Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Radio Australia:Asia Pacific:Story:Phils Supreme Court Justice sues journalist for libel

Radio Australia:Asia Pacific:Story:Phils Supreme Court Justice sues journalist for libel
(click link)


"x x x.

Phils Supreme Court Justice sues journalist for libel

Updated August 30, 2011 21:44:57


A respected Filipina journalist goes on trial next month for allegedly defaming a Supreme Court Justice.

The Philippines criminal libel laws have long been used by politicians and business figures as an attempt to prevent critical reporting.

But it's the first time a Judge in the Philippines has filed such a case.

Supreme Court Justice Presbitero Velasco is suing Marites Vitug
If found guilty she faces jail or a hefty fine and the Philippines media is concerned about whether Marites Vitug will be able to get a fair trial ...

Correspondent: Claudette Werden
Speaker: Marites Vitug, founding editor of Philippines current affairs magazine NewsBreak

VITUG: In 2009, when I was preparing my book on the Philippine's Supreme Court, before the book was released I wrote a short piece on our website about the ethical problems Supreme Court Justice faces when a member of his family runs for a position, because in the case of Justice Velasco of the Philippine's Supreme Court, his son was then running for Congress and in the Philippine culture, a member of the family is obliged to help anyone who's running for public office. So I wrote about Justice Velasco's actions, that he was talking to local politicians, asking them to support his son and join the political party of his son, so I wrote it was an ethical problem for him but I got his side and I explained the ethical dilemmas that a Supreme Court Justice faces and apparently he did not like the story, so he sued me for libel and libel in the Philippines is a criminal offence, so that's why after more than a year, the prosecutor recommended I be charged with libel.


WERDEN: Marites, isn't truth a defence against libel?

VITUG: Truth is a defence against libel but apparently some people don't see it that way?

WERDEN: What do you mean?

VITUG: I mean that Justice Velasco, the Supreme Court Justice who sued me doesn't see it that way, he thinks that I'm out to destroy him, he thinks that I'm in conspiracy with his son's political rivals so he has ascribed motives where there are none.

WERDEN: Are you surprised that the decision was made that the case should be prosecuted?

VITUG: In the beginning I was very optomistic the case will not go to court because there was no malice involved at all in the story, that's apparently what the Philippines court looks for any hint of malice and in my defence there is no such thing as malice because I got his side and I interviewed those involved in the story, except those who did not want to be interviewed.

WERDEN: And are you still allowed to write and work as a journalist?

VITUG: Oh yes, I am still allowed to write and I can still travel, I just need to ask the court's permission if I need to leave the country and in fact I am writing my follow up book, my next book on the Supreme Court, I think Justice Velasco because I also wrote about him extensively in my first book on the Supreme Court, I think he's sending a message to me and other journalists that we should not be writing about him, I think it's a means to also intimidate and harrass journalists.

x x x."


Do not degrade judicial standards | Inquirer Opinion

Do not degrade judicial standards | Inquirer Opinion

(click link)

"x x x.

Do not degrade judicial standards

By:
4share64 51

I cannot fathom why Iloilo Representative Niel C. Tupas Jr., chair of the committee on justice of the House of Representatives and ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), wants to water down the standards in screening applicants for appointments to or promotions in the judiciary and in the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).

Eliminate politics. The JBC is the agency mandated by the Constitution to list at least three names from which the president of the Philippines could appoint justices, judges and high OMB officials. Once nominated by the JBC and appointed by the president, the appointees need no scrutiny and confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

In a formal letter, Tupas is proposing to do away with the JBC Rules that automatically disqualify for appointment or promotion (1) applicants “with pending criminal or regular administrative cases,” and (2) those convicted in administrative cases and penalized “with a fine of more than P10,000.”

Instead of automatically disqualifying those falling under item (1), Tupas suggests that they could still be nominated if in “the determination of the Council,” the charges are not “serious or grave as to affect the fitness of the applicant” for the position applied for.

However, as pointed out by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez in his August 19 letter to the JBC, placing on the Council the discretion on whether to disqualify applicants with pending criminal or regular administrative cases defeats the purpose of the JBC Rules “to insulate the nomination process from undue influence of any kind” or “from the shackles of friendship, relationship…” and “partisan politics.”

After all, before an applicant is considered “formally charged” in an administrative case (and therefore disqualified from appointment or promotion under the existing JBC Rules), the disciplining authority (usually the Office of the Court Administrator) would have had already preliminarily investigated the charges and found them prima facie meritorious.

Unleashing convicts. On the other hand, in criminal proceedings, an applicant is considered “formally charged” only after the proper officials have found probable cause, pursuant to the Rules of Court. So, there is no need for the JBC to determine again the validity of the formal charges and discern whether they affect the fitness of the applicant for the position or promotion applied for.

With regard to item (2), Tupas suggests that only those meted out “a fine of more than P20,000” should be disqualified. Thus, those fined P20,000 or less can be nominated for appointment or promotion. In effect, the congressman would bar only those guilty of “serious charges” that are penalized with a fine of P20,000 or more. He would unleash on hapless litigants those who have been found guilty of what are referred to as “less serious charges” and were fined less than P20,000.

To understand what these “less serious charges” are, let me give some examples: (a) “undue delay in rendering a decision or order”; (b) “unauthorized practice of law”; and (c) “receiving additional or double compensation.” So basic is the adage that justice delayed is justice denied, and yet, Tupas would still allow those found guilty of violating this elementary duty to be appointed or promoted. How can a judge who practices law as a sideline be promoted as a justice? Nakakahiya! And how can someone who cheats and grabs unauthorized compensation be tolerated and promoted? How bedeviling to our judicial system!

Higher standards needed. Instead of watering down judicial standards, the JBC should aim for higher ones especially now that esteem and trust in the judiciary has been rated so low by our people as shown by surveys of SWS and Pulse Asia. The JBC need not reinvent new standards; they have been cast in stone by our Constitution, which solemnly requires all members of the judiciary to have “proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.”

The JBC would do well to hear its ex-officio chairman, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, who in a speech days ago, said that he was “seriously bothered by recent suggestions to raise the threshold of disqualifications for nomination to the judiciary.”

Retired Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno emphatically exhorted the JBC to be “stricter in the screening of applicants for the judiciary.” Several retired justices and judges whom I spoke with aired the same exhortation: “Please do not degrade the standards for selecting magistrates.” For his part, former Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. cautioned, “The judiciary, more than any other agency, must, like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion and must be screened strictly.” NGO leaders, like Vincent Lazatin and Marlon Manuel, voiced similar pleas.

In the next two weeks, the JBC will be conducting public hearings on these proposals of Tupas. Thereafter, our people will eagerly await how the JBC members will vote on them. For the record, the JBC is composed (aside from the Chief Justice and Tupas) of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Sen. Chiz Escudero, with the following regular members: retired Justice Regino C. Hermosisima Jr., retired Justice Aurora S. Lagman, lawyer Maria Milagros Fernan-Cayosa and lawyer Jose V. Mejia.

I hope the JBC will vote down the proposals. Better still, I respectfully urge Tupas to withdraw his letter so as not to stain his sterling reformist record and well-admired leadership in the impeachment of former Ombudsman Merceditas N. Gutierrez.

* * *

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail. com


x x x."



Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Judiciary stakeholders press for stricter JBC rules | ABS-CBN News | Latest Philippine Headlines, Breaking News, Video, Analysis, Features

Judiciary stakeholders press for stricter JBC rules | ABS-CBN News | Latest Philippine Headlines, Breaking News, Video, Analysis, Features
(click link)


"x x x.


In his letter to Chief Justice Renato Corona more than a week ago, the ex-officio member of the JBC said the council should decide on the gravity of pending criminal or regular administrative cases filed against an applicant. Based on current rules, an applicant is stricken off any list if he or she has a pending case.

Tupas also recommended to allow those who have been fined by up to P20,000 to be considered for appointment or promotion to the judiciary. The present rule allows only those who have been fined by not more than P10,000 to be considered.

Tupas claimed these would prevent the filing of harassment or nuisance suits against applicants for vacant positions.


x x x."



EX-AQUINO MONEYMAN NEWEST SC JUSTICE

EX-AQUINO MONEYMAN NEWEST SC JUSTICE / 2004 POLL COVERUP: MAYUGA REPORT
(click link)



"x x x.

MANILA, AUGUST 22, 2011 (STANDARD) COURT of Appeals Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes, who once served as finance manager of a security agency owned by President Aquino’s family, has been appointed as the newest Supreme Court justice.

Chief Justice Renato Corona told reporters Friday that Malacañang had transmitted Reyes’ appointment papers to the Supreme Court.

Reyes served as vice president and finance manager from 1987 to 1990 of Best Security Agency Inc., a security agency set up by Benigno Aquino III and his uncle, construction magnate Antolin Oreta,

The future Philippine president was the security agency’s vice-president, treasurer and director at the time.

Reyes, 64, was appointed Supreme Court justice despite having been reprimanded by the high court in 2008 for discourtesy in handling an intra-corporate case involving Manila Electric Co. and the Government Service Insurance System.

Reyes signed a decision favoring Manila Electric Co. even before Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez could decide which of the court’s two divisions should resolve the case.

The Meralco-GSIS case exposed serious ethical issues, prompting the Supreme Court to investigate accusations of bribery. Reyes then faced a Supreme Court panel that eventually reprimanded him for simple misconduct.

According to the Newsbreak magazine, two members of the Judicial and Bar Council did not vote for Reyes: Senator Francis Escudero and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas.

Aside from reprimanding him, the Supreme Court also admonished Reyes in 2001 for failing to immediately resolve a motion in a civil case.

Reyes’ appointment filled the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Eduardo Nachura and left only one seat unfilled—that vacated by Conchita Carpio-Morales. That vacancy remains to be filled by Malacañang from the following candidates submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council whose members are all Court of Appeals justices: Jose Reyes, Magdangal de Leon, Estela Bernabe, and Japar Dimaampao.

Reyes, 64, a native of Bulacan, finished law from the San Beda College in 1971 and passed the Bar that same year with a rating of 81.6 percent.

Reyes worked as vice president for legal and corporate affairs of the R.C. Silverio Group of Companies from 1975 to 1981. In 1982 he founded the law firm Reyes, Daway, Lim, Bernardo and Lindo in Makati.

He acted as chairman, director, president or corporate secretary of various corporations including the National Home Mortgage Finance Corp. and Celebrity Sports Plaza.

Reyes was appointed judge of the Malabon Regional Trial Court in 1990 during the presidency of Corazon Aquino. He was later appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2000 by then President Joseph Estrada.

Reyes was born on July 6, 1947, in Obando, Bulacan, to spouses Fidel Reyes and Timotea Lorenzo Reyes. He is married to Teresita Jacinta Reyes by whom he has two sons.

x x x."



US Supreme Court and Technology


Technology and the Supreme Court

Glenn B. ManishinAuthor page »
It is rare that the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States actually write or speak about technology. But as connectivity and user-generated content become more ubiquitous and pervasive, sometimes the Court — despite its inherent judicial conservatism — just can’t avoid touching on issues related to the use, importance and legal status of modern communications technologies.    
In that respect, the just-completed 2009-10 and 2010-11 Supreme Court terms witnessed two rather impressive developments.  First, while more than a year ago most of the justices, and especially Antonin Scalia, said they had never even heard of Twitter, 2010 saw the first-ever mention of blogs and “social media” in a Supreme Court opinion, namely the controversial Citizens United decision on corporate campaign spending.
Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers. Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.
Citizens United v. FEC, __ S. Ct. __, slip op. at __ (2010) (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Second, in this spring’s ruling overturning California’s regulation of violent video game sales to minor children — a/k/a teenage gamers — a sharply divided Court grappled not with the previously undecided question of whether video games merit First Amendment protection (on which there was unanimity), but instead the far narrower one of how to show a “compelling state interest” in restricting speech directed to children. That led to a remarkable passage, from Scalia himself, which as is typical was relegated to a footnote (where the “good stuff” is often found):
Justice Alito accuses us of pronouncing that playing violent video games “is not different in ‘kind’” from reading violent literature. Well of course it is different in kind, but not in a way that causes the provision and viewing of violent video games, unlike the provision and reading of books, not to be expressive activity and hence not to enjoy First Amendment protection. Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny—a question to which we devote our attention in Part III, infra. Even if we can see in them “nothing of any possible value to society . . ., they are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.” Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948).=
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., __ S. Ct. __, slip op. at __ n.4 (2011) (emphasis added).
So the lesson is that although Justice Scalia may not know how to Tweet, but he can spell perfectly the name of a classic martial arts videogame, while still believing that The Divine Comedy is of greater value to society. What would the modern, technophile generation think about that? We’ll probably never know, because those facile with the means for mobile and rapid communications have short attention spans and thus probably lack have the patience (interest aside) to read Dante, even the Cliff Notes version, and tell us!
see:

Role of court staff attorneys (USA)


Case management at the Sixth Circuit: the role of staff attorneys

Colter Paulson Author page »
Even though the burgeoning dockets of the federal courts of appeal are well known (there were nearly 5,000 new appeals in the Sixth Circuit last year) most attorneys would be surprised to learn that over 50% of those cases were decided pursuant to recommendations made by staff attorneys.  Like all other circuits, the Sixth Circuit has a staff attorney’s office that prepares memoranda and proposed orders in certain cases.   Of course, the judges review all recommendations and make the final decisions, but the staff attorneys are an essential part of the court.  The Sixth Circuit has approximately 28 staff attorneys and four motions attorneys who handle motions in orally argued cases.     
Staff attorneys in the Sixth Circuit draft memoranda and proposed orders in cases that are considered less complicated or  in some cases where the litigants do not  request oral argument.  This includes many prisoner and immigration cases, cases with pro-se litigants, requests for certificates of applicability, and many habeas cases.  The attorneys do handle civil cases but rarely see commercial appeals.  While briefs that ask for oral argument do not ordinarily go to staff attorneys, there is a some movement in the Sixth Circuit (and other circuits) to push all appropriate cases to staff attorneys  for a screening review regardless of the parties’ preferences or the type of appeal.  As noted by 6th Cir. I.O.P. 34(e), the staff attorneys are also involved in the initial identification of which cases can be decided without oral argument under Rule 34(a)(2).
After a staff attorney writes a memorandum and proposed order, a supervisor reviews the draft, then the draft is sent to the motion judge or panel.  As in the First, Second, and Third Circuits, there is generally no interaction between the staff attorneys and the judges in the vast majority of the cases.  The Fourth Circuit presents an interesting contrast.  Its judges discuss each case with the responsible staff attorney before the case is decided.
It is also worth noting that the Sixth Circuit may rely less on staff attorneys than some other circuits as measured by the ratio of staff attorneys to the cases per active judge.  The D.C. and Third Circuits have one staff attorney for every 9 cases per active judge.  The Fourth Circuit uses one attorney per 10 cases/judge.  The First Circuit has one staff attorney for every 13 cases, which is just more than the Sixth Circuit’s use of one staff attorney for every 12 cases.  In absolute terms, the Sixth Circuit has about two staff attorneys per active judge, while the First, Second, and Fourth Circuits have roughly three attorneys per active judge.  The difference between the relative and absolute numbers of staff attorneys is probably due to the relative volume of immigration or prisoner appeals (or similar cases) in each Circuit. 
This is part of a series of posts on the case management procedures in the Sixth Circuit, and draws on a recent article by Marin Levy in the Duke Law Journal discussing the practices in other circuits.