Wednesday, May 17, 2017
"Methamphetamine Fact VS Fiction and Lessons from the Crack Hysteria” by...
A Speech on "Methamphetamine Fact VS Fiction and Lessons from the Crack Hysteria” by Professor Dr. Carl L. Hart
Form The Conference on directions of the World Drug Policy after UNGASS 2016 and the reconsideration and interpretation in drug laws of Thailand
On 15-16 June 2016
By the Supreme Court of Thailand in collaboration with the Royal Initiative of Her Royal
Highness Princess Bajrakitiyabha,
Office of the Narcotics Control Board,
and Northern Substance Abuse Center, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University
At Ballroom B-C, Lobby level, Centara Grand at Central Plaza Ladprao, Bangkok
Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio on Thursday said not even President Rodrigo Duterte or Congress can waive the country’s sovereign rights over the West Philippine Sea amid warming ties between Manila and Beijing. | INQUIRER.net
"x x x.
Carpio: Duterte, Congress can’t waive PH rights over West PH Sea
Gov’t urged to protest Beijing acts despite friendlier ties
By: Yuji Vincent Gonzales - Reporter / @YGonzalesINQ
INQUIRER.net / 12:57 PM May 11, 2017
Senior Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio talks about country’s stake in the West Philippine Sea during a forum in Club Filipino in San Juan City. INQUIRER PHOTO / RICHARD A. REYES
Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio on Thursday said not even President Rodrigo Duterte or Congress can waive the country’s sovereign rights over the West Philippine Sea amid warming ties between Manila and Beijing.
Asked if the President could be breaking Philippine laws with his remarks and actions in connection with China, Carpio said Duterte should be careful in making “unilateral statements” as he is the one recognized to “bind the country.”
READ: Carpio book on sea row challenges China | Carpio hopes e-book on disputed seas reaches Chinese audience
“Because the ruling involves sovereign rights, it says the Philippines has exclusive sovereign rights over the West Philippine Sea, so the sovereign rights cannot be waived by the President or anyone. I don’t think even the Congress can waive that. Only the people can waive that. So if government officials waive that, it can be betrayal of public trust,” Carpio said in an interview with ABS-CBN News Channel’s Headstart.
Carpio was referring to the United Nations-backed arbitration ruling last year that invalidated China’s claims to almost all of the South China Sea and favored the Philippines based on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. He was instrumental in Manila’s filing of the case.
Since his election in May last year, President Duterte has forged a “recalibrated” foreign policy that veered away from dependence on the United States and shifted toward friendlier relations with China and Russia.
Duterte, who is facing an impeachment complaint filed by the Magdalo group over his alleged mishandling of the South China Sea case, has repeatedly said that the Philippines can’t match China’s military power.
But Carpio said the Philippine government should keep on protesting Beijing’s reclamation and militarization activities in the South China Sea despite the country’s relatively weaker military capacity. Beijing, which refused to recognize the arbitral ruling, continues to develop artificial islands in the Spratlys archipelago.
“If we are no match with China, we don’t have to waive it. You can insist even if you can’t physically get it but you must keep on insisting. Because if you waive it, it’s gone forever. The moment we concede our sovereign rights, we cannot take it back because China will never give it back. That’s why we have to be very careful,” the justice said.
He said, “We have many cards to play that are not confrontational.”
Carpio cited Vietnam, one of the claimant countries in the disputed seas, as a possible model for the Philippines. Hanoi maintains good trade relations with Beijing despite a strong stance in the maritime row.
“I would take the approach of Vietnam as the model because Vietnam is very strong in resisting China’s encroachment but they continue to have very strong trade relations with China. A lot of Chinese companies operate in direct export zones. It’s not an ‘either or’ because they were able to separate these issues and China would accept that,” Carpio said.
“If we adopt that attitude that we don’t want to displease China, we’ll never get back our exclusive economic zone. Every time China fortifies its claim, build something there, we will not displease China. It will end that way. We have to protest every act of China, any attempt to increase or enforce its claim,” he added.
Carpio has recently launched a book that questions China’s claims to the disputed seas, which he said he will distribute online in Mandarin so it could reach Chinese people.
- CBB/rga
x x x."
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
"Despite attempts by the Philippine delegation to justify the Duterte administration’s war on drugs and to present a positive picture of its achievements on the political, economic, social and cultural rights of the people, most of the attending states still raised serious concerns on a host of human rights issues that remain unaddressed," lawyer Ephraim Cortez, co-head of the Philippine UPR Watch delegation to Geneva, said in a statement.
"x x x.
PHL gov't gets failing grade in human rights review, advocates say
Published May 12, 2017 4:18pm
By MARLLY ROME BONDOC, GMA News
The Philippine government received a failing grade at the recently concluded UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for its supposed inability to justify its claim that there is no "sudden wave" of state-sponsored killings in the country, human rights advocates said Friday.
"Despite attempts by the Philippine delegation to justify the Duterte administration’s war on drugs and to present a positive picture of its achievements on the political, economic, social and cultural rights of the people, most of the attending states still raised serious concerns on a host of human rights issues that remain unaddressed," lawyer Ephraim Cortez, co-head of the Philippine UPR Watch delegation to Geneva, said in a statement.
Included in the report was the proposal to allow without conditions UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings Agnes Callamard to investigate the thousands of killings being blamed on President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs.
It also called on the government to invite Callamard without further delay for an official visit in line with UN terms of reference.
France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary and Latvia were among the countries that called on the Philippine government to allow Callamard to conduct an investigation without any conditions and delay.
Cortez said the recommendations showed that "not much has changed in the human rights situation in the Philippines" as it was similar during the first and second cycles of UPR.
"The recommendations relating to women’s right, children’s right, the rights of migrant workers and of the indigenous peoples glaringly show that not much is being done by the Philippine Government to protect the rights of these vulnerable sectors, nor was there any improvement at all to ensure the protection of the peoples’ social-economic and cultural rights," he said.
Senator Alan Peter Cayetano led the Philippine government panel on presenting the human rights situation in the country before the UNHRC in Geneva.
During his presentation, Cayetano denied that there was a "sudden wave" of state-sponsored extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. He also asked the UNHRC to visit the Philippines to check on the situation.
He had also said that “fake news and alternative facts” made it appear that Duterte was “acting with impunity."
Meanwhile, Cortez said the Philippine UPR Watch welcomes the recommendations from UN member-countries.
"This is evidence not only of the lack of serious effort on the part of the Philippine Government to address these observations, but also of the ineffectiveness of its Philippine Human Rights Plan which did not at all help in curbing these violations,” he said.
Cortez, meanwhile, said the Philippine UPR Watch also plans to submit its report and recommendations on the human rights situation in the country to both panels of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines peace negotiations “as part of a process of taking the government to task to fulfill their obligation to heed the voice of human rights advocates from the country and abroad." —KBK, GMA News.
x x x."
See -
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/610537/phl-gov-t-gets-failing-grade-in-human-rights-review-advocates-say/story/?utm_source=GMANews&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=news#sthash.91dEAxgM.dpuf
Duterte's P8.2T infra program may force PHL into ‘bondage’ – analyst | Money | GMA News Online
See - Duterte's P8.2T infra program may force PHL into ‘bondage’ – analyst | Money | GMA News Online
"x x x.
Duterte's P8.2T infra program may force PHL into ‘bondage’ – analyst
Published May 14, 2017 12:26pm
President Rodrigo Duterte's P8.2 trillion infrastructure program may sink the Philippines into deeper debt, an analyst said in a Forbes article on Sunday.
Anders Corr, founder of Corr Analytics, said in a contributed article to Forbes that the Philippines' plan to spend P8.2 trillion or approximately US$167 billion on infrastructure projects during Duterte's six-year term may put the country into "virtual debt bondage."
"Dutertenomics, fueled by expensive loans from China, will put the Philippines into virtual debt bondage if allowed to proceed," Corr said.
Dutertenomics is the current administration's economic and development blueprint.
Corr said that the fund that will be used for the Duterte administration's infrastructure program will bring the total national government debt of the Philippines to US$290 billion (P14.4 trillion).
"More likely according to my analysis, at 10% interest the new debt could go to $452 billion, bringing Philippines’ debt:GDP ratio to 197%, second-to-worst in the world," he said.
He added: "That understates the burden to the Philippines, as existing national government debt would also accrue interest over that time, and such interest was not included in the analysis."
In his article, Corr assumed that a big chunk of funds that will be spent on the Duterte administration's infrastructure program will come from China.
Worst-case scenario
Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno had said that taxes will largely fund the P8.2 trillion infrastructure program, which includes at least 30 big-ticket projects in the next five years.
Diokno did confirm that China may offer the Philippines an interest rate between 10% and 15% in the repayment of its debt.
"Without much needed transparency from the Duterte government and China on the rate, conditionality, and repayment terms of $167 billion of new debt for the Philippines, the public should assume, to forestall a worst-case scenario, that the rate would be somewhere between 10% and 15%," Corr said.
Over 10 years, the Philippines' debt:GDP ratio will balloon to 296%, the highest in the world.
Japan currently has the highest debt:GDP ratio at 250.40%, according to Trading Economics while the Philippines' current debt:GDP ratio is at 42.10%.
Corr said that if the country's debt:GDP ratio balloons to 296%, it will not be able to repay China.
"The Philippines will have to give political and economic concessions to China in order to repay annual interest, or renegotiate such a large quantity of debt," he said.
Among the political concessions that the Philippines may give to China is to give up "territory or oil rights in the South China Sea... it could include economic concessions, for example selling China its national companies, or agreeing to below-market rates on exports to China."
The Philippines may also be driven to reach out to other countries to be able to repay China. If the government reaches out to Russia, Corr said it may agree to give out a loan to the Philippines "with even stiffer terms."
Corr also alleged that the President and "his influential friends and business associates" would benefit from the administration's infrastructure program through "finders fees."
He said Filipinos should demand transparency in the Duterte administration's dealings with China.
"These interest rates, and all details of the deals, need to be made public and approved by the Philippine Congress, or the loans should not go through," he said.
Joma's concerns
National Democratic Front (NDF) Chief Political Consultant Jose Maria "Joma" Sison was also concerned over the government's alleged borrowing program.
"Can the Philippines really borrow the huge amount of USD167B from China at so fast a rate?" he said in a Facebook message. "Will not the Philippines become a debt slave of China?"
Sison added that the reforms being talked about by the government and communist forces could be derailed by such borrowing plans.
"Will not the drive to build, build, build infrastructure (rails, roads and bridges) draw resources away from a program of national industrialization proposed by the NDFP in the negotiation of CASER (Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms)?" he said.
Aside from this, Sison also questioned the credibility of dealing with China, given past controversies.
"Does not the Philippines have already bad experience in making deals with China, such as the overpriced NBN-ZTE and NRT scams during the [Gloria Mapagal-] Arroyo regime and the P3B wasted on defective trains from China during [Benigno Simeon C.] Aquino [III] regime?" he asked. — ALG, GMA News.
x x x."
- See more at: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/money/economy/610707/duterte-s-p8-2-t-infra-program-may-force-phl-into-virtual-debt-bondage-analyst/story/#sthash.i0nbfNzO.MEhHvNiC.dpuf
What really happened when Portugal decriminalised all illegal drugs in J...
"►History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. ►After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. ►The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition.►Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.
►We at L.E.A.P.(Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)( http://www.leap.cc )believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer. ►We believe that sending parents to prison for non-violent personal drug use destroys families. ►We believe that in a regulated and controlled environment, drugs will be safer for adult use and less accessible to our children. ►And we believe that by placing drug abuse in the hands of medical professionals instead of the criminal justice system, we will reduce rates of addiction and overdose deaths. http://shilajit-resin.com/ | en france acheter cialis sur internet."
China: Police DNA Database Threatens Privacy | Human Rights Watch
"x x x.
(New York) – China’s police are collecting DNA from individuals for a nationally searchable database without oversight, transparency, or privacy protections, Human Rights Watch said today. Evidence suggests that the regional government in Xinjiang, an ethnic minority region with a history of government repression, intends to accelerate the collection and indexing of DNA.
In many parts of the country, police officers are compelling ordinary individuals – neither convicted nor even suspected of a crime – to have their blood drawn and DNA taken. Samples have also been collected from vulnerable groups already targeted for increased government surveillance, including migrant workers, dissidents, and minority Muslim Uyghurs. Because police wield wide powers, and because there are no actionable privacy rights in China, people have little ability to refuse the collection of such personal information.
“DNA collection can have legitimate policing uses in investigating specific criminal cases, but only in a context in which people have meaningful privacy protections,” said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. “Until that’s the case in China, the mass collection of DNA and the expansion of databases needs to stop.”
Mass DNA collection by the powerful Chinese police absent effective privacy protections or an independent judicial system is a perfect storm for abuses.
Sophie Richardson
In the early 2000s, the Chinese Ministry of Public Security started building a searchable, national DNA database called the “Forensic Science DNA Database System” (法庭科学DNA数据库系统), also known as “National Public Security Agencies DNA Database Application System” (全国公安机关DNA数据库应用系统), as part of a larger police information project known as the Golden Shield.
By late 2015, the Ministry of Public Security had accumulated 44 million “miscellaneous data entries.” The government claims it is the biggest in the world. It includes data from more than 40 million individuals, while 1.5 million entries refer to physical evidence related to crime scenes. The Ministry of Public Security runs a second, separate “Combat Trafficking DNA Database” ( “打拐” DNA数据库) with more than 513,000 DNA entries. Authorities have stated that the DNA databases are used for solving crimes, including terrorism and child trafficking, as well as to identify bodies and vagrants.
Documented cases demonstrate that the collection of DNA does not appear to be connected to solving specific cases of crimes. Police have conducted campaigns to amass biometrics from ordinary citizens simply because it has identified gathering “basic information” (基础信息) a goal, important for the unspecified need to “solve crimes.” In these notices, local police stations hail the success of their drives, publicizing the dozens or hundreds of DNA samples they collected.
In addition, Chinese law appears to limit police collection of DNA samples to people connected to the investigation of a specific criminal case. Article 130 of the Criminal Procedure Law states that in the course of criminal investigations, in order to “ascertain certain features, conditions of injuries, or physical conditions of a victim or a criminal suspect, a physical examination may be conducted, and fingerprints, blood, urine and other biological samples may be collected. If a criminal suspect refuses to be examined, the investigators, when they deem it necessary, may conduct a compulsory examination.” But there are no legal guidelines on how long DNA samples can be stored, shared, or used, or how their collection can be challenged.
“Mass DNA collection by the powerful Chinese police absent effective privacy protections or an independent judicial system is a perfect storm for abuses,” Richardson said. “China is moving its Orwellian system to the genetic level.”
Background: Popular Objections to DNA Collection
Individuals who have had their DNA taken by police have detailed their experiences on social media platforms, including Weibo, Zhihu, Baidu Zhidao, Tieba, and Tianya. In these posts, netizens described officers coming to their homes, schools, and workplaces to collect their samples; none described having been presented any warrant or the visits having been announced in advance. In other cases, people discuss having been required to provide DNA samples when they applied for documents from the police, including residency permits and ID cards. In some other cases, police officers have demanded DNA samples from individuals whom they had taken to the police station for questioning, though in the vast majority of these cases the individuals were not suspects formally detained or arrested for crimes.
Some people said online that they “did not want to have their DNA taken” or were “very upset” about having their information taken. In one post on Tianya dated June 28, 2016, a person who was forced by police officers in Zhongshan, Guangdong province, to supply his DNA sample following a routine roadside ID check wondered: “Why was I treated like this? I am not a criminal, but this is worse than a criminal, I’ve been feeling very upset. I’m afraid what they’d do to my sample.”
These posts reflect peoples’ unease about why their information was collected, whether the collection was legal, would the collection have a negative impact on their lives, and if a criminal record or investigation would follow. There was also anger over a lack of informed consent.
In a post on Tieba dated August 6, 2016, a netizen whose DNA was taken as part of the ID application process wrote, “I went to the county police station to get them to re-issue my ID, and they took my blood and DNA sample…why did they take my DNA? [They said] that’s the rule. If you don’t let us do it we won’t issue [your ID] …now even f***** DNA belongs to the Chinese Communist Party!”
The issue of DNA collection has received some press attention. In one case in Shandong province, police collected DNA from more than 5,000 male students in one college in October 2013. The students were given no explanation about why their information was taken, and many “did not understand nor felt comfortable about it.” When reached by journalists, the school said it was to cooperate with the police’s request to establish a database about migrant populations, but the police said it was to solve a number of theft cases on the campus.
Profiling in DNA Collection
Police notices published in recent years describing these drives typically include broad categories of target populations beyond “suspects and criminals.” These categories vary, but typically include: “focus personnel,” a broad term referring to anyone authorities perceive as potential threats, such as dissidents, activists, petitioners, and anyone with a prior criminal record; “work targets,” another vague term police use to describe persons of interest such as those with administrative infractions to criminal convictions; and migrants (流动人口), meaning anyone whose hukou (or “residency permit”) is not located in the area, including migrants from the countryside. There are also drives targeting particular establishments – hostels, entertainment venues, internet cafes, and rental homes – in which DNA is collected from anyone police deem “suspicious.” A few notices targeted particular professions: sex workers and locksmiths.
This form of broad and discriminatory social profiling appears to be a form of preventive policing. Some of these local police drives targeting migrant workers state as their objective “stability maintenance” – a government euphemism for silencing criticism and staving off protests. Examples include:
In Shaanxi province, officers from police stations in Baoji City, Shangluo City, and Tongchuan City visited local companies between October and November 2016 to collect the DNA of migrant workers, claiming a need to “ensure stability”;
A police station in Guiyang City, Guizhou province, waged a campaign to collect information from migrants, including DNA samples and fingerprints, as part of an effort to “construct harmonic society”;
A police station located in a border town in Jilin province collected 247 samples of DNA from migrants in the area in July 2015. This “improved migrant population information,” helped solve crimes, and “strengthened the level of social safety and security.”
Some peaceful government critics and activists also report that their DNA was collected, typically during interrogations or questioning in police stations:
Shen Liangqing, a Hefei activist, had his biometrics taken by the police, including blood samples, twice in 2015, after he was interrogated for accepting an interview of a foreign press and tweeting about the Tianjin chemical explosions of 2015. The police said they needed to “gather citizens’ information” but gave no further explanation about what it might be used for, or how it would be stored, according to Shen.
Police forcibly took the DNA, photo, fingerprints, and palm prints of a Jiangxi anti-corruption activist Liu Ping during an 11-hour interrogation session in September 2012, during which she was tortured, and told her the information was needed for constructing a “criminal database.” Liu is currently serving six years in prison.
Guangdong authorities took the DNA and fingerprints of activist He Yanyun after interrogating him about an article on human rights lawyers he wrote in July 2015.
Officers taking human rights lawyer Wang Quanping into custody in April 2014, after he attempted to attend the trial of a fellow rights lawyer, told him they had to collect fingerprints, blood, and DNA samples from him. The officers told Wang that this was a regular procedure for everyone brought to the station, in order to “gather citizens’ information.” After Wang protested, saying he was not suspected of any crime or detained under criminal procedures, the officers did not take his biometrics but subsequently upgraded his case from an administrative case to a criminal case, detaining him for eight days.
Men install a CCTV camera in a shopping street in the town of Kashgar, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China, March 23, 2017. State media say measures such as a network of thousands of new street-corner police posts, are aimed to make everyone feel safer. © 2017 Reuters/Thomas Peter
Alarming Trends in Xinjiang
Human Rights Watch reported in November 2016 that police have required all passport applicants in Xinjiang – not suspects or convicts in a criminal case – to supply DNA samples as part of their application. Xinjiang, home to approximately 10 million Muslim Uyghurs, has a long history of state repression.
Further investigation by Human Rights Watch found that in September 2016, the Xinjiang regional police bureau issued two calls for tender – at 60 million RMB (US$8.69 million) and 20 million RMB (US$2.90 million) – for a total of 12 DNA sequencers, 30 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplifiers, and 1000 batches of genotyping kits. The purchase indicates that the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau (PSB) intends to build large-scale infrastructure to profile a large number of individuals, according to four DNA experts Human Rights Watch spoke to. However, because the full tender document is not publicly accessible, it is difficult to assess precisely the scope of this infrastructure.
In 2016, the Xinjiang PSB also issued a “Notice to Fully Carry Out the Construction of Three-Dimensional Portraits, Voiceprint and DNA Fingerprint Biometrics Collection System” (关于全面开展三维人像、声纹、DNA指纹生物信息采集系统建设相关工作的通知). But the full document is not publicly available. It is unclear who is targeted for such collection; how this information is to be used, shared, or stored; the rationale behind the collecting; or how one challenges the collection. A separate call for tender issued by the Yopurga County Police Bureau, Kashgar, Xinjiang, cited the “notice” and stated that the biometric collection is part of “stability maintenance.” Regional authorities have revealed little about these new efforts.
Lack of Safeguards
A DNA database allows police not only to search for an exact match, but also a search for those who are related family members. If police have access to a DNA sample from a cousin, nephew, or aunt in the database, they can know that the person they are looking for is a first or second-degree relative and focus their search on the family in question. Ministry of Public Security (MPS) researchers who work on the DNA database say that more complex familial DNA searches are not currently effective given the way the police DNA database is structured. But some provincial authorities, particularly in Henan Province, are attempting to gather additional data, including “Y-STR” DNA information, or Y-chromosome information passed down along the male descendants of families, to systematically map out family trees.
While there are MPS internal departmental rules that focus on the administrative or technical aspects of DNA data collection, most are not publicly available. The “Rules on the Construction of the Forensic Science DNA Database System” (法庭科学DNA数据库建设规范GA/T418—2003), published in 2003 by the MPS Forensic Center, states that the database consists of data from those who have “violated the law and committed crimes,” but it does not further describe or delineate this set. A 2009 MPS document outlines “ten types of cases” and “eight types of individuals” that can be targets for such collection, but Human Rights Watch was unable to find the document online and there is no public information giving further details. A notice issued by the Shanghai Public Security Bureau gives more details: those who have committed “violent, drug-related, sex-related crimes” as well as “anyone who has been subjected to above administrative and public order punishments” should have their DNA taken. The latter group would include individuals who were not convicted of crimes, but merely subjected to administrative detention, a form of deprivation of liberty imposed by the police alone without court decision. In early 2017, the Chinese government issued new draft amendments to its Public Security Administrative Punishments Law, in which a new provision, article 112, was added authorizing police to collect biometrics, including through blood samples, for the purpose of determining victims and perpetrators in minor administrative cases.
DNA databases are not inherently illegal and have been justified at times as permissible investigative tools. But to meet international privacy standards enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China has signed but not ratified, a DNA collection and retention mechanism must be comprehensively regulated, narrow in scope, and proportionate to meeting a legitimate security goal.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy has noted that DNA databases can raise human rights concerns, including “potential misuse for government surveillance, including identification of relatives and non-paternity, and the risk of miscarriages of justice.” Collection of DNA without the subject’s full informed consent can only be justified in very limited circumstances, such as when necessary to the investigation of a serious crime, and must be prescribed by law for reasons that comport with human rights.
DNA gathering systems like the one China operates have been ruled violative of privacy rights elsewhere. For example, in 2008 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) outlawed the collection and indefinite retention of fingerprints, cell samples, and DNA profiles. The European Court, in reaching its conclusion, reasoned that sweeping, indiscriminate DNA databases violated the right to personal privacy. It added that DNA collection may be appropriate in relation to state security and crime prevention, but only if the collection system is heavily regulated by established law and open to the careful scrutiny of a judiciary. Similarly, the United States Supreme Court, in Maryland v. King, ruled that the collection and retention of DNA profiles on people convicted of violent crimes were legal given the limited types of collection, analysis, and use of samples provided by statute.
x x x."
Mekong states sign on to UN policy on drugs. - Health Care First.
"x x x.
With the Kingdom in the middle of a controversial “war on drugs”, six Mekong countries agreed yesterday to adopt a regional drug policy that puts health care first, and mandates police and judicial cooperation.
Ministers and delegates from Cambodia, China, Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar and Thailand met with representatives from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) over three days, culminating in yesterday’s agreement, billed as “a coordinated regional response to drug production, trafficking, and use”.
Jeremy Douglas, regional director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific for UNODC, explained that as the region integrates more, efforts to combat the effects of drugs must become more coordinated. The new regional policy will focus on health-based solutions, law enforcement cooperation to address porous borders and judicial cooperation.
But, he said during the conference, “Health needs to come first.”
Cambodia has long been criticised for the involuntary detention of drug users in “rehabilitation centres” that some describe as torturous and devoid of genuine treatment.
And despite assurances that the new policy would put health first, the president of Cambodia’s National Authority for Combating Drugs, Ke Kim Yan, glossed over health issues in his statements.
Instead, Kim Yan, who once suggested giving local authorities the power to unilaterally sentence drug users to involuntary detention, said three separate times that it was “especially important” to prevent trafficking.
In an interview following the conference, the UNODC’s Douglas acknowledged that Cambodia’s policies have often been “heavy-handed” and “regressive”, and said change would not come “overnight”.
“What we’ve done is we’ve quite successfully lobbied the government ... to agree to a collective approach, which is called community-based treatment,” Douglas said, adding that all the Mekong countries adopted the version of community treatment promoted by UNODC and the World Health Organization.
Noting that Cambodia is often strongly averse to any perceived outside interference, independent drug expert David Harding said: “It is an important step that Cambodia and these other countries are acknowledging these recommendations and the UNODC.”
But, Harding said he was wary of Cambodia’s motivations for joining the agreement. “I worry they may point to their cooperation with the UNODC as a way of legitimising their drug war.”
x x x."
Why marijuana should be legalized.
"x x x.
'Cannabis should be legalised to protect young people and push criminals out'
Steve Rolles
Senior policy analyst at Transform, reveals why cannabis should be legalised
BY MIRROR.CO.UK
23:06, 12 MAY 2017
x x x.
The party, led by Tim Farron , said it would legalise cannabis and allow it to be sold openly if it wins.
The plan is to “break the grip of criminal gangs” through the creation of a “legal, regulated market” while raising up to £1billion in tax.
So is it more than just a pipe dream?
High time
Senior policy analyst at Transform Steve Rolles reveals the benefits of legalising cannabis
Criminalising cannabis has been a total disaster.
Enforcing cannabis prohibition is expensive, with estimates putting the cost at around £500million a year.
But what have the billions spent and millions criminalised over the years achieved? Very little.
Cannabis is easily available to anyone who wants it, including kids, whether on street corners or via online “dark net” markets.
The Home Office ’s own inter-national study found no link between tougher enforcement and levels of drug use. Prohibition puts a huge drain on scarce police resources and it just doesn’t work.
But it’s worse than that. What cannabis prohibition has achieved is to gift control of a market worth billions each year to organised crime and unregulated dealers.
This criminal market is closely associated with child slavery and human trafficking.
It also criminalises millions across the country, with tens of thousands getting a criminal record each year.
Yet probably a quarter of adults have tried cannabis, a crime punishable with up to five years’ jail and an unlimited fine.
The criminal market has also fuelled the emergence of ever more potent varieties of cannabis – the “skunk” that now dominates.
It’s more profitable for dealers but also more risky for the users who now cannot access milder, safer cannabis even if they want to.
Cannabis prohibition also created the market opportunity for Spice, a synthetic drug that is far more potent and toxic than the herbal cannabis it mimics.
READ MORE
Originally a legal high, Spice has now also been banned, demonstrating a depressing failure to learn lessons of the past.
Prohibition created the spice problem, so who seriously thought more prohibition would be the solution?
Unsurprisingly, the market for Spice has simply moved from head shops to unregulated criminal street markets, becoming yet more potent and dangerous and now wreaking havoc in prisons and among the homeless .
Far from protecting communities and young people, prohibition puts them in danger, from gang violence, more risky drugs and a criminal record that can blight their lives.
Given this catastrophic failure, it is high time for a rethink. It is clear the market cannot be wished away or eradicated by force.
So we face a choice. We can leave it in the hands of organised crime or we can take back control and establish a regulated legal framework to manage the market and minimise its potential harms.
The independent expert group I chaired, with the help of former Government drugs tsar Professor David Nutt and senior police and academics, was asked to make recommendations on how a regulated market could work to deliver on youth protection and reduced crime.
We looked at reforms from around the world where cannabis legalisation is becoming a reality.
Eight US states, including California, have already legalised, joining Uruguay, Jamaica, the Netherlands, and Canada.
We also drew on important lessons from the successes and failures of alcohol and tobacco regulation.
We were acutely aware of the tension between the interests of big business and the need to protect health.
Drugs are not normal products, like groceries. So we proposed that while there should be regulated access to herbal cannabis for over-18s via licensed vendors, there should also be controls on potency and restrictions on advertising and marketing – as with tobacco.
READ MORE
No one wants to see the sort of promotion we still have with alcohol, like cannabis sponsorship of football teams.
Cannabis should be available to adults but not aggressively promoted.
We also proposed that money saved across the criminal justice system could be redirected to other policing priorities while tax revenue from the market – potentially up to £1billion a year – could boost drug education and treatment.
People often talk about sending out the right message on drugs and worry about what message legalisation would send.
But criminal law is not the right tool to educate young people on healthy lifestyles. It just doesn’t work, only criminalising and alienating the very people we are trying to reach.
Legal cannabis control will better protect young people and push criminals out of the market.
We call on all parties to stop their “tough on crime” posturing and do the responsible thing: take control of cannabis and other drug markets.
Transform is a charitable think-tank that campaigns for the legal regulation of drugs in the UK and inter-nationally.
2.1m took a toke in last year
6.5% of UK adults used cannabis in the past year, some 2.1 million people. Globally, the number is 182 million people
In 2015, 27,462 people got criminal records for cannabis possession and more than 1,000 people have been sent to prison annually for cannabis offences.
Since cannabis was legalised in Colorado in 2012, possession arrests have fallen by 80% but youth use has not risen.
Colorado’s legal cannabis market generated more than £77.6million in tax revenue in 2016. Estimates have suggested that the UK market could generate between £500million and £1billion.
x x x."
Health Canada approves 2 safe injection sites in Montreal - Montreal - CBC News. -- ""It is a population that exists. They are citizens like me and you who inject themselves. Why not facilitate that with hygienic conditions and qualified personnel who can prevent overdoses?" Charlebois said."
"x x x.
Health Canada approves 2 safe injection sites in Montreal
In the next few weeks, Cactus will open downtown and Dopamine in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
By Sabrina Marandola, CBC News Posted: May 12, 2017 9:19 PM ET Last Updated: May 12, 2017 9:19 PM ET
Montreal Public Health officials say that once Montreal's supervised injection sites open, they will likely be overseeing anywhere between a total of 200 and 300 drug injections a day. (Navneet Pall/CBC)
Related Stories
The federal government has given the green light for the opening of two supervised injection sites in Montreal.
The final go-ahead from Health Canada, which comes months after Ottawa approved the plan for the sites, means that the two centres can open their doors within weeks.
Cactus Montreal, until now a needle-exchange site only, will open on Sanguinet Street in downtown Montreal.
The other supervised site, which will be run by the community organization Dopamine, will be in the city's east end in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
Sandhia Vadlamudy, executive director for Cactus Montreal, said nurses and community workers are eager to start, and the clinics are almost ready to go.
"Drugs are a part of our reality so we choose to have a pragmatic approach," she said. "We receive between 150 and 300 passages from people who use drugs, so we have these relationship already built with the users."
This is one of the 10 mirrored booths at Cactus Montreal, where nurses can discreetly supervise drug users. (CBC)
The Cactus site will have 10 booths supervised by two nurses and a social worker. Each booth is mirrored to allow discreet observation.
They expect to oversee anywhere between 140 and 215 injections per day.
Quebec Public Health Minister Lucie Charlebois said the supervised injection sites can save lives. In Montreal, there are 4,000 injectable drug users — every year 17 of them die from an injection-related overdose.
"It is a population that exists. They are citizens like me and you who inject themselves. Why not facilitate that with hygienic conditions and qualified personnel who can prevent overdoses?" Charlebois said.
Two other downtown sites, Spectre de rue and a mobile site called Anonyme, are still awaiting final approval from Health Canada.
Sandhia Vadlamudy, executive director of Cactus Montreal, says supervised injection sites will help prevent fatal drug overdoses. (Navneet Pall/CBC)
The centres will be open 22 hours a day, 365 days a year. The mobile site will offer services during overnight hours.
Raymond Massé, Montreal's director of Public Health, said he believes users will come to the site.
"They will want to know exactly how it will work, and that's a normal phenomenon but we expect that most of the people will want to come and use it."
People who wish to use the sites must register at the time of their first visit.
Organizers say the drug users' information will remain confidential.
With files from CBC's Navneet Pall
x x x."
UN rights review: PH must lift conditions on rapporteur probe
See - UN rights review: PH must lift conditions on rapporteur probe: The draft presented Switzerland, Paraguay and Kenya contained 257 recommendations after scrutinizing a presentation by a Filipino delegation in Geneva last Monday.
"x x x.
"Member states adopted late Thursday evening the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) draft report regarding the human rights situation in the Philippines.
The draft, presented by the "troika" composed of Switzerland, Paraguay and Kenya, contained 257 recommendations after scrutinizing a presentation by a Filipino delegation in Geneva last Monday.
Related: PH delegation defends drug war at UN in Geneva
Among the many recommendations was that the Philippines should lift its conditions and accept a probe by a United Nations rapporteur into the human rights situation in the country.
Related: Cayetano: UN rapporteur not fit to probe drug war
The report — drafted by the 47-member UPR Working Group — also urged the government to investigate all enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
Regarding the country's war on illegal drugs, the draft report said the government should continue its efforts to protect its people from the threat of drugs while upholding human rights values.
It also said that the Philippines should not reimpose the death penalty and should maintain the protection of the right to life, given that the country had committed to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Deputy Executive Secretary Menardo Guevarra, who co-chaired the Philippine team with Sen. Alan Cayetano, expressed gratitude towards the troika, the secretariat and all the 95-member states for their efforts in reviewing and recommending on the progress in the country's human rights situation, and in identiying areas for improvement.
Guevarra said, the positive comments highlighting the progress of the country's efforts in upholding human rights were very encouraging. He also assured the working group that the presidential human rights committee will be convened to review and determine their course of action with regard to the recommendations.
Just like what Cayetano presented, Guevarra also defended the Philippines' ongoing campaign against illegal drugs, which was one of the major concerns of the member states.
He also thanked the ASEAN neighbors, whom he said were quite aware of the gravity of illegal drug problem in the Philippines — with a special mention of China and Japan for their support.
The draft report will be circulated by e-mail to all member states until Friday. They will then be given until May 26 to make editorial changes to the summary of report, before submitting this to the secretariat."
x x x."
"The notion of a rule of law holds these truths to be self-evident—that no one is immune from accountability simply because he or she is powerful or because he or she is rich, or because he or she is both powerful and rich. The contrary view to this is impunity and it is an anathema to the rule of law."
"x x x.
Sereno, the law, and creeping impunity
posted May 13, 2017 at 12:01 am by Tony La Viña
In her speech delivered during the 16th National Convention of Lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which I quoted in my column last Saturday, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno started by giving stress on the present challenges of public interest lawyers, especially defenders of human rights who have been under increasing attack. Just recently, we saw how Bohol environmental lawyer Mia Mascariñas Green was brutally slain, ambushed in daylight in the presence of her two young children. Three months after, even as it is open knowledge in Bohol who the likely mastermind of this killing was, her killers remain at large. To keep the children safe, the family had to relocate abroad even as they are committed to seek redress. Justice once again is elusive.
Highlighting the importance of the rule of law, the Chief Justice cited Former UN (United Nations) Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon who stated that the Rule of Law is the world’s best hope for building peaceful and prosperous societies. This theme, she said, was taken up in 2012 when the General Assembly took up Rule of Law vis-à-vis conflict situations, and in the ensuing discussions recognized the work that had been built up in many areas of the world as to form a consensus on the need for Rule of Law as the baseline for development. Inevitably, the discussions highlighted the need for transparent legal systems and the role of lawyers.
Chief Justice Sereno then posed the question to her fellow lawyers: With all that we are experiencing as a country, what role do lawyers have in bringing hope to our people?
This question comes to mind in the midst of the increasingly violent times that lawyers find themselves in and the role that lawyers play—or need to play—in promoting, maintaining and nurturing the Rule of Law.
Defining the term, the Chief Justice said that the rule of law is the governance principle holding all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, accountable to laws and rules that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated upon, that are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.
The World Justice Project which publishes a yearly Rule of Law Index defines the rule of law as a system in which the following universal principles are upheld. The Chief Justice quotes these principles in her speech: 1) accountability of government officials; (2) clear, stable, and just laws applied evenly and the protection of fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property; (3) accessible, fair, and efficient process of legislation; and (4) an independent, competent, ethical system of delivery of justice that is well-resourced and adequately funded.
The Chief Justice then advanced certain operational components where the judiciary and the legal profession are concerned: “(a) courts that are accessible to ordinary citizens; (b) delivery of justice—consisting of fair resolution of disputes and the consistent levying of punishment, where appropriate—in a timely and effective manner, without any undue or unreasonable delay; (c) courts that are independent—that is, free from improper government influence; and (d) the absence of corruption or the perception of corruption in the adjudication of disputes and controversies; (e) the appointment of competent, ethical, and neutral judges; and, (f) the presence of an independent and ethical Bar.”
The Chief Justice also revealed that in the 2016 Rule of Law Index, the Philippines dropped nine spots to 70th even as the East Asia and Pacific region was the second-ranked region in rule of law, behind Western Europe and North America. In this region, New Zealand and Singapore are the top performers in the 2016 rankings, ranking 8th and 9th, respectively out of 113 countries worldwide, while the biggest mover was Vietnam, rising seven positions to 67th globally, higher than the Philippines’ ranking.
Chief Justice Sereno pointed out that the rule of law cannot be reconciled with a system that allows for undue immunities from these processes and outcomes due to considerations that are political or pecuniary or both. The notion of a rule of law holds these truths to be self-evident—that no one is immune from accountability simply because he or she is powerful or because he or she is rich, or because he or she is both powerful and rich. The contrary view to this is impunity and it is an anathema to the rule of law.
Impunity, according to Sereno, represents a breakdown, in part or in whole, of governance. In its most recognizable form, it is the impossibility of enforcing accountability, in whatever form, against offenders by reason of the unavailability or futility of existing proceedings and processes, means and methods to effect an effective and meaningful investigation, charge, arrest, trial, judgment, sentence or service of sentence. Where an offender is unduly immunized from accountability through external conditions such as policy, politics or pecuniary interests, then impunity has set in and the rule of law is diminished.
The most powerful sentence in Sereno’s speech is this: “Impunity sows seeds of hopelessness and if we are not careful, those seeds will take root and bear fruit.”
Last week, in Geneva, Switzerland, the Philippines had to defend its human rights records before other countries. As explained in the website of the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the human rights records of all UN Member States is a State-driven process, under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, which provides the opportunity for each State to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfill their human rights obligations. As one of the main features of the Council, the UPR is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed.
According to the UNCHR, the UPR is a cooperative process which, by October 2011, has reviewed the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States. It is one of the key elements of the Council which reminds States of their responsibility to fully respect and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The objective of this process is to improve the human rights situation in all countries and address human rights violations wherever they occur.
In the Geneva meeting, even with a high-caliber government delegation led by Senator now Foreign Affairs Secretary Alan Cayetano, 45 of the 47 members of the Human Rights Council expressed concerns about the human rights situation in the Philippines and called on the government to investigate the extrajudicial killings that have accompanied the war against drugs. Only China supported us with Saudi Arabia as President not voting.
No words can justify what is happening in our streets and in poor neighborhoods. We are in a quagmire, faced with “creeping impunity” to borrow a phrase from the Chief Justice’s speech.
What can lawyers do about this? How does this challenge the many new lawyers that just passed the bar last week and who will take the lawyer’s oath on May 22? What can ordinary people, especially the young who are graduating from college in this season of commencement exercises, do?
Seeking to answer these questions, I will continue to write about this subject matter, in the next weeks, borrowing from Chief Justice Sereno’s IBP speech and also from what is expected to be a powerful speech she will deliver at the Ateneo de Manila University Loyola Schools’ commencement exercises later in the month.
Facebook: deantonylavs Twitter: tonylavs
x x x."
Hope in the rule of law - Manila Standard
"x x x.
Hope in the rule of law
posted May 16, 2017 at 12:01 am by Tony La Viña
Continuing her discussion on the rule of law and the present state of impunity in her speech at the 16th National Convention of Lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 24, 2017 at Marriott Manila, Pasay City, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno stated that addressing impunity becomes the shared burden of those in the judiciary and the legal profession.
It is within this context that I pose my question to all of us—in view of the creeping impunity that we once again find ourselves in, how should we understand the role of lawyers in promoting the rule of law?
She proposed an answer to this by suggesting that we (in the legal profession) should situate ourselves once again in the nobility of our profession and in the best, not the worst, that it has to offer our many publics— our clients, our people, and our country.
To the Chief Justice, an environment of fear and violence is anathematic to the rule of law. It contributes to impunity. To preserve the rule of law, lawyers must steel themselves, to a certain degree, to develop a level of indifference to the ambient noise, and discharge their duties to the best of their abilities as their conscience dictates. Good lawyers must swim against whatever tide meets them.
When judges and lawyers hesitate to do the right thing for fear of being derogated for the company they keep or when they respond to vilification, threats and actual violence with surrender and capitulation, the rule of law is shoved out and impunity steps in, she added.
Chief Justice Sereno reminded the members of the profession that the courts are the refuge, often the final refuge, for those who seek to hold offenders—public and private, highly-ranked or of common station, accountable for their acts of violence. The long arm of the law often finds a face in our courts, yet it has been my experience that the long arm of the law often has a very short reach—before the courts can act, controversies must be investigated, cases must be filed and prosecuted. Practicing lawyers and members of the Bar are part of the long arm of the law. She pleaded with the members of the profession to not limit the reach of the law by inaction, or worse, active collaboration with those who would seek to promote impunity and diminish the rule of law.
She observed that many of our people, including some among our ranks, have been desensitized or rendered numb by violence. Desensitization is the first step towards hopelessness, and an uncritical embrace of the status quo. Our role as lawyers is not to simply embrace uncritically the status quo. It is, rather, to provide a voice for those rendered voiceless, to bring causes that would otherwise not be heard, to provide hope in the midst of impunity.
She then proposed four practical steps that lawyers can do to combat impunity.
First, take the Lawyer’s Oath to heart and grow in character.
As I wrote in the first of this series of columns on the legal profession, Sereno proposed that the Lawyer’s Oath is no ordinary canonical incantation. Nor is it a routine legal requirement. The Oath, far from being a sterile form of words, gives us (lawyers and judges) the road map to action as lawyers and defines us as a profession. In a very real sense, it is a definition of who we are and to what we have been called.
Second, sign up to help.
There are so many ways to help, according to the Chief Justice. If you find yourself in a position to help those who seek to bring suit to protect their rights, then by all means do so. Just be mindful though of the admonition in the Oath as to groundless suits and our intolerance to those.
Third, go against the grain; do not take the path of least resistance.
Challenging the status quo means being unafraid to go against the grain, to take the path least trod, and to break new trails. Challenging the status quo means that we must occasionally confront traditions that may have taken root through inertia and, if necessary, create new traditions, she explained.
Fourth, continue this conversation started in the IBP Convention.
I am doing my share of that through these columns. We must find ways to resist the culture of impunity. We must be innovative. We just can’t raise the flag of surrender and shrug that there is nothing we can do about it.
This is why I do not support a case in the International Criminal Court against Duterte and his people at this time. In my view, there are still legal, judicial, and political avenues we have not tapped and used to fight extrajudicial killings and the crimes against humanity being committed. We have not maximized the Rule of Law to give our people hope.
By way of conclusion, the Chief Justice emphasized that the fight is not against a person or against an establishment. Rather, it is a fight against a culture, a way of thinking, of seeing, and thus of acting or not acting. It is a culture that is ingrained and deeply rooted. It is a culture that started when people started to look the other way; a culture that thrived when people stopped caring; a culture that prevailed when people stopped hoping. The only way to fight against a culture is to be a counter-culture—to stand up for truth and right even when others choose to keep silent or to spread lies; to encourage action when others are apathetic; to dare to hope even when others have given up.
Chief Justice Sereno urged the IBP to stand up, for what is true, what is honorable, what is right, what is pure, what is of good repute, what is excellent and worthy of praise. This, according to her, is the transcendent essence of the lawyer’s oath. For judges and lawyers, this is our common cause, our shared burden, our one hope.
With fullness of conviction, I truly believe that the rule of law assures us that hope will in the end prevail and rule.
x x x."
12 applicants vie for SC post | Philippine Canadian Inquirer
"x x x.
MANILA–Some 12 applicants will vie for the position to be vacated by Supreme Court Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes who is set to retire in July, three of which are new applicants including a Court Administrator and two Court of Appeals Associate Justices.
The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has received 12 nominations and applications for the upcoming vacancy in the SC that would enable President Rodrigo Duterte to name his third appointee to the high court.
Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez has been endorsed by the Philippine Judges Association (PJA) through its president Georgina Hidalgo. The group called for the promotion of Marquez as member of the high court, citing his “integrity, competence, work ethic and dedication to the judiciary” as his qualifications.
x x x.
Aside from Marquez, Court of Appeals Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando and Ramon Bato were also nominated to the post and will also face the JBC in public interviews.
Hernando was a former Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor and regional trial court judge of San Pablo, Laguna and Quezon City while Bato was a former RTC judge and known for dismissing the criminal charges against Senator Panfilo Lacson in the controversial Dacer-Corbito murder cases.
The nine others were already nominated in the two previous vacancies from the retirement of Associate Justices Jose Perez and Arturo Brion in December last year – CA Presiding Justice Andres Reyes Jr., Associate Justices Rosmari Carandang, Jose Reyes, Japar Dimaampao, Apolinario Bruselas, Stephen Cruz and Amy Lazaro Javier; Centro Escolar University law school vice dean Rita Linda Ventura – Jimeno; and Pasig RTC Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan.
All the applicants will be screened by the JBC and submit a shortlist to President Rodrigo Duterte.
Last March, President Duterte named his first two appointees to the high court – Associate Justices Samuel Martires and Noel Tijam. Both were schoolmates of the President in the San Beda College law school.
The JBC is set to publish the names of the aspirants to the SC vacancy and schedule the public interviews for the three new nominees.
The JBC is chaired by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Aranal-Sereno, with two ex-officio members –Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II and legislative representatives Senator Richard Gordon and Mindoro Oriental Rep. Reynaldo Umali, who shall have a term sharing seat in the JBC.
The regular members are retired SC Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, who heads the Executive Committee; lawyer Jose Mejia, representing the academe; lawyer Milagros Fernan-Cayosa, representing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and retired Judge Toribio Ilao, representing the private sector.
x x x."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)