarified that they were not part of any protests in
Manila, where other Lumads have reportedly joined.

“Gusto ko lang pong linawin sir na hindi kami ‘yon, kasi 110 percent po na sumusuporta kami sa
aming Presidente, mahal naming si President Rodrigo Duterte,” she told Albayalde.

(We want to make it clear that we have not joined any protests. We are supporting the President
110 percent. We love President Rodrigo Duterte).

According to Albayalde, the PNP is always ready to assist Lumads saying there is no minority or
majority in issues such as the alleged abuses being committed by communist rebels.

“Bibigyan ng justice ang pang-aabuso sa inyo, bukas po para sa inyo ang PNP at lahat ng estasyon
sa buong bansa,” he said.

(We will help give you justice. The PNP and all its stations across the country are open for you).

Authorities have long accused NPA members of indoctrinating Lumads by allegedly teaching them
the communist ideology. Recently, the NPA has been implicated in the Red October plot, a supposed plan
to unseat Duterte.

In a budget hearing at the House of Representatives in August, lawmakers from the Makabayan
bloc questioned Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief General Carlito Galvez Jr. regarding an Army
commander’s move to destroy schools for Lumads that are allegedly being influenced by the NPA.

Galvez defended the military official, saying that there is nothing wrong with government forces
trying to bring peace for Lumads in the area.

Duterte to Reds: ‘Why listen to Sison? You have not seen the guy’ (December 29,
2018; Rappler)

MANILA, Philippines – President Rodrigo Duterte questioned why communist rebels still listen to
their exiled leader Jose Maria Sison when they have not personally seen him in years.

The President attacked the founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) anew in a
speech during the distribution of Certificates of Land Ownership Award to agrarian reform beneficiaries
in Cotabato on Saturday, December 29.
 “Bakit kayo makikinig kay Sison? Social justice. Ni hindi niyo nga nakita ‘yang putanginang ‘yan at
magpakamatay kayo sa isip niya,” said Duterte.

(Why listen to Sison? Social justice. But you have not even seen the fucker yet you die in the name
of his ideas.)

“Nakikinig kayo sa mga lecture, hindi niyo nakita. You have not seen the guy. Hindi ninyo nakita
‘yan. Nandoon sa Amsterdam, doon nagpapalamig. Pati ang bayag niya, matigas na. Naging yelo na,” he
added.

(You listen to his lectures but you don’t see him. You have not seen the guy. He’s in Amsterdam,
enjoying the cold. Even his balls have become frozen.)

For the President, the armed struggle waged by the CPP-New People’s Army against the
government has led to nothing but bloodshed. He said he would heed their demands for land reform, but
a proper process has to be followed under a democracy.

“Bakit kayo making kay Sison? Ang alam niya, alam ko. At kung sinsabi niyang inferior ako, eh
putangina mo, kung mas magaling ka sa akin, ikaw ang president ngayon,” said Duterte, who was once
Sison’s student.

(Why listen to Sison? What he knows, I know. And if he says I’m inferior, fuck you, if you were
better than me, then you would have been president.)

Duterte then said that if he were the communists’ leader, he would be in the Philippines and not
in a foreign country.

“Kung ako ang lider, dito ako magpakamatay. Pakita ko sa inyo para may monument ako para
Makita ninyo, ‘Yon si Duterte. ‘Yon ang tao na tama. ‘Yon ang sundin natin. Magpakamatay tayo.’ Pero
hindi naman ninyo nakita. Puro salita lang.” said Duterte.

(If I’m the leader, I will die here. I will show you so that a monument of me will be built. Then you
will say, ‘That’s Duterte. He’s the right person. Let’s follow him. Let’s die for him.’ But you don’t see him.
He is all talk.)

The CPP is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2018, the same year Duterte cancelled peace talks,
declared the CPP a terrorist organization, kicked out the leftists in his Cabinet, and launched an all-out
war against the rebels.

On December 4, Duterte signed Executive Order No. 70, which institutionalized the “whole-of-
nation” approach in ending the communist insurgency in the Philippines.

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said the government is not keen to resume peace talks with
communist rebels for now, unless the insurgents first renounce their armed struggle.