Friday, July 21, 2017
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Vladimir Putin - "As Russia now looks set for another lengthy period of rule from Vladimir Putin, it's worth a look at where the man came from. Putin's back story certainly isn't dull. He's the former KGB agent, the judo champion and the man who thought it was appropriate to fly a fighter jet into a war zone as an election stunt. He's been seen by more people with his top off than your average adult film star. Since we're sure to see plenty of Putin in the long-term future, we've decided it's time to have a look back at how he climbed to the top in post-Soviet Russia and how he's managed to stay there."
Separation of powers
"x x x.
Separation of powers
(The Philippine Star) |
Updated July 12, 2017
Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that “the Philippines is a democratic and republican state.”
One of the manifestations of republicanism is separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of government, namely the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
In his book, former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Nachura explains that the purpose of this separation of powers is “to prevent concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of republican institutions.”
And then we have what we call the political question doctrine. In the case of Tanada vs. Cuenco, the SC defined this as “those questions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislature or executive branch of government.”
Nachura in his book cited the case of Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona (1998) where Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago questioned the election of Sen. Teofisto Guingona as minority floor leader. The high court said the judiciary “has no authority to interfere and unilaterally intrude into that exclusive realm, without running afoul of constitutional principles that it is bound to protect and uphold – the very duty that justifies the court’s being.”
The court added: “Constitutional respect and a becoming regard for the sovereign acts of a co-equal branch prevent this court from prying into the internal workings of the Senate.”
But this does not mean the principle of checks and balances, which Nachura explained, allows one department to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments, does not apply.
The scope of the political question doctrine, he said in his book, has been limited by Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution which vests in the judiciary the power “to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government.”
In the case of Angara vs. Electoral Commission, the court pointed out that when the court mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries or invalidates the acts of a coordinate body, what it upholds is not its own superiority, but the supremacy of the Constitution.
Thus, when one branch of government wants to question the validity of an act committed by a co-equal branch, it has to be done through the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is the relief allowed “when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
Just recently, the House of Representatives held in contempt and ordered detained six Ilocos Norte provincial officials and employees for refusing to cooperate in a legislative inquiry in connection with their capitol’s alleged misuse of tobacco excise taxes to acquire vehicles more than five years ago. The six said they could not remember the transactions.
But the Court of Appeals, responding to a petition for habeas corpus, ordered the release of the six to which Congress retaliated by issuing a show-cause order to CA Associate Justices Stephen Cruz, Edwin Sorongan, and Nina Antonio or the members of the court’s fourth division which asked the justices to explain why they should not be cited in contempt for ordering the detained officials’ release.
The appellate court later granted the employees petition for bail and issued an order for their release.
This was followed by SC Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno calling on the House to recall the show cause order issued against the CA. Sereno, however, has not put her recall request in writing.
The House refused to comply with the CA order and the six are still in detention. House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez even went to the extent of threatening to dissolve the CA.
The House Committee on Good Government and Accountability, chaired by Rep. Johnny Pimentel, maintained that the power of contempt is not subject to judicial review.
An earlier news report revealed that Sereno could not put her request in writing because the matter has not been taken up by the Supreme Court and, therefore, her statement did not represent the official position of the body.
One justice was quoted as saying that the SC never gives advisory opinions to the Court of Appeals on pending cases before it.
One of the CA justices who issued the release order, Justice Stephen Cruz, was interviewed by members of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) as part of the ongoing search to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court with the retirement of Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes.
During the interview, Cruz defended the CA’s course of action, saying it was done to determine really if the detention was legal.
But JBC execom chairperson retired SC Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez asked Cruz why they ordered the release when they have yet to determine whether or not the detention is legal.
Cruz countered by saying that in habeas corpus petitions. persons can be released on bail while the merit of their cases are being determined.
During a recent House hearing, Rep. Harry Roque asserted Congress’ contempt powers and said that instead of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the six Ilocos officials should have filed a petition for certiorari.
We are not defending the six officials. There is indeed a need to determine whether or not the vehicles were illegally purchased and without the benefit of public bidding.
The six, namely: Josephine Calajate, Ilocos Norte’s provincial treasurer; Encarnacion Gaor and Genedine Jambaro, both working at the Provincial Treasurer’s Office; Evangeline Tabulog, provincial budget officer; Eden Battulayan, OIC-accountant; and Pedro Agcaoili, chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee and the Provincial Planning and Development Office, have been detained at the Batasan since May 29.
Ilocos Norte Governor Imee Marcos has yet to appear before lawmakers. She has been invited twice to the hearings, but has failed to do so.
The issue involved the purchase of 40 multicabs worth P18.6 million, five second-hand Hyundai buses worth P15.3 million, and 70 minitrucks costing P32.5 million.
Meanwhile, the provincial government of Ilocos Norte has yet to prove that the purchase of the vehicles has benefited tobacco farmers in the province.
According to reports, documents show that Marcos’ stamp of approval was on all the documents pertaining to the cash advances done to acquire vehicles.
Unfortunately, she refuses to face Congress to explain and to attempt to clear her name.
x x x."
The Court and martial law | Inquirer Opinion
"x x x.
EDITORIAL
The Court and martial law
July 12, 2017
1. A DIFFERENT MAJORITY
The Philippines’ legal community is still coming to terms with the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the first of the martial law cases; it cannot be fully understood without a study of the majority decision and all 14 separate opinions.
But the Constitution, which the “sovereign Filipino people” did “ordain and promulgate,” is too important to be left to constitutionalists; all citizens must do their share in helping the President, whose powers both ordinary and extraordinary ultimately emanate from them, “preserve and defend” the Constitution.
That is, at bottom, what is at stake in any decision upholding, or rejecting, the constitutionality of the exercise of the Commander in Chief’s martial law powers. Will the ruling keep the founding document’s integrity, or will it tear a large hole in it? The answer should be of the most serious concern not just to the lawyers who argue our cases, but indeed to all of us.
Thus, criticism of the majority decision in the Lagman vs Medialdea case as overbroad and unduly deferential to the Executive does not mean that the critics cannot countenance or even imagine a decision that would have supported the Duterte administration’s legal position. As the multiple separate opinions themselves prove, simple black or white answers will not do justice to this vital, complicated case.
Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza’s separate opinion, for instance, makes a cogent argument for the President’s necessary imposition of martial law in all of Mindanao, but without encouraging him to run amuck with it. If this had been the majority decision, rather than merely a separate concurring opinion, the outcry against the Court’s finding of sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law would have been much less, and more muted.
Jardeleza begins with an insightful appreciation of Art. VII, Sec. 18, one of the crucial antidictatorship provisions of the post-Marcos Constitution. “The provision is a microcosm of the system of checks and balances fundamental to our republication government.”
This framework forces the realization that all three branches of government have a role to play in the exercise of the martial law power and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. (Will this lead to a Court ruling, in the second martial law case, finding both chambers of Congress remiss in not convening a joint session after the proclamation was issued? We shall see.)
He proceeds: The Court’s authority to revoke a President’s proclamation of martial law for lack of a sufficient factual basis is sui generis. “It involves inquiry into the factual basis of the act, not a review of errors of law or a determination of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.”
Then, to the “sole substantive issue” of whether there is sufficient factual basis for the proclamation, Jardeleza proposes “a different standard of review.” Instead of the standard of probable cause relied on by the majority decision, which he argues is “inapplicable in assessing the public safety requirement” (one of the two essential conditions before the President can impose martial law, the other being the existence of actual rebellion or invasion), he raises the standard of reasonableness. The majority decision infamously allowed the President unusual leeway to impose martial law anywhere in the Philippines, as long as the two conditions are met. Jardeleza’s standard would likely not allow that: “The standard may be restated as such evidence that is adequate to satisfy a reasonable mind seeking the truth (or falsity) of its factual evidence. This is a flexible test that balances the President’s authority to respond to exigencies created by a state of invasion or rebellion and the Court’s duty to ensure that the executive act is within the bounds set by the Constitution.”
As to the territorial scope of martial rule, Jardeleza offers a view that recognizes Executive primacy without confessing, as the majority decision did, to either judicial defeatism or distrust in news reports. “The executive’s assessment of the nature and level of threat posed by these ISIS-inspired terror groups in Mindanao is not incompatible with local and foreign media reports and publicly available research papers.”
In all, a reasonable perspective. It would have made for a different, and better, majority decision.
x x x."
Fake debt collectors impersonate real businesses | Consumer Information
"x x x.
Fake debt collectors will say anything that will scare you into paying them. Today, the FTC stopped imposters who pretended to be lawyers. They threatened people with lawsuits and jail time to collect debts that didn’t exist.
These imposters often used the names of real small businesses or names that were very similar to those of existing businesses. When these real businesses started receiving calls from people trying to reach the “debt collectors” or complaining about abusive practices, they realized that their businesses’ name was being used in a scam. So they filed complaints with the FTC.
Fake debt collectors try many tricks to get you to pay. This advice will help you handle debt collectors’ calls:
If a debt collector says you owe a debt, before you agree to pay anything ask for a validation notice that says how much money you owe. By law, they have to send you a validation notice in writing, within five days of contacting you. If they don’t, that’s a sign that you’re dealing with a fake debt collector.
If a debt collector threatens you with jail time, hang up the phone. They’re violating the law and you should report them to us.
If you own a small business, it might be a good idea to research online occasionally to check if anyone else is using your business’ name. And if you start receiving complaints about practices that your business is not engaged in, let us know.
x x x."
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Man, Economy, and State
See - Man, Economy, and State w/ Power and Market - YouTube
Man, Economy, and State w/ Power and Market
Sam Warner
21 videos
Last updated on May 26, 2017
Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market by Murray Rothbard
Download and read here: https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and...
Robert Murphy's study guide: https://mises.org/library/study-guide-man-economy-and-state
Introduction to Man, Economy, and State with Power and Marketby Sam Warner
1:06:46
Preface to Man, Economy, and State with Power and Marketby Sam Warner
24:11
Chapter 1 Fundamentals of Human Actionby Sam Warner
3:15:14
Chapter 2 Direct Exchangeby Sam Warner
3:59:46
Chapter 3 The Pattern of Indirect Exchangeby Sam Warner
1:53:32
Chapter 4 Prices and Consumptionby Sam Warner
3:28:01
Chapter 5 Production: The Structureby Sam Warner
2:01:36
Chapter 6 Production: The Rate of Interest and Its Determinationby Sam Warner
3:01:29
Chapter 7 Production: General Pricing of the Factorsby Sam Warner
2:04:26
Chapter 8 Production: Entrepreneurship and Changeby Sam Warner
2:05:49
Chapter 9 Production: Particular Factor Prices and Productive Incomesby Sam Warner
2:59:17
Chapter 10 Monopoly and Competitionby Sam Warner
5:01:25
Chapter 11 Money and Its Purchasing Powerby Sam Warner
4:49:30
Chapter 12 The Economics of Violent Intervention in the Marketby Sam Warner
7:14:42
Power & Market | Chapter 1 Defense Services on the Free Marketby Sam Warner
26:38
Power & Market | Chapter 2 Fundamentals of Interventionby Sam Warner
43:21
Power & Market | Chapter 3 Triangular Interventionby Sam Warner
3:06:28
Power & Market | Chapter 4 Binary Intervention Taxationby Sam Warner
4:49:27
Power & Market | Chapter 5 Binary Intervention Government Expendituresby Sam Warner
1:53:52
Power & Market | Chapter 7 Conclusion Economics and Public Policyby Sam Warner
32:30
Power & Market | Chapter 6 Antimarket Ethics A Praxeological Critiqueby Sam Warner
2:50:11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)