PH has sovereign rights over Benham Rise: Carpio

Published March 14, 2017, 3:50 PM

By Rey Panaligan

While Benham Rise is not part of Philippine national territory,

“we have sovereign rights over it because we have exclusive
right to explore and exploit the oil, gas and other mineral
resources in the area,” Supreme Court Senior Justice Antonio
T. Carpio said Tuesday, March 14.

Carpio was part of the Philippine delegation that argued

before the United Nation’ Permanent Court of Arbitration
(PCA) in 2015 and has been tapped by President Rodrigo
Duterte as consultant in the territorial issues with China.

Credit: fis-net.com / MANILA BULLETIN

In a statement, Carpio said the Philippines’ sovereign right over Benham Rise “has been confirmed by
the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf as part of the Extended Continental Shelf (ECS)
of the Philippines.”

Carpio said that “If the Chinese vessels were conducting seismic surveys to look for oil, gas and minerals,
then they could not do that because UNLCOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) has reserved the
oil, gas and minerals in the ECS to the Philippines.”

His statement was sought by journalists covering the SC because of reports that Chinese ships have been
conducting oceanographic research in Benham Rise located about 250 kilometers east of Dinapigue,
Isabela.

Benham Rise, reports stated, has untapped natural resources and is said to be wider than Luzon, Samar
and Leyte combined.
Philippine Information Agency

Speaking before the media in Ozamiz City, PCOO Secretary Martin Andanar says there is no room for
disinformation in society. He emphasized it is the public's civic responsibility to share honest and truthful
information. (PIA/Misamis Occidental)

Andanar: Truthful info vital to credible polls, democracy

By Shaine Mae R. Nagtalon

Published On May 9, 2019

OZAMIZ CITY, Misamis Occidental, May 7 (PIA) -- Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO)
Secretary Martin Andanar rallied behind Misamisnons in the campaign against disinformation which is
crucial to ensuring honest, fair, and credible midterm elections 2019 in the country.

Andanar said honest, fair and clean elections are the things that people should look at in order for
democracy to thrive.

The campaign against fake news, he said, is also important during the election season.

Hence, he rallied behind residents and the media for them to be more vigilant when sharing information.

In his visit to Ozamiz, Andanar said PCOO's "Dismiss Disinformation" campaign seeks to combat fake
news and the spread of false and misleading information in the communities.

“Disinformation hampers our democracy,” Andanar said.

As an illustration, he said Filipinos are denying themselves of a good leader and elections would not be
clean, honest and fair if those sincere and qualified candidates will be destroyed by disinformation and
fake news.
Cheating, Andanar said, is not limited only during the voting day where a candidate resorts to vote
buying.

Cheating also happens during the campaign period.

“We must combat fake news; we must dismiss disinformation so that we keep our elections clean, fair
and honest. Let’s strive for credible elections that strengthen our democracy,” Andanar urged.

According to him, the biggest face of disinformation this 2019 is a video series of a purportedly self-
confessed member of an illegal drug syndicate, “Bikoy,” who accused the Duterte family of involvement
in the drug trade.

He said disinformation campaigns have been also prevalent in the local electoral race.

Civic responsibility

Andanar reminded the public it is the civic responsibility of every citizen to share correct, honest and
truthful information; and to contribute to honest, clean and fair elections.

He also emphasized there is no room for disinformation in the society.

Nobody is above the law

Emphasizing on privileges and responsibilities of the media on press freedom, Andanar reiterated that
libel is a case that does not know any social status. “Let us observe to the ethics of journalism and our
responsibility as journalists,” he said.

How to detect disinformation?

Andanar shared some tips on how to avoid sharing disinformation. One, identify the source if it belongs
to a legitimate organization. If it is not legitimate, think twice before sharing it.

Second, read the whole article. If the story or the details are not consistently correct, think twice before
sharing it.

Lastly, "if you are not the source, consider first whether it is fake news or not before sharing."
(SMRN/PIA10)
International laws spell out duty to rescue persons at sea

This duty 'can be considered as another side of the right to life, which every individual enjoys under
human rights law,' according to a 2016 paper

Michael Bueza

Published: 10:19 AM June 19, 2019

Updated: 10:19 AM June 19, 2019

MANILA, Philippines – Reports of the June 9 incident where a Chinese fishing vessel rammed a Filipino
fishing boat anchored near Recto Bank (Reed Bank) in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) sparked
debates about accountability.

The Chinese ship abandoned the Filipino boat Gem-Ver after hitting it, leaving the Filipino crew floating
at sea until a Vietnamese vessel rescued them.

Various international laws spell out the duty of states to rescue distressed and stranded persons at sea.

In a 2016 paper by Irini Papanicolopulu, associate professor of international law at the University of
Milano-Bicocca in Italy, she wrote that this duty "is a fundamental rule of international law."

Written for the journal International Review of the Red Cross, Papanicolopulu said in her paper that this
rule "has been incorporated in international treaties, and forms the content of a norm of customary
international law."

She added that it applies "both during peacetime and during wartime, albeit with the necessary
adjustments to take into account the different circumstances."

Some of these international laws were also mentioned by maritime law expert Jay Batongbacal in a
Facebook post on Monday, June 17, in reaction to the incident in the West Philippine Sea.
Papanicolopulu also argued that the duty to rescue distressed people at sea "can be considered as
another side of the right to life, which every individual enjoys under human rights law."

In highlighting the importance of assisting distressed persons in such situations, she cited events like the
influx of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and accidents like the 2012 sinking of the cruise ship Costa
Concordia off Italy as examples of dangers that can happen at sea.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

Foremost of these international laws is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
to which both the Philippines and China are signatories

Article 98(1) of UNCLOS provides that every state "shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so
far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew, or the passengers" to do any of the
following:

Render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost.

Proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of
assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him.

After a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, its crew and its passengers and, where possible,
to inform the other ship of the name of his own ship, its port of registry and the nearest port at which it
will call.

12 terrorists killed in Maguindanao clash – military

The Armed Forces of the Philippines says the suspects were plotting bomb attacks in populous and urban
areas

JC Gotinga

Published 2:58 PM, July 31, 2019

Updated 3:20 PM, July 31, 2019

TERROR THREAT. The 5-month siege of

Marawi City in 2017 exemplifies the
existing threat of terrorism in the
Philippines. Photos by Bobby
Lagsa/Rappler

TERROR THREAT. The 5-month siege of Marawi City in 2017 exemplifies the existing threat of terrorism in
the Philippines. Photos by Bobby Lagsa/Rappler

MANILA, Philippines – Twelve alleged members of a pro-ISIS terrorist group were killed and 3 more
wounded in a gun battle with government troops in Maguindanao province on Saturday, July 27,
according to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Troops from Joint Task Force (JTF) Central of the AFP Western Mindanao Command (Westmincom)
launched an offensive against the Dawlah Islamiyah Torayfie Group (DITG) on July 25, following
intelligence reports that the group was planning bomb attacks in populous and urban areas.

AFP spokesperson Brigadier General Edgard Arevalo said government forces overran an encampment
where the group was making improvised explosive devices (IED).

The operation led to the 10-minute armed confrontation in Barangay Dasawao, Shariff Saydona
Mustapha town on Saturday.

The AFP identified the suspects killed as Mohammad Satar, Hamid Ekal, Maula Samad, Esmail Kagui
Malang, Muner Akbal, Masunep Kabelan, Abdul Masaiden, Abu Naip, Abu Kasan, a certain "Alimudin,"
an unidentified man, and the group's sub-leader Andot Hassan.

Abdul Mama, Pagayao Sulaiman, and Omar Malayog, also from the DITG, were injured in the clash,
according to a report from the AFP Westmincom.

A government soldier was killed in an earlier clash on July 25, identified as Sergeant Ahmad Mahmood.

The AFP cited human intelligence sources for information on the casualties; there was no direct body
count from the battle.
Last week, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana downplayed reports of "nearly 100 foreign terrorists" at
large in central Mindanao, but confirmed another report about 7 other "foreign terrorists" suspected to
be linked with the Islamic State (ISIS), operating in the Sulu area.

Lorenzana and the military said foreign terrorists are likely training Filipino extremists in making bombs
and launching attacks, including suicide attacks.

The DITG is a faction of the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF), which in turn is a splinter group
of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) that is now poised to govern the Bangsamoro Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao.

The DITG is known to have links with ISIS. – Rappler.com

Malacañang maintains Duterte not surrendering PH sovereignty

By Azer Parrocha July 2, 2019, 9:59 pm

MANILA – Malacañang on Tuesday downplayed an argument that President Rodrigo Duterte is

surrendering Philippine sovereignty by not aggressively pursuing an arbitral ruling against China’s
massive claims in the disputed West Philippine Sea (WPS).

“It is absolutely fallacious to argue that the President is surrendering our sovereignty by not aggressively
pursuing the arbitral ruling in our favor rendered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration,” Presidential
Spokesperson Salvador Panelo said in a Palace press briefing.

In July 2016, the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled in favor of the Philippines’
arbitration case filed against China’s nine-dash line which nearly covers the whole of WPS or South China
Sea.

Duterte has decided to temporarily shelve the PCA verdict to maintain peace, stability, and cordial
relations among claimant countries in the region. The President, however, said he will raise the ruling
“maybe once” before his term ends in 2022.

Panelo defended Duterte from critics anew, citing how a provision in the Constitution stipulates that the
Philippines “renounces war as an instrument of national policy” which explains the chief executive’s
decision to resort to diplomatic means in dealing with the sea row.

“The President’s measured tack, as I described it before as calibrated responses, is consistent with
Section 2 of Article 2 of the Constitution stating: ‘The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all
nations,’” Panelo said.
Panelo emphasized that Duterte believes that aggressively enforcing the arbitral award “will only
precipitate or trigger an armed conflict that could escalate into continuing bloody encounters
detrimental to the national interest."

“Let me remind the critics, the issue here is not about which country has a better claim based on its
constitution or laws, nor it is the enforcement of our upheld rights which unfortunately until now, no
entity or country is inclined to perform,” Panelo said.

“What is the issue? The issue is how to go about getting the benefits without endangering the lives of
our countrymen and bringing us to the precipice of war,” he added.

Contrary to critics’ claims, Panelo said the Duterte administration has maintained claims with respect to
the country’s territory and executive economic zones (EEZs) while maintaining friendly relations with all
nations.

“This Administration has been filing diplomatic protests against the activities of China and their
elements. We have been raising specific issues and concerns through Bilateral Consultation Mechanism.
We have been fighting for, and enjoining other countries in crafting a code of conduct, that will be
observed by all stakeholders in the disputed areas of water,” Panelo said.

“We reiterate that we remain steadfast in maintaining our claims with respect to our territory and
exclusive economic zones,” he added.

President’s prime duty

While acknowledging that the Constitution contains a provision that reserves use and enjoyment of the
nation’s marine wealth to Filipinos (Section 2, Article 12), Panelo said this provision should not be read in
“isolation” but in “relation” to other provisions.

Panelo emphasized the importance of Section 4, Article 2 of the Constitution which states: “The prime
duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.”

“Section 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution, reserving the use and enjoyment of the nation’s marine
wealth to Filipino citizens, should - as it must be - read in relation to primordial duty of the President to
serve and to protect the Filipino people," Panelo said.

"If you go over the Constitution, most of the provisions, if not all, relative to the protection of the State
and its people emanate from that (Section 4, Article 2). That is the basic premise,” he added.

He said the provision in the Constitution protecting the natural resources and marine wealth is actually
designed to safeguard their very existence and survival.

“...In the hierarchy of rights, the right to life takes precedence over the right to property,” Panelo said.
Panelo further said that the framers of the Constitution could never have intended to "chain" the
President in performing his constitutional duty by placing provisions in the Constitution in derogation of
such obligation.

Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio earlier pressed Duterte to defend the Philippines’
EEZ after the chief executive bared that he has made a verbal deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Last week, Duterte said he and Xi agreed to allow Chinese to fish within the Philippines’ EEZ so that
China would also allow Filipinos to fish in the Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal.

Carpio, a staunch critic of Duterte’s handling of the sea row with China, insisted that Philippine marine
wealth cannot be “shared with or given away to foreign nationals” as stated in the 1987 Constitution.
(PNA)
PNP believes national ID system will
help improve peace and order

Updated August 6, 2018, 4:08 PM

By Martin Sadongdong

The Philippine National Police (PNP) on

Monday welcomed the signing of the
Philippine ID System (PhilSys) saying it
is one effective tool to improve peace
and order in the country.

Philippine National Police Chief Director Oscar Albayalde (Kevin Tristan Espiritu / MANILA BULLETIN)

Philippine National Police Chief Director Oscar Albayalde

(Kevin Tristan Espiritu / MANILA BULLETIN)

Through the PhilSys, all information of every Filipinos will be consolidated in a single database so that a
national identification card will be issued by the government. President Duterte is expected to sign the
bill on Monday afternoon.

PNP chief, Director General Oscar Albayalde said if all Filipinos will register to the government’s central
identification system, access to records of the identity of a person who committed a crime will be easier
for state security forces, thus, resulting to an easier solution or even prevention of crime.

“Malaking bagay ‘yan lalung-lalo na sa pag-improve ng peace and order sa bansa (It’s a big help for us in
improving the peace and order [situation] in our country),” Albayalde said.

For one, Senior Superintendent Benigno Durana Jr., PNP spokesperson, said that solving cyber crimes,
especially fraud, identity theft, and online scams, will be easier since one can easily access necessary
information of a crime suspect.

“Meron na tayong access to records na consolidated so hindi na tayo mangangapa sa identity [of
suspect]. Maaaring mas mapabilis ang pagresolba ng mga kaso (We already have access to records which
are consolidated so we will no longer be lost in the dark in identifying [suspects]. Probably, we can solve
faster those cases),” Durana explained.
Furthermore, Albayalde said that with the implementation of the national ID system, its own National
Crime Information System and National Police Clearance System will be consolidated with the national
database.

Aside from improving peace and order, Albayalde said an efficient national ID system assures access by
106.6-million Filipinos to a wide-range of government services and privileges including in census,
taxation, election registration, banking, travel documentation, social security, social welfare, and other
transactions with government agencies.
Duterte: Religious leaders should be neutral because of 'separation of church and state'

(Philstar.com) - July 8, 2018 - 2:35pm

In this Aug. 27, 2016 file photo, President Rodrigo Duterte greets Davao Archbishop Romulo Valles while
attending a 50th wedding anniversary rite at St. Francis of Assisi Parish in Davao City.

MANILA, Philippines — President Rodrigo Duterte has cited the principle of separation of church and
state to hit back at members of the clergy critical of his policies.

Duterte, who has drawn flak for his bloody war on illegal drugs and his provocative remarks on God,
claimed the religious sector should be "neutral" when it comes to government because of the principle.

"When you criticize me, criticize me with all the heart's content. Do it. I'm even asking you to do it so I
will know whether you are displeased or not with my performance. Do it," the president, who has
consistently hit back at actual and perceived criticism, said during the inauguration of Malayan Colleges
in Davao City last Saturday.

"But when you are a religious, you have to be something of a neutral when it comes to your faith and
even when it comes to government because it is really the concept of a republican system that there is a
separation of church and state," he added.

Separation of church and state

The separation of church and state, which is enshrined in the constitution, prohibits the establishment of
a national religion and state interference in the free exercise of the religious beliefs of its citizens.
Some Catholic priests and lawyers have said the Church has the obligation to speak against social ills
because governance has moral dimensions. The 1987 Constitution also recognized the spiritual
dimension of citizens when it stated that educational institutions shall "teach the rights and duties of
citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline."

Duterte has been at odds with the Roman Catholic Church, the religious group of more than 80 percent
of Filipinos, because of his crackdown on illegal drugs and his promotion of artificial birth control
methods. Catholic bishops and human rights groups have been expressing concern over the anti-drug
war, which has left more than 4,000 "drug personalities" dead in operations. The Church also teaches
that the natural purpose of sex is procreation and contraceptives and other artificial birth control
methods violate the natural law.

Duterte's rift with the Church widened last month when he called God "stupid" for allowing temptation
to tarnish his creation. The president, nominally a Roman Catholic, claimed later on that he was reacting
to Sister Patricia Fox, an Australian nun facing possible deportation for allegedly joining partisan
activities. He did not mention Fox at all in his speech.

Officials have explained the president's angst by citing the sexual abuse he allegedly experienced at the
hands of an American priest when he was in high school.

PH will continue to pursue independent foreign policy

Anthony Q. Esguerra - 1 year ago

President Rodrigo Duterte delivers his first State of the Nation Address. INQUIRER PHOTO/JOAN

BONDOC

The Philippines will continue to pursue an independent foreign policy, President Rodrigo Duterte said on
Monday as he touted his administration’s relationship with foreign governments.

“We will continue to assert our independent foreign policy. We shall continue to reach out to all nations
regardless of all their political persuasions, regardless of proximity. So long as this nation treats us well,”
Duterte said in his third State of the Nation Address (Sona).

Duterte lauded the country’s chairmanship and the hosting of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (Asean) Summit last year.

The President also commended the national organizing committee headed by Executive Secretary
Salvador Medialdea for the success of Asean’s 50th anniversary held in the country.

In the first two years of the President’s term, Duterte traveled across Southeast Asia to establish ties with
Asean member states.

“We have shown the world that we are capable when we work together,” he said, adding that improved
international relations resulted in cooperation, such as the naval patrol cooperation with Malaysia and
Indonesia. /ee

Palace won’t allow nuclear weapons in PH amid US defense pact

Kristine Angeli Sabillo - 5 years ago

This is the kind of fighter jet—called the FA-50—the Philippines acquires from South Korea. This combat
aircraft can carry an array of weaponry, such as air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, and precision-
guided bombers, and is equipped with a night vision imaging system. PHOTO FROM
WWW.KOREAAERO.COM

MANILA, Philippines – Talks on the Enhanced Defense Cooperations Agreement (EDCA) may be going
smoothly but that does not mean that the Philippines will accommodate just any ship or aircraft from
the United States, especially ones carrying nuclear weapons.

Malacañang has stated that any agreement with the US will be guided by the 1987 Philippine
Constitution and other earlier treaties between the two countries.

Asked if the Philippine government will ban US warships carrying nuclear weapons into the country,
deputy spokesperson Abigail Valte on Monday said the answer was “quite obvious.”

However, she did not say if the Philippine government has the capability to detect nuclear weapons.

Section 8, Article II of the 1987 Constitution states that, “The Philippines, consistent with the national
interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.”

“We have been explicit and the panel is very cognizant of this, that whatever negotiations take place, any
agreements reached will have to be under the ambit of the 1987 Constitution, as well as the existing
framework of the MDT (Mutual Defense Treaty) as well as the VFA (Visiting Forces Agreement),” Valte
said.
A CNN report on the world’s nuclear weapons said the US has 7,650 estimated nuclear warheads, 2,150
of which were operational. Around 500 were assigned to land-based missiles, 1,150 to nuclear
submarines and 300 ready to be deployed on aircrafts.

The EDCA, which already underwent an eighth round of negotiations, will give the US military access to
facilities under the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Government officials claim it will not result in
a permanent US military presence in the Philippines but will help the AFP modernize its assets.

Militant groups already expressed their opposition to the EDCA and were mulling raising questions on its
constitutionality before the Supreme Court.

Except for the general terms of the pact, the public remains in the dark on the details of the agreement.

“What I can tell you is that the explicit guidance of the President was to make sure that the agreement
and the negotiations are conducted under—with strictest compliance with our existing laws,” Valte said.

The Undersecretary also denied that the increased rotational presence of the US has anything to do with
the country’s territorial disputes with China.

“Perhaps at this point it would be up to the political commentators to make that connection. However,
as far as government is concerned, we are centered on the mutual benefit that it will bring to both
sides,” she explained.

Chance for modernization and social justice for the Philippines

BY ANTONIO TUJAN
JULY 26, 2018

There are many indicators and elements for modernization for a country such as the Philippines. Some
would look at infrastructure like high-rise buildings. Others look at education while others will look at
media development.

But a fundamental change promoting modernization for any country is agrarian reform. This is what
Taiwan and South Korea implemented as a basic condition towards their industrialization.a

Agrarian reform frees peasants from serfdom to landlords. It redistributes land as the prime agricultural
resource to the peasants who till the farms who can become farmer-entrepreneurs. This reform is the
base for modernization towards industrialization.

Our society has long stood for social justice and our Constitution provides assurance for that. The 1935
Constitution provides: “The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic security
of all the people should be the concern of the State.” (Section 5, Article II)

The 1973 Constitution continues this tradition — “The State shall promote social justice to ensure the
dignity, welfare and security of all the people. Towards this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private property and equitably diffuse property ownership
and profits.” (Section 6, Article II).

The 1987 Constitution further improves it in Section 9, Article II: “The State shall promote a just and
dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people
from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising
standard of living and an improved quality of life for all.”

Indeed, out of a total Philippine land area of 299,404 square kilometers or approximately 30 million
hectares, there were 14.1 million hectares agricultural land as of 1991 of which around 10 million
hectares were devoted to farmlands and 4 million to swine and chicken farms.

But seven out of 10 farmers are landless. Of every 100 farmers, 21 are agricultural workers, 28 are
unpaid family workers, 26 are under some form of tenancy relation and only 25 own land. The latter own
or lease an average of 1/2 to one hectare. [All these data come from the Department of Agrarian Reform
or DAR].

On 21 October 1972, Marcos issued Presidential Decree 27 implementing agrarian reform but it only
covered tenanted rice and corn lands. It also was essentially a land sale since tenants had to pay for the
land through regular amortizations at 6 percent interest.

After a series of presidential decrees, Republic Act 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, was enacted into law under the late Corazon Aquino on 10 June 1988. The law
became effective on 15 June 1988 30 years ago.
But several infirmities hound the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) which lay doubt to its
effectivity to achieve social justice for the rural poor. First is coverage – In 1989, the target for
distribution was 10.3 million hectares in 10 years. 3.8 million is to be distributed by DAR and 6.6 million
by Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). But in 1995, the target was lowered to
7.8 million due to several exceptions; 4.3 million to be distributed by DAR and 3.5 million by DENR.

Second, not unlike the Marcos land reform program, CARP remains a land sale where the DAR is the
broker and the Land Bank collects the 30-year annual amortization at 6 percent. Thus, the social justice
element of the reform is negated. Land Bank data show that only 10 percent of beneficiaries are
amortizing and the rest face foreclosure for three years non-payment of amortizations.

Agricultural land should be distributed free to the peasants if we want to achieve social justice and
similar to Taiwan 70 years ago, the government can enact a scheme where the landowners can be paid
from government funds through bonds.

Third, the CARP loopholes allow for land use conversion which has resulted in a lot of disputes and loss
of livelihood for tenants as their lands are forced to lie fallow towards conversion to housing estates,
development schemes and plantations for commercial crops.

Worse, market-oriented land reform schemes promoted by the World Bank found its way into the
program. Section 8 of RA 6657 legalized and allowed Multi-National Corporations to maintain their
control and operation of vast tracts of agricultural lands through lease, management, grower or service
contracts for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years.

Corporate schemes were implemented such as leaseback arrangements, contract growing and
corporative schemes. Section 31 of RA 6657 provided for the Stock Distribution Option (SDO) as
alternative to actual land distribution. Which has been implemented in Hacienda Luisita and 15 other
SDO in Negros Occidental.

It is 30 years since CARP – 4,726,604 hectares reportedly acquired and distributed with 2,790,644
agrarian reform beneficiaries. Only that much?

How much has CARP impacted the lives of the farmers? Do the lands still remain in the hands of the
farmers? Has it made a dent on rural poverty?

We suffer from low agricultural production and the Philippines is now a net importer of food products
for over $1 billion every year. Poverty incidence is worst in agricultural areas with farmers among the
least-paid workers. Land use conversion is rampant and we see the gradual decrease in agricultural lands
hampering food security and displacing thousands of farmers.

Duterte declares 2019 as Int'l Labor Organization Centenary

By EJ Roque April 26, 2019, 2:03 pm

MANILA -- President Rodrigo R. Duterte has declared the year 2019 as the International Labor
Organization (ILO) Centenary.

In Proclamation 710, signed by Duterte on Wednesday and released to the media on Friday, the
Philippines reaffirmed its commitment as an active member of the ILO.

"The Philippine Government, through the ILO's social partners, which includes employers and workers'
organizations, reaffirms its full support to and cooperation with the ILO's mandate of promoting
international peace and social justice," the proclamation read.

The proclamation also tasked the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to cooperate with
employers' and workers' organizations in conducting programs and activities nationwide related to the
ILO Centenary.

It also tasked the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) to lead the campaign in
fostering ILO awareness in the country.

The Philippines has been a member of the ILO since 1948.

According to its website, the ILO is the only tripartite United Nations agency that brings together
governments, employers and workers of 187 member states, to set labor standards, develop policies and
devise programs promoting decent work for all women and men. (PNA)Duterte signs law making
November 17 National Students' Day

The declaration pays tribute to 'student activism' yet the Duterte administration has been criticized for
using its crackdown on the Left to quell legitimate dissent in campuses

Pia Ranada

Published: 12:52 PM August 14, 2019

Updated: 12:56 PM August 14, 2019

ACTIVISM. Students protest efforts to require ROTC for grade 11 and 12 students. File photo by Jire

Carreon

MANILA, Philippines – As the Senate buckled down to discuss reported communist recruitment in
Philippine universities, Malacañang released a copy of a new law declaring every November 17 as
"National Students' Day."

President Rodrigo Duterte signed Republic Act No. 11369 or the National Students' Day Act on August 8
but Malacañang released it to the public on Wednesday, August 14.

The law says celebrating National Students' Day is "in recognition of the invaluable contribution of
student activism to Philippine democracy for initiating efforts to foster leadership among Filipino
students."

It said this is pursuant to Article II, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution that "it is the policy of the State to
value the dignity of every human person and to guarantee full respect for human rights."

"The State recognizes the value of inculcating love of country and social responsibility among the youth,
and supports the observance of International Students’ Day which was spearheaded by the International
Students’ Council in 1941 to commemorate the execution of 9 Czechoslovakian students to fought
against the Nazi occupation," the law said.

The law tasked the National Youth Commission (NYC) to lead preparations and the implementation of a
program of activities for National Students' Day.

The NYC must have the support of the Department of Education and the Commission on Higher
Education.
On the same day that Malacañang released RA 11369, Senator Ronald dela Rosa led a Senate hearing on
recruitment of students by Leftist groups. He had previously called for a boost in police presence in
campuses in order to stop such activities.

While the new law celebrates the importance of students activism in a democracy, Duterte has been
critical of student activists. Last year, he even threatened to withdraw the slots of University of the
Philippines students who join rallies,sparking a nationwide protest joined by thousands of students.
[OPINION: Protests and university education]

In October 2018, the military alleged that the Communist Party of the Philippines recruited students in
10 Manila universities for an ouster plot against Duterte. The universities slammed the military for
putting students in harm’s way and effectively endangering their lives – a position shared by the
Commission on Human Rights.

Critics worried that the crackdown was also being used to target groups and individuals airing out
legitimate grievances and criticisms of the government. – Rappler.com

Hontiveros refiles absolute divorce bill

Dharel Placido, ABS-CBN News

Posted at Jul 10 2019 12:04 PM

MANILA - Sen. Risa Hontiveros on Wednesday refiled a bill allowing for absolute divorce in the
Philippines, a measure that is expected to earn strong opposition from the Catholic Church.

In her explanatory note of the bill, Hontiveros noted that save for Vatican City, the Philippines is the only
country in the world where divorce is illegal.

"Despite this, the number and proportion of Filipinos who are separate has been increasing over time —
demonstrating that the denial of legal remedies to those seeking to dissolve their union has largely been
an ineffective way of upholding the policy of the State to keep families together,” Hontiveros said in her
explanatory note.

The minority senator said it has been well-documented that the absence of a divorce law "has had
disproportionate effects on women who are more often the victims of abuse within marriages.”

Under Hontiveros’ divorce bill, physical violence and "grossly abusive conduct" are considered grounds
for divorce.

'I almost died': Abused Filipino women hope divorce will become legal

Divorce may also be filed when the spouses are legally separated by judicial decree for at least two years
or when they have been separated “in fact” for at least five years and reconciliation is highly improbable.

Hontiveros said in the 17th Congress, her divorce bill languished at the committee level.

She said while the state continues to recognize the sanctity of family life, “it is also duty bound to
promote and protect the well-being of its citizens.”

“It is a duty that should extend to circumstances whereby this well-being is being compromised by the
inability to break free from irremediably broken marriages and start anew in healthier family and living
arrangements,” she said.

In March 2018, the House of Representatives, under the leadership of former Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez,
approved on third and final reading a bill providing for divorce and dissolution of marriage.

President Rodrigo Duterte said he would not support the bill as his daughter, Davao City Mayor Sara
Duterte, "is not happy with it."

United Nations Welcome to the United Nations. It's your world.

English

Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations

Search form

Philippines showcases role of Filipino youth in nation-building at 8th ECOSOC Youth Forum

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 - 16:00

09 April 2019, New York - National Youth Commission Assistant Secretary Paul Anthony Pangilinan
showcases the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) as a best practice including and empowering the youth in
nation-building and policy-making at the 8th ECOSOC Youth Forum in New York. (END)

09 April 2019, New York – “Even before engaging the youth in governance became fashionable and
necessary, and long before the adoption of Goal 16, the Philippines has paved the way for youth
participation in governance and in the policymaking process through its ‘Sangguniang Kabataan’ (SK),”
National Youth Commission Assistant Secretary Paul Anthony Pangilinan said in his intervention at the
8th Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Youth Forum.

Assistant Secretary Pangilinan described the country’s Sangguniang Kabataan (Youth Council) or “SK”
mechanism where youth representatives are elected to local government positions and have a direct
hand in formulating and advocating policies and programs that directly affect and empower the youth.
In addition, Assistant Secretary Pangilinan stated that through the Philippine Youth Development Plan
2017-2022, the Philippine Government will continue to engage the youth, recognizing that their
meaningful participation and partnership are essential in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

The 8th ECOSOC Youth Forum was organized by the ECOSOC Bureau, the Department of Economic and
Social Affairs and the Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Youth and in collaboration with the
United Nations Inter-Agency Network on Youth Development, particularly the Working Group on Youth
and SDGs.

With the theme “Empowered, Included and Equal,” youth delegates were given a platform to voice their
ideas and perspectives on progress, challenges and actions on achieving the sustainable development
goals, and which will contribute to various processes in the UN such as the High-Level Political Forum on
Sustainable Development under ECOSOC in July, the SDG Summit and the Climate Summit in September.

PH recognizes women’s role in nation building

BY DEMPSEY REYES

FEBRUARY 27, 2018

HOME / NEWS / NATION / PH RECOGNIZES WOMEN’S ROLE IN NATION BUILDING

The Philippines is a state that recognizes the role of women in nation building, Defense Secretary Delfin
Lorenzana said on Monday ahead of the National Women’s Month.

In a speech during the kickoff ceremony of National Women’s Month at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City,
Lorenzana said, “I am proud to note that we are a state that recognizes the role of women in nation
building and one that ensures the fundamental equality of men and women before the law, as well as
the equality of opportunities provided to them.”

“This coming March, we give tribute to women, their strength and achievements, as well as their
capacity to take

part in the government’s commitment of being concerned and being the change,” he added.

The Defense chief also said the country has “countless women” that occupy “major roles” in various
industry sectors, praising the works of every woman who “continues to amaze us by doing incredible
things in their respective field.”

“They continue to rise up and show the world that they are more than wives, mothers, and daughters of
the men who are doing important things and that they are important in their own right,” he said.

The National Women’s Month is observed every March and is part of the worldwide observance of the
International Women’s Day.

The commemoration is also pursuant to Proclamation No. 224, which declares the first week of March
every year as Women’s week and March 8 as Women’s rights and International Peace Day.

Republic Act 6949, meanwhile, declares March 8 of every year as National Women’s Day.

Last year, the Philippine Commission on Women and the Inter-Agency Technical Working Group came up
with a theme for every celebration of National Women’s Month, which is “We Make Change Work for
Women,” a theme to be used from 2017 to 2022.

Why the country needs universal health care

The government plays an important role in the realization of UHC in the country. Civil society could only
do so much and lobby for it.

Alvin Cloyd Dakis, RN

Published: 9:11 AM May 1, 2013

Updated: 9:12 AM May 1, 2013

DIALOGUE WITH THE PUBLIC. Nurse Alvin Dakis talks in front of a town hall assembly in Quezon City on
the importance of having a universal health care while attendees raised their concerns on local health
systems. Photo by the Universal Health Care Study Group of the University of the Philippines National
Institute of Health

Alvin Cloyd Dakis, RN

When I became a nurse, universal health care was never on my mind. As fresh nursing graduates, only a
few of us would even think of joining the public health force then. Many of us thought at the time that
community health was one of the most uninteresting and lowly fields of all in the nursing practice.

I studied nursing with perks of being a nurse abroad in mind, like receiving higher earnings than those
employed locally as some of my professors said.

But now, as a nurse, I have seen and heard many stories of people suffering because they did not have
access to health care services. There is a need for health practitioners to stay and lobby for universal
health care to help with the plight of the poor.

What is universal health care?

According to the Department of Health (DOH), Universal Health Care (UHC) is the "provision to every
Filipino of the highest possible quality of health care that is accessible, efficient, distributed adequately
funding, fairly financed, and appropriately used by an informed and empowered public."
It is also known as Kalusugan Pangkalahatan, which the Aquino administration describes as the
"availability and accessibility of health services and necessities for all Filipinos."

UHC is a government mandate aiming to ensure that every Filipino shall receive affordable and quality
health benefits and services such as human resources, health facilities, and health financing.

Having UHC is important as it is a human right deeply rooted in our right to life. The right to live means
enjoying the highest possible quality of living for men. UHC is crucial to this right as a lot of people die
not having access to affordable and quality health care, especially in impoverished areas.

It is a human right as it is guaranteed in the fundamental law of the land and international laws
recognized by our country. Section 15 of Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that: "The
State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among
them." Also, the constitution of the World Health Organization recognizes that health is a fundamental
right of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, and economic or social
condition.

Being informed

I only heard about UHC back in 2010, but it had been in the pipeline years before. I realized the
importance of having UHC in our country to address inequalities in our health care system when I joined
the UHC study group of the University of the Philippines National Institute of Health.

The group just finished running a 7-month campaign promoting UHC in the country called the
"Secretary's Cup." The Secretary's Cup is a series of events promoting the 6 building blocks of universal
health care: governance, information systems, financing, services, human resources, and regulations.

The purpose of the Secretary's Cup is to achieve the vision of UHC to have a well-informed public that is
genuinely committed to advocate for their right to health. It aims to spark interest on UHC and generate
discourse among the general public and consequently spark strong support for UHC.

Uphold Philippine sovereignty, protect rights – Duterte

By Christina Mendez (The Philippine Star) - April 10, 2019 - 12:00am

Army honor guards perform a gun salute at the Mount Samat National Shrine, or Dambana ng

Kagitingan, during the commemoration of Araw ng Kagitingan in Pilar, Bataan yesterday.

MANILA, Philippines — President Duterte urged Filipinos yesterday to uphold the country’s sovereignty
and protect hard-won rights even as he skipped yesterday’s rites commemorating the heroism of World
War II veterans during the Fall of Bataan in 1942.

“As we hold this solemn observance, it is my hope that we will all be inspired to remain steadfast like our
forefathers and their allies in upholding our sovereignty and in protecting the rights and freedoms that
our people enjoy today,” Duterte declared in a written message released by Malacañang.

The President’s statement was issued amid calls by concerned groups that the government should assert
its sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea.

Duterte urged Filipinos not to forget “the sacrifices of our forefathers, who fought to defend the
country.”

Some 76,000 soldiers surrendered to Japanese troops in the Fall of Bataan and were forced to walk 140
kilometers in what is known as the Death March to Camp O’Donnel in Capas, Tarlac.

Between 5,000 to 10,000 Filipinos and hundreds of American prisoners of war died due to dehydration,
heat exhaustion and untreated wounds or were executed during the march.

Japan has said it has learned its lessons from World War II.

Duterte was absent during the annual commemoration rites at Mount Samat Shrine in Bataan.

He was scheduled to mark Araw ng Kagitingan at Kuta Heneral Teodulfo Bautista headquarters in
Barangay Busbus, Jolo, Sulu yesterday afternoon.
“I join our veterans, allies and the rest of the Filipino people in commemorating Araw ng Kagitingan,”
Duterte said.

Duterte said the nation remembers the “heroism of the brave Filipino and American soldiers who stood
side by side in the mountains and jungles of Bataan in defense of our liberty and democracy.”

“We also remember the countless civilians who aided our forces so they could offer a valiant defense
against the overwhelming force of the enemy,” he said.

“We may not be able to memorialize all of them but we will forever remember and honor their epic
struggle and unshakeable fortitude,” the President added.

For his part, presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo said the Palace joins the President and the rest of
the Filipino people in paying tribute to the heroism of the fallen soldiers as well as honoring the surviving
members of the Bataan Death March.

“These Filipino fighters demonstrated the highest form of love of country when they offered their lives in
the liberation of the Philippines during World War II,” Panelo said.

“Heroism, however, is no longer confined to valor in combat or physical courage. In this day and age,
heroes can be the teachers whose devotion to their noble profession shapes the future of the nation,
the police officers who lose their lives in the war against illegal drugs,” he added.

Panelo said he also sees heroes in government workers who work overtime and refuse to engage in
bribery or corruption or the Filipino scientists who conduct the first scientific research in the Philippine
Rise.

“Indeed, the modern-day Filipino hero of today can be anyone who serves as an inspiration by going
above and beyond the call of duty and whose positive influence is worthy of emulation in making a
difference in our society,” he said.

Gov't provides access to free, quality college education

By Ma. Teresa Montemayor July 20, 2018, 8:59 pm

MANILA -- The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) reported on Friday that it has focused on the
creation of quality and equal access to tertiary education and training programs for the past year.

In a press briefing in Quezon City, CHED Officer-in-Charge J. Prospero de Vera III said the Commission
used President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) in 2017 as their framework in
crafting initiatives from which life-long learners could benefit.

“Access, quality and equity are our key concepts with regards to the many programs that are being
undertaken and the biggest development since last year was the signing of RA 10931 by the President,”
de Vera said.

Republic Act 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act was signed into law by
President Duterte last year.

De Vera said parents of almost 900,000 students have saved money because they no longer paid for the
tuition of their children enrolled in 112 state colleges and universities and 78 CHED-recognized local
universities and colleges.

He added that this figure will increase to 1.3 million as parents need not pay for the miscellaneous fees
as well in 2018.

To ensure that all indigent learners are given access to higher education, de Vera said RA 10931 has
expanded the Tertiary Education Subsidy.

“There’s another PHP16 billion allocated for 300,000 slots for poor students. The first priority are the
children of the 4Ps. The second priority are students who can enroll in private universities because they
live in municipalities and cities where there are no public universities. Third priority is all other poor
students as manifested by other documents,” he said.

De Vera added that CHED offers other programs through which every Filipino could access quality
education.

These include the Ladderized Education Program, Expanded Tertiary Education Equivalency and
Accreditation Program, Free Medical Education, Tulong-Dunong Program, Payapa at Maganang
Pamayanan and Education Assistance Programs.

Since students in state universities and colleges no longer need to pay for their tuition and fees, de Vera
said there is no need for them to be Tulong-Dunong scholars anymore.

Nonetheless, CHED continues to provide them with the PHP12,000 cash assistance every year.

Duterte signs 'work from home' law

By EJ Roque January 11, 2019, 3:30 am

MANILA -- President Rodrigo R. Duterte has signed a law institutionalizing the rights of employees in the
private sector who work from their homes.

Under the Telecommuting Act, employers are required to give online workers the same rights,
protection, and compensation as their counterparts who physically go to the office.

“It is hereby declared the policy of the State to affirm labor as a primary social economic force. To this
end, it shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare, especially in the light of
technological development that has opened up new and alternative avenues for employees to carry out
their work, such as telecommuting and other flexible work arrangements,” the law reads.

Some of the benefits online workers are expected to receive under the new law are overtime pay, rest
days, training opportunities, and collective rights.

The law gives the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) the task to "establish and maintain a
telecommuting pilot program in select industries."

The new law also mandates Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III, in coordination with the National Tripartite
Industrial Peace Council, to craft the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the measure.

Bello earlier voiced out his support for the law's passage as he underscored the digital technology's
influence on the shift from the traditional and onsite locations to remote work sites. (PNA)

Charter change focuses on economics

Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas - 8 years ago

Charter change in the past was unpopular because of the general belief that it was a ploy of incumbent
politicians to prolong their stay in power through a shift to the parliamentary form of government.
Fortunately, all efforts involving Charter change today are focused on amending the economic provisions.
There is no talk about reforming the political system.

I am glad that the House committee on constitutional amendments started a public consultation and
information campaign, the first of which was in Cebu City last September 8, 2011, at 1 p.m. at the Social
Hall of the Provincial Capitol, Osmeña Blvd. The entire focus will be on introducing reforms in the
restrictive economic provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Needless to say, as I have written
many times in previous columns, I endorse fully the following recommended amendments to the
Constitution:

1.) The removal of the 60%-40% equity limitations on foreign investors;

2.) Removing the control and management exclusively by Filipinos in companies with foreign equities;

3.) Expanding the role of foreign investors in the exploration, development and exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources;

4.) Allowing foreign ownership of industrial (and commercial) lands;

5.) Liberalizing media by allowing foreign investments in media;

6.) Liberalizing the practice of profession in accordance with the principle of reciprocity;

7.) Liberalizing investments in educational institutions by allowing foreign investment in tertiary

education;

8.) Extending the 25 years + 25 years land lease agreement.

I am convinced that these amendments to our Constitution will significantly help in attracting much-
needed foreign equity capital in the form of Foreign Direct Investments (as distinguished from the very
volatile portfolio investments in the stock markets). The Philippines, although awash with domestic
savings today, direly needs long-term capital for the vast requirements of infrastructures, energy, mining,
transport and telecom, and other very capital-intensive investments that are needed in attaining the goal
set in the Philippine Development Plan, 2011-2016 of a 7 to 10% growth in GDP over the next five to ten
years or even more. Just consider that China has been growing at 10% in GDP for more than 20 years by
investing close to 50% of its GDP, compared with the measly 15% rate of investment in the Philippines.
he head of the Board of Investments, the leading government agency that promotes investments in the
Philippines, Undersecretary Cristino Panlilio, has estimated that we need at least $5 billion of FDIs
annually for our GDP to grow at 7% or more annually. Our present level of FDI is less than $2 billion.

As stated in a letter written by the Honorable Loreto Leo S. Ocampos, chair of the House committee on
constitutional amendments, the above-mentioned economic reforms will enable the Philippines to catch
up with its ASEAN neighbors in economic growth. He showed in a table accompanying the letter how
dismal the Philippine performance in attracting FDIs compared with our peers Thailand, Malaysia,
Indonesia and Vietnam, without mentioning China that is in a very different league all its own. The
figures for 2003 to 2007 systematically showed FDIs in the Philippines at one-fourth to one-third of the
ASEAN countries. Latest figures from the UNCTAD show that from 2008 to 2010, during the so-called
Great Recession, the Philippines did even more poorly compared with countries like Indonesia and
Vietnam, which are at the same level of development.

During those difficult years, we averaged about $1.8 billion of FDI yearly while Indonesia attracted an
average of $10 billion and Vietnam about $6 billion. In the World Bank Doing Business Report of 2011,
under the category of “Ease of Doing Business,” the Philippines ranked the lowest in East Asia with a
score of 148 compared with Vietnam’s 78 and Indonesia’s 121. Even India, which has an impossible
bureaucracy and rampant corruption, scored higher than the Philippines at 134. Clearly, a major
explanation for the unattractiveness of the Philippines to the outsiders is the restrictiveness of our
Constitution and other laws that are anti-foreign investors.

I fully endorse another major objective of the economic reforms being planned for the Philippine
Constitution. In the words of Chair Ocampos, it is the intent of the proposed amendments “to make the
economic policies more flexible to meet the ever-changing dynamics of domestic and foreign economic
environment. The economic provisions should not be carved in stone in the Constitution. Economic
policies are better addressed by electorally accountable bodies of government. Simply put, economic
questions can easily be remedied by simple legislations.” The volatility of the global economic
environment, with which our national economy is intricately intertwined whether we like or not, is more
obvious than ever in 2011 when all the advanced economies are threatened by a double-dip recession
owing to the huge debts that they have accumulated through years of extravagant overspending. This is
obviously a time that we have to be wary about over borrowing.

To attract foreign capital, we must give preference to foreign equity investments in our capital stock,
especially infrastructure, energy and mining. As the leading semi-globalization guru, Dr. Pancaj
Ghemawat has written in his new book World 3.0: “Foreign direct investment (FDI)—foreign companies
buying, setting up, or reinvesting in businesses in a country—represents a long-term commitment even if
the rate at which such commitments are entered into varies greatly from year to year. FDI helps transfer
knowledge and information as well as capital, and functions, like trade, as a channel for product market
integration with the prospect of adding value just as broadly.”

Granting that it might have served an important purpose of safeguarding national sovereignty during the
era of the Cold War in the last century, when small countries like the Philippines were being used as
pawns by the world powers, the “Filipino First” policy no longer makes sense in a more economically
integrated world (the appropriate word according to Dr. Ghemawat is “semi-globalized”). In order to
attract more FDIs, direly needed for faster growth that is a pre-condition for attacking poverty, we must
purge the 1987 Constitution of its overly nationalistic tone. The first article that has to be amended is
that which appears in the Declaration of Principles in Article 2, Sec. 19, which reads: “The State shall
develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.” The irony is
that this provision has only preserved the feudalistic and monopolistic structure of the Philippine
economy.

The absence of competition from abroad has guaranteed the stranglehold that a few families have over
the national economy. That is why it
would be better to word this Article as
follows, as suggested in the letter of
Chair Ocampos: “The State shall
develop a self-reliant, productive and
competitive economy that will best
serve the interest of the Filipino
people.” As the Philippine
Development Plan insists again and
again, economic growth must be
“inclusive.” Not only the economic
elite must benefit from “Filipino First.” The entry of foreign direct investments can have a large multiplier
effect that will uplift the masses from poverty as has been shown in the past in the cases of large mining
companies that have built roads, schools and other infrastructures in the most remote and impoverished
territories of the Philippines. “Filipino First” must not refer to the feudal lords but to the vast consuming
and working masses that benefit from the entry of foreign direct investments.

Big role for private firms in gov't infra push – Cabinet

The promised funds from China and Japan have led the Philippine government to call off some big PPP
bids, but the private sector still has a big role to play in infrastructure projects

Rappler.com
Published: 12:14 AM April 26, 2017

Updated: 10:36 AM April 26, 2017

NATION BUILDING. Members of President Duterte's Cabinet gather to explain their infrastructure plans
at the second Dutertenomics forum held on April 29. Screenshot from Dutertenomics livestream

MANILA, Philippines – The private sector still has a big role to play in the administration’s infrastructure
push despite the billions of dollars China and Japan are putting up to finance the headline projects,
according to the Philippines' economic managers.

Both Northern Asian giants have promised almost P10 billion each in Official Development Assistance
(ODA) to the country following official state visits from President Rodrigo Duterte. This in turn has led to
the administration calling off some big planned public private partnership bids.

“There’s [still] a lot of opportunities for the private sector. Take the hybrid model, that means that
government will choose the project and look for financing and then let private sector build the project,
since the government does not have capacity,” said Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez on Tuesday,
April 25.

“Once done, private sector will run the project similar to the model used for the development of SCTEX.
We also entertain unsolicited proposals,” he added.

The finance secretary was speaking at the second in a series of Dutertenomics forums which provided
members of the private sector with details on the administration’s infrastructure push.

Some of the big ticket infrastructure projects that the government initially planned to bid out as public
private partnerships (PPP) that are now planned to be financed on an ODA platform include:

The P270 billion PNR South Railway connecting Manila to Bicol

The P250 billion PNR North Railway connecting Clark to Manila

The P227 billion Mega Manila subway

The private sector also has virtually the entire power industry as an investment opportunity, according
to energy secretary Alfonso Cusi.
"From 2016 to 2030, we need something like 17,300 Megawatts (MW). To support Ambisyon Natin 2040,
we will need 26,000 MW, so that’s a total of 43,000 MW from 2016-2040 in support of all the
infrastructure projects,” he said.

“Roughly, all of these new power plants will come

from the private sector,” he added.

The energy secretary further estimated that the

investment for the initial 17,300 MW will total $50
billion to $55 billion, while the next 26,000 MW
will require another $70 billio to $80 billion.

Reversing the Aquino admin blueprint

Dominguez also shed some light on why the Duterte administration has decided to make extensive use
of ODA at the beginning of its term.

“The reason we are reversing the process...is because when we examined the length of time it took to
negotiate the PPP projects, the average was 29 months before project start,” he said.

“What we are saying is, we can do it a bit faster, and secondly we can borrow the money faster. We can
do PPP at any stage, in the middle or end,” he added.

Is agrarian reform a dying issue?

As of June 2016, almost 600,000 hectares of agricultural land remain undistributed. Landowners stall the
land acquisition and distribution process through various methods.

Joe-Anna Marie Abelinde and Luis de la Rosa

Published: 8:32 PM February 26, 2018

Updated: 8:36 PM February 26, 2018

AGRARIAN REFORM. As of June 2016, almost 600 000 hectares of agricultural land remain undistributed.
File photo by Mau Victa/Rappler

The Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (CARRD) has been involved in major agrarian
reform campaigns staged after the 1986 EDSA Revolution. Together with other organizations and farmer
groups, we’ve made a stand against the oppression experienced by landless farmers all over the country.

We maintained – and we still do – that land, being the primary driver of economic development in the
rural areas, is a right of men and women whose bent backs and sweating brows nourished our children
with food.

But times have changed. We know enough to acknowledge that mobilizations aren’t what they used to
be. In spite of valid reasons to picket, we see our numbers dwindle. We wanted to state – with full
arrogance – that this is because there’s nothing left to fight for.

Lots of our farmers have managed to improve their land tenure, improved their socio-economic
conditions, sent their children to colleges and universities to become urban professionals and avoid the
gruesome work on the land, and retired to become managers of the farms that they got under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

But if this is the premise for all, then CARRD will be the first to let agrarian reform die with the first
generation of peasants who fought sweat and blood for the land that they till. (READ: What if our
farmers give up on us?)

But we know, as you do, that this is not the case.

CARP was introduced shortly after the 1986 EDSA uprising. Despite opposition, Republic Act 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) was passed in 1988. CARL went through a lot of
amendments; the most recent of which was in 2009 through RA 9700 or the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER).

Under CARPER, the issuance of Notices of Coverage (NOC) for new agrarian lands must be completed by
June 30, 2014. By 2016, roughly 8.2 million hectares of land had been distributed to 5.4 million agrarian
reform beneficiaries in the country.

The “deadline” for the issuance of NOC does not signify the end of CARP, although a lot of landlord-
leaning institutions interpreted this as such. But the Constitution is also very clear on this matter.
According to Article XIII, sections 4-6, the Constitution guarantees the just distribution of land, support
to agriculture, and resettlement of farmers and farm workers in the State’s agricultural estates. (READ:
Completing land reform in PH to cost P98B)

Yet, as of June 2016, almost 600,000 hectares of agricultural land remain undistributed.

Major issues

Landowner resistance is one of the most well-known issues in agrarian reform. We know about high-
profile cases of violence and constant threats against agrarian reform beneficiaries to keep them from
occupying the land, or where land owners stall the land acquisition and distribution process through
various methods, which, while not high-profile, are just as problematic.

Some of these methods include filing of cases against farmers and even Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) personnel, legal measures to bog down the land acquisition and distribution in almost every step
of the way, and subdividing their land to relatives to take advantage of the 5-hectare retention area,
while not losing the land altogether.

Then there’s the individualization of collective certificate of land ownership award (CLOA). These were
issued during the 1990s to fast-track land distribution, especially in sugarcane plantations. However,
while collective titles show the total area owned by farmers collectively, they don’t delineate individual
lots.

Not only does this create boundary disputes among agrarian reform beneficiaries, it spawns to
inheritance and issues of conflicting claims. There are even cases when the collective titles don’t have an
annexed list of farmers, resulting to claims that cannot be easily validated.

Property rights cannot be altogether secured if the farmers are not able to complete paying their land
amortization. Most of them have not even started. This is because, by policy, Landbank cannot receive
amortization payments from landholdings with survey discrepancies, or in collectively titled
landholdings, pending for subdivision.

Agrarian reform is uncertain in a federal context

The DAR convened the 2018 National Summit of CARP Stakeholders last January 25-26 in Clark,
Pampanga. Acknowledging these issues, DAR expressed its commitment to ensure that inputs from the
invited organizations would be incorporated in their strategic plan.

But the question is: how can the call for more aggressive CARP implementation fit within a federal
context? If the implementation of agrarian reform will be through the states, as what can be assumed
from the system of government being proposed, then agrarian reform may not be implemented at all in
powerful landowner states.

The future of agrarian reform is unclear. While close coordination between CARP implementing agencies
and stakeholders promises an effective method of case resolution, it can only go so far. With no end in
sight for these issues, hopefully something positive will come out from the initiatives of the agrarian
reform beneficiaries, civil society, and members of the government. – Rappler.com

Philippines reiterates commitment to indigenous people’s rights at UN forum

Published May 12, 2019, 4:34 PM

By Roy Mabasa

The Philippines is fully committed to support the rights of the country’s 14 million indigenous people,
including the preservation of their culture and traditions.
(REUTERS/Denis Balibouse / MANILA BULLETIN)

(REUTERS/Denis Balibouse / MANILA BULLETIN)

Speaking at the 18th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII),
Philippine Permanent Mission to the UN Second Secretary Maria Roseny Fangco said the country’s
commitment to work towards the full realization of the human rights and development of all indigenous
peoples is in line with the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

“The Philippine Constitution guarantees the protection of the rights of more than 14 million indigenous
peoples in the Philippines. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act recognizes their inherent rights to
ancestral lands, to self-governance and self-determination, cultural identity, participation in decision-
making, and their full development and empowerment,” Fangco told the forum participants.

Around 1,000 participants composed of representatives of UNPFFI member states, UN agencies and civil
society organizations and indigenous peoples organizations attended the forum, which took place at UN
headquarters in New York.

Key issues discussed include the progress in commemorating the 2019 International Year of Indigenous
Languages, the 2030 Agenda, conservation and the rights of indigenous peoples, and the rights of
indigenous women and children.

In emphasizing the Philippine commitment, Fangco referred to the Philippine Ancestral Domain
Sustainable Development and Protection Plan, which is formulated by and with indigenous peoples and
promotes a culture- and rights-based approach to development.

The UN PFII is an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) mandated to deal with
indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, the environment, health and
human rights.

There are more than 370 million indigenous people in about 70 countries worldwide.

Towards the end of the forum, UNPFII Chair Anne Nuorgam (Finland) said indigenous peoples’ traditional
knowledge is often “unrecognized,” along with their rights to land, education and resources.
New charter must guarantee local autonomy

By: Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco - 2 years ago

A federal government structure is characterized by constitutionally guaranteed “self-rule” and “shared

rule” mechanisms. The form of government could be presidential, semipresidential or parliamentary,
bicameral or unicameral, but for the governance structure to be truly federal, the autonomy of the
subnational level of government must be self-evident in the text of the national constitution. Hence, if a
Federal Republic of the Philippines is to rise, then its charter must depart from the way local autonomy is
prescribed in the 1987 Constitution.

Art. II, Sec. 25 states: “The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.” Art. X, Sec. 2 adds
that all the territorial and political subdivisions of the republic shall enjoy local autonomy. The word
“shall” here is meant to convey the mandatory character of these constitutional prescriptions. Anyone
reading these two sections will very easily be convinced that local autonomy is guaranteed by the 1987
Constitution.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the sections in Art. II, except Sec. 16 on the people’s right
to a balanced and healthful ecology, are not self-executory. Hence, the policies and principles listed here
require enabling

legislation to make them truly meaningful

(i.e., enforceable in a court of law). Additionally, Art. X, Sec. 3 actually commands Congress to enact a
local government code to spell out the mechanics of local autonomy.
This means the guarantee in the 1987 Constitution is not truly unequivocal because details are still
subject to the legislative whims and caprices of professional politicians in Congress. As demonstrated by
the life of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 itself, genuine and meaningful local autonomy is
always under threat by patronage politics. Its promise of local economic development is perpetually
hostage to dynastic politicians in the legislature.

For President Duterte’s Consultative Committee (Con-Com) on constitutional reform, a good example of
how a constitutional guarantee can be expressed in unequivocal terms is the charter of the Swiss
Confederation.

Art. 3 therein states: “The cantons are sovereign insofar as their sovereignty is not limited by the federal
constitution; they exercise all rights not transferred to the federation.” Correspondingly, Art. 42 provides
that the tasks of the federal government shall be 1) those allocated to it by the constitution and 2) which
require uniform regulation. Examples of these federal tasks are the organization of the armed forces (Art.
60) and the protection of animals (Art. 80).

On the other hand, in addition to mandates not particularly assigned to the federal government, cantons
(subnational governments) are also responsible for specific duties assigned by the Swiss constitution,
such as education (Art. 62) and culture (Art. 69).

The proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law is a local example that the Con-Com can emulate. One of its more
innovative reforms is the detailed allocation of government powers in Art. V: 1) powers reserved to the
national government under Sec. 1; 2) powers held concurrently by the national government and the
projected Bangsamoro Parliament in Sec. 2; and 3) powers held exclusively by the latter in Sec. 3.

In sum, an unequivocal constitutional guarantee of local autonomy requires the clear and coherent
assignment of responsibilities between the federal and state governments. Experience under the LGC
clearly demonstrates that the lack of clarity concerning the local entity’s powers and functions can
weaken the overall effectiveness of local autonomy.

The underlying principle here is for the constitution to ensure that public deliverables best suited for the
subnational government are allocated to the latter. This prescription is very critical because the correct
division of tax powers and other revenue-raising measures between the two levels of government hinges
on it. Again, as experience under the LGC proves, the conflation of assignment undermines the entire
public finance framework, which consequently diminishes the local entity’s ability to satisfactorily
perform its mandates.

Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a practicing lawyer, is the author of the book “Rethinking the Bangsamoro
Perspective.” He conducts research on current issues in state-building, decentralization and
constitutionalism.
uterte blames voters for political dynasties

By: Orlando B. Dinoy - 4 months ago

Duterte says Kadamay members have no manners

President Rodrigo Duterte. Screengrab from RTVM video

DAVAO CITY, Davao del Sur, Philippines — President Rodrigo Duterte admitted political dynasties are bad
for the country but, he said, it was the fault of Filipino voters who keep on electing local dynasts.

“[I am embarrassed because] people keep on repeating that phrase about dynasties,” the President said
on Friday during the oath-taking ceremony of his youngest son Sebastian, who successfully ran
unopposed for Davao City vice mayor in the last election.

Victorious children
Aside from Sebastian, his daughter Sara was also reelected Davao City mayor, while his other son, Paolo,
was elected representative of Davao City’s first district.

The President conceded that political parties are not good for the country but voters keep on electing
dynasts in several parts of the country.

Article II of the 1987 Constitution states in Section 26: “The State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

Public clamor

“That is really true. It is really not good if all belong to just one family for so many years. The problem is
the people,” he said.

The President recalled that when he decided not to run for mayor anymore, Davao City leaders and
members of their local party Hugpong ng Pagbabago (HNP) clamored for his daughter Sara to replace
him.

The same situation happened with Paolo and later with Sebastian, the President said.

“I told them I would no longer run for mayor. But they then wanted Inday,” he said.

“I will abide by my party’s wishes) because [it] is the party [that] will support me during the election.
They are the ones who want it.”

Although he is embarrassed that all his three adult children are in public office, Mr. Duterte said he could
not stop a Duterte from seeking public office, even the presidency.

Dutertes will win again

“If a Duterte will still run, I’m sure that if the name will not be destroyed, he or she will surely win,” he
said.

The President said he had told his daughter that should HNP decide to choose another candidate to “give
others the chance,” she should abide by the party decision.

Give others a chance

“If she realizes that we need to give others a chance. Maybe after this, if my daughter Inday would
decide, (I will tell her) ‘let us give others a chance,’” he said.

Sara has been touted by her supporters as a potential presidential candidate in 2022, with her political
stock boosted by victories in the recently concluded May elections.

Sara has been publicly saying she has no intention to run for president despite repeated urgings from
HNP leaders.
The President has also repeatedly said he was against his daughter running for president after his term
ends in 2022.

Honesty and integrity in public service

By Lorenzo Paradiang Jr. (Philstar.com) - September 9, 2008 - 12:00am

Aside from the culprits themselves, the greatest bane that abets corruption and dishonesty in
government is the tolerance and lack of political will of the leadership to stomp out the evil and punish
the guilty.

What holds the tolerant disciplinary hand is politics, or friendship, or other tie-ups, vis-à-vis the
malefactor and the boss. The wrongdoing is overlooked when the culprit is a political partisan, for one.
Or, if it be a first offense - no matter the gravity - it is "excused". Thus, the tolerance sets a bad
precedence for others. No sanctions, no warnings, no official reprimand. Not even a slap on the wrist, or
a tweak of the nose.

This cavalier complacence with regard to dishonesty or corruption can be imputed to the mettle of
leadership at the helm, as wanting of resolve. The national and LGU officialdom generally lacks these
qualities of sincere and gutsy leadership. It's no wonder that the Philippines is at the top rung of the
most corrupt countries of the world.

Among the gritty LGU executives who have stood out include then Zamboanga Mayor Cesar Climaco,
Manila mayors "Dirty Harry" Lim and "Arsenic" Lacson, no-nonsense mayors Serging Osmeña and his son
Tommy Osmeña now, Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, and yes, Cebu lady Gov. Gwen Garcia. All with
balls including the only rose among the thorns.

Aside from guts and decisiveness, their common trait could be their firm honesty and integrity. Yes,
vulnerable to some human flaws and other character frailties, but never for dishonesty and decency.

Here are specifics as regards the LGU shenanigans that the common tao may often perceive, and
personally experienced at one time or another, or observed in the locality.

Absenteeism, tardiness, and malingering become repetitious when those at the top are over-tolerant as
an "excuse" for incompetence, or wanting in know-how and inexperience, and/or just plain
administrative wimp. They don't realize that lack of discipline in the bureaucracy breeds habitual anarchy
in governance, leading to graft and corruption.

The malfeasance may start at falsifying daily time records with the connivance of higher office satraps.
Others like drivers and heavy equipment operators also learn falsifying their fuel allotments by virtually
"guzzling" their fuel on the "sidelines", while department heads with service vehicles "siphon" their fuel
to their private vehicles. One culprit had the temerity to claim as much as 30 liters a day, or varied at 600
liters a month, or even at 10 liters a day, when his functions are actually desk-bound with no necessity
for official travel, except to and from office and home, with the distance hardly justifies 5 liters a day. But
lo, the naiveté of upstarts got suckered into trusting such a manipulator on the fallacy that he was
indispensable to the position…

Petty thievery may come by using tax collections surreptitiously, instead of turning them over daily to
the cashier. This has come about when the COA stopped the daily cash audit of the treasury collections.
This is another "evil" that encourages illegal use of public funds, second only to COA's abandoning its
previous "pre-audit" role in favor of the "post-audit" only.

Short-changing the taxpayers for their "community tax certificates" is another petty corruption. For
instance, the CTC reflected only P5 collected, but the collector made additional assessment upon
learning the client was married, but not added to the issued CTC, nevertheless, only a change of P40
something for the P100. A much bigger office thief bilked another taxpayer of several thousands by
"accommodating" the latter to a reduced tax, but pocketing the bigger chunk of the reduced assessment.
One heard that such victim's affidavit had been taken down by a higher office prober, but one has yet to
hear whatever happened next.

Honest-to-goodness vigilance against graft and corruption, or any malfeasance, in public governance is a
matter for chiefs of offices and administrators to maintain discipline as part of the system, without any
compromising let-up. Passing the proverbial buck, or conducting probes without sanctions, or tolerating
so-called "minor infractions", or the "excuse" not to prosecute culprits to obviate being falsely imputed
for persecution, are all inutile inanity.
Grace Poe refiles freedom of information bill

Dharel Placido, ABS-CBN News

Posted at Jul 03 2019 03:06 PM | Updated as of Jul 03 2019 03:23 PM

MANILA - Sen. Grace Poe on Tuesday refiled the Freedom of Information Bill as she stressed the
importance of transparency and accountability in government.

Poe, chairperson of the Senate public information committee, failed to have similar legislation passed in
past years. The FOI Bill was among the first she filed for the 18th Congress which will start at the end of
July.

"Transparency is essential to accountability. Without transparency, citizens cannot access the

information needed to collectively discern the fitness of public officials, elected otherwise, to hold public
office," Poe said in the explanatory note of her bill.

"I appeal to our colleagues to give this bill one big push this 18th Congress so we will finally have an FOI
law," Poe said.

President Rodrigo Duterte in July 2016 signed Executive Order No. 2 adopting and implementing a policy
of “full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest, subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law.”

This FOI mechanism, however, only applies to the executive branch. The President urged the legislative
and judiciary branches to follow suit.

Poe’s bill tasks all government agencies to upload on their respective websites "updated copies of
transactions, records or documents of public interest."

The bill states that no request for information shall be denied, except for matters involving national
security, law enforcement, foreign affairs, and trade secrets.
All information exempted from disclosure shall undergo mandatory review after every three years by the
head of office or agency in custody or control of the information for "reclassification and possible
disclosure."

Poe
also
filed
the
Right to

Adequate Food Act of 2019, Water Regulatory Act of 2019, Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management System Act of 2019, and National Transportation Safety Board Act of 2019.

Completing her first 10 bills for the 18th Congress are the Universal Social Pension Act 2019, Tulong
Kabataan sa Agrikultura Act of 2019, Motorcycles-for-Hire Act of 2019, Social Media Awareness in
Schools and Universities Act of 2019, and Magna Carta for Tricycle Drivers and Operators Act of 2019.

Look into extrajudicial killings under Duterte, Congress pressed

By: Marc Jayson Cayabyab - 3 years ago

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST Funeral parlor workers lift the body of one of the two drug suspects who
were killed in an alleged shootout with police in Barangay Bonuan Tondaligan in Dagupan City on
Monday. RAY B.ZAMBRANO/INQUIRER NORTHERN LUZON

Ifugao Rep. Teddy Baguilat sought an inquiry in aid of legislation on the spate of “extrajudicial killings” of
suspected criminals at the start of the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte.
In House Resolution No. 61, Baguilat, a member of the Liberal Party, called on Congress to investigate the
“spate of extrajudicial killings and/or summary executions of suspected violators of laws on illegal drugs
and other suspected criminals.”

READ: THE KILL LIST

Baguilat cited Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution that reads “No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.”

He also cited Article III, Section 14 paragraph 1 which reads “No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.”

Baguilat also said the charter states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved…”

Bagulat said since Duterte assumed office on June 30, at least 23 persons suspected of violating laws
against illegal drugs were killed by law enforcers “under vague circumstances.”

He added that even before Duterte’s inauguration, at least 68 drug suspects were killed in police
operations in the country from January 1 to June 15, and 25 more were killed from June 16 to 20,
“demonstrating a shocking increase in police-perpetrated killings.”

Meanwhile, the Philippine National Police reported 22 suspected drug-related killings outside police
operations from May 14 to June 30, Baguilat said.

Baguilat said the spate of summary killings on the hands of the police who were mandated to enforce
the rule of law is a violation of the constitutional right of suspected criminals.

BACKSTORY: Duterte vows to continue killing criminals ‘in accordance with law’

“The seemingly unchecked outbreak of extrajudicial killings executed by civil servants trusted by the
people to enforce the law indicates a violation of the Constitution…” Baguilat said.

Baguilat also said the extrajudicial killings represent a “deterioration of the rule of law which can lead to
people taking the law into their hands,” thereby leading the country towards the path of “lawlessness
and anarchy.”

“There is therefore a clamor from the public and government officials alike to look into the disturbing
trend of extrajudicial killings of suspected drug criminals,” Baguilat said.

“It behooves Congress, as the people’s instrument for securing social order through the establishment of
just laws and thus the rule of law, to scrutinize the circumstances behind the aforementioned killings,
with a view to ensuring that the people’s rights and lives are protected, especially by law enforcers,” he
added.
Baguilat expressed alarm over the summary killings of criminals, a quick fix supported by President
Duterte to eradicate criminality and illicit drug abuse in the country. IDL

Human rights lawyers mull hotline for illegal searches, arrests

Katrina Domingo, ABS-CBN News

Posted at Sep 16 2017 05:36 PM

MANILA - A group of human rights lawyers is planning to put up a hotline where Filipinos can report
illegal searches, arrests and other police violations.

"Many people are not aware of their rights against illegal searches. Aside from that, they also don't know
who to turn to," National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL) chair Neri Colmenares told ABS-CBN News
Saturday.

The proposal was made after posts about policemen randomly approaching and checking bags of
students in several establishments along Katipunan Avenue in Quezon City went viral.

Colmenares, a former Bayan Muna Party-List Representative, said establishing the hotline is timely and
necessary after the House of Representatives slashed the Commission on Human Rights' (CHR) budget to
P1,000 from the original proposal of P623.38 million.

"Though the CHR's budget will still be discussed in the Senate, this is something beyond CHR now,"
Colmenares said on the sidelines of a human rights forum in Quezon City Saturday.

Several senators have vowed to restore the CHR funding.

"The number of extrajudicial killings is so overwhelming and there's no way that only one group can
cater to (it)," he said.

But Colmenares said the NUPL would have to discuss the proposal with other organizations as they do
not have the money to fund a 24/7 operations center.

"We need to discuss it with other groups. We can marshal all our resources to have one big hotline to
take care of these overwhelming messages," Colmenares said.

Aside from a hotline, citizens should also be continuously reminded about their rights against illegal
searches and arrests, University of the Philippines College of Law professor Jay Batongbacal said.

"The best protection would be education and information. They should be educated that they do have
these rights and they can refuse these unreasonable searches and seizures," said Batongbacal, among
guests at the forum.

"The citizens should be educated of their rights and be encouraged to hold on to them and assert them
whenever those rights are being infringed," Batongbacal said.

Illegal searches and seizures in parts of Quezon City are among recent allegations hounding the police
force.

Earlier this week, the entire Caloocan City police force was removed after officers were tagged in the
murder of at least 3 teenagers. A CCTV footage also showed that several policemen looted a house in
Caloocan City last September 7.
The privacy of communication

By: Frank E. Lobrigo - 2 years ago

The current tiff between the justice secretary and a senator traverses the constitutional domain,
particularly the almost-sacrosanct right to privacy of communication. The Bill of Rights in the 1987
Constitution, as did the previous constitutions, provides in no uncertain terms that the privacy of
communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. The constitutional guarantee on privacy
includes a bar on the use of improperly obtained private communication as evidence in any proceeding.

The Constitution likewise guarantees an individual or juridical entity against unreasonable searches and
seizures of papers and effects. This guarantee includes communications.

Human beings are social animals, and their need to communicate is as essential as their existence.
Human communication in different languages takes varied forms—a sign, a paper-based script or print, a
spoken word, and, in the present day, a digital format. The latter medium of communication requires an
electronic gadget that would be paper prior to the internet age.

Primitive long-distance communication began with smoke billows, and the semaphore. After electricity
was discovered, the use of the electromagnet made possible the invisible transmission of
communication through telegraphy. On May 24, 1834, Samuel Morse transmitted the first sentence by
telegraph. In the last two global conflicts of the 20th century, battles were won or lost with the use of
telegraph.
In the early 1870s, while Alexander Graham Bell was experimenting with the telegraph, he discovered
that it was possible to transmit human voice through electricity. On March 7, 1876, he was granted a
patent for the telephone.

For over a century, long-distance communication and global trade depended on the telephone and
telegraph, both based on analog technology—a system of transmission of variable electronic signals with
output proportionate to the input.

As with most technologies, mathematics paved the way for the digitization of communication. In 1948,
Shannon’s “Mathematical Theory of Communication” heralded the digital age. With the advent of
computers in the 1980s, communication shifted from analog technology to digital.

Freeman and Louca identify the scale of technological change from the first Industrial Revolution based
on water-powered mechanization; the second Kondratiev wave enabled by steam-powered technology;
the third, characterized by the electrification of social and productive organization; the fourth, by
motorization and the automated mobilization of society; and the most recent, by the digitization of
social systems. It is human progress which Hilbert describes as the “Long Waves of Social Evolution.”

Technology wrought ease of communication, but also created a concomitant vulnerability of its privacy.
Republic Act No. 4200, or the antiwiretapping law, was enacted to protect the privacy of communication:
It is unlawful to secretly overhear, intercept, or record a communication or spoken word. It is also
unlawful for any person to knowingly possess any record of such communication or spoken word, or to
replay, communicate the contents, or furnish transcriptions to any other person.

An overzealous media man reportedly captured with a camera the justice secretary’s “text messages.” It
was obviously an unauthorized recording or copying of a private communication within the context of RA
4200. A senator took possession of a copy of the private communication, and even used it to demand
the justice secretary’s resignation. Had the copy been used in any proceeding, the way it was obtained
would be inadmissible.

It is bad enough that a member of the Fourth Estate crosses constitutional lines; it is even worse that the
government or a high official will abet or benefit from it. The privacy of communication must be
respected by all and sundry.

Frank E. Lobrigo practiced law for 20 years. He is a law lecturer and JSD student at San Beda College
Graduate School of Law in Manila.
OPINION: Curtailing freedom of expression redux

Ellen T. Tordesillas

Posted at Jan 22 2018 05:27 PM | Updated as of Jan 22 2018 05:29 PM

Moves in the House of Representatives to insert the words “responsible exercise" in the freedom of
speech part in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights is a revival of the same attempt made by the government
of Gloria Arroyo in 2006.

Last week, Deputy Speaker Fredenil Castro (Capiz’s second district, informed the House of
Representatives’ Committee on Constitutional Amendments of the proposal on Tuesday (January 16).

House wants to amend free speech clause in Constitution

Castro proposed that Article 3, Section 4 of the Bill of Rights which states “No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances ” be reworded to “No law shall be
passed abridging the responsible exercise of the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

Magdalo party-list Rep. Gary Alejano asked who and how would “responsible” be defined.

Exactly my question 12 years when Arroyo’s Consultative Commission, which she formed to draft a
revised Constitution, came up with this proposed provision in the Bill of Rights: "No law shall be passed
abridging the responsible exercise of the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.”

Exactly what Castro is pushing for.

I’ll repeat the question I asked then: “But the proposed change in the freedom of expression provision
strikes at the core of our basic rights as a citizen of a democratic country. The key change here is in the
word “responsible.” Who will determine what responsible exercise of freedom of speech is? Who will
determine what a responsible press is? Who will determine responsible petition for redress of
grievances?”

It’s dismaying because reports said the proposed tampering of the press freedom guarantee in the Bill of
Rights came from the Presidential Human Rights Committee Secretariat. What kind of Committee of
Human Rights is that that is working to diminish protection of human rights?

I’d like to share here my report on the discussion of that repugnant proposal, in the Jan 3, 2006 episode
of Strictly Politics hosted by Pia Hontiveros (she is now with CNN Philippines).

Guests were two members of the Consultative Commission committee on Bill of Rights former Rep.
Serge Apostol Atty. Romela Bengzon; Atty. Adel Tamano, then professor of law at the Far Eastern
University; and Vergel Santos, director of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.

Inserting 'responsible' abridges free speech: CMFR

Bengzon said the word “responsible” was put there to “enhance and focus”. She talked about
investments not coming in, because investors always read bad news. She said more time and space
should be allotted for “good news.”

Santos said there is no such thing as good news or bad news. There is only news. It’s good or bad
depending on who views it.

Apostol asked what’s the problem with the word “responsibility” when media people themselves invoke
that word all the time.

Apostol said something shocking: proof that media can sometime be irresponsible is the high number of
journalists being killed.

To attribute their killings to ‘irresponsibility’ is adding insult to injury. Pinatay ka na nga, ininsulto ka pa.
Marlene Esperat, the journalist who was killed for exposing corruption in the Department of
Agriculture's fertilizer fund, must be turning in her grave.

Tamano said changing the wording of that provision and adding the word “responsible” abridges
freedom of expression.

He said that provision is part of the basic rights that gives substance to democracy and that has not been
touched, tampered with for decades, in the American Constitution to which our Constitution is
patterned. Our own Philippine Constitution has undergone several changes since 1935 but the framers
respected and preserved that particular provision.

He said tampering with this provision will create more confusion and disagreement.
The above discussion 12 years ago remains relevant today. More so now when the country’s leader is the
main purveyor of disinformation.

Religion and commerce: Understanding the separation of church and state

ABS-CBN News

Posted at Jun 25 2019 12:58 PM | Updated as of Jun 25 2019 01:18 PM

MANILA- Members of a religious corporation accused of masterminding a multi-million peso investment

scam have invoked the separation of the church and state after President Rodrigo Duterte ordered its
closure.

Decrying the crackdown on the Kapa-Community Ministry International offices, members of the group
claim that the closure order is a form of harassment.

Kapa Ministry faces criminal complaint before DOJ

Their leader, Pastor Joel Apolinario, meanwhile refused to surrender to authorities despite an ongoing
manhunt against him, and has pleaded to the government to allow their corporation to resume
operations.

Under the 1987 Constitution, it is the state's policy that the "separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable."

Watch more in iWant or TFC.tv

This policy is further supported in the Bill of Rights enshrined in the charter which bars the state from
establishing any religion and from conducting any religious test for the exercise of one's civil rights:

"No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights."

But is the government allowed to regulate a religious group once it enters into business or registers itself
as a corporation?
Fr. Ranhilio Aquino, dean of the San Beda Graduate School of Law, clarified Tuesday that a religious sect
becomes subject to government regulation once it conducts activities subject to government regulation.

"While it is true that every religion and the members of a religious sect are free to exercise their religion,
the moment they engage in certain activities that are government-regulated, they have to submit to
government regulations," he told radio DZMM.

"The moment we set up cooperatives, the moment we put up corporations, the moment we engage in
micro-finance eh talagang dapat sundin ang mga batas ng estado (we should really follow state
policies)," he said.

The state, however, cannot regulate a group or person's belief.

"The freedom of religion in so far as the concern is belief, is absolute. You can believe anything that you
want to. But the moment that you commit an overt act based on your religion, that will be subject to
state supervision," Aquino said.

He cited as example the Catholic Church's freedom in holding masses, novenas and other religious
activities.

Aquino explained that a religious corporation conducting activities that are normally regulated by the
government, cannot invoke the separation of church and state to evade regulation.

"You cannot use the separation of church and state to say na hindi na dapat sumunod sa mga alituntunin
ng pamahalaan," he said.

(You cannot use the separation of church and state to say that you should not obey government policy.)
GMA and the right to travel

By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J. - 8 years ago

Justice Douglas, in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, said: “Free movement by the citizen is, of course, as
dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly, and it is therefore controlled in
most countries in the interest of security . . . . That is why the ticketing of people and the use of
identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes.”

Freedom of movement in Philippine law has evolved through the 1935, 1973 and 1987 constitutions. The
“watch list order” issued by the justice secretary must be measured against the present status of the
current constitutional provision.

The 1935 provision simply said: “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired.” The teaching then was that no one could be compelled to
change his or her home except in accordance with law. Thus, when the mayor of Manila sought to
cleanse the city of prostitutes by sending them to Davao, the Supreme Court stopped him. The Court
then said: “If [the City Mayor and Chief of Police] can take to themselves such power, then any official
can do the same . . . And if a prostitute could be sent against her wishes and under no law from one
locality to another within the country, then officialdom can hold the same club over the head of any
citizen.”

The 1973 Constitution altered the 1935 text to read: “The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health.” The liberty could thus be impaired either “upon lawful order of the
court” or even without such order provided that the restriction was “necessary in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health.” The phrase “within the limits prescribed by law” in the 1935
provision disappeared. Thus, the net effect was that an executive officer could impair liberty of abode
and of travel even without a prior court order provided only that in the executive officer’s judgment
impairment was “necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health.”

Drastic attempts by the government to control the travel of citizens during the period of martial law did
reach the Court. The curtailment took the form of denial of exit permits. The Court had occasion to warn
the Travel Processing Center not to treat the constitutional guarantee of the right to travel as an empty
phrase in a pauper’s will.

The 1987 Constitution has strengthened the guarantee by splitting freedom of movement into two
distinct sentences and treating them differently. The liberty of abode is treated in a separate sentence. It
may be impaired only “upon lawful order of the court,” and the court is to be guided by “the limits
prescribed by law” on the liberty itself. The clear intent was to proscribe practices like “hamletting.”

As to liberty of travel, under the 1987 law, it may be impaired even without a court order, but the
appropriate executive officer is not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. He can impose
limits only on the basis of “national security, public safety, or public health” and “as may be provided by
law,” a limitive phrase which had disappeared from the less libertarian 1973 text.

My questions, therefore, are two. First, in what way will the travel of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo be a
threat to “national security, public safety, or public health”? Second, by what statutory authority is the
justice secretary preventing the exit of GMA?

In issuing “watch list orders” the Department of Justice has relied on its prosecutorial powers as found in
Section 3[1], [2] & [6], Chapter I, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code. Of these, the only part
specifically related to travel is Section 3(6) which deals with the admission and stay of aliens! In effect,
the policy being followed now claims even a broader executive discretion than that given under the 1973
Constitution which at least was limited by the needs of “national security, public safety, or public health.”

The limitation on the right to travel must be based on law and not on a mere executive circular. The
limitation may also be by legitimate court order under the Rules of Court. As the Court has said in
reference to persons out on bail, (and who are therefore under the jurisdiction of a court), the right to
travel should not be “construed as delimiting the inherent power of the courts to use all means
necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them. When by law
jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means
necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer.” The executive department is
claiming similar discretionary power and without relation to national security, public safety, and public
health.

Incidentally, the celebrated case on the right to travel was the ban of President Cory Aquino on former
President Ferdinand Marcos’ return to the Philippines. Since the authority to impair the right to travel
must be based on law, there was need to point to a law giving her such authority. The Court found it in
the “faithful execution clause” of Article VII, Section 17. The Court accepted the argument that the
return of Marcos then could be a threat to public safety and the stability of the government at that time.
Is the justice secretary making such claim even if President Aquino himself has been quoted as saying
that he has no objection to the foreign travel of GMA?
Why the Philippines needs a freedom of
information law

Do we want to prevent or, at the very

least, reduce corruption by making
processes more transparent now?

Gemma Bagayaua-Mendoza

Published: 10:45 AM July 21, 2014

Updated: 10:23 PM August 4, 2015

THE POWER OF ACCESS. The law requiring officials to disclose their assets and financial circumstances
has helped government file cases against 2 presidents and a Supreme Court Chief Justice

MANILA, Philippines - In February 2014, the Philippine government finally recovered around $30 million
from multi-million dollar accounts that the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos stashed away in Swiss banks.

What allowed the government to gain control of the money were forfeiture cases which proved that
amounts contained in the accounts exceeded the total legal income of Marcos and his wife Imelda while
they were in office. Evidence used to prove the government’s case included the financial disclosure
statements filed by the Marcoses while in office.

It took the government almost 3 decades to recover the money. Neither Marcos, nor his wife Imelda,
were ever convicted of any wrongdoing.

No laggard?

The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the law that required the Marcoses to file those disclosure
statements dates back to the 1960s. In 1989, years after the Marcoses were booted out of office, the
Philippine Congress enacted a new law which allowed the public to access and photocopy the assets and
liabilities statements.

Since then, the law has been used to prove a plunder case against another president (Joseph Estrada),
impeach then remove a chief justice (Renato Corona), file cases against corrupt generals and lately,
support the filing of charges against sitting senators.
That the Philippines enacted such a law almost 3 decades ago is significant because as of 2006, a World
Bank study showed that only 31 of 101 countries that require government officials to declare their
income and/or assets mandate that such declarations or a summary should be made available to the
public.

This implies that the Philippines is no laggard when it comes to laws allowing access to public
information.

Constitutionally-mandated right

The people's right to information on matters of public concern has been constitutionally recognized in
the country since 1973.

Section 6. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, shall be afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

- Bill of Rights, 1973 Constitution

After the 1986 Edsa uprising ousted the Marcos dictatorship, this right was further expanded in the 1987
Constitution to include access to research data used as basis for policy development.

And while there is no enabling law yet on access to information, the Philippine Supreme Court has
already ruled, in more than one occasion, that the constitutional mandate is enforceable.

In fact, the Code of Ethics of government officials—the same law that mandates public access to financial
disclosure statements of government officials—also makes it the obligation of public officials and
employees to make documents accessible to the public.

The implementing rules of this law helped institute a system of promoting transparency of transactions
and access to government information. It also sets limits of access.

More recently, the Aquino administration has been making strides in promoting transparency in
government by proactively disclosing budget and project documents.

It is no small wonder then that while the Senate has approved the bill on 3rd reading, members of the
House of Representatives continue to drag their heels on the freedom of information law.

Because if those laws are already in place, why then is an access to information law still necessary?
Duterte to labor unions: I meant unions
that kill business

The presidential bet says he would only

crack down on labor unions that abuse
their right to self-organize and create an
environment where businesses cannot
flourish

Pia Ranada

Published: 8:30 PM February 12, 2016

Updated: 7:46 PM February 12, 2016

DUTERTE ON LABOR UNIONS. Duterte says abusive labor unions are bad for business. File photo by Alecs
Ongcal/Rappler

MANILA, Philippines – Presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte clarified statements he made regarding
labor unions, saying he only meant he would crack down on labor unions that "kill business."

Groups like the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) and Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) slammed
Duterte for saying he would stop and even kill labor unions.

He said this during his proclamation rally last Tuesday, February 9.

His exact words during his speech were:

"Tapos kayong mga KMU, medyo pigilan ang mga labor union. Ako na ang nakikiusap sa inyo.
Magkasama tayo sa ideolohiya. 'Wag ninyong gawain yan kasi sisirain mo ang administrasyon ko. Pag
ginawa ninyo ‘yan, patayin ko kayong lahat. Ang solusyon nito, patayan na lang. Pag-uusapan mo, ayaw
eh. So let us come to terms with each other. Do not do it now in active labor front. Kasi pag ginawa mo,
sisira. Do not do it. Give the Philippines a respite of about 10 years."

(You KMU, stop it with the labor unions. I am appealing to you. We are one in ideology. Do not do that
because you will ruin my administration. When you do that, I will kill you all. The solution here is just
killing because when you try to talk to them, they don't want to. So let us come to terms with each other.
Do not do it now in active labor front. Because if you do that, things will be ruined. Do not do it. Give the
Philippines a respite of about 10 years.)

On Friday, Duterte said he was referring to abusive labor unions that try to destabilize companies for the
sake of ideology.

KMU, for instance, is a union associated with the Left, with an anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist agenda.

Bad for business

Part of Duterte's platform is to invite foreign companies to develop economic zones and for the
government lease out land to investors for 40 years or more.

"Sabi ko, huwag ninyong patayin ang negosyo," Duterte said on Friday. (I said, do not kill business.)

"Kung merong negosyo diyan, magbubukas ako ng economic zones, huwag ninyo patayin ang negosyo,
hayaan mo muna. Do not kill it because you will die with it," he said. (If there is business there, I will be
putting up economic zones, do not kill business. Let it grow first.)

BMP, however, insisted that workers "do not abuse their constitutional rights to freedom of association
and self-organization," pointing instead to companies that exploit their workers through
contractualization and starvation wages.

While radical labor unions may have been rampant in the 1970s or 1980s, the same thing cannot be said
of most labor unions today.

"Workers form unions not because they are provoked by radicals. They do so in order to enjoy the rights
and standards that are enshrined in the Constitution but which are wantonly disregarded by employers,"
added BMP. – Rappler.com
Selling land for a public purpose

By: Sara Mae D. Mawis - 2 years ago

“BUY LAND,” said American novelist Mark Twain. “They’re not making it anymore.”

And so our government did. In 2014 for instance, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
sought to acquire portions of roadside properties for its Banilad-Talamban road widening project in Cebu
City.

In his interview with Cebu Daily News, DPWH-7 Planning Division Head Nonito Paylado said the project
sought to regulate the traffic flow as the flyover in MJ Cuenco and Gorordo Avenues continues to be
constructed.

The Banilad-Talamban road widening project is one of the DPWH’s numerous national infrastructure
projects, which include the conversion of national roads and construction of bridges and flyovers. In
studies conducted by the DPWH, local government units transferred the administration of 2,486.14
kilometers or a total of 213 road sections to the national government for their conversion into national
roads from 2010 to 2016, while 364,162 linear meters or 8,161 bridges were constructed in 2016.

In order to address the government’s increasing number of national infrastructure projects, as well as
the need for low cost housing, the Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) No. 10752, which sought to
facilitate its acquisition of right-of-way site or location through donation, negotiated sale, expropriation
or any other mode of acquisition as provided by law.

RA No. 10752 covers “national government projects,” which include: (a) national government
infrastructure projects and their public service facilities; (b) engineering works and service contracts,
including projects undertaken by government-owned and -controlled corporations; (c) infrastructure
projects covered by the Build-Operate-Transfer Law; and (d) other related and necessary activities.”

While our laws define and regulate donation, sale and other modes of acquisition of real property,
expropriation is rooted in our country’s inherent power of eminent domain, which the Supreme Court
defines as “the ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public but the private
property of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, to public purposes.”

The government may only exercise this inherent power if these two requirements were present: (a) that
the appropriation of private property is for a particular public purpose; and (b) that just compensation
be paid to the property owner.
Public use as such requirement is synonymous with “public interest,” “public benefit,” and “public
convenience,” which purpose must not be abandoned by the government in instituting expropriation
proceedings against a particular property.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court defines the requirement of just compensation as just and timely
payment to the owner of private property to be determined by the courts.

Thus, should the government fail to fully pay the determined amount, it will incur interest on the unpaid
balance.

The government institutes expropriation proceedings by filing a complaint before the proper court. In
the case of national government projects, the government must pay 100 percent of the value of the land
based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), upon the filing of
the complaint.

The BIR must have issued said current valuation not more than three years before the filing of the
complaint.

In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no land classification, the city or
municipal assessor must come up with the required land classification and corresponding declaration of
real property and improvement for the area within 60 days from the date of filing of the expropriation
case.

If there was no zonal valuation, or the current valuation was in force for more than three years, the BIR
must conduct a zonal valuation in that area based on the assessor’s land classification, within 60 days
from the date of filing of said case.

While those not classified as national government projects are likewise instituted by the filing of said
complaint, the government need only pay 10 percent of the amount of compensation upon such filing or
the government’s entry into the private property, whichever is earlier.
Santiago scorns Enrile’s ‘blissful ignorance of
law’

By: Maila Ager - Reporter / @MAgerINQ

INQUIRER.net / 03:50 PM August 08, 2013

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile. FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who has been on sick leave for chronic fatigue
with heart problems, blasted Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile anew this time, for what she
described as “blissful ignorance of the law.”

Santiago was reacting to a provision in the Bill of Rights mentioned during a debate between Enrile and
Senator Antonio “Sonny’ Trillanes last Tuesday over the latter’s move to push for a Senate inquiry into
the P15 billion corporate income tax that is being passed on to consumers by two water concessionaires
– Manila Water and Maynilad.

She noted Enrile’s opinion that the provision “No law impairing the obligation of contract shall be
passed” was “one of the most sacred provisions of the Bill of Rights.”

“Furious” in what she described as “Enrile’s blissful ignorance of the law,” Santiago pointed out the
Supreme Court ruling on the 1992 case of Juarez v. Court of Appeals which states that, “The impairment
clause is now no longer inviolate; in fact, there are many who now believe it is an anachronism in
present-day society. . . . These agreements have come within the embrace of the police power.”

Albayalde: Police officials ‘ganging up on me’ worked with ‘previous admin’

Santiago traced this police power limitation on the so-called “contract clause” or “impairment clause” as
far back as 60 years ago, with the decision by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1953 case of Rutter v.
Esteban, ushering in a consistent line of cases holding that police power prevails over the contract
clause.
She then cited the 1993 case of PNB v. Remigio, where the Supreme Court ruled: “The constitutional
guarantee of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of
the State, the reason being that public welfare is superior to private rights.”

The senator went on to cite the 1995 case of Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. v. POEA,
where the Supreme Court similarly ruled: “The freedom of contract is not absolute; all contracts and all
rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be
established by the State, but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to time. . . . .”

Santiago defined “police power” as “the inherent and plenary power of a sovereign to make all laws
necessary and proper to preserve the public security, order, health, morality, justice, and general
welfare.”

She said the high tribunal has consistently upheld the police power of the state over the contracts
clause, even as late as the 2010 case of Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Energy Regulatory
Commission, where the Supreme Court held: “It has long been settled that police power legislation
adopted by the State to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and the
general welfare of the people prevail not only over future contracts but even over those already in
existence, for all private contracts must yield to the superior and legitimate measures taken by the State
to promote public welfare.”

“Because Enrile had never even bothered to do his homework on constitutional law, the result was that
he was merely engaging in bluffing and bullying Senator Trillanes, who is a non-lawyer,” Santiago said.

“The Enrile speech was an egregious example of ignorance of the law, used as a tool to bludgeon the
heads of non-lawyers. I am very disappointed that none of the lawyers in the majority coalition to which
I belong stood up to unmask Enrile’s ignorance.”

Santiago said Enrile lost to Trillanes when the resolution was referred to the Senate committee on public
services.

She also scoffed at Enrile’s boast that if he would be allowed to appear in court, he would certainly
defeat Trillanes.

“He (Enrile) does not want the Senate to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, which is one of our
duties. Instead, he wants Trillanes to file a case in court, which is no longer part of our legislative
functions,” she said.

“Under the Senate rules, that kind of boasting and self-praise at the expense of another senator who is a
non-lawyer, constitutes unparliamentary language because it offends Sen. Trillanes and the Senate as a
whole,” Santiago added.
SC asked anew to exempt poor litigants from paying
sheriff fees

Tetch Torres - 7 years ago

The Supreme Court building in Manila. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) asked the Supreme Court anew to overturn its
ruling denying PAO’s motion to exempt poor litigants from paying sheriff fees worth P1,000.

“Once again, we are begging for this Honorable Court’s compassion towards the poor. In our jurisdiction
as well as in the rest of the world, equal access to justice has been a fundamental human right,” PAO,
through its chief, Persida Rueda-Acosta, said in a 25-page motion for reconsideration.

Acosta appealed for the high court’s “liberality and sympathy”, adding that the exemption from payment
of sheriff’s expenses is in line with government’s objective to promote social justice.

“This is the very foundation of the PAO and is at the heart of the Judiciary – it is our bounden duty to
ensure that justice is served to the poor in the very same manner as it is served to the rich,” she said.

“Justice does not end in a favorable judgment; execution is the ultimate relief that may be afforded to
any litigant. The poor is equally entitled to such a right,” Acosta said.

“The payment of sheriff’s expenses (trust fund) is no different from the rest of the legal fees being
imposed upon litigants, which unduly burden the indigent members of our society to the extent of
denying them their right of access to justice,” Acosta said.

She argued that the November 22, 2011 ruling of the high court violates the 1987 Constitution,
particularly Section 11 Article 3 which provides the people’s right to “free access to the courts and quasi-
judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”

Acosta said the ruling contradicts Section 6 [16-D] of Republic Act 9406—the law that created PAO—
which exempts indigent clients from the payment of fees required in filing lawsuits in courts and quasi-
judicial bodies.

The PAO chief noted that sheriff’s expenses fall within the concept of “legal fees” under Section 19 of
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
The provision provides that indigent litigants whose gross income and that of their immediate family do
not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee and who do not own real
property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax declaration of more than P300,000 shall be
exempt from the payment of legal fees.

If you're arrested or detained, know these rights

The Constitution remains in effect even in times of emergency, such as during martial law. This means
that rights during arrest or detention remain in place.

Michael Bueza

Published: 9:34 AM May 26, 2017

Updated: 10:25 AM May 26, 2017

MANILA, Philippines – The 1987

Constitution guarantees that no
Filipino shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

As long as a citizen abides by the law, he or she should not be in trouble.

But what if you're apprehended by authorities for some reason – or in times of emergency, like the
recent declaration of martial law in Mindanao – you're picked up due to supposed security concerns?

Remember, the Constitution remains in effect – even during those times. Along with relevant laws and
issuances, the Constitution makes sure citizen's rights continue to be respected.

Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution (also known as the Bill of Rights) states that any person
under investigation for the commission of a crime or offense "shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice."

If you can't afford a lawyer, the state will provide you with one.

The right to remain silent is emphasized because any statement you give can be used against you in
court.

Likewise, it is your right to call or have access to a lawyer at all times throughout the ordeal of arrest or
detention.

These rights cannot be waived "except in writing and in the presence of counsel," says the Constitution.

More rights

If you're being arrested you should know these additional rights:Know the reason for your arrest at the
time of your arrest via an arrest warrant, which you should ask for .

Ask for the identity and authority of the arresting officer

Be promptly brought before a judge and be "entitled to a trial within a reasonable time" or to be entitled
to release subject to guarantees to appear for trial

Demand physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of your choice before and after
interrogation, as stated in Republic Act 9745 or the Anti-Torture Act

A manual on law enforcement for citizens prepared by the Philippine National Police, in fact, says that
prior to release or any change of custody, "you will...be physically examined."

Lawyer Marlon Manuel of the Alternative Law Groups, a coalition of legal resource non-governmental
organizations, said that physical examination is already part of the police's booking procedures
immediately after an arrest.

The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), in its primer on human rights, also recommends that you stay
calm, not resist arrest or offer any physical resistance, and ask a relative, friend or even anybody to
witness the arrest. Make sure to get the witness' name and address.

FLAG also suggests you ask the arresting officer where you will be brought, and be accompanied by the
witness of your arrest. Do not agree to be blindfolded.

If authorities invite you for questioning, say you will first consult your lawyer, who will arrange a date,
time, and place for your questioning. If they insist on taking you with them, their acts become
tantamount to an arrest.

This is different from custodial investigation, where you are taken into police custody for interrogation
because you are "considered a suspect, and therefore are being investigated as a potential accused in a
criminal case," said Manuel. "Usually, custodial investigation follows warrantless arrest."

"In short, if the invitation [for questioning] is not really an invitation but more of a deprivation of liberty,
it becomes equivalent to custodial investigation," he added.
Killer of Papadom's wife gets reclusion
perpetua

ABS-CBN News

Posted at Sep 19 2019 10:16 PM

MANILA - The man behind the killing

of the widow of Tropical Depression's
frontman Dominic "Papadom"
Gamboa was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua on Thursday.

The Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 149 found Nitro Ison guilty of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide on the killing of Maria Amparo Concepcion Santaromana Gamboa.

Mike Navallo

@mikenavallo

Makati court finds man who pretended to be a taxi driver guilty of robbery with homicide for death of
the wife of the late reggae singer Dominic “Papadom” Gamboa. Nitro Ison sentenced to reclusion
perpetua and to pay heirs almost P500k civil indemnity, damages.

Acting presiding judge Giovanni Esguerra Vidal sentenced Ison with reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole.

The court also ordered Ison to pay Gamboa's family P75,000 as civil indemnity; P283,770.50 as actual
damages; P75,000 as moral damages; P50,000 as temperate damages. The court added that the
amounts shall be charged with legal interest at 6 percent per annum from the finality of the decision
until full payment.

Reggae artist's missing wife found dead

Gamboa was found dead on a street in Makati City with a gunshot wound in her head in February 2016.

Ison was arrested two months after Gamboa was killed.

Investigation showed that Ison was driving a stolen taxi boarded by Gamboa.

Two taxi drivers also surfaced and positively identified him as the man who took their taxis at gunpoint.

FULL TEXT: Duterte's statement on Int'l Criminal Court withdrawal

Read the statement of President Rodrigo Duterte declaring the Philippines' withdrawal from the
International Criminal Court
Rappler.com

Published: 7:20 PM March 14, 2018

Updated: 4:44 PM March 11, 2019

MANILA, Philippines – Below is the complete text of the 15-page statement of President Rodrigo Duterte
released on Wednesday, March 14, announcing that the Philippines would withdraw "immediately" from
the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Rappler has typed the text as written in the document, including some typographical errors.

STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT

OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ON THE JURISDICTION OF

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

March 13, 2018

Enshrined in the Constitution is the fundamental provision that protects a person of not being deprived
of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, to wit:

“SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” (Section 1, Article III, Constitution)

Due process of law has been defined as a process that hears before it condemns. It affords the accused
the opportunity to be heard, to be informed of the nature of the offense charged, and a reasonable time
to prepare for his defense.

The Constitution expressly gives the mantle of protection to a person charged and commands that:

“Section 14 (1). No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.”
(Section 14 (1), Article III, Constitution)

For a person to be charged with a criminal offense, there must be a law that shall specify a particular act
as criminal with an imposition of a corresponding penalty – thus the latim maxim:

“Nullum crimen sine lege”

“There is no crime without a law making it so. One cannot be punished for doing something that is not
prohibited by law.”
A person cannot invoke as a defense that he is ignorant of the law that penalizes a particular criminal act
hence the basic legal principle, that:

“Ignorantia juris non excusat or

ignorantia legis neminem excusot”

“Ignorance of the law excuses no one

from compliance therewith.”

“Dura lex, sed lex.”

“The law may be harsh, but it is the

law.”

A penal law to be enforceable must be effective. In our jurisdiction, it must be published in the Official
Gazette within a certain period of time from its signing into law.

An unenforceable law cannot vest jurisdiction on courts to try a charged person.

The courts must first acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of a defendant.

No law or a statute lacking in the required publication can vest any court of jurisdiction over the person
of a defendant because it will violate the constitutional injunction that the person so charged must be
informed of the nature of his offense.

Thus, the Constitution states:

“SECTION 14 (2). In all criminal prosecution the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, xxxx, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, xxxx.” (Section 14(2),
Article III, Constitution)

How can the accused be informed of the nature of the offense, if he is not aware of the same because
the law penalizing the act he is being charged with has not seen the light of day by way of a publication
as required by law?

Duterte threatens to suspend writ of habeas corpus, declare revolutionary war

By Chad de Guzman
Published Apr 4, 2019 8:54:37 PM

President Rodrigo Duterte says he is on a warpath if push comes to shove with his policies. (FILE PHOTO)

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, April 4) — President Rodrigo Duterte on Thursday threatened to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and have his critics arrested over a senator's
comment on his order to review state contracts..

"I have enough problems with criminality, drugs, rebellion and all.. Pero pag ako ang pinaabot ninyo nang
sagad [But if you push me to limit., I will declare the suspension of writ of habeas corpus and I will arrest
all of you. Kasama kayo sa mga rebelde, mga kriminal, pati mga durugista [You are part of the rebels, the
criminals and the drug addicts]," Duterte said in a speech in Palawan on Thursday.

Known for issuing exaggerated statements, the President also threatened to declare a "revolutionary
war" if push comes to shove on his policies.

"Then pahirapan mo ako [if you make it difficult for me], I will declare a revolutionary war until the end
of my term. Then pasesnsyahan tayo [you'll have to excuse me]," he said.

In a chance interview after his speech, Duterte issued his warning again.

"That was just really a threat that you do not push me to the extreme because it would be dangerous for
everybody. It might not really end the way you would like it to be," he said.

The Constitution states under Article III, Section 15 (Bill of Rights) that "the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety
requires it." The writ is a constitutional right whereby an individual cannot be imprisoned or detained
unless the person has first been brought to court, which decides whether or not the detention is legal.

Duterte responded to Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon's statement Wednesday where he urged
the government to exercise caution in the review of government contracts and loan agreements as
ordered by the President.

"But I must caution that existing and binding contracts cannot simply be classified as onerous and
cancelled," Drilon had warned. "The government must avail of the procedure outlined in the contract."

Drilon said the administration should respect the sanctity of government contracts.

The President did not take Drilon's statement well.

"P****** how dare you say that to me Mr. Drilon. Sa inyo 'yan eh [It's in your court]," he said. "Ayusin
ninyo 'yan [Fix it]. I will not honor 'yung bullshit ninyo. Eh ano kung magkagulo tayo? [So what if we go to
war?]"

SC sets reckoning period for right to speedy case disposition

Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News

Posted at Jul 31 2018 08:01 PM

MANILA - A day before Supreme Court (SC) Associate
Justice Samuel Martires assumes his post as the new
Ombudsman, the high court handed down a ruling
clearly setting the reckoning period for one’s
constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.

The ruling states the reckoning period shall begin

from the preliminary investigation of cases, not prior
such as the fact-finding stage.

The voting was 7-5, with two magistrates inhibiting,

said Atty. Theodore Te, Supreme Court spokesman.
However, details of the Tuesday en banc session vote
was not yet available, according to Te.

The ruling will have an impact on Martires’ disposition of cases as it gives a clear picture as to what shall
be considered “inordinate delay” in the resolution of cases - a ground sometimes cited in the acquittal of
individuals facing criminal and/or administrative charges.

While the case is not a ruling on the pleading filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2017, rather on a
petition by one Cesar Ma. Cagang, it will have an effect on the Ombudsman’s bid.

In its plea, the Ombudsman urged the high court to clearly define “inordinate delay” as it lamented how
the doctrine has caused the dismissal of cases before the Sandiganbayan. The anti-graft office also
simultaneously urged the Sandiganbayan to retain its application pending a ruling from the SC.

“While it is well-established in jurisprudence that criminal cases may be dismissed on the ground of
denial of the accused’s right to speedy trial, the concept of ‘inordinate delay’ that amounts to a violation
of said right has eluded exact definition,” the Ombudsman said.

The right to a speedy disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies is
provided in Section 16, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution.

What is the right against self-incrimination?

Published November 8, 2013 4:53pm

By ROD VERA

Every celebrated witness in a Senate or House of Representatives “investigative” hearing, when faced
with a difficult question to answer, utilizes a ploy often used in the organized crime hearings of the U.S.:
“I invoke my right against self-incrimination.”

Oh, wait, they're just scenes from “The Godfather: Part 2.”

Seriously, what exactly is the right that these senators are tired of hearing about? (Yeah, but wait until
they are actual witnesses.)

Under Section 17 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, “No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.” It does not exactly say “right against self-incrimination.” Also, under the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, particularly Rule 115, Section 1 [e], an accused at TRIAL is exempt from being
compelled to be a witness against himself.

Again, no phrase involving the words “self-incrimination.” Lastly, and more importantly, under the Senate
section (Article VI, The Legislative Department) of the Constitution, if there is an inquiry in the aid of
“legislation”, the rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected (Section
21).

That means all RIGHTS, constitutional or otherwise.

Ironically, the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation provides the actual
words verbatim. Under Section 19, the right against self-incrimination shall be allowed only when a
question which tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate is propounded. Reading the section fully,
the senators can determine whether the right was properly invoked. And this is by majority vote of the
committees’ members if there is a quorum present.

Is this legalese? Simply put, if a witness invokes the right, the right can be rejected if there is a majority
vote of the members present and ONLY if the members present form a quorum of the whole committee.
So, if there is a committee hearing with only one (1) senator present, any right of against self-
incrimination cannot be questioned.

So, we have three rules allowing for this right to be used. Although I mentioned four, one is just reserved
for criminal trials. Although, being in a Senate hearing can make one feel like being in a criminal trial.

Is this right abused?

More reasons to give in to your late night cravingsBrand TalkMore reasons to give in to your late night
cravings

First, the constitutional right is not limitless. But neither is it specific. Meaning, the limit for the
invocation of this constitutional right can be at any form of inquiry by a government body. Cases in the
Supreme Court have ruled that this right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory
in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It is only when a
particular question is addressed to which may incriminate himself for some offense that he may refuse
to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty (People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, 7 July 1989,
175 SCRA 216, 226-227). Again, by being non-specific, it can be used during televised Senate hearings.

Consequently, the Senate itself respects and allows the right to be [ab]used. Only a majority vote of a
committee that has a quorum can reject the right. If both the Constitution and the Senate Rules allow for
this right to be available, why should one be punished (or ridiculed) if it is overused?

What is not mentioned by complaining legislators and frustrated opinion-giving newscasters is the right
not to be compelled to witness against himself or its synonym: right against self-incrimination is a
subjective choice by the witness. If a witness feels the answer to the question (even if a denial) will lead
into criminal charges, the right can be invoked.

In addition, what really makes anything incriminating is the oath before any questioning. What is the
effect of the oath? Perjury! The oath is not just symbolic. It is a threat that, if you are caught in a lie, you
can be charged for giving false testimony under the Revised Penal Code (Article 183). This is the hidden
self-incrimination criminal offense.

In conclusion, I would like to give the analogy of a fad eating habit: the buffet. Whether it be at the
wallet-shrinking Spiral Restaurant or the birthday-singing Sambo Kojin, if there is bottomless tempura,
should that same food establishment limit the number of shrimp one can eat? If both the Constitution
and the Rules of the Senate allow the buffet privilege of self-incrimination, you can’t raise the price mid-
stream.

The only way to change those rules is by constitutional amendment. – KDM, GMA News

MOA violated 36 provisions of the Constitution--Justice Carpio

Aries Rufo, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak

Posted at Oct 16 2008 05:53 PM | Updated as of Oct 17 2008 07:19 AM

Had the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
pushed through, it would have committed the country before the international community to make a
“drastic change” to the 1987 Constitution, contrary to what government claimed would involve only
minor changes.

Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, in a separate concurring opinion, listed at least 36 constitutional
amendments that would have to be observed, by hook or by crook, if the invalidated MOA-AD was
signed.

The figure was way below the five constitutional provisions that needed amendment if the MOA –AD
was to conform to the Charter, as government announced.

Principal counsel to the government peace panel, Sedfrey Candelaria, when directed by Carpio to submit
a listing to the SC, cited only five provisions--Sections 1, 5, 18, 20 and 21 of Article X of the Constitution--
that could be affected by the MOA-AD. Article 10 refers to Local Government provisions.

Candelaria added Article 1 on National Territory as that would also be amended.

Candelaria's incomplete list

But a closer scrutiny showed that “this listing is grossly incomplete, ”Carpio said, even as he castigated
the executive branch for usurping the power of Congress and the people to propose amendments to the
Charter and to approve or disapprove the proposals.

Carpio’s list showed that 10 Articles, from the National Territory, the Bill of Rights, executive power,
judicial power, and the pertinent sections under such Articles would have to be drastically changed,
aside from risking a potential dismemberment of the Republic.

Carpio noted that under the MOA-AD, the BangsaMoro Juridical Entity would have “its own people,
territory, government, armed forces, foreign trade missions and all other institutions of a state.” In effect,
the agreement vests on the BJE a status of a state, with its own basic law and constitution.

Since it has the status of a state, Carpio said the BJE can exercise rights accorded to a state and can now
go to the international court if government refused to honor its agreement with the MILF, which can be
considered as a treaty

This would have serious effect on the country's territorial integrity if the BJE declares independence from
the Republic. “Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Philippines cannot invoke
it internal law, including its Constitution, as justification for the non-compliance with the MOA-AD, which
operates as a treaty between the GRP and the BJE. Thus, under international law, the Philippines is
obligated to amend its Constitution to conform to the MOA-AD, whether Congress or the Filipino people
agree or not,” Carpio said.

Highlights

The amendments to be made had the MOA-AD been signed include:

1. Section 3, Article II on the role of the Armed Forces of the Philippines as “protector of the people
and the State.” Under the MOA-AD, the AFP’s role is only to defend the BJE against external aggression.

2. Article III on the Bill of Rights. The MOA-AD does not state that the Bill of Rights will apply to the
BJE. The MOA-AD refers only to “internationally recognized human rights instruments” such as the
United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law, and the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. No reference is made to the Bill of Rights or
even to the Constitution.

3. Section 1, Article VI on the Legislative Department. Legislative power shall no longer be vested
solely in the Congress of the Philippines. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE shall “build, develop and maintain
its own institutions” like a legislature whose laws are not subordinate to laws passed by Congress.

4. Section 1, Article VII on executive power. Executive power shall no longer be vested exclusively in
the President of the Philippines. The BJE shall have its own Chief Executive who will not be under the
supervision of the President.

5. Section 16, Article VII on the President’s power to appoint certain officials, including military officers
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. All
public officials in the BJE, including military officers of any rank in the BJE internal security force, will be
appointed in accordance with the BJE’s own basic law or constitution.

6. Section 17, Article VII on the President’s control over all executive departments. The President will
not control executive bureaus or offices in the BJE, like foreign trade missions of the BJE.

7. Section 18, Article VII on the President as “Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines.” Under the MOA-AD, the President will not be the Commander-in-Chief of the BJE’s internal
security force. The BJE’s internal security force will not be part of the AFP chain of command.

8. Section 21, Article VII on the ratification of treaties and international agreements by the Senate. This
will not apply to the BJE which, under the MOA-AD, has the power to enter into economic and trade
treaties with other countries.

9. Section 1, Article VIII on judicial power being vested in one Supreme Court. Since the BJE will have
“its own x x x judicial system,” the BJE will also have its own Supreme Court.

10. Section 2, Article VIII on the power of Congress to define and apportion the jurisdiction of lower
courts. Under the MOA-AD, Congress cannot prescribe the jurisdiction of BJE courts.

11. Section 5(2), Article VIII on the power of the Supreme Court to review decisions of lower courts and
to promulgate rules of pleadings and practice in all courts. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE will have its own
judicial system. Decisions of BJE courts are not reviewable by the Supreme Court.
Poor to suffer most with death penalty

By Federico D. Pascual Jr. (The Philippine Star) - August 15, 2019 - 12:00am

WITH our flawed justice system, it would be cruel to restore the death penalty and create a scenario
where suspects in serious crimes who are without the means to properly defend themselves face
execution rather than rehabilitation.

We can hear again the principle echoing down the centuries that we would rather have 10 guilty persons
escape the punishment of death, than have one innocent person condemned and executed.

But these words are lost on President Duterte and his followers in the 18th Congress who seem to see
the restoration of capital punishment, more than the reforming of the justice system, as a more effective
deterrence to heinous crimes.
As in the extrajudicial killings related to the drug war, suspects who cannot afford the expenses of
protecting their rights from the time of their arrest, preliminary investigation and to trial are at a
disadvantage and more likely to be convicted – if they have not been shot on the spot.

Unfortunately for the poor and underprivileged, enactment of a law imposing capital punishment is
easier done than legislating and carrying out reforms in the justice system. Reforming the flawed setup
requires time, resources, a sterling sense of fairness and political will.

Without using the certainty of being caught as deterrence, threatening a criminal with the likelihood of a
death sentence as part of law enforcement is taking the line of least resistance.

In Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution, Section 19 says: “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.”

By law, the imposition of the death penalty was stopped in 2006 under the Arroyo administration.
Capital punishment was in use during the Marcos regime, but after the dictator’s fall, there was a
moratorium from 1987 to 1999. Executions were resumed from 1999 to 2006, when a law ended the
imposition of capital punishment.

In the current 24-member Senate, those who have voiced support for Duterte’s restoring the death
penalty include Senate President Vicente Sotto and senators Manny Pacquiao, Bato dela Rosa, Ping
Lacson, Bong Go, Win Gatchalian, Cynthia Villar, Imee Marcos, Koko Pimentel, Edgardo Angara, Pia
Cayetano, Bong Revilla, Francis Tolentino and Lito Lapid.

Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon concedes that their opposition group that shrank after the last
May midterm election will have a hard time voting down the administration bill restoring the death
penalty.

The bill filed by Go on July 2 sought the death penalty for heinous crimes such as illegal drugs trade,
plunder, rape, and murder. He proposed that the penalty be carried out by lethal injection or any other
method his colleagues may prefer.

Dela Rosa, a former national police chief, filed two days later a similar bill, but only for illegal drug
manufacturers and traffickers. He said it would be simpler to execute convicts by hanging. The related
bills are expected to be consolidated.

Explaining the opposition’s stand, Drilon said that with the inadequacies of the justice system, reviving
capital punishment is akin to giving a death sentence to the poor, who he said would suffer cruel and
inhumane punishment.

“No justice will be served if it involves taking a life,” he said. “Let’s be more rational, humane,
independent, and conscientious in handling this very sensitive issue.”
Also opposed to the death penalty’s restoration are senators Kiko Pangilinan, Risa Hontiveros and Leila
de Lima, who has been detained for the past two years.

Drilon said they are counting on the support of the majority of the people. He cited a Social Weather
Stations survey last year showing that seven out of every 10 Filipinos are not in favor of imposing the
death penalty on a number of serious crimes.

Debt’s what you get when you fall in love

By: Efren Ll. Cruz - 4 years ago

QUESTION: Help! Debt collectors have been calling me incessantly demanding payment of my
outstanding debts, which have grown to a surprising high level because of interest and penalties. The sad
part is that while I do want to settle my debts and get rid of these pesky collectors who threaten me with
law suits, I cannot because the size of my debt has grown beyond my capacity to repay them. What
advice can you give me?—asked at “Ask a friend, ask Efren” free service available at
www.personalfinance.ph and Facebook
Answer: There are three basic things you can do, according to the law of man, to get rid of your debts.
One is through suspension of payments. This means you will allow your creditors to haul you to court, if
they have not done so already. Then you present the court with a plan to restructure your debt.

Please note that Article 3, Section 20 of the Philippine Constitution states that “no person shall be
imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. But creditors can still bring you to court to demand
and enforce payment of your debts. Plus, if you issued checks to repay your debts, you will be subject to
Batas Pambansa (B.P.) 22, the law that penalizes the making or drawing and issuance of a check without
sufficient funds or credit and for other purposes.

B.P. 22 punishes “any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value,
knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had
not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.” The penalty, at the
discretion of the court, is imprisonment or a fine or both.

Back to the solutions, restructuring means you will create a schedule of repayment over a long enough
period to allow affordable periodic payments of your debts (as opposed to having to pay all of your debt
one time). If the majority of your creditors who own three fifths of your debt agree to your restructuring
plan, the court will approve it.

What if your creditors do not approve of your restructuring plan? Your second option is to go for
voluntary insolvency where you will surrender all of your assets to the court and ask the judge to
distribute your assets to your creditors. Of course, you will have to prove that what you surrender is truly
all that you have.

What if you yourself refuse to surrender your assets and persist in hoping there will be “manna from
heaven” that will save you at the last minute? Well, if your creditors get tired, they might just file for
involuntary insolvency where they will petition the court to have your assets distributed to them.

Please note that with those three options, you and one of your most treasured assets, your name, will be
dragged to court. That record can be debilitating especially if you will need to borrow money in the
future.

But look closer at what I have just written. Did you see something unusual? Read the very first line of my
answer. I wrote, “There are three basic things you can do, according to the law of man…”

The best solution really is to follow the law of God.

It is written in Matthew 5:25: “Come to terms with your opponent in good time while you are still on the
way to the court with him, or he may hand you over to the judge and the judge to the officer, and you
will be thrown into prison.” Don’t make the mistake of doing TNT or tago nang tago (i.e. constantly
hiding). It will only make matters worse.
Once you have settled your debts, find out what got you into the rut. Many times, debt’s what you get
when you fall in love with material things, even those that are sugar-coated, so to speak, with the
proposition of making life easier to live.

Never again let the tectonic plates of debt drown you in a tsunami of financial woes

Double jeopardy

By Dean Andy Bautista (Philstar.com) - January 8, 2011 - 12:00am

Just like “due process”, “double jeopardy” is a favorite phrase that is used not only by lawyers but by
non-legals as well. Growing up, I associated the term with the popular television game show hosted by
Alex Trebek (although now that I am grown and have finished law school, I have still not figured out why
Jeopardy is the title of the show in the first place).  Given recent developments on headline hugging
cases such as the dismissal of the case against the Vizconde massacre suspects and the sneaky Garcia
plea bargain, I thought it would be educational to discuss the legal meaning of the term.

The first sentence of Article III, section 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no person shall be
twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.” Our provision was based on the Fifth
Amendment to the US Constitution (passed in 1791) which provides that “nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The latter, in turn, has its roots in
English common law, to try and curb abuses of the King who would continually try the same case until it
got the verdict it wanted. Specifically, however, it was Henry II’s guilt over the murder of Archbishop
Thomas Becket which led him to acquiesce to the rule that clergy that were convicted by the more
lenient ecclesiastical courts could no longer be punished in the regular courts.  

Apparently the principle was embedded in Roman law as well as it is found in the Digest of Justinian-
“the governor should not permit the same person to be again accused of a crime of which he had been
acquitted.”

In its bare essence, the double jeopardy clause protects a person from endless litigation.This is in
recognition of the fact that going thru litigation is in itself a form of punishment (at least to most
people). A pending case can serve as a “Damocles sword” that may cause anxiety and sleepless nights to
a party-litigant. 

By way of a crash course on the legal requirements to raise a valid defense of double jeopardy, under
current law, a party must prove three requisites: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached; (2) that first
jeopardy must have terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that of the
first.

In turn, jurisprudence teaches us that the first jeopardy attaches: (a) upon a good indictment (i.e.,
information), (b) by a competent court and (c) after arraignment and entry of plea.

On the other hand, a first jeopardy is terminated by: a) an acquittal; b) final conviction; c) dismissal
without express consent of the accused; and d) “dismissal on the merits.

Finally, the test to determine if the second jeopardy is the same offense as that of the first jeopardy is
whether the two offenses are identical or whether the second offense is an attempt or frustration of the
other or whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other.   

While an accused will always have an opportunity to appeal a judgment of conviction, the prosecution,
as a rule, can never appeal a judgment of acquittal as that would violate the rule on double jeopardy.
Our Supreme Court has ruled time and again that “no error, however flagrant, committed by the court
against the State, can be reversed when the defendant has once been placed in jeopardy and discharged
even though the discharge was the result of an error committed.“ I can only think of one time when the
Court carved one exception to the rule — and this was when the suspects in the Aquino-Galman murder
case were exonerated by the Sandiganbayan in 1985. The post-Edsa 1 Court ruled that if “there was
travesty of justice, then there was no valid trial and therefore, no termination of the first jeopardy.” In
essence, the Court characterized the Sandiganbayan’s decision as constituting “grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction” so much so that the “acquittal” did not really terminate the
case.

Applying the foregoing principles to the Vizconde case, it is quite evident why it would be difficult to
reverse the judgment of acquittal- it was already the Supreme Court that rendered the ruling. Will the
latter turn around in such a short period of time and admit that it committed another lapse in judgment?
On the other hand, there is hope with respect to the Garcia plea bargain as the High Court can once
again characterize the Ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Sandiganbayan’s actions as
the product of grave abuse of discretion.

FACT CHECK: A new death penalty law won't apply to De Lima's case

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines also prohibits the passing of any retroactive law

Rappler.com

Published: 8:49 AM June 7, 2018

Updated: 8:49 AM June 7, 2018

Claim: Jailed senator Leila de Lima may get the death penalty once the Senate decides to reimpose
capital punishment in the Philippines.

A post by trendingph.altervista.org ran the headline, "MUST WATCH!! PARUSAN.G BI-TAY POSIBLENG
ISAMPLE KAY LEILA DELIMA KAPAG NAIPASA SA SENADO!” (Leila de Lima will get the death penalty as
soon as it’s passed in the Senate).
The link leads only to a YouTube video posted by ‘Pro Duterte Ka Ba?’ which features pro-Duterte blogger
Trixie Cruz-Angeles who comments on the Napoles case, as well as the death penalty bill. (READ: SC slaps
3-year suspension on lawyer Trixie Cruz-Angeles)

RATING: FALSE

The facts: Even if De Lima is found guilty, a new death penalty law passed by the Senate cannot be
applied to her.

"That would constitute an ex post facto law. That would be unconstitutional," University of the
Philippines constitutional law professor Dan Gatmaytan said when asked by Rappler.

The Philippine Constitution prohibits the passing of any retroactive law. Article III of the Bill of Rights,
Section 22 says: "No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted."

The embedded video also did not mention the death penalty for De Lima, contrary to what is stated in
the post's headline.

The video is a trimmed version of a video blog by Cruz-Angelez that was originally posted on her
Facebook page. In the trimmed video, Cruz-Angeles shared her thoughts about the Napoles case and the
death penalty bill. On the topic of the death penalty, Cruz-Angeles only talked about her reservations
about the bill being discussed in the Senate, such as the non-inclusion of plunder for crimes punishable
by death.

This blog post joins other false articles that embed just an opinion video, then make a misleading claim
in the headline, even if it isn't mentioned in the video. – Don Kevin Hapal/Rappler.com