Friday, December 30, 2011

Copy of CJ Corona's motion for preliminary hearing - Rappler

Copy of CJ Corona's motion for preliminary hearing - Rappler

CLICK THE LINK TO READ THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE FILED BY CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA TO HEAR/RESOLVE HIS MOTION TO DISMISS (SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES).



Analysis:

The CJ argues that the impeachment complaint was "not verified" (i.e., deemed "unsigned"). (By the way, he did not verify his Answer himself, too, per the Prosecution). He cites Sec. 3, Art. XI, of the Const.  The "complaint" referred to therein is the "complaint" filed by a citizen w/ the  signature of at least 1 Rep. (which undergoes Committee and Plenary  approvals). It also refers to the "complaint" filed by at least 1/3 of the Representatives (w/c is scheduled for Plenary "notation" as in the case of the Erap impeachment [remember the opening prayer cum nonstop referral to Senate by Speaker Manny Villar after the "amen"?). The aforecited Sec. 3, Art. XI does not refer to a special/urgent "RESOLUTION" directly signed by 1/3 of the Representatives (w/c document does not require Committee or Plenary approvals or Plenary  notation). The Const. is silent on the latter mode. The CJ quotes a session of the 1987 Const. Comm to support his theory (w/c quotes I think must be checked to rule the possibility of slanted misquotations of the Con-Comm  proceedings).The CJ is applying the technical provisions of Rule 16, Rules of Court (motion to dismiss; sp. affirmative defenses; preliminary conference to resolve the same) to the impeachment case, w/c is non-judicial in nature. In fine, don't expect the start of trial "on the merits" on Jan. 16. There is a pending "procedural antecedent" that must first be resolved by the Senate. Btw, There is a rumor the CJ will delay the trial until the 2013 elections to await a more favorable new mix of friendly/pro-GMA Representatives and Senators who will later w/draw and dismiss the case, respectively; and who will reverse the scenario by "impeaching Pres. Aquino himself". The whole Congress and the People must not allow these evil scenarios to happen. At any rate, 2012 will be an interesting Year of the Water Dragon. God save the Philippines!


Atty Manuel J Laserna Jr.

Justice Carpio to handle petition seeking to stop impeachment trial vs. Chief Justice Corona - ZamboTimes Online

Justice Carpio to handle petition seeking to stop impeachment trial vs. Chief Justice Corona - ZamboTimes Online

"x x x.

MANILA — Supreme Court (SC) Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio will handle the case and stand as ponente, or writer of the decision, on the petition filed before the SC seeking to stop the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Crossing party lines and with 188 votes, the House of Representatives impeached Corona as the SC’s 23rd Chief Justice anchored on three grounds -- betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and culpable violation of the Constitution.

Carpio will be tasked to write the decision in the petition for certiorari, which seeks to stop the Senate Impeachment Court from proceeding with the impeachment trial against the Chief Justice.

The Senate Impeachment Court is set to convene on Jan. 16, 2012 to hear the eight articles of impeachment filed against Corona, including his alleged non-disclosure of statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) and his alleged favorable “voting trend” on a number of cases involving former President and now Pampanga (2nd District) Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Carpio was a nominee for the chief justice position in May 2010 but decided to withdraw his nomination for the chief justice position by believing that then President Arroyo was devoid of authority to appoint the successor of Chief Justice Reynato Puno because of the election ban on appointments.

However, the SC ruled that Mrs. Arroyo can appoint the chief justice post which eventually went to Corona.

The case will go to Carpio after the raffle was conducted in the SC.

Carpio got the first among the four petitions filed before the SC that sought to stop the Senate Impeachment trial.

The four separate cases filed before the SC are the cases filed by petitioners Danilo Lihaylihay, Atty. Vladimir Cabigao, former Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) president Vicente Millora and Atty. Oliver Lozano.

These four cases were raffled off to different SC justices but the lowest docket number went to Carpio.

Under the Internal Rules of the SC, different petitions anchoring on the same legal grounds shall be consolidated and the ponente will be the justice who will get the lowest docket number.

The case of Lihaylihay is the one with the lowest docket number which went to Carpio.

Once the case shall be consolidated, it will be handled by Carpio.

In the petition filed by Millora and Cabigao, they alleged that the filing of the complaint was done “in conspiracy” with President Benigno Aquino III.

Millora urged the SC to declare null and void the eight articles of impeachment.

He said that the eight articles of impeachment submitted by 188 lawmakers to the Senate last week are null and void.

Millora said that the complaint was blindly signed by the 188 members of the lower House.

He argued that the purpose of the complaint is to malign not only Corona but the whole high tribunal.

“The SC is a passive institution that can’t act on controversies unless someone invokes its jurisdiction,” Millora said as justification to his petition.

Lihaylihay, Cabigao and Lozano, through their separate petitions asked the SC to nullify the impeachment case.

They questioned the eight articles of impeachment by saying that they were transmitted “with undue haste.” (PNA)

/PTR/utb"


Criminal negligence (quasi-offense)

In Jayson Ivler Y Aguilar vs. Hon. Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, the Supreme Court sufficiently explained that the doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts, undergirded this Court’s unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to Article 365 starting with People v. Diaz, [94 Phil. 715 (1954)] decided in 1954.
Criminal negligence - http://remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com/2011/12/jayson-ivler-case-prior-conviction-or.html?spref=fb

Nonlawyer Firm Ownership; controversial Bar ethical issues

IBM General Counsel Robert Weber on Nonlawyer Firm Ownership

Corporate Counsel
January 2, 2012
Robert Weber
Robert Weber
The idea of allowing nonlawyers to hold ownership in law firms has taken hold in Australia, the United Kingdom, parts of Canada, and in Washington, D.C. Now the American Bar Association is discussing whether the concept should expand across the United States.
Current ABA ethics rules say that only lawyers may share directly in legal fees, but each state has the final say. A bill to allow 49 percent outside ownership in law firms is pending in North Carolina. And in May the personal injury law firm Jacoby & Meyers filed suit challenging the ban on outside investors in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
At press time an ABA ethics group was expected to release a discussion paper on the subject. Under consideration are additional requirements, such as a cap on the percentage of nonlawyer owners and a "character and fitness" test.
Good idea? "It's frightening," insists Robert Weber, general counsel of IBM Corp. Weber recently sat down with senior reporter Sue Reisinger to explain his concerns. Excerpts from their conversation follow.
Corporate CounselYou have been very vocal in opposing outside ownership of law firms; can you sum up your main concerns?
Robert Weber: My key concerns all rise from the fundamental proposition that outside ownership favors the lawyer to the client's detriment. The very nature of being an attorney is that you're an agent to someone. The lawyer has a fiduciary duty to the client, and he needs to fulfill that or his own assets are at risk.
CCBut the ABA is talking about limiting the outside ownership so that the lawyers would still be in control and still answer to the client, right?
RW: Only the most naive will think that limited ownership is where it will stop. As nonlawyers and investors and financiers begin owning law firms, that direct relationship, that agency-fiduciary relationship between lawyer and client, is going to become muddled.
CCWell, proponents claim that U.S. law firms could become more financially sound and do a better job for their ­clients.
RW: Oh, I get it from a lawyer's point of view—they want more money. But why is this good from a client's side? The fiduciary model should remain, and law firms can go to the capital market and borrow money like any other partnership.
CCIf law firms in other countries have investors, don't those law firms have a financial and competitive advantage?
RW: First, we lose nothing competitively to anyone in the U.S. legal market, and this is the largest legal market in the world. Second, there are any number of large law firms who are already global, who have made the investments that they need to, and are doing pretty darn well. How could anybody argue that in order to be competitive, you have to have this when those firms are already market leaders without it?
CCProponents of outside ownership say it can create a legal marketplace that would be more affordable and accessible to the average consumer, with a legal office in your local Wal-Mart.
RW: It sounds good, and I think everybody will agree that legal services should be accessible and affordable to the average consumer. But they are. If you look urban, rural, anywhere, you will find tons of lawyers. The largest Yellow Pages entry in most urban areas is for attorneys.
CCBut with outside investment, couldn't law firms lower their rates?
RW: That's not the least bit true. Now the partners can contribute working capital, or they can borrow—and those rates are pretty low. If they bring in outside investors, the investors are going to want more of a return than you pay on borrowing. So the business model doesn't work. To say this is a client-friendly, cost-lowering business model is contrary to economic reality.
CC : How would outside ownership affect in-house legal departments?
RW: Big corporations would tend to be less detrimentally impacted than individuals and smaller businesses. But even big businesses will be affected because you'll see higher costs. Rates would go up to feed returns demanded by investors. Lastly I have to say that even in big companies, we've seen more and more breaches of conflict of interest rules in the last few years than ever before. We are seeing a change in the way some big law firms think about their clients.
CCIs there anything else you'd like to add?
RW: It is surprising to see these kind of lawyer-centric financial reforms. Pretty soon we get to the point of losing fundamental protections for clients. And that's the point where I say, then let's get rid of one other thing—self-regulation. If you want to put into action the investment banker envy, and water down the protection for clients, then take the whole cake and agree to be regulated like everybody else.
See also: "Staying Busy With IBM General Counsel Robert Weber," CorpCounsel, October 2011.


Living | Fabricating journalist fights to become lawyer | Seattle Times Newspaper

Living | Fabricating journalist fights to become lawyer | Seattle Times Newspaper

"x x x.

San Francisco Chronicle

quotesMorally unfit to practice law? Really? So how is it we have some many lawyers? Read more

advertising

Click here

Stephen Glass faked all or parts of more than 40 articles for national magazines from 1996 to 1998. In 2003, he acknowledged that his violation of journalistic standards was so severe that he would "never be welcomed within journalism, and rightly so."

Now the California Supreme Court will decide whether Glass' behavior was so bad as to make him morally unfit to practice law.

Glass, whose frauds were the subject of the 2003 film "Shattered Glass," is now a 39-year-old law clerk at a firm in Beverly Hills. He passed the bar exam and applied for an attorney's license in 2007, but the California State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners turned him down, questioning his claims of remorse and rehabilitation and saying he had not shown he could be trusted.

Glass appealed to the independent State Bar Court, which ruled 2-1 in his favor in July.

The majority found "overwhelming evidence of Glass' reform and rehabilitation" since 1998 and noted he had impressive character references from 22 witnesses, including two judges who had employed him, two psychiatrists who treated him and the former editor-in-chief of The New Republic, where most of the fabricated articles appeared.

The bar examiners appealed, and the state's high court voted last month to review the case, leaving Glass' application on hold.

The court must decide whether he has behaved well enough, and for long enough, to erase the doubts about his character.

Glass did not respond to a request for comment.

He was 23 and a year out of college when he landed an internship with The New Republic in 1995.

He was one of the magazine's brightest young stars 2 ½ years later when he was fired by editor Charles Lane, who was learning that virtually everything Glass had written since 1996 contained falsehoods. Often entire articles were fabricated.

Glass' deceptions also appeared in Harper's, Rolling Stone, Policy Review and the now-defunct George magazine.

The two sides in the current case offer contrasting diagnoses for Glass' behavior.

Glass, by his own account, "enjoyed the excitement and success that the lies brought him," the bar's lawyers said in court documents. But his lawyers said therapists who have treated Glass for 12 years found that he suffered from self-hatred and arrested development.

Glass started apologizing for his misdeeds in the early 2000s, writing about 100 letters to magazines and the subjects of his articles. In 2003, he published "The Fabulist," a novel about his experiences, and made a contrite appearance that year on CBS "60 Minutes."

He also applied to become a lawyer in 2003 after passing the New York bar exam. But the state's bar did not act on his request for moral character approval, and he withdrew his application in 2004 and moved to Los Angeles.

While working at the law firm, his lawyers said, Glass has performed hundreds of hours of charitable work and has done legal research, some of it on his own time, on behalf of underprivileged youth and victims of racial violence.

There is "overwhelming evidence"of Glass' "maturation, reformation and rehabilitation over the past 13 years," his lawyers told the court. Glass, in a statement to the bar, said he now is "forthright and candid" about his years of misconduct.

The bar's lawyers disagree. They say Glass did not provide a full list of his fabrications until 2009, never compensated anyone harmed by his articles and never offered to donate any earnings to projects promoting journalistic ethics.

State bar attorney Rachel Grunberg said the journalism and law professions "share common core values: trust, candor, veracity, honor, respect for others. He violated every one of them."


Interstate commerce clause and carbon footprint


SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Thursday blocked
enforcement of a California regulation favoring producers
 of gasoline, diesel fuel and biofuelswhose methods generate 
fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
The ruling by the judge,
Lawrence J. O’Neill of United
States District Court in Fresno,
said the rule unconstitutionally
discriminates against out-of-state
producers and tries to regulate
activities that take place entirely
outside state boundaries, from
producers’ choice of farming
methods to refiners’ use of
coal-fired electricity.
By granting a preliminary injunction,
which had been sought by ethanol
producers, the judge dealt a blow
to the state’s much-trumpeted effort to
reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The low-carbon fuel rule
had been expected to account for
10 percent of the overall
reduction in emissions, or about
16 million metric tons.
California’s fuel standard “impermissibly treads into the
province and powers of our federal government, reaches
beyond its boundaries to regulate activity wholly outside
of its borders,” the judge said.
The federal Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
interstate commerce, and court rulings over the decades have
interpreted that language to restrain states from interfering
with interstate commerce. Judge O’Neill said that California’s
fuel standard rule “offends” that doctrine, referred to as
“the dormant commerce clause.”
A spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, which
issued the rule in 2009, said it would appeal the decision.
The California rule is one of the first in the country to use a
 “life cycle” analysis to determine the total amount of greenhouse
gases emitted in the course of producing and transporting a fuel,
or its “carbon intensity.” By setting a carbon intensity standard,
producers and distributors who emit less are rewarded with
 marketable credits; those who exceed the standard must buy
credits, driving up the costs of their fuel.
Separate lawsuits against the California regulation were brought
by the ethanol producers and by refiners and truckers. The Air
Resources Board had asked Judge O’Neill to dismiss the claims,
saying that provisions of the Clean Air Act give California
special authority to control air pollution. These provisions shield
the state from any claim of interference with interstate commerce,
the regulators argued.
In three separate rulings issued Thursday, Judge O’Neill rejected
the regulators’ defense, accepting the refiners’ claim that the state
acted unconstitutionally and granting the injunction.
The fuel refining industry welcomed the judge’s action. “Today’s
decision is a victory for the millions of Californians,” said
Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemical
 and Refiners Association. “California’s low-carbon fuel standards
would have raised gasoline and diesel fuel costs for all Californians,
who already pay the highest fuel prices in the nation.”

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

JURIST - Paper Chase: Egypt court orders stop to forced virginity tests

JURIST - Paper Chase: Egypt court orders stop to forced virginity tests

"x x x.

[JURIST] Cairo Administrative Court on Tuesday ordered the Egyptian Army to end its practice of performing forced virginity tests on female detainees. Samira Ibrahim brought the case against the Egyptian Army after she was arrested during a protest and was forced to submit to a virginity test [Al Jazeera report]. Judge Aly Fekry, head of the Court, delivered the order to stop the procedure of virginity tests on woman inside military prisons. However, the head of military intelligence, Adel Mursi, said that the ruling is essentially meaningless because there are no orders in the military to conduct such tests. Yet, there are reports to the contrary that Egyptian Army Generals have acknowledged the practice and have presented it as a means to avoid rape allegations from the women who are being detained. The forced virginity tests have been condemned by human rights organizations including Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website]. AI called upon the Egyptian government [AI report] to investigate the practice after other women protesters had come forward with allegations about forced virginity tests.
x xx."

Who will argue what in CJ's impeachment trial? - Rappler

Who will argue what in CJ's impeachment trial? - Rappler

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines - In a meeting before Christmas, the House prosecution panel has assigned the 8 articles of impeachment to specific congressmen, Rappler.com learned on Wednesday. They also succeeded in getting litigation lawyer Mario Bautista to become lead private counsel.

Here are the initial assignments, based on information from lead prosecutor Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. and prosecutor Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares. Tupas said they will finalize this on January 3.

ARTICLE 1. LEAD PROSECUTOR
ILOILO REP. NIEL TUPAS JR.
AND
NORTHERN SAMAR REP. RAUL DAZA

CHARGE : Respondent betrayed public trust through his track record marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court chief justice and until his dubious appointment as midnight chief to the present.

ARTICLE 2:
QUEZON REP. LORENZO TANADA III.
(But he is also eyed as one of the prosecution panel's spokespersons)

CHARGE : Respondent committed culpable violation of the constitution and/or betrayal of public trust when he failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required under Sec. 17, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution.

ARTICLE 3:
ISABELA REP. GIORGIDI AGGABAO

CHARGE : Respondent committed culpable violation of the constitution and betrayed the public trust by the failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Art. VIII, Section 7 (3) of the constitution that provides that "a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence" in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of a flip-flopping decision in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

ARTICLE 4:
AKBAYAN PARTY LIST REP. KAKA BAG-AO

CHARGE : Respondent betrayed the public trust and/or committed culpable violation of the Constitution when he blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a "status quo ante order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez."

ARTICLE 5:
CAVITE REP. ELPIDIO BARZAGA

CHARGE: Respondent betrayed public trust through wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principles of res judicata in the cases involving the 16 newly-created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province.

ARTICLE 6:
ILOCOS NORTE REP. RODOLFO FARINAS

CHARGE : Respondent betrayed public trust by arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate a justice of the supreme court for the purpose of exculpating him. Such authority and jurisdiction is properly reposed by the constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

ARTICLE 7:
BAYAN MUNA REP. NERI COLMENARES

CHARGE : Respondent betrayed public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the end of justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court's own TRO.

ARTICLE 8:
ORIENTAL MINDORO REYNALDO UMALI

CHARGE : Respondent betrayed public trust and/or committed graft and corruption when he failed and refused to account for the judiciary development fund (JDF) and special allowances for the Judiciary (SAJ) collections.

11-man prosecution panel

The 10th member of the prosecution panel is Cavite Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya, who serves as the impeachment manager.

CAVITE REP. JOSEPH EMILIO ABAYA

The 11th and final member of the prosecution panel will be announced in January, but Tupas already named Cibac party list Rep. Sherwin Tugna as the likely addition.

CIBAC PARTY LIST REP. SHERWIN TUGNA

If Rep. Tanada accepts the offer to become one of the spokespersons, the prosecution team will be needing one more prosecutor.

Marikina Rep. Ramiro "Miro" Quimbo is the spokesman for the prosecution panel. Aurora Rep. Edgardo "Sonny" Angara is his Quimbo's deputy.

MARIKINA REP. RAMIRO "MIRO" QUIMBO
AND
AURORA REP. EDGARDO "SONNY" ANGARA

Private prosecutors

Lawyer Mario Bautista will lead the private legal team that would assist the House panel. Bautista is the private prosecutor who presented banker Clarissa Ocampo, a surprise witness during the impeachment trial of Former President Joseph Estrada in 2000.

LAWYER MARIO BAUTISTA

The panel initially had difficulties getting private lawyers to assist them. Bautista himself declined the panel's initial feelers, said Tupas.

"Initially, he also declined. But for him it's the right thing to do. We know him as a straight guy. He's idealistic," Tupas said.

Why did he initially decline? Tupas said Bautista has clients with pending clients with the Supreme Court.

"I believe in your cause," Bautista supposedly told Tupas when he finally agreed to become lead pirvate prosecutor. - Rappler.com."