Saturday, June 15, 2013

Eight tips for Brazilian bloggers who face judicial persecution | Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas

see - Eight tips for Brazilian bloggers who face judicial persecution | Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas


Filipino bloggers, conscious of their press freedom and expression rights, will find this article useful.


"x x x.

According to Marques, the fear of legal sanctions shouldn't lead bloggers to precipitously take down the content in question. "People who are offended or judged precisely want the blogger to feel intimidated and remove their content with just a judicial or extrajudicial notice, without a removal order. We stand against this and would liken it to an act of self-censorship," she suggests. Below see her other tips.
1. Evaluate the type of notice received
Generally the first notification is not official, and can even be an informal communication. Therefore, it has no legal weight and doesn't require bloggers to take down the disputed content. If it is a subpoena, which corresponds to the initial phase of a court proceeding, it is essential to find a lawyer as soon as possible, as that marks the beginning of the legal proceedings, Marques said.
2. Respond to extrajudicial notifications in a complete and clear manner
"I always recommend that the person respond to all communications, including extrajudicial notifications, and present the reasons for the publication of the original material, with details: if it serves the public interest, if the blog has an informative function, if there was no intention to offend.  Clearly, it is worth mentioning the right to freedom of expression," Marques. "In case the notification refers to a copyright issue, it needs to be verified if in fact there is a legitimate claim, or rather, if the work being used really is under copyright protection. If so, take it down from the blog if there has not been authorized permission from the author."
3. Speak with a specialized attorney
It is always advisable to speak with a specialized attorney to have a better defense, even if you have only received an extrajudicial notification, but it is only required in case there is an actual proceeding. "Even if the publication is legitimate and doesn't break any law, we know that the Brazilian courts do not always think in proportion to the act or gauge the need for sanctions, which could lead the blogger to be sentenced to pay very high penalties.  The situation is complicated, as settlements are generally not good because they usually request that the publication is taken down and that no more content is published on the accuser, which violates freedom of expression," explains Marques. The risks of a legal proceeding should be verified with a lawyer and whether it is worth accepting the restrictive terms of an agreement. "Does the publication use offensive terms? Is it opinion or verified fact? Is there copyrighted material in a blog with commercial interest, with advertising? All these issues are weighted by the judge," she adds.
4. If you cannot hire a lawyer, find help with other organizations or with the public defender
Public defenders offer legal advice for free to those who cannot pay for the services of an attorney. Find the office in your state to check if you have access to their services.  Another option is to check the pro bono offices at law schools, such as the State University of Rio de Janeiro or the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro.Article 19's legal center, although it does not provide legal representation, can guide the blogger and pass along information about arguments used around the world about freedom of expression.
5. Learn (and cite) international standards
In proceedings involving freedom of expression, certain international trends exist which can serve as reference for those who are locked in a battle for the right to inform and provide opinions on the web. These trends reflect the concern of the Inter-American Human Rights System to guarantee that no restrictions on freedom of expression are imposed outside of those strictly necessary. Marques notes that typically bloggers are targets of four types of lawsuits to remove content: copyright, honor, privacy and brand protection. "In the case of an allegation of violating someone's honor, international standards affirm that only false facts can provide basis for a proceeding; verified facts would not cause any type of disproportional damage. It is worth highlighting that only facts can be disputed, opinions not based on facts are protected. People in the public spotlight need to have a larger tolerance since society's best interests are involved. If a blogger only has the intention to inform or provide their opinion, the judicial system should be more tolerant," explains Marques. Other arguments can be found in the "Comparative Analysis of National Jurisprudence with International Standards of Defamation" produced by the Article 19.
6. Do not pull any content before a judicial order
"People who are offended or judged precisely want the blogger to feel intimidated and remove their content with just a judicial or extrajudicial notice, without a removal order. We stand against this and would liken it to an act of self-censorship. There are defenses and arguments that exist internationally; therefore, we need to consolidate those into our national environment and make judges understand that there needs to be more tolerance toward critiques that favor freedom of expression. Brazil is one of the most intolerant countries to criticism and that prompts demands to removal content, it cannot be that way," observes Marques.
7. Bloggers have the same rights as journalists
Anonymity in the registration of blogs, official press credentials and protection of sources are some of the rights that, according to the Article 19, not only pertain to regular journalists, but are also extended to bloggers. "The act of disseminating information in the public interest does not require joining a professional organization or adhering to preestablished code of conduct," according to the center's handbook "O Direito de blogar" ("The Right to Blogging" in English).
8. Publicize judicial harassment
For Marques, publicizing information about the proceeding can help create a network of solidarity and action in favor of the blogger.  In many cases, the content in question passes on to other sites, which makes censorship more difficult. "Of course, it is necessary to be careful in publicizing the case. Assume an informative tone and avoid any type of offense or provocation to the plaintiff in order to not be open towards being sued again," she highlights. 
x x x."

An open letter to nasty debt collectors | ABS-CBN News

see - An open letter to nasty debt collectors | ABS-CBN News


"x x x.

In case, you are not aware that consumers have rights.

Here's a dummy’s guide:

1. Creditors can only claim against the estate of a dead person, not their children or spouses or others they have left behind. The estate refers to whatever belongings they leave behind whether properties or investments or businesses. If there’s none left, tough luck. Creditors will just have to write off the debt.

2. Borrowers, even those who are in default, are entitled to civilized conversations. They can complain against collectors who use bad words, call them at work and inform officemates about their debt, or threaten them to go to jail.

3. Borrowers can request for collectors’ name and the company they represent.

4. Borrowers can file a formal complaint against nasty debt collectors with the financial institution that hired them or to the regulator, which is the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

I’ve done interviews with insiders in the debt collection business and I know what it’s like inside. Please stand above the filth. Society needs your service. This service has earned its place in the economy because of rising loan defaults and the lack of functioning credit bureaus. But you can do it so much better than the way it is being done by most debt collectors right now.

x x x."

State of "right to die" laws in the world - JURIST - Paper Chase: Quebec government introduces right to die legislation

see - JURIST - Paper Chase: Quebec government introduces right to die legislation


"x x x.

[JURIST] The government of the Canadian province of Quebec [official website] introduced a bill Wednesday that would permit doctors to provide patients with medical aid to die. Quebec Social Services Minister Veronique Hivon [official profile] introduced the bill before the National Assembly [official website]. The proposed law [Bill 52, PDF] provides special rules on the administration and consent requirements regarding medical aid to die for doctors, hospitals, hospice centers and other institutions that offer end of-life care. Medical aid to die as proposed by the bill differs from assisted suicide legal in four US states, where doctors are allowed to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs which the patient may take on there own. The proposed legislation would allow a doctor to administer medication causing death after receiving the repeated consent of a patient. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal[AP report] in Canada at the federal level.

The right to die [JURIST news archive] has been a contentious issue around the world. The only European countries that allow assisted suicide are Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Last month the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR) [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that Swiss law does not provide sufficient guidelines on the extent of the right to die, in violation of Article 8 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF]. In April the Supreme Court of Ireland rejected an appeal [JURIST report] by a paralyzed woman seeking to allow her partner to help her commit suicide. Although Ireland decriminalized suicide in 1993, it is still a crime to assist another to commit suicide. In December a report released by the French government recommended [JURIST report] that the country permit doctors to "accelerate death" for terminally ill patients seeking doctor-assisted euthanasia. In August the High Court of England and Wales denied [JURIST report] the plea of a paralyzed man challenging the legitimacy of the Suicide Act 1961 and other laws barring his ability to commit suicide.

x xx."

JURIST - Paper Chase: Supreme Court takes middle ground in gene patent case

see - JURIST - Paper Chase: Supreme Court takes middle ground in gene patent case


I am sharing this article for PHL patent lawyers to read.


"x x x.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] unanimously Thursday in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated. The court also found that synthetically created DNA known as complementary DNA (cDNA) is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. Myriad Genetics[corporate website] patented two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2 [NCI backgrounder], which are linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. The two genes are isolated genes—different from native genes because the process of extracting them changes their molecular structure but not their genetic code. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that the isolated genes are not patentable, but that synthetic cDNA is patent eligible:
cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments. ... Petitioners concede that cDNA differs from natural DNA in that "the non-coding regions have been removed." ... They nevertheless argue that cDNA is not patent eligible because "[t]he nucleotide sequence of cDNA is dictated by nature, not by the lab technician." ... That may be so, but the lab technician unquestionably creates something new when cDNA is made. cDNA retains the naturally occurring exons of DNA, but it is distinct from the DNA from which it was derived. As a result, cDNA is not a "product of nature" and is patent eligible under §101, except insofar as very short series of DNA may have no intervening introns to remove when creating cDNA. In that situation, a short strand of cDNA may be indistinguishable from natural DNA.
The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment [JURIST report] of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a separate short opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

Gene patents remain a controversial issue around the world. In February the Federal Court of Australia [official website] ruled that Myriad could patent the BRCA1 gene[JURIST report] because the isolated gene is not natural, but rather the product of human intervention.

x x x."

Philippine courts go hi-tech | ABS-CBN News

see - Philippine courts go hi-tech | ABS-CBN News


"x x x.

MANILA - Philippine courts are going high-tech with the launch of eCourt, a project of the Supreme Court that features a computer-based system accessible to the public to monitor cases from filing to resolution. 

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno said the eCourt system ends money leaks during raffling of cases thus effectively ending bribery and rigging of cases. 

She said the eCourt will hasten court proceedings, giving hope to people facing years of long litigation. 

The Quezon City hall of justice is headstarting the new system.

x x x."

Friday, June 14, 2013

Supreme Court rules on DNA patentability

see - Supreme Court rules on DNA patentability


"x x x.

In a case that has been closely watched for years, the Supreme Court put to rest an ongoing controversy over DNA patentability.
The nine justices concluded in their unanimous ruling earlier today that naturally occurring DNA—or genes from within the human body—is not patentable. However, the justices’ decision said that synthetic DNA is patentable.
The case centered on Myriad Genetics, which, according to NPR, "discovered and isolated two genes — BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 — that are highly associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad patented its discovery, giving it a 20-year monopoly over use of the genes for research, diagnostics and treatment. A group of researchers, medical groups and patients sued, challenging the patent as invalid."
The case wended its way through the courts for years before landing on the high court’s docket. In an earlier appeal, the Federal Circuit found both types of DNA to be patentable.
In today’s ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the lower court was wrong in the ruling.
For more InsideCounsel stories and columns on this case, see:

x x x."

CARP - Impossible dream | Inquirer Opinion

see - Impossible dream | Inquirer Opinion


"x x x.

A diminished landmark, yes, but still standing. We cannot say that CARP is a failure on the whole. In its first 20 years or so, the program covered some 7 million hectares, including 2.3 million has of private agricultural lands and 1.7 million has of non-private agricultural lands. In the first two decades, CARP had an impact on the lives of some 4.4 million agrarian reform beneficiaries. But a considerable amount of work remains undone.
At the beginning of the year, the government estimated that the so-called land acquisition and distribution (LAD) balance was less than 900,000 has, with what it calls the net workable LAD balance at a little over 500,000 has. “Indeed, if the target date for completion [of the balance] is June 2016 as per [President Aquino’s] commitment during the Third SONA [State of the Nation Address], this is eminently doable,” Malacañang said in a statement.
One may question the numbers, but there is no denying that a major shift in land ownership has taken place in the last quarter-century. Whether this was enough, or done with the necessary dispatch, or complemented with adequate support, are distinct questions. CARP and the extension law CARPer have certainly been an advance on previous land reform legislation.
But as an exercise in social reform, CARP has also fallen short. The main shortcoming: its signal exceptions. Major landowners, and even owners of moderately sized landholdings, have played fast and loose with the provisions on conversion. Some have refused outright to submit their lands to CARP coverage. The second Aquino administration estimates that almost 200,000 hectares of “CARPable” land are “problematic”—and subtracted the number from the LAD balance.
The half-a-million “net workable LAD balance” proposed by Malacañang, then, already assumes that problematic lands will not be covered. That’s the story of Philippine agrarian reform, in a nutshell. Make enough noise, put up enough hurdles, and landowners can force the government to slink away.

x x x."


Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/54547/impossible-dream#ixzz2W7SPQ4aB
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

A Conservative Case for Prison Reform - NYTimes.com

see  - A Conservative Case for Prison Reform - NYTimes.com


"x x x.

The United States now has 5 percent of the world’s population, yet 25 percent of its prisoners. Nearly one in every 33 American adults is in some form of correctional control. When Ronald Reagan was president, the total correctional control rate — everyone in prison or jail or on probation or parole — was less than half that: 1 in every 77 adults.
The prison system now costs states more than $50 billion a year, up from about $9 billion in 1985. It’s the second-fastest growing area of state budgets, trailing only Medicaid. Conservatives should be leading the way by asking tough questions about the expansion in prison spending over the past three decades.
Increased spending has not improved effectiveness. More than 40 percent of ex-convicts return to prison within three years of release; in some states, recidivism rates are closer to 60 percent.
Too many offenders leave prisons unprepared to re-enter society. They don’t get and keep jobs. The solution lies not only inside prisons but also with more effective community supervision systems using new technologies, drug tests and counseling programs. We should also require ex-convicts to either hold a job or perform community service. This approach works to turn offenders from tax burdens into taxpayers who can pay restitution to their victims and are capable of contributing child support.
x x x."

Del Castillo richest SC justice in 2011 with P108.9-M | Headlines, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

see - Del Castillo richest SC justice in 2011 with P108.9-M | Headlines, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com


"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has granted the petition of the Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) asking for the public release of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) of the high court's magistrates.
 
The high court released the SALN of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and its justices for 2011, which is the only year covered by the petition of the PCIJ.
 
Reports said Sereno had a total net worth of P18,029,000 while Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo is the richest high court judge with a net worth of P108,904,000.
 
On the other hand, the poorest SC magistrate is Associate Justice Arturo Brion, who had a P1,498,000 net worth in 2011.
 
The complete list of SC judges and their net worth:
 
Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes SerenoP18,029,000
Justice Mariano Del CastilloP108,904,000
Justice Antonio CarpioP79,895,000
Justice Bienvenido ReyesP75,146,000
Justice Estela Perlas-BernabeP67,101,000
Justice Roberto AbadP43,100,000
Justice Jose MendozaP27,408,000
Justice Diosdado PeraltaP22,642,000
Justice Martin Villarama, Jr.P19,074,000
Justice Lucas BersaminP18,811,000
Justice Jose PerezP9,380,000
Justice Teresita Leonardo-De CastroP7,944,000
Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr.P7,264,000
Justice Arturo BrionP1,498,000
 
Justice Marvic Leonen's SALN was not included in the list as he only assumed his post in the high court in 2012.
 
Leonen filled in the position vacated by Sereno, who replaced former Chief Justice Renato Corona.
 
Corona was found guilty by the Senate impeachment court for the non-disclosure of some of his wealth in his SALN.

x x x."

Monday, June 3, 2013

6 rights you have as an airline passenger

see - 6 rights you have as an airline passenger


"x x x.

As an airline passenger, these are the key things you need to know:
1. Offloaded baggage
If your checked-in baggage were offloaded from the flight you're in due to "operational, safety, or security reasons," the airline has to inform you ASAP, give you a report, and ensure that your offloaded baggage is carried in the next flight with available space.
The airline should deliver the baggage to you within an hour from the time the flight carrying your baggage arrives at your destination. The airline must pay you P2,000 for every 24 hours that your baggage is delayed. A fraction of a day shall be considered as one day.
2. Overbooked flights
An airline is allowed to overbook a flight -- an industry practice of selling more than the seats the aircraft has, based on demand-supply for a specific flight -- as long as the passengers who are bumped off do so voluntarily.
If you volunteer to choose a different flight, the airline will offer you compensation in the form of amenities or cash incentives.
If the number of volunteers is not enough to resolve the overbooking, the airline is mandated to increase the compensation package by adding more services until the required number of volunteers is met.
3. Airline promotions
All airlines have to outline their limitations and restrictions in both English and Filipino.
When advertising promotions, along with disclosing refund and rebooking policies, baggage allowance policies, government taxes and surcharges, other mandatory fees and charges, the airlines also have to include the number of seats offered.
4. Check-in
If you arrive within the designated check-in area at least one hour before the flight's published time of departure, you will not be considered late and the carrier is obliged to make sure you are checked in within the deadline.





5. Flight cancellation
If your flight is cancelled, you have to be notified beforehand via public announcement or written notice such as through a text message.
If an air carrier cancels the flight because of force majeure, safety or security reasons the passenger shall have the right to be reimbursed for the full value of the fare.


6. Flight delays
In the case of delayed departures, airlines are required to provide free food, drinks, Internet access, phone use and, in extreme circumstances, hotel lodging until the flight departs.
Your flight is considered cancelled if it is delayed at least 6 hours after the original departure time. You have the right to be compensated accordingly. - Rappler.com

x x x."

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Republic Act No. 10572 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

see - Republic Act No. 10572 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines


[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10572]
AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE LIABILITY OF THE ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OR CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP FOR AN OBLIGATION OF A SPOUSE WHO PRACTICES A PROFESSION AND THE CAPABILITY OF EITHER SPOUSE TO DISPOSE OF AN EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER SPOUSE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLES 73 AND 111 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, ALSO KNOWN AS THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Article 73 of the Family Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
“Art. 73. Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity without the consent of the other. The latter may object only on valid, serious, and moral grounds.
“In case of disagreement, the court shall decide whether or not:
“(1) The objection is proper, and
“(2) Benefit has accrued to the family prior to the objection or thereafter. If the benefit accrued prior to the objection, the resulting obligation shall be enforced against the community property. If the benefit accrued thereafter, such obligation shall be enforced against the separate property of the spouse who has not obtained consent.
“The foregoing provisions shall not prejudice the rights of creditors who acted in good faith.”
SEC. 2. Article 111 of the Family Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
“Art. 111. Either spouse may mortgage, encumber, alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property.”
SEC. 3. Separability Clause. – If any provision or part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.
SEC. 4. Repealing Clause. – Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.
SEC. 5. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,
(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILEPresident of the Senate
(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.Speaker of the House
of Representatives
This Act which originated in the House of Representatives was finally passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on September 20, 2012 and January 30, 2013, respectively.
(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYESSecretary of the Senate
(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAPSecretary General
House of Representatives
Approved: MAY 24 2013
(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO IIIPresident of the Philippines

Republic Act No. 10574 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

see - Republic Act No. 10574 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines


[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10574]
AN ACT ALLOWING THE INFUSION OF FOREIGN EQUITY IN THE CAPITAL OF RURAL BANKS, AMENDINGREPUBLIC ACT NO. 7353, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE RURAL BANK ACT OF 1992″, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7353, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 4. No rural bank shall be operated without a Certificate of Authority from the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Rural banks shall be organized in the form of stock corporations. No less than forty percent (40%) of the voting stocks of a rural bank shall be owned by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty percent (60%) of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Non-Filipino citizens may own, acquire or purchase up to sixty percent (60%) of the voting stocks in a rural bank. The percentage of foreign-owned voting stocks shall be determined by the citizenship of the individual or corporate stockholders of the rural bank. Upon consultation with the rural banks in the area, duly established cooperatives and corporations primarily organized to hold equities in rural banks may organize a rural bank and/or subscribe to the shares of stock of any rural bank: Provided, That a cooperative or corporation owning or controlling the whole or majority of the voting stock of the rural bank shall be subject to special examination and to such rules and regulations as the Monetary Board may prescribe. If subscription of private shareholders to the capital stock of a rural bank cannot be secured or is not available, or insufficient to meet the normal credit needs of the locality, the Land Bank of the Philippines, the Development Bank of the Philippines, or any government-owned or -controlled bank or financial institution, on representation of the said private shareholders but subject to the investment guidelines, policies and procedures of the bank or financial institution and upon approval of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, shall subscribe to the capital stock of such rural bank, which shall be paid in full at the time of subscription, in an amount equal to the fully paid subscribed and unimpaired capital of the private stockholders or such amount as the Monetary Board may prescribe as may be necessary to promote and expand rural economic development: Provided, however, That such shares of stock subscribed by the Land Bank of the Philippines, the Development Bank of the Philippines or any government-owned or -controlled bank or financial institution may be sold at any time at adjusted book value: Provided, finally, That in the sale of shares of stock subscribed by the Land Bank of the Philippines, the Development Bank of the Philippines or any government-owned or -controlled bank or financial institution, the registered stockholders shall have the right of preemption within one (1) year from the date of offer in proportion to their respective holdings, but in the absence of such buyer, preference, however, shall be given to residents of the locality or province where the rural bank is located.”
SEC. 2. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7353, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 5. Non-Filipino citizens may become members of the Board of Directors of a rural bank but their participation in the Board shall be limited to their proportionate share in the equity of the rural bank: Provided, however, That at least one (1) independent director shall be elected to the Board of Directors.
“No director or officer of any rural bank shall, either directly or indirectly, for himself or as the representative or agent of another, borrow any of the deposits or funds of such banks, nor shall he become a guarantor, indorser, or surety for loans from such bank to others, or in any manner be an obligor for money borrowed from the bank or loaned by it except with the written approval of the majority of the directors of the bank, excluding the director concerned. Any such approval shall be entered upon the records of the corporation and a copy of such entry shall be transmitted forthwith to the appropriate supervising department. The director/officer of the bank who violates the provisions of this section shall be immediately dismissed from his office and shall be penalized in accordance with Section 26 of this Act.
“The Monetary Board may regulate the amount of credit accommodations that may be extended directly to the directors, officers or stockholders of rural banks of banking institutions. However, the outstanding credit accommodations which a rural bank may extend to each of its stockholders owning two percent (2%) or more of the subscribed capital stock, its directors, or officers shall be limited to an amount equivalent to the respective outstanding deposits and book value of the paid-in capital contributions in the bank.”
SEC. 3. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7353 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 6. Loans or advances extended by rural banks organized and operated under this Act shall be primarily for the purpose of meeting the normal credit needs of farmers, fishermen or farm families owning or cultivating land dedicated to agricultural production as well as the normal credit needs of cooperatives and merchants.
“Loans may be granted by rural banks on the security of lands without Torrens Title where the owner of private property can show five (5) years or more of peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession in concept of owner; or of portions of friar land estates or other lands administered by the Bureau of Lands that are covered by sales contracts and the purchasers have paid at least five (5) years installment thereon, without the necessity of prior approval and consent by the Director of Lands; or of portions of other estates under the administration of the Department of Agrarian Reform or other governmental agency which are likewise covered by sales contracts and the purchasers have paid at least five (5) years installment thereon, without the necessity of prior approval and consent of the Department of Agrarian Reform or corresponding governmental agency; or of homesteads or free patent lands pending the issuance of titles but already approved, the provisions of any law or regulations to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided, That when the corresponding titles are issued, the same shall be delivered to the Register of Deeds of the province where such lands are situated for the annotation of the encumbrance:Provided, further, That in the case of lands pending homestead or free patent titles, copies of notices for the presentation of the final proof shall also be furnished the creditor rural bank and, if the borrower applicants fail to present the final proof within thirty (30) days from date of notice, the creditor rural bank may do so for them at their expense: Provided, furthermore, That the applicant for homestead or free patent has already made improvements on the land and the loan applied for is to be used for further development of the same or for other productive economic activities: Provided, finally, That the appraisal and verification of the status of a land is a full responsibility of the rural bank and any loan granted on any land which shall be found later to be within the forest zone shall be for the sole account of the rural bank.
“The foreclosure of mortgages covering loans granted by rural banks and executions of judgment thereon involving real properties levied upon by a sheriff shall be exempt from the publications in newspapers now required by law where the total amount of loan, excluding interest due and unpaid, does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) or such amount as the Monetary Board may prescribe as may be warranted by prevailing economic conditions. It shall be sufficient publication in such cases if the notices of foreclosure and execution of judgment are posted in the most conspicuous area of the municipal building, the municipal public market, the rural bank, the barangay hall, and the barangay public market, if any, where the land mortgaged is situated during the period of sixty (60) days immediately preceding the public auction or execution of judgment. Proof of publication as required herein shall be accomplished by an affidavit of the sheriff or officer conducting the foreclosure sale or execution of judgment and shall be attached with the records of the case: Provided, That when a homestead or free patent is foreclosed, the homesteader or free patent holder, as well as his heirs shall have the right to redeem the same within one (1) year from the date of foreclosure in the case of land not covered by a Torrens Title or one (1) year from the date of the registration of the foreclosure in the case of land covered by a Torrens Title: Provided, finally,That in any case, borrowers, especially those who are mere tenants, need only to secure their loans with the produce corresponding to their share.
“A rural bank shall be allowed to foreclose lands mortgaged to it including lands covered by Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), as amended: Provided, That said lands shall be subject to the retention limits provided under Republic Act No. 6657.
“Rural banks which are not qualified to acquire or hold land in the Philippines shall be allowed to bid and take part in foreclosure sales of real property mortgaged to them, as well as to avail of enforcement and other proceedings, and accordingly to take possession of the mortgaged property, for a period not exceeding five (5)-years from actual possession: Provided, That in no event shall title to the property be transferred to such rural bank. In case the rural bank is the winning bidder, it shall, during the said five (5)-year period, transfer its rights to a qualified Philippine national, without prejudice to a borrower’s rights under applicable laws. Should a rural bank be not able to transfer such property within the five (5)-year period, the rural bank shall be penalized one-half (1/2) of one percent (1%) per annum of the price at which the property was foreclosed until the rural bank is able to transfer the property to a qualified Philippine national.”
SEC. 4. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7353 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“To provide supplemental capital to any rural bank until it has accumulated enough capital of its own or stimulate private investments in rural banks, the Land Bank of the Philippines, the Development Bank of the Philippines or any government-owned or -controlled bank or financial institution shall subscribe within thirty (30) days to the capital stock of any rural bank from time to time in an amount equal to the total equity investment of the private shareholders which shall be paid in full at the time of the subscription or such amount as may be necessary to promote and expand rural economic development: Provided, however, That shares of stock issued to the Land Bank of the Philippines, the Development Bank of the Philippines or any government-owned or -controlled bank or financial institution, may, pursuant to this section, at any time, be bought at adjusted book value.
“Stocks held by the Land Bank of the Philippines, the Development Bank of the Philippines or by any government-owned or -controlled bank or financial institution, under the terms of this section, shall be made preferred only as to assets upon liquidation and without the power to vote and shall share in dividend distributions from the date of issuance in an amount based on the lending benchmark approved by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas plus the prevailing non-prime spread of the government financial institution: Provided, however, That if such stock of the Land Bank of the Philippines, the Development Bank of the Philippines or any government-owned or -controlled bank or financial institution is sold to private shareholders, the same may be converted into common stock of the class provided for in Section 10 hereof: Provided, further, That pending the amendment of the Articles of Incorporation of the rural bank, if necessary, for the purpose of reflecting the conversion into common stock of preferred stock sold to private shareholders, the transfer shall be recorded by the rural bank in the stock and transfer book and such shareholders shall thereafter enjoy all the rights and privileges of common stockholders. The preferred stocks so transferred shall be surrendered and cancelled and the corresponding common stocks shall be issued.
“x x x.”
SEC. 5. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, consistent with Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7353, shall prescribe the necessary rules and regulations on the amendments of the Rural Banks Act of 1992 in consultation with various stakeholders as well as disseminate this information to allow entry of foreign equity into our rural bank system to revitalize the rural banking industry and improve access of banking services to the rural areas in the country.
The implementing rules and regulations shall be published within ninety (90) days from the publication of this Act in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
SEC. 6. Separability Clause. – If, for any reason, any provision of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions not affected thereby shall continue to be in force and effect.
SEC. 7. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, rules and regulations, and other issuances, or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SEC. 8. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation, whichever is earlier.
Approved,
(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILEPresident of the Senate
(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.Speaker of the House
of Representatives
This Act which is a consolidation of House Bill No. 5360 and Senate Bill No. 3282 was finally passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on February 4, 2013 and January 30, 2013, respectively.
(Sgd.) EDWIN B. BELLENActing Senate Secretary
(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAPSecretary General
House of Representatives
Approved: MAY 24 2013
(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO IIIPresident of the Philippines