Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Rules on media coverage of trials
See - https://www.philstar.com/nation/2018/10/17/1860610/supreme-court-allows-media-coverage-de-lima-trial
"x x x.
Supreme Court allows media coverage of De Lima trial
By Ghio Ong, Edu Punay
"x x x.
Supreme Court allows media coverage of De Lima trial
By Ghio Ong, Edu Punay
The Philippine Star
October 17, 2018
www.philstar.com
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has allowed media coverage of the trial of detained Sen. Leila de Lima on drug charges before the Muntinlupa City regional trial court (RTC).
In session yesterday, justices led by acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio granted the request of online media outfit Rappler to allow media coverage of the hearings of Muntinlupa RTC Branch 206.
The High Court approved the recommendation of Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez and ordered the Muntinlupa court to allow reporters in the courtrooms during hearings.
Specifically, the SC authorized the clerk of court of the RTC “to select, for each hearing of the drug cases against Sen. De Lima, two to four media institutions to access the courtroom, which may be limited to one reporter from each of such chosen media institutions.”
The trial court would be tasked to pick one representative each from television, radio, print and online media “and give all media institutions that have requested for access into the courtroom a chance to attend the said hearings sequentially.”
The Court also included the two media organizations covering the judiciary – Justice and Court Reporters Association and Justice Reporters Organization – in the accreditation process for reporters who will cover the trial.
But just like in any other trial, the SC stressed that no recording devices would be allowed inside the courtroom during the hearings and reporters would only be allowed to jot down notes.
The High Court received the request after Muntinlupa RTC Branch 206 Judge Lorna Navarro Domingo prohibited the media from covering the hearings.
When asked by the SC to explain, Domingo cited the limited space in the courtroom and fairness to all media outfits that cover the proceedings.
The senator is facing charges of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading before the Muntinlupa RTC Branches 206 and 205. She is also on trial for disobedience to summons before the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 34.
De Lima has filed a motion asking Domingo to inhibit herself from the trial over her “manifest bias, partiality and acts of prejudgment.”
x x x."
Read more at https://www.philstar.com/nation/2018/10/17/1860610/supreme-court-allows-media-coverage-de-lima-trial#HOCW5VHzsUqBx6aZ.99
www.philstar.com
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has allowed media coverage of the trial of detained Sen. Leila de Lima on drug charges before the Muntinlupa City regional trial court (RTC).
In session yesterday, justices led by acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio granted the request of online media outfit Rappler to allow media coverage of the hearings of Muntinlupa RTC Branch 206.
The High Court approved the recommendation of Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez and ordered the Muntinlupa court to allow reporters in the courtrooms during hearings.
Specifically, the SC authorized the clerk of court of the RTC “to select, for each hearing of the drug cases against Sen. De Lima, two to four media institutions to access the courtroom, which may be limited to one reporter from each of such chosen media institutions.”
The trial court would be tasked to pick one representative each from television, radio, print and online media “and give all media institutions that have requested for access into the courtroom a chance to attend the said hearings sequentially.”
The Court also included the two media organizations covering the judiciary – Justice and Court Reporters Association and Justice Reporters Organization – in the accreditation process for reporters who will cover the trial.
But just like in any other trial, the SC stressed that no recording devices would be allowed inside the courtroom during the hearings and reporters would only be allowed to jot down notes.
The High Court received the request after Muntinlupa RTC Branch 206 Judge Lorna Navarro Domingo prohibited the media from covering the hearings.
When asked by the SC to explain, Domingo cited the limited space in the courtroom and fairness to all media outfits that cover the proceedings.
The senator is facing charges of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading before the Muntinlupa RTC Branches 206 and 205. She is also on trial for disobedience to summons before the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 34.
De Lima has filed a motion asking Domingo to inhibit herself from the trial over her “manifest bias, partiality and acts of prejudgment.”
x x x."
Read more at https://www.philstar.com/nation/2018/10/17/1860610/supreme-court-allows-media-coverage-de-lima-trial#HOCW5VHzsUqBx6aZ.99
How Donald Trump’s Dad Made Him Rich | The New York Times
4 videos 14,720 views Last updated on Oct 2, 2018
President Trump has sold himself as a self-made billionaire and has long insisted that his father provided almost no financial help. However, our investigation found that he received more than the equivalent today of $400 million from his father’s real estate empire. These videos take you through the dubious tax schemes from the 1990s that got him there. This is the first comprehensive look at the inherited fortune and tax dodges that guaranteed Donald J. Trump a gilded life. In all, the president’s parents transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances. But helped by a variety of tax dodges, the Trumps only paid $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax returns show. Much of the family money was structured to sidestep gift and inheritance taxes using methods tax experts described as improper or possibly illegal.
The New York Times
1
2:17
How Fred Trump Built Donald Trump’s Financial Empire | NYT News
The New York Times
2
1:06
How Donald Trump’s Dad Made Him a Landlord at 3 | NYT News
The New York Times
3
1:09
How Fred Trump’s Children Became His Bankers | NYT News
The New York Times
4
2:04
How The Trumps Held On to Generational Wealth | NYT News
The New York Times
1
2:17
How Fred Trump Built Donald Trump’s Financial Empire | NYT News
The New York Times
2
1:06
How Donald Trump’s Dad Made Him a Landlord at 3 | NYT News
The New York Times
3
1:09
How Fred Trump’s Children Became His Bankers | NYT News
The New York Times
4
2:04
How The Trumps Held On to Generational Wealth | NYT News
The New York Times
UN Global Drug Policy Has Failed
See - https://thecrimereport.org/2018/10/25/un-global-drug-policy-has-failed-says-new-report/
"x x x.
UN Global Drug Policy Has Failed, says New Report
By Lauren Sonnenberg | October 25, 2018
The United Nations’ ten-year drug policy strategy to eliminate the illegal drug trade has largely failed and needs a new focus, according to the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), an organization of more than 170 non-governmental organizations.
“A decade ago, the international community reiterated its aspiration to achieve a drug-free world, yet over that decade, available data shows that the production, sale, and consumption of currently illegal drugs are soaring,” said former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, in her introduction to the report.
“So are the harms related to current policies, with dramatic increases in overdoses, prison overcrowding, HIV and hepatitis transmission, a more revenue-generating and increasingly violent illegal market, and in the condoning by some of extrajudicial killings against people who use drugs—killings that often take place in broad daylight.”
The Civil Society Shadow Report, “Taking Stock: A Decade of Drug Policy,” was timed to provide both an evaluation of global anti-drug policies, and recommendations for the upcoming March 2019 United Nations-sponsored “ministerial segment” meeting to craft strategy for the next decade.
The 2009 UN Political Declaration and Plan of Action on Drugstargeted 2019 as the date “for states to eliminate or reduce significantly and measurably illicit drug supply and demand, the diversion and trafficking of precursors and money laundering.”
But the report, based on data from participating governments, the UN, nongovernmental organizations and scientific literature, found a worldwide 130 percent rise in illegal production of opium poppy, and a 145 percent increase in drug-related deaths over the past decade.
With trafficking now at record levels, the proliferation of drugs has become an obstacle to social and economic objectives of individual nations and have “lowered the quality of life globally,” Clark said.
“To quote the (UN) Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a world that is meant to be more inclusive and where no one should be left behind, ‘people who use drugs are not left behind; they are left outside,’” Clark added.
But Clark admitted “there is little appetite among countries” for an in-depth review of drug strategy, which she said proved “once more that drug policy remains mostly an ideological issue rather than a societal topic that needs to be addressed based on evidence, dialogue, and building consensus.”
The authors of the report noted that efforts to eradicate narcotics cultivation, combined with punitive strategies, had shown little effect. They have instead “exacerbated violence, instability and corruption.”
For example, the report noted, that academic studies in Afghanistan, which produces 86 percent of the world’s opium, show that “forced eradication campaigns had led to increased levels of crime, an ongoing Taliban insurgency, and militias remaining active in the region, with severe consequences for subsistence farmers.”
An assessment of how nations met the targets set a decade ago to eliminate drug-related money laundering was similarly bleak.The global drug market is currently estimated to turn over between US$ 426[billion] and 652 billion.
Although tighter national, regional and global policies and regulations have been adopted to counter money-laundering, the amount of money laundered globally each year amounts to US$ 800 million to 2 trillion, representing 2 [percent] to 5 percent of global GDP,” the report said, noting that a quarter of overall revenues of transnational organised crime come from drug sales.
“The global drug market is currently estimated to turn over between US$ 426[billion] and 652 billion. Of this, well over half of the gross profits generated are channeled into money-laundering, and less than 1 percent of the total amount of money being laundered is seized.”
The report identified new benchmarks for global drug policy in the next decade, recommending that policymakers keep in mind more meaningful and achievable goals, including, such as minimizing drug- related health harms, and improving access to health care.
In a key recommendation, the report called on the UN to move away from a “drug-free world target” and instead focus on putting people and communities first, identifying different success indicators in drug crimes.
The full report can be downloaded here.
Lauren Sonnenberg is a TCR news intern. Readers’ comments are welcome.
x x x."
"x x x.
UN Global Drug Policy Has Failed, says New Report
By Lauren Sonnenberg | October 25, 2018
The United Nations’ ten-year drug policy strategy to eliminate the illegal drug trade has largely failed and needs a new focus, according to the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), an organization of more than 170 non-governmental organizations.
“A decade ago, the international community reiterated its aspiration to achieve a drug-free world, yet over that decade, available data shows that the production, sale, and consumption of currently illegal drugs are soaring,” said former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, in her introduction to the report.
“So are the harms related to current policies, with dramatic increases in overdoses, prison overcrowding, HIV and hepatitis transmission, a more revenue-generating and increasingly violent illegal market, and in the condoning by some of extrajudicial killings against people who use drugs—killings that often take place in broad daylight.”
The Civil Society Shadow Report, “Taking Stock: A Decade of Drug Policy,” was timed to provide both an evaluation of global anti-drug policies, and recommendations for the upcoming March 2019 United Nations-sponsored “ministerial segment” meeting to craft strategy for the next decade.
The 2009 UN Political Declaration and Plan of Action on Drugstargeted 2019 as the date “for states to eliminate or reduce significantly and measurably illicit drug supply and demand, the diversion and trafficking of precursors and money laundering.”
But the report, based on data from participating governments, the UN, nongovernmental organizations and scientific literature, found a worldwide 130 percent rise in illegal production of opium poppy, and a 145 percent increase in drug-related deaths over the past decade.
With trafficking now at record levels, the proliferation of drugs has become an obstacle to social and economic objectives of individual nations and have “lowered the quality of life globally,” Clark said.
“To quote the (UN) Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a world that is meant to be more inclusive and where no one should be left behind, ‘people who use drugs are not left behind; they are left outside,’” Clark added.
But Clark admitted “there is little appetite among countries” for an in-depth review of drug strategy, which she said proved “once more that drug policy remains mostly an ideological issue rather than a societal topic that needs to be addressed based on evidence, dialogue, and building consensus.”
The authors of the report noted that efforts to eradicate narcotics cultivation, combined with punitive strategies, had shown little effect. They have instead “exacerbated violence, instability and corruption.”
For example, the report noted, that academic studies in Afghanistan, which produces 86 percent of the world’s opium, show that “forced eradication campaigns had led to increased levels of crime, an ongoing Taliban insurgency, and militias remaining active in the region, with severe consequences for subsistence farmers.”
An assessment of how nations met the targets set a decade ago to eliminate drug-related money laundering was similarly bleak.The global drug market is currently estimated to turn over between US$ 426[billion] and 652 billion.
Although tighter national, regional and global policies and regulations have been adopted to counter money-laundering, the amount of money laundered globally each year amounts to US$ 800 million to 2 trillion, representing 2 [percent] to 5 percent of global GDP,” the report said, noting that a quarter of overall revenues of transnational organised crime come from drug sales.
“The global drug market is currently estimated to turn over between US$ 426[billion] and 652 billion. Of this, well over half of the gross profits generated are channeled into money-laundering, and less than 1 percent of the total amount of money being laundered is seized.”
The report identified new benchmarks for global drug policy in the next decade, recommending that policymakers keep in mind more meaningful and achievable goals, including, such as minimizing drug- related health harms, and improving access to health care.
In a key recommendation, the report called on the UN to move away from a “drug-free world target” and instead focus on putting people and communities first, identifying different success indicators in drug crimes.
The full report can be downloaded here.
Lauren Sonnenberg is a TCR news intern. Readers’ comments are welcome.
x x x."
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
Duterte is defiant towards the West on the issue of human rights, while meek and accommodating towards China on territorial integrity
See - https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3476463
"x x x.
The Paradox of Duterte’s Foreign Policy
"x x x.
The Paradox of Duterte’s Foreign Policy
Duterte is defiant towards the West on the issue of human rights, while meek and accommodating towards China on territorial integrity
By Andrea Chloe Wong
By Andrea Chloe Wong
2018/07/07 www.taiwannews.com.tw
HONOLULU (IPP Review) -- Two of the most controversial foreign policy stances of the administration of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte involve the nation’s human rights and territorial integrity.
The former issue highlights the president’s firm defiance against Western condemnation on human rights violations in the country, while the latter underscores his meek accommodation of China’s influence in the South China Sea.
Two different approaches both emphasizing one important theme concerning the country’s sovereignty.
Since the start of his presidency, Duterte has denounced the West for its criticisms against his “war on drugs” that allegedly involves extra-judicial killings. Justifying his anti-narcotics campaign, he strongly asserted the “principle of non-intervention in internal affairs.”
He demanded full respect of the country’s sovereignty and right to determine the best approach to eliminate drugs. These assertions have led to Duterte’s verbal retaliations against the US, the European Union, and the United Nations, which he largely viewed as imperialist bullies imposing on their norms and values on a sovereign nation.
His disdain for such “foreign interference” has led to his decision to withdraw the Philippines’ membership from the International Criminal Court (ICC) last March. The pull out was prompted by announcements of a preliminary examination into accusations that the president and his officials had committed crimes against humanity during the war on drugs in the country.
Duterte evidently took offense and cited the “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks on my person as against my administration” as the reason for his action. This was widely construed as a personal reprisal resulting in the Philippines’ official withdrawal from the ICC.
In contrast to his passionate stance against Western meddling on domestic affairs, Duterte is largely viewed as having a passive attitude towards Chinese intrusions within Philippine maritime territory. He has consistently downplayed the Philippines’ arbitration victory in 2016 and kept a muted tone against Chinese illicit activities. This further emboldened China to push the boundaries in the disputed waters.
Recent reports have revealed that China has installed anti-ship cruise missiles and surface-to-air missile systems in Zamora (Subi) Reef, landed bomber and military planes on Panganiban (Mischief) Reef, and erected a monument on Kagitingan (Fiery Cross) Reef. Such illegal actions were located within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South China Sea, also known as West Philippine Sea.
Duterte’s lack of forceful and sustained resistance against Chinese intrusions is generally viewed as a concessional approach to gain financial benefits. In his view, it is better for the Philippines to gain as much economic concessions as possible, rather than push for its maritime claims that will not be permanently resolved.
By focusing on the immediate developmental needs of the country and shelving the maritime disputes, Duterte’s China policy can be considered an opportunistic tactic that reflects his pragmatic, rational, and calculating mindset. According to him: “We have so many problems domestic to take care of before we start to venture into some sort of aggressive stand.”
This essentially highlights Duterte’s perception that the Philippines is better off standing in the good graces of a powerful China and profit from it, rather than be the target of its wrath.
Both issues can also be linked to Duterte’s contentious “independent foreign policy,” which was originally intended to move the Philippines away from its dependence on the US. This explains his abhorrence against Western meddling and his accommodation of China’s influence.
However, Duterte’s interpretation of “independence” seems to underscore defiance against the US and all the imperialist baggage it stands for, rather than project a strong, neutral, and principled stance that will uphold the country’s sovereignty.
Thus, the contradictions of Duterte’s foreign policy are not surprising. In the same manner that he has brazenly defended his anti-drug crusade, Duterte is expected to aggressively push for the country’s maritime and territorial rights. But while he is hardnosed about his war on drugs, Duterte is soft-pedalling on the frequent foreign incursions at sea.
Such irony also reveals his emotional response against Western condemnation on human rights violations on the one hand, and his logical approach in relation to Chinese security threats and economic largesse on the other.
As a consequence of Duterte’s conflicting policy stance, the Philippines suffers from a diminished credibility in the international community. By continuing with his war on drugs, Duterte has managed to demean the value of human rights that the nation has always espoused. His decision to leave the ICC has also cast doubt on the Philippines’ democratic credentials.
Meanwhile, Duterte’s policy adjustments in the Philippines’ relations with China have caused confusion among countries in the region. From a previously confrontational stance taken by former president Benigno Aquino III, Duterte is redirecting the bilateral relations towards the opposite end, which characterizes a more accommodating, almost subservient, approach.
As he downplays the country’s heard-earned arbitration victory, the Philippines is inadvertently wasting an important opportunity to strengthen its strategic leverage against China. And without the Philippines at the forefront, other claimant states may perhaps be disinclined to pursue a multilateral and rules-based approach to defend their maritime and territorial rights. As a result, these countries are exploring their own strategies to cope with China’s creeping aggressions.
Meanwhile, the Filipino public has also adversely reacted to Duterte’s incongruous foreign policy. His renunciation of the Philippines’ membership from the ICC to protest Western interference has left Filipinos fearful of Duterte’s authoritarian and capricious tendencies, mainly because his decision is widely seen as a personal retaliation against the court.
His perceived subservience towards the Chinese has also produced growing concerns among Filipinos of a “sell out” of the country’s territorial sovereignty, especially since China’s financial promises have not yet translated into tangible benefits for the Philippines’ economic development. There is mounting pressure from maritime experts, foreign policy analysts, and opposition groups demanding that the Duterte administration take a more visible and determined move against Chinese incursions.
There is also an escalating anxiety among the Filipino due to China’s continued island construction and military build-up, despite the revitalized relations with the Chinese government and notwithstanding Duterte’s assurances that his administration is doing everything to protect the country’s maritime territories.
Given the paradox of Duterte’s foreign policy, the country may unfortunately have to contend with the consequences of his decisions. The challenge for the Philippines, particularly its established institutions, is to cope with Duterte’s policy contradictions while maintaining a credible international reputation.
Unfortunately, to put a check on Duterte’s pronouncements and actions based on personal impulses and preferences is difficult, especially since the Philippine president is regarded as the chief architect of the country’s foreign policy.
It is hoped that the remaining years of the Duterte administration will not be spent on retaliation against international institutions nor acquiescence towards an imposing power. Expectations are high on his government to avoid any unwarranted actions, diplomatic blunders, and policy miscalculations in the future, which may compromise broader national interests.
Although President Duterte is not the Philippine state, it will take major efforts to undo the decisions and reverse the policies he made on behalf of the country long after he is gone. This is the reason why a judicious and consistent Philippine foreign policy under Duterte is an urgent call, one that is grounded on an appropriate defense of the country’s sovereignty.
This article originally appeared on IPP Review, published on July 6, 2018.
x x x."
HONOLULU (IPP Review) -- Two of the most controversial foreign policy stances of the administration of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte involve the nation’s human rights and territorial integrity.
The former issue highlights the president’s firm defiance against Western condemnation on human rights violations in the country, while the latter underscores his meek accommodation of China’s influence in the South China Sea.
Two different approaches both emphasizing one important theme concerning the country’s sovereignty.
Since the start of his presidency, Duterte has denounced the West for its criticisms against his “war on drugs” that allegedly involves extra-judicial killings. Justifying his anti-narcotics campaign, he strongly asserted the “principle of non-intervention in internal affairs.”
He demanded full respect of the country’s sovereignty and right to determine the best approach to eliminate drugs. These assertions have led to Duterte’s verbal retaliations against the US, the European Union, and the United Nations, which he largely viewed as imperialist bullies imposing on their norms and values on a sovereign nation.
His disdain for such “foreign interference” has led to his decision to withdraw the Philippines’ membership from the International Criminal Court (ICC) last March. The pull out was prompted by announcements of a preliminary examination into accusations that the president and his officials had committed crimes against humanity during the war on drugs in the country.
Duterte evidently took offense and cited the “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks on my person as against my administration” as the reason for his action. This was widely construed as a personal reprisal resulting in the Philippines’ official withdrawal from the ICC.
In contrast to his passionate stance against Western meddling on domestic affairs, Duterte is largely viewed as having a passive attitude towards Chinese intrusions within Philippine maritime territory. He has consistently downplayed the Philippines’ arbitration victory in 2016 and kept a muted tone against Chinese illicit activities. This further emboldened China to push the boundaries in the disputed waters.
Recent reports have revealed that China has installed anti-ship cruise missiles and surface-to-air missile systems in Zamora (Subi) Reef, landed bomber and military planes on Panganiban (Mischief) Reef, and erected a monument on Kagitingan (Fiery Cross) Reef. Such illegal actions were located within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South China Sea, also known as West Philippine Sea.
Duterte’s lack of forceful and sustained resistance against Chinese intrusions is generally viewed as a concessional approach to gain financial benefits. In his view, it is better for the Philippines to gain as much economic concessions as possible, rather than push for its maritime claims that will not be permanently resolved.
By focusing on the immediate developmental needs of the country and shelving the maritime disputes, Duterte’s China policy can be considered an opportunistic tactic that reflects his pragmatic, rational, and calculating mindset. According to him: “We have so many problems domestic to take care of before we start to venture into some sort of aggressive stand.”
This essentially highlights Duterte’s perception that the Philippines is better off standing in the good graces of a powerful China and profit from it, rather than be the target of its wrath.
Both issues can also be linked to Duterte’s contentious “independent foreign policy,” which was originally intended to move the Philippines away from its dependence on the US. This explains his abhorrence against Western meddling and his accommodation of China’s influence.
However, Duterte’s interpretation of “independence” seems to underscore defiance against the US and all the imperialist baggage it stands for, rather than project a strong, neutral, and principled stance that will uphold the country’s sovereignty.
Thus, the contradictions of Duterte’s foreign policy are not surprising. In the same manner that he has brazenly defended his anti-drug crusade, Duterte is expected to aggressively push for the country’s maritime and territorial rights. But while he is hardnosed about his war on drugs, Duterte is soft-pedalling on the frequent foreign incursions at sea.
Such irony also reveals his emotional response against Western condemnation on human rights violations on the one hand, and his logical approach in relation to Chinese security threats and economic largesse on the other.
As a consequence of Duterte’s conflicting policy stance, the Philippines suffers from a diminished credibility in the international community. By continuing with his war on drugs, Duterte has managed to demean the value of human rights that the nation has always espoused. His decision to leave the ICC has also cast doubt on the Philippines’ democratic credentials.
Meanwhile, Duterte’s policy adjustments in the Philippines’ relations with China have caused confusion among countries in the region. From a previously confrontational stance taken by former president Benigno Aquino III, Duterte is redirecting the bilateral relations towards the opposite end, which characterizes a more accommodating, almost subservient, approach.
As he downplays the country’s heard-earned arbitration victory, the Philippines is inadvertently wasting an important opportunity to strengthen its strategic leverage against China. And without the Philippines at the forefront, other claimant states may perhaps be disinclined to pursue a multilateral and rules-based approach to defend their maritime and territorial rights. As a result, these countries are exploring their own strategies to cope with China’s creeping aggressions.
Meanwhile, the Filipino public has also adversely reacted to Duterte’s incongruous foreign policy. His renunciation of the Philippines’ membership from the ICC to protest Western interference has left Filipinos fearful of Duterte’s authoritarian and capricious tendencies, mainly because his decision is widely seen as a personal retaliation against the court.
His perceived subservience towards the Chinese has also produced growing concerns among Filipinos of a “sell out” of the country’s territorial sovereignty, especially since China’s financial promises have not yet translated into tangible benefits for the Philippines’ economic development. There is mounting pressure from maritime experts, foreign policy analysts, and opposition groups demanding that the Duterte administration take a more visible and determined move against Chinese incursions.
There is also an escalating anxiety among the Filipino due to China’s continued island construction and military build-up, despite the revitalized relations with the Chinese government and notwithstanding Duterte’s assurances that his administration is doing everything to protect the country’s maritime territories.
Given the paradox of Duterte’s foreign policy, the country may unfortunately have to contend with the consequences of his decisions. The challenge for the Philippines, particularly its established institutions, is to cope with Duterte’s policy contradictions while maintaining a credible international reputation.
Unfortunately, to put a check on Duterte’s pronouncements and actions based on personal impulses and preferences is difficult, especially since the Philippine president is regarded as the chief architect of the country’s foreign policy.
It is hoped that the remaining years of the Duterte administration will not be spent on retaliation against international institutions nor acquiescence towards an imposing power. Expectations are high on his government to avoid any unwarranted actions, diplomatic blunders, and policy miscalculations in the future, which may compromise broader national interests.
Although President Duterte is not the Philippine state, it will take major efforts to undo the decisions and reverse the policies he made on behalf of the country long after he is gone. This is the reason why a judicious and consistent Philippine foreign policy under Duterte is an urgent call, one that is grounded on an appropriate defense of the country’s sovereignty.
This article originally appeared on IPP Review, published on July 6, 2018.
x x x."
Executive Order No. 65 - Eleventh Foreign Investments Negative List [2018].
See - https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/10/31/18/duterte-updates-investment-list-for-foreigners-filipino-nationals
"x x x.
Duterte updates investment list for foreigners, Filipino nationals
By Dharel Placido, ABS-CBN News
Posted at Oct 31 2018 12:32 PM
"x x x.
Duterte updates investment list for foreigners, Filipino nationals
By Dharel Placido, ABS-CBN News
Posted at Oct 31 2018 12:32 PM
Updated as of Oct 31 2018 06:43 PMnews.abs-cbn.com
Meanwhile, the 25-percent foreign equity limit remains for private recruitment and contracts for construction of defense-related structures.
x x x.
Duterte [has] issued Executive Order No. 65, the eleventh edition of the so-called foreign investment "negative list," xxx.
x x x.
Under the EO, no foreign equity is allowed under the following areas or activities by mandate of the Constitution and specific laws:
1. Mass media (except recording and internet business)
2. Practice of professions, including radiologic and X-ray technology, law, marine deck officers and marine engine officers
3. Retail trade enterprises with paid-up capital of less than $2.5 million
4. Cooperatives
5. Organization and operation of private detective, watchmen or security guard agencies
6. Small-scale mining
7. Utilization of marine resources in archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone as well as small-scale utilization of natural resources in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons
8. Ownership, operation and management of cockpits
9. Manufacture, repair, stockpiling and/or distribution of nuclear weapons
10. Manufacture, repair, stockpiling and/or distribution of biological, chemical and radiological weapons and anti-personnel mines
11. Manufacture of firecrackers and other pyrotechnic devices
Foreigners are allowed to practice certain professions in the Philippines provided that their home country accord Filipinos the same grant.
Foreigners may have 40 percent equity in the private radio communications network sector, up from the previous 20 percent in the 10th negative list.
The foreign equity for contracts for the construction and repair of locally funded public works was also raised to 40 percent from the previous 25 percent.
xxx. [This] does not cover infrastructure or development projects under the Build-Operate-Transfer Law, as well as projects which are foreign-funded or assisted and required to undergo international competitive bidding.
xxx.
1. Mass media (except recording and internet business)
2. Practice of professions, including radiologic and X-ray technology, law, marine deck officers and marine engine officers
3. Retail trade enterprises with paid-up capital of less than $2.5 million
4. Cooperatives
5. Organization and operation of private detective, watchmen or security guard agencies
6. Small-scale mining
7. Utilization of marine resources in archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone as well as small-scale utilization of natural resources in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons
8. Ownership, operation and management of cockpits
9. Manufacture, repair, stockpiling and/or distribution of nuclear weapons
10. Manufacture, repair, stockpiling and/or distribution of biological, chemical and radiological weapons and anti-personnel mines
11. Manufacture of firecrackers and other pyrotechnic devices
Foreigners are allowed to practice certain professions in the Philippines provided that their home country accord Filipinos the same grant.
Foreigners may have 40 percent equity in the private radio communications network sector, up from the previous 20 percent in the 10th negative list.
The foreign equity for contracts for the construction and repair of locally funded public works was also raised to 40 percent from the previous 25 percent.
xxx. [This] does not cover infrastructure or development projects under the Build-Operate-Transfer Law, as well as projects which are foreign-funded or assisted and required to undergo international competitive bidding.
xxx.
Meanwhile, the 25-percent foreign equity limit remains for private recruitment and contracts for construction of defense-related structures.
The 30 percent cap for the advertising sector also remains.
Aside from contracts for locally funded public works, foreigners may also hold up to 40 percent equity in the following areas:
1. Exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
2. Ownership of private lands
3. Operation of public utilities, except power generation and supply of electricity to the contestable market and such other like businesses or services not covered by the definition of public utilities
4. Educational institutions other than those established by religious groups and mission boards
5. Culture, production, milling, processing, trading except retailing, of rice and corn and acquiring, by barter, purchase or otherwise, rice and corn and the by-products thereof
6. Contracts for the supply of materials, goods and commodities to government-owned and controlled corporation, company, agency or municipal corporation
7. Operation of deep sea commercial fishing vessels
8. Ownership of condominium units
100 PERCENT FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
Meanwhile, the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) said with the signing of EO No. 65, five investment areas and activities will now allow up to 100 percent foreign participation. These are:
1. Internet businesses
2. Teaching at higher education levels provided the subject being taught is not a professional subject (i.e., included in a government board or bar examination)
3. Training centers that are engaged in short-term high-level skills development that do not form part of the formal education system
4. Adjustment companies, lending companies, financing companies and investment houses
5. Wellness centers
Aside from contracts for locally funded public works, foreigners may also hold up to 40 percent equity in the following areas:
1. Exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
2. Ownership of private lands
3. Operation of public utilities, except power generation and supply of electricity to the contestable market and such other like businesses or services not covered by the definition of public utilities
4. Educational institutions other than those established by religious groups and mission boards
5. Culture, production, milling, processing, trading except retailing, of rice and corn and acquiring, by barter, purchase or otherwise, rice and corn and the by-products thereof
6. Contracts for the supply of materials, goods and commodities to government-owned and controlled corporation, company, agency or municipal corporation
7. Operation of deep sea commercial fishing vessels
8. Ownership of condominium units
100 PERCENT FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
Meanwhile, the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) said with the signing of EO No. 65, five investment areas and activities will now allow up to 100 percent foreign participation. These are:
1. Internet businesses
2. Teaching at higher education levels provided the subject being taught is not a professional subject (i.e., included in a government board or bar examination)
3. Training centers that are engaged in short-term high-level skills development that do not form part of the formal education system
4. Adjustment companies, lending companies, financing companies and investment houses
5. Wellness centers
x x x."
A petition for review before the Court of Appeals from the Voluntary Arbitrator must be filed within 15 days from notice under Rule 43 - www.projectjurisprudence.com
See - https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2018/10/new-15-day-rule-appeals-from-VA-to-CA-voluntary-arbitration-labor-relations.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR0umSnHUM3klk-p--gn6tCt6dG2ibOi5KlN12QBpK9MhyNptGsb6SmOlZo&m=1
"x x x.
For many years, it has been thought by authors in labor relations law that an appeal [from] the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43 must be done within ten (10) days set by the Labor Code, instead of the fifteen (15) days fixed under the Rules of Court. The explanation has been that substantive law prevails over procedural law.
However, in the recent case of GNC vs. CA (G.R. No. 188492), it was held that a petition for review before the CA from the VA must be filed within 15 days from notice under Section 4 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The 10-day period under the Labor Code merely applies to a motion for reconsideration (MR) filed before the VA. xxx,'
"x x x.
For many years, it has been thought by authors in labor relations law that an appeal [from] the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43 must be done within ten (10) days set by the Labor Code, instead of the fifteen (15) days fixed under the Rules of Court. The explanation has been that substantive law prevails over procedural law.
However, in the recent case of GNC vs. CA (G.R. No. 188492), it was held that a petition for review before the CA from the VA must be filed within 15 days from notice under Section 4 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The 10-day period under the Labor Code merely applies to a motion for reconsideration (MR) filed before the VA. xxx,'
x x x."
The PAL flip-flops of Supreme Court Justices Peralta, Bersamin
See - https://www.rappler.com/nation/210010-philippine-airlines-cases-flip-flops-diosdado-peralta-lucas-bersamin?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR16_zib9s6dV48PFcPLjIKHVntwG1KsodNB_pnz9SIILsnqsUDdm7EGWic#Echobox=1541240992
"x x x.
The PAL flip-flops of Supreme Court Justices Peralta, Bersamin
Two chief justice applicants change their votes to hand Philippine Airlines a victory. A dissenter says it besmirches the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
By Lian Buan
@lianbuan
Published 6:58 PM, August 20, 2018
Updated 7:04 PM, August 20, 2018
www.rappler.com
FLIP-FLOP DECISIONS. Supreme Court Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta (right) and Lucas Bersamin (left) vote similarly, and flip-flop similarly too on the PAL retrenchment case. File photo by Darren Langit/Rappler
MANILA, Philippines – Supreme Court Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin are close friends who are now vying for the post of chief justice.
The two have been observed to have the tendency to vote similarly.
In the labor case against Philippine Airlines or PAL, for example, their votes were so similar that they even flip-flopped together.
On October 2, 2009, Peralta and Bersamin concurred with the Special Third Division decision that declared invalid PAL’s retrenchment of 5,000 of its workers.
It was a unanimous decision among the 5 members of the division, penned by retired justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago. And in that decision, the SC said “no further pleadings will be entertained.”
Fast forward to 2018, or 9 years later, the SC en banc reversed two previous decisions of the Court, the Santiago decision being the latter one, and declared valid PAL’s retrenchment.
Despite their concurrences 9 years earlier to the decision that the retrenchment was invalid, Peralta and Bersamin made a sudden turn-around.
Bersamin was even ponente this last time.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, one of the two dissenters in the 2018 decision, said that PAL's victory “creates an ominous cloud that will besmirch our legitimacy.”
The case was resurrected through letters of PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza. For Leonen, the resurrection was “highly irregular, suspect, and violative of due process of law.”
In his 2018 ponencia, Bersamin said Leonen has a “narrow view” of just what the en banc can do. (READ: #CJSearch: How did aspirants vote on key Supreme Court decisions?)
Substantial flip-flops
We look at the 2009 and 2018 decisions to see how both justices flip-flopped.
For example, in 2009, Peralta and Bersamin concurred with the decision that PAL did not submit proof of its financial losses, therefore they cannot use it as justification for the retrenchment. But in 2018, both voted that PAL was not obligated to submit proof.
The 2009 decision of the Special Third Division, concurred in by Peralta and Bersamin said:
Assuming that PAL was indeed suffering financial losses, the requisite proof therefor was not presented before the NLRC which was the proper forum.
The 2018 decision of the en banc, written by Bersamin and concurred in by Peralta said:
The Special Third Division should have realized that PAL had been discharged of its duty to prove its precarious fiscal situation in the face of FASAP's admission of such situation. Indeed, PAL did not have to submit the audited financial statements because its being in financial distress was not in issue at all.
In the 2018 decision, Bersamin said that it was the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) that brought up PAL’s financial losses.
In a position paper, FASAP said “it must be pointed out that complainant was never opposed to the retrenchment program itself, as it understands respondent PAL's financial troubles.”
So from 2009 when the division said that PAL should have submitted proof of its financial losses, Bersamin in 2018 used FASAP’s position paper to say that presenting proof was not PAL’s duty.
In 2009, both justices agreed PAL cannot easily retrench just because the pilots went on a labor strike, but in 2018, they decided that the strike crippled the operation so much that the retrenchment was "understandable."
The 2009 decision of the Special Third Division, concurred in by Peralta and Bersamin said:
In the instant case, PAL admitted that since the pilots strike allegedly created a situation of extreme urgency, it no longer implemented cost-cutting measures and proceeded directly to retrench. This being so, it clearly did not abide by all the requirements under Article 283 of the Labor Code. [The retrenchment] was brought about by and resorted to as an immediate reaction to a pilots strike which, in strict point of law and as herein earlier discussed, may not be considered as a valid reason to retrench, nor may it be used to excuse PAL for its non-observance of the requirements of the law on retrenchment under the Labor Code.
Other Stories
The unpredictability of Supreme Court Justice Bernabe
Bernabe often votes with a nuance. She is respected in the High Court because of her collegial virtues.
JBC shortlists De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin for chief justice
De Castro gets 6 votes, Peralta also 6, while Bersamin gets 5. President Duterte will choose the next chief justice from this list.
Estelito Mendoza and his 2017 comeback in plunder cases
He got Gloria Arroyo and Juan Ponce Enrile out of detention. This year, Marcos-time solicitor general Estelito Mendoza has so far managed to postpone Bong Revilla's trial and Jaime Dichaves' arrest warrant.
"x x x.
The PAL flip-flops of Supreme Court Justices Peralta, Bersamin
Two chief justice applicants change their votes to hand Philippine Airlines a victory. A dissenter says it besmirches the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
By Lian Buan
@lianbuan
Published 6:58 PM, August 20, 2018
Updated 7:04 PM, August 20, 2018
www.rappler.com
FLIP-FLOP DECISIONS. Supreme Court Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta (right) and Lucas Bersamin (left) vote similarly, and flip-flop similarly too on the PAL retrenchment case. File photo by Darren Langit/Rappler
MANILA, Philippines – Supreme Court Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin are close friends who are now vying for the post of chief justice.
The two have been observed to have the tendency to vote similarly.
In the labor case against Philippine Airlines or PAL, for example, their votes were so similar that they even flip-flopped together.
On October 2, 2009, Peralta and Bersamin concurred with the Special Third Division decision that declared invalid PAL’s retrenchment of 5,000 of its workers.
It was a unanimous decision among the 5 members of the division, penned by retired justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago. And in that decision, the SC said “no further pleadings will be entertained.”
Fast forward to 2018, or 9 years later, the SC en banc reversed two previous decisions of the Court, the Santiago decision being the latter one, and declared valid PAL’s retrenchment.
Despite their concurrences 9 years earlier to the decision that the retrenchment was invalid, Peralta and Bersamin made a sudden turn-around.
Bersamin was even ponente this last time.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, one of the two dissenters in the 2018 decision, said that PAL's victory “creates an ominous cloud that will besmirch our legitimacy.”
The case was resurrected through letters of PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza. For Leonen, the resurrection was “highly irregular, suspect, and violative of due process of law.”
In his 2018 ponencia, Bersamin said Leonen has a “narrow view” of just what the en banc can do. (READ: #CJSearch: How did aspirants vote on key Supreme Court decisions?)
Substantial flip-flops
We look at the 2009 and 2018 decisions to see how both justices flip-flopped.
For example, in 2009, Peralta and Bersamin concurred with the decision that PAL did not submit proof of its financial losses, therefore they cannot use it as justification for the retrenchment. But in 2018, both voted that PAL was not obligated to submit proof.
The 2009 decision of the Special Third Division, concurred in by Peralta and Bersamin said:
Assuming that PAL was indeed suffering financial losses, the requisite proof therefor was not presented before the NLRC which was the proper forum.
The 2018 decision of the en banc, written by Bersamin and concurred in by Peralta said:
The Special Third Division should have realized that PAL had been discharged of its duty to prove its precarious fiscal situation in the face of FASAP's admission of such situation. Indeed, PAL did not have to submit the audited financial statements because its being in financial distress was not in issue at all.
In the 2018 decision, Bersamin said that it was the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) that brought up PAL’s financial losses.
In a position paper, FASAP said “it must be pointed out that complainant was never opposed to the retrenchment program itself, as it understands respondent PAL's financial troubles.”
So from 2009 when the division said that PAL should have submitted proof of its financial losses, Bersamin in 2018 used FASAP’s position paper to say that presenting proof was not PAL’s duty.
In 2009, both justices agreed PAL cannot easily retrench just because the pilots went on a labor strike, but in 2018, they decided that the strike crippled the operation so much that the retrenchment was "understandable."
The 2009 decision of the Special Third Division, concurred in by Peralta and Bersamin said:
In the instant case, PAL admitted that since the pilots strike allegedly created a situation of extreme urgency, it no longer implemented cost-cutting measures and proceeded directly to retrench. This being so, it clearly did not abide by all the requirements under Article 283 of the Labor Code. [The retrenchment] was brought about by and resorted to as an immediate reaction to a pilots strike which, in strict point of law and as herein earlier discussed, may not be considered as a valid reason to retrench, nor may it be used to excuse PAL for its non-observance of the requirements of the law on retrenchment under the Labor Code.
Other Stories
The unpredictability of Supreme Court Justice Bernabe
Bernabe often votes with a nuance. She is respected in the High Court because of her collegial virtues.
JBC shortlists De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin for chief justice
De Castro gets 6 votes, Peralta also 6, while Bersamin gets 5. President Duterte will choose the next chief justice from this list.
Estelito Mendoza and his 2017 comeback in plunder cases
He got Gloria Arroyo and Juan Ponce Enrile out of detention. This year, Marcos-time solicitor general Estelito Mendoza has so far managed to postpone Bong Revilla's trial and Jaime Dichaves' arrest warrant.
The 2018 decision of the en banc, written by Bersamin and concurred in by Peralta said:
Given PAL's dire financial predicament, it becomes understandable that PAL was constrained to finally implement the retrenchment program when the Association of Airline Pilots of the Philippines (ALPAP) pilots strike crippled a major part of PAL's operations. In Rivera v. Espiritu, we observed that said strike wrought "serious losses to the financially beleaguered flag carrier;" that "PAL's financial situation went from bad to worse;" and that “faced with bankruptcy, PAL adopted a rehabilitation plan and downsized its labor force by more than one-third." Such observations sufficed to show that retrenchment became a last resort, and was not the rash and impulsive decision that FASAP would make it out to be now.
On the topic of the quitclaims signed by the employees, the justices went from regarding them as reasons why PAL can afford to pay damages and backwages, to using them as further proof that the retrenchment was valid.
In the 2009 decision, the Special Third Division acknowledged the quitclaim and said it would reduce the amount that PAL has to pay in damages and back wages.
Likewise, a significant portion of these retrenched flight attendants have already received separation pay and signed quitclaim. All of these factors, to the mind of the Court, will greatly reduce the quoted amount of the money judgment that PAL will have to pay.
In the 2018 decision, the en banc ruled the quitclaims as valid and used it as added basis to declare the retrenchment valid.
The release and quitclaim signed by the affected employees substantially satisfied the aforestated requirements.
Before the 2009 decision, there was another decision by the 3rd division which declared the retrenchment invalid. That was the July 2, 2008 decision of the Third Division which was concurred in by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro.
In 2018, De Castro inhibited.
Cityhood flip-flop
The PAL case is not the only flip-flop that drew flak for the SC.
From 2009 to 2011, the en banc reversed its decision thriceon whether 16 municipalities can be recognized as cities, known as the Cityhood Laws. In its final decision in 2011, the en banc ruled the municipalities turning into cities as constitutional.
The League of the Philippine Cities (LCP) contested it because they would share the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) with more cities, which means they would lose an average of P20 million.
The LCP's argument is that the municipalities were unqualified to become cities because they do not meet the minimum income requirement.
The court flip-flopped because it allowed more proceedings after it denied a motion for reconsideration (MR). Typically, a 2nd MR is prohibited. In this case, the en banc tackled the case a total of 6 times.
The reason for the continued resurrection was allegedly letters from the municipalities' lawyer: none other than Mendoza. Letters were the same strategy employed in the PAL case.
Peralta and Bersamin did not flip-flop on their votes. Peralta consistently voted that the cityhood laws were unconstitutional, while Bersamin consistently voted they were constitutional.
It was actually Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr who changed votes. In 2008, he voted that cityhood laws were unconstitutional. But by 2009, on the first MR, Velasco joined the other team and voted that the cityhood laws were constitutional until finality.
Bersamin would come to write the 2011 final decision, in favor of Mendoza's clients. The cityhood case and the PAL case are two of SC cases where Bersamin favored Mendoza.
Among such cases are the bail grant to Juan Ponce Enrile and the plunder acquittal of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
Bersamin and Peralta
Bersamin and Peralta have been friends for a really long time.
Peralta told the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) during the public interviews on August 16 that their friendship started when he and Bersamin were trial court judges in Quezon City. They took lunches together inside the courtroom.
“There were rumors, they would say, sino ba sa kanila, sa dalawa (who between the two of them...)? But when we meet on lunchtime, we discuss jurisprudence, because he is an expert on procedure and he considers me good in criminal procedures,” Peralta said.
Peralta only had good words for Bersamin during the JBC interview.
“I see him as competent and ready to assume the position [of] Chief Justice, I hope that is the same way he feels about me,” Peralta said.
At a lawyers' forum at the University of the Philippines (UP) last July, a member of the audience asked about perceived corruption in the Supreme Court, citing as example Mendoza's alleged influence on the Bench.
If either Peralta or Bersamin become chief justice, this is one of the issues they would have to address to win the full trust of the public they will serve. – Rappler.com
x x x."
Given PAL's dire financial predicament, it becomes understandable that PAL was constrained to finally implement the retrenchment program when the Association of Airline Pilots of the Philippines (ALPAP) pilots strike crippled a major part of PAL's operations. In Rivera v. Espiritu, we observed that said strike wrought "serious losses to the financially beleaguered flag carrier;" that "PAL's financial situation went from bad to worse;" and that “faced with bankruptcy, PAL adopted a rehabilitation plan and downsized its labor force by more than one-third." Such observations sufficed to show that retrenchment became a last resort, and was not the rash and impulsive decision that FASAP would make it out to be now.
On the topic of the quitclaims signed by the employees, the justices went from regarding them as reasons why PAL can afford to pay damages and backwages, to using them as further proof that the retrenchment was valid.
In the 2009 decision, the Special Third Division acknowledged the quitclaim and said it would reduce the amount that PAL has to pay in damages and back wages.
Likewise, a significant portion of these retrenched flight attendants have already received separation pay and signed quitclaim. All of these factors, to the mind of the Court, will greatly reduce the quoted amount of the money judgment that PAL will have to pay.
In the 2018 decision, the en banc ruled the quitclaims as valid and used it as added basis to declare the retrenchment valid.
The release and quitclaim signed by the affected employees substantially satisfied the aforestated requirements.
Before the 2009 decision, there was another decision by the 3rd division which declared the retrenchment invalid. That was the July 2, 2008 decision of the Third Division which was concurred in by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro.
In 2018, De Castro inhibited.
Cityhood flip-flop
The PAL case is not the only flip-flop that drew flak for the SC.
From 2009 to 2011, the en banc reversed its decision thriceon whether 16 municipalities can be recognized as cities, known as the Cityhood Laws. In its final decision in 2011, the en banc ruled the municipalities turning into cities as constitutional.
The League of the Philippine Cities (LCP) contested it because they would share the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) with more cities, which means they would lose an average of P20 million.
The LCP's argument is that the municipalities were unqualified to become cities because they do not meet the minimum income requirement.
The court flip-flopped because it allowed more proceedings after it denied a motion for reconsideration (MR). Typically, a 2nd MR is prohibited. In this case, the en banc tackled the case a total of 6 times.
The reason for the continued resurrection was allegedly letters from the municipalities' lawyer: none other than Mendoza. Letters were the same strategy employed in the PAL case.
Peralta and Bersamin did not flip-flop on their votes. Peralta consistently voted that the cityhood laws were unconstitutional, while Bersamin consistently voted they were constitutional.
It was actually Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr who changed votes. In 2008, he voted that cityhood laws were unconstitutional. But by 2009, on the first MR, Velasco joined the other team and voted that the cityhood laws were constitutional until finality.
Bersamin would come to write the 2011 final decision, in favor of Mendoza's clients. The cityhood case and the PAL case are two of SC cases where Bersamin favored Mendoza.
Among such cases are the bail grant to Juan Ponce Enrile and the plunder acquittal of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
Bersamin and Peralta
Bersamin and Peralta have been friends for a really long time.
Peralta told the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) during the public interviews on August 16 that their friendship started when he and Bersamin were trial court judges in Quezon City. They took lunches together inside the courtroom.
“There were rumors, they would say, sino ba sa kanila, sa dalawa (who between the two of them...)? But when we meet on lunchtime, we discuss jurisprudence, because he is an expert on procedure and he considers me good in criminal procedures,” Peralta said.
Peralta only had good words for Bersamin during the JBC interview.
“I see him as competent and ready to assume the position [of] Chief Justice, I hope that is the same way he feels about me,” Peralta said.
At a lawyers' forum at the University of the Philippines (UP) last July, a member of the audience asked about perceived corruption in the Supreme Court, citing as example Mendoza's alleged influence on the Bench.
If either Peralta or Bersamin become chief justice, this is one of the issues they would have to address to win the full trust of the public they will serve. – Rappler.com
x x x."
"It is the duty of every Filipino to constantly challenge the President’s words and actions, by insisting his fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law."
See - https://news.mb.com.ph/2018/11/02/what-is-wrong-when-the-president-speaks/
"x x x.
What is wrong when the President speaks?
By ATTY. MEL STA. MARIA
Published November 2, 2018, 12:05 AMnews.mb.com.ph
Atty. Mel Sta. Maria
President Duterte recently said that he will place the Bureau of Customs (BOC) under military control. This violates the Constitution which provides that “no member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries.” The word “no” signifies its proscriptive nature while “shall” highlights the constitution’s imperative command. The Civil Code provides that “acts executed against the provisions of mandatory and prohibitory laws shall be void.” The President, being a lawyer, knows this and yet he desires to do it.
President Duterte’s Proclamation Number 752 declared Trillanes’ amnesty null and void and ordered his arrest. Again this offends the Constitution. Only the Supreme Court can declare the official acts of the President and Congress — such as an amnesty — null and void. And the President cannot order the arrest of anyone, much more a senator of the republic, without a warrant. To do so is fundamentally ultra vires.
Early on in his administration, referring to the Constitution, President Duterte said in a meeting with the military on June 28, 2017: “Wala na ‘yang papel, papel… Do not give me that piece of paper. It doesn’t mean anything to me at all.” Does this reflect his mind-set underpinning his administration such that we should not anymore be surprised but nevertheless be vigilant about?
Also, President Duterte, in his June 30, 2016, inaugural address, declared that “on the international front and community of nations…..the Republic of the Philippines will honor treaties and international obligations.” Within two years, he announced the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty creating the International Criminal Court (ICC). And he did so not in consideration of a high public interest concern, but apparently for personal reasons as formal requests had been filed to investigate the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines under his watch and to ultimately hale him into ICC.
Then, President Duterte said on June 14, 2018: “My directive is ‘pag mag-istambay-istambay, sabihin niyo, ‘Umuwi kayo. Pag ‘di kayo umuwi, ihatid ko kayo don sa opisina ni ano don, Pasig. Ako na ang bahala, ilagay mo lang diyan. Talian mo ‘yung kamay pati bin–ihulog mo diyan sa ano.” He continues: “Tignan ‘nyo may maglakad pa ba na – eh ngayon, sabi ko sa pulis, ‘Pikapin mo.” Clarification was made by lower officials that criminals were the subjects of the arrest. But the problem is that the presidential directive clearly referred to any person standing idly in a public place. This, after loitering has been decriminalized under the Revised Penal Code.
Regarding extra-judicial killings, every time President Duterte makes his usual “kill-you” declarations, he conveys a deadly message discordant with the rule of law. No one in the Philippines can order death as it is prohibited. Misinterpreted to their extreme, the declarations may be taken as pandering to the dark side of rogue Philippine National Police officers, to exterminate addicts. And as to human rights activists who criticized him, he warned: “I’ll kill you along with drug addicts, I’ll decapitate you”. By themselves, these are gutter-threats.
And then remember when the President gave a misogynist instruction to the soldiers not to kill women rebels but only shoot their vagina? Former spokesperson Harry Roque, defending the President, said: “I have been saying again and again, do not take the president literally but take him seriously.”
The problem with the President is that his vulgarity erases whatever good intentions his pronouncements intend to convey. And so the questions are: Why should the president subject the Filipino people to his rigmarole? Why should it always be the people’s burden to understand him? If what he says is not what he means and if what he commands is legally prohibited, why should we listen to him in the first place?
Lyndon B. Johnson said that “[a] president’s hardest task is not to do what is right, but to know what is right.” Our President, when he speaks contemporaneously, often appears abrasive and imperious. That is a dangerous notion. It is the duty of every Filipino to constantly challenge the President’s words and actions, by insisting his fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. That is the only way to help in ensuring the security of our liberties, to prevent their being trampled upon by the very people entrusted to protect them.
x x x."
"x x x.
What is wrong when the President speaks?
By ATTY. MEL STA. MARIA
Published November 2, 2018, 12:05 AMnews.mb.com.ph
Atty. Mel Sta. Maria
President Duterte recently said that he will place the Bureau of Customs (BOC) under military control. This violates the Constitution which provides that “no member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries.” The word “no” signifies its proscriptive nature while “shall” highlights the constitution’s imperative command. The Civil Code provides that “acts executed against the provisions of mandatory and prohibitory laws shall be void.” The President, being a lawyer, knows this and yet he desires to do it.
President Duterte’s Proclamation Number 752 declared Trillanes’ amnesty null and void and ordered his arrest. Again this offends the Constitution. Only the Supreme Court can declare the official acts of the President and Congress — such as an amnesty — null and void. And the President cannot order the arrest of anyone, much more a senator of the republic, without a warrant. To do so is fundamentally ultra vires.
Early on in his administration, referring to the Constitution, President Duterte said in a meeting with the military on June 28, 2017: “Wala na ‘yang papel, papel… Do not give me that piece of paper. It doesn’t mean anything to me at all.” Does this reflect his mind-set underpinning his administration such that we should not anymore be surprised but nevertheless be vigilant about?
Also, President Duterte, in his June 30, 2016, inaugural address, declared that “on the international front and community of nations…..the Republic of the Philippines will honor treaties and international obligations.” Within two years, he announced the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty creating the International Criminal Court (ICC). And he did so not in consideration of a high public interest concern, but apparently for personal reasons as formal requests had been filed to investigate the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines under his watch and to ultimately hale him into ICC.
Then, President Duterte said on June 14, 2018: “My directive is ‘pag mag-istambay-istambay, sabihin niyo, ‘Umuwi kayo. Pag ‘di kayo umuwi, ihatid ko kayo don sa opisina ni ano don, Pasig. Ako na ang bahala, ilagay mo lang diyan. Talian mo ‘yung kamay pati bin–ihulog mo diyan sa ano.” He continues: “Tignan ‘nyo may maglakad pa ba na – eh ngayon, sabi ko sa pulis, ‘Pikapin mo.” Clarification was made by lower officials that criminals were the subjects of the arrest. But the problem is that the presidential directive clearly referred to any person standing idly in a public place. This, after loitering has been decriminalized under the Revised Penal Code.
Regarding extra-judicial killings, every time President Duterte makes his usual “kill-you” declarations, he conveys a deadly message discordant with the rule of law. No one in the Philippines can order death as it is prohibited. Misinterpreted to their extreme, the declarations may be taken as pandering to the dark side of rogue Philippine National Police officers, to exterminate addicts. And as to human rights activists who criticized him, he warned: “I’ll kill you along with drug addicts, I’ll decapitate you”. By themselves, these are gutter-threats.
And then remember when the President gave a misogynist instruction to the soldiers not to kill women rebels but only shoot their vagina? Former spokesperson Harry Roque, defending the President, said: “I have been saying again and again, do not take the president literally but take him seriously.”
The problem with the President is that his vulgarity erases whatever good intentions his pronouncements intend to convey. And so the questions are: Why should the president subject the Filipino people to his rigmarole? Why should it always be the people’s burden to understand him? If what he says is not what he means and if what he commands is legally prohibited, why should we listen to him in the first place?
Lyndon B. Johnson said that “[a] president’s hardest task is not to do what is right, but to know what is right.” Our President, when he speaks contemporaneously, often appears abrasive and imperious. That is a dangerous notion. It is the duty of every Filipino to constantly challenge the President’s words and actions, by insisting his fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. That is the only way to help in ensuring the security of our liberties, to prevent their being trampled upon by the very people entrusted to protect them.
x x x."
Mexico's Supreme Court legalizes cannabis for recreational use
See - https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/10/31/Mexicos-Supreme-Court-legalizes-cannabis-for-recreational-use/9621541024238/
"x x x.
Mexico's Supreme Court legalizes cannabis for recreational use
"x x x.
Mexico's Supreme Court legalizes cannabis for recreational use
By Patrick Timmons
www.upi.com
Mexico's Supreme Court handed down two rulings today paving the way for non-commercial use by adults. File photo.
www.upi.com
Mexico's Supreme Court handed down two rulings today paving the way for non-commercial use by adults. File photo.
MEXICO CITY, Oct. 31 (UPI) -- Drug policy reformers claimed victory in Mexico City Wednesday after the country's Supreme Court handed down two rulings legalizing cannabis for all forms of non-commercial adult use.
"The rulings pave the way for adults to use marijuana in any way they see fit. We aren't just talking about recreational use," Froylán Enciso, a drug policy researcher at Mexico's social sciences institute, the CIDE, told UPI.
In the first case, a plaintiff wanting to grow his own marijuana applied to the court for an "amparo," a form of constitutional protection from prosecution, so that he can plant, cultivate, harvest, prepare, possess and transport marijuana.
In the second case, another plaintiff also applied for an amparo to consume marijuana for recreational purposes.
"The rulings pave the way for adults to use marijuana in any way they see fit. We aren't just talking about recreational use," Froylán Enciso, a drug policy researcher at Mexico's social sciences institute, the CIDE, told UPI.
In the first case, a plaintiff wanting to grow his own marijuana applied to the court for an "amparo," a form of constitutional protection from prosecution, so that he can plant, cultivate, harvest, prepare, possess and transport marijuana.
In the second case, another plaintiff also applied for an amparo to consume marijuana for recreational purposes.
RELATED New study shows marijuana may harm teen brain
The two different plaintiffs aimed to declare unconstitutional Mexico's federal health and penal laws concerning the use of marijuana for non-medical purposes.
"The court has found that marijuana can be used for rituals, for recreational use, for medical use, at work, for scientific investigations. For any adult use and that it cannot be penalized," Enciso said.
The drug policy researcher said most people in prison in Mexico for drug crimes are incarcerated for possessing marijuana.
The two different plaintiffs aimed to declare unconstitutional Mexico's federal health and penal laws concerning the use of marijuana for non-medical purposes.
"The court has found that marijuana can be used for rituals, for recreational use, for medical use, at work, for scientific investigations. For any adult use and that it cannot be penalized," Enciso said.
The drug policy researcher said most people in prison in Mexico for drug crimes are incarcerated for possessing marijuana.
RELATED Denver court case to decide if pot farm hurts neighbor's real estate values
"The Mexican government has not put violent criminals in prison but people who smoke small quantities on street corners or outside," Enciso said, "so these decisions will benefit many small consumers."
The rulings come after years of strategic litigation by Mexican drug policy activists starting in 2015. Unlike the United States, Mexican federal law requires five consecutive rulings on the same issue and in the same direction to create jurisprudence eventually declaring a law unconstitutional.
The next step toward legalization of cannabis for non-commercial purposes is that the Supreme Court must inform Mexico's Congress within 90 days that prohibiting adult use is unconstitutional. Congress then has to reform the laws the court found unconstitutional. If Congress does not act, every adult prosecuted for using marijuana can also apply for protection from the judicial system.
"The Mexican government has not put violent criminals in prison but people who smoke small quantities on street corners or outside," Enciso said, "so these decisions will benefit many small consumers."
The rulings come after years of strategic litigation by Mexican drug policy activists starting in 2015. Unlike the United States, Mexican federal law requires five consecutive rulings on the same issue and in the same direction to create jurisprudence eventually declaring a law unconstitutional.
The next step toward legalization of cannabis for non-commercial purposes is that the Supreme Court must inform Mexico's Congress within 90 days that prohibiting adult use is unconstitutional. Congress then has to reform the laws the court found unconstitutional. If Congress does not act, every adult prosecuted for using marijuana can also apply for protection from the judicial system.
RELATED Mexico no 'safe third country' for refugees
"The rulings create jurisprudence but they do not in themselves amount to changes in legislation," Enciso said. "Even so they are very important not just for Mexico but for the United States."
"When Congress declares marijuana prohibition unconstitutional in Mexico," the drug policy researcher said, "the federal government of the United States will be the only prohibitionist jurisdiction left in North America. Canada now has legal marijuana. More than 30 states in the U.S. have some form of marijuana legalization. And now with Mexico legalizing consumption and production, the only drug warriors remaining in North America are President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions."
In both cases decided Wednesday the Supreme Court's justices ruled 4-1 in favor of granting adults the right to use marijuana for non-commercial purposes. The one justice who ruled against the plaintiffs argued adult use must not infringe upon the rights of others.
x x x."
"The rulings create jurisprudence but they do not in themselves amount to changes in legislation," Enciso said. "Even so they are very important not just for Mexico but for the United States."
"When Congress declares marijuana prohibition unconstitutional in Mexico," the drug policy researcher said, "the federal government of the United States will be the only prohibitionist jurisdiction left in North America. Canada now has legal marijuana. More than 30 states in the U.S. have some form of marijuana legalization. And now with Mexico legalizing consumption and production, the only drug warriors remaining in North America are President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions."
In both cases decided Wednesday the Supreme Court's justices ruled 4-1 in favor of granting adults the right to use marijuana for non-commercial purposes. The one justice who ruled against the plaintiffs argued adult use must not infringe upon the rights of others.
x x x."
How To File A Complaint Against A Company - By Karen Bennett & Ezvid Wiki Editorial
See - https://wiki.ezvid.com/m/how-to-file-a-complaint-against-a-company-zMSFD1YhemHxw
"x x x.
How To File A Complaint Against A Company
"x x x.
How To File A Complaint Against A Company
By Karen Bennett & Ezvid Wiki Editorial
5 Nov 2018
If you’ve been wronged by a business, you’re surely very angry and want to see justice served. Despite your strong intentions, if you don’t handle things correctly, you may never see a dime of your refund or any form of satisfaction. Get your desired outcome and help protect other unsuspecting customers by following our suggestions here when you file a complaint against a company. The information provided here is for general information only and should not be used as legal advice.
4 Ways To File A Complaint Against A Company
If you’ve been wronged by a business, you’re surely very angry and want to see justice served. Despite your strong intentions, if you don’t handle things correctly, you may never see a dime of your refund or any form of satisfaction. Get your desired outcome and help protect other unsuspecting customers by following our suggestions here when you file a complaint against a company. The information provided here is for general information only and should not be used as legal advice.
4 Ways To File A Complaint Against A Company
Gather supporting documents. Before you file a complaint or seek legal advice, organize any sales receipts, warranties, and contracts associated with the purchase. Save any email correspondence with the seller. You may need some or all of this documentation when you file your complaint.
Contact the seller. First, go directly to the source to try for your desired outcome, whether it is a return, exchange, etc. You can go to customer service, or a manager if need be.
Contact third parties. If you don’t have any luck when contacting the seller, reach out to any banks involved, your state’s attorney general, the Better Business Bureau, or the Federal Trade Commission. Links to these are provided below, along with a list of what information to include. Use a complaint letter template for help getting started.
Get legal help. When none of the above options work, you may wish to consult with an attorney experienced in consumer protection laws.
What Documentation Should I Collect?
You may need certain documents in order to win your case. Keep a file with all of the items below, if applicable:
You may need certain documents in order to win your case. Keep a file with all of the items below, if applicable:
Copy of an ad or brochure to which you responded
An account number, if the seller assigned you one
Receipts and billing statements
A warranty or contract
All correspondence between you and the business
Names of everyone you’ve spoken to and dates
How Can I File A Complaint?
These third-party organizations and government agencies may be able to provide assistance once you file a claim:
An account number, if the seller assigned you one
Receipts and billing statements
A warranty or contract
All correspondence between you and the business
Names of everyone you’ve spoken to and dates
How Can I File A Complaint?
These third-party organizations and government agencies may be able to provide assistance once you file a claim:
Federal Trade Commission
Your state’s attorney general
Better Business Bureau
econsumer.gov (if your purchase was made online across international borders)
Your state’s attorney general
Better Business Bureau
econsumer.gov (if your purchase was made online across international borders)
The Top Frauds of 2017
While fewer people complained to the Federal Trade Commission regarding fraud in 2017 than in 2016, they did report losing more money than in the previous year. In all, consumers reported losing $905 million in 2017. Here are the top three categories of complaints for that year:
While fewer people complained to the Federal Trade Commission regarding fraud in 2017 than in 2016, they did report losing more money than in the previous year. In all, consumers reported losing $905 million in 2017. Here are the top three categories of complaints for that year:
Type of FraudDetailsDebt Collection Complaints regarding debt collectors remained at the top of the list by a wide margin, making up 23% of all reports.
Identity Theft Identity theft comprised 14% of all complaints to the FTC. The most common of these reports were regarding credit card fraud, followed by tax fraud.
Identity Theft Identity theft comprised 14% of all complaints to the FTC. The most common of these reports were regarding credit card fraud, followed by tax fraud.
Imposter scams In this third most common reported fraud, scammers misrepresent themselves (as a tech support representative, loved one in trouble, etc.) in order to get money.
In Depth
Have you been scammed by a business? If so, you're probably familiar with the sick feeling in the pit of your stomach when you realize you're the victim of a con artist. Maybe you fell for a bait-and-switch tactic, or maybe you never even received the product you paid for. Know your options for recourse.
First things first: Don't beat yourself up. Thousands of people fall for scams every day. Many of these frauds occur online. One increasingly common example is that of unsuspecting dog lovers losing hundreds or even thousands due to puppy scams. They respond to online ads featuring adorable puppies of all breeds, only to send money and receive no puppy in return.
Whether you've fallen victim to such a blatant scam or whether you've received a product or service that fell short of what was advertised, don't let such a company pocket your hard-earned dollars. Here are four things you can do to get a refund as well as some satisfaction.
Whether you've fallen victim to such a blatant scam or whether you've received a product or service that fell short of what was advertised, don't let such a company pocket your hard-earned dollars.
#1: Gather supporting documents. These include sales receipts, warranties, and contracts from the purchase. Print out any email correspondence you've had with the seller regarding the purchase. No matter where you file your complaint, you'll need these items as proof. For a list of what and what not to include, visit wiki.ezvid.com now and search for "how to file a complaint against a company." Or, click the link below this video.
#2. Contact the seller. Before going elsewhere, you may be able to resolve the problem by simply contacting the seller, either through a salesperson or the customer service department. If this doesn't help, try a supervisor or manager. Going all the way to the top may be worth a try, by contacting the company's national headquarters.
To find a phone number or email address, go to the company's website and look for the "contact us," "about us," or "customer service" sections. Put things in writing whenever possible, either over email or through U.S. mail. This creates a record of correspondence if you need to take things further.
This creates a record of correspondence if you need to take things further.
Know that you may also receive satisfaction through your bank. Take the example of Tom Teodorczuk, who was dying to see a Chelsea soccer match the week he would be in London. Tickets were sold out, but he found a Craigslist seller offering a pair for $250. He needed to deposit the funds into the seller's account. However, once he did that, the seller stopped being responsive and never provided any tickets.
After multiple phone calls to both banks involved provided no resolution, Tom Teodorczuk became frustrated and located the email address of his bank's CEO. He sent an emotionally-charged message outlining his experience. The CEO then passed along his email to a bank representative, who was able to arrange for a refund from the U.K. digital banking services company involved. Teodorczuk's persistence finally paid off and he received the outcome he desired.
#3. Contact third parties. Maybe you have had absolutely no luck when communicating with the seller. Now it's time to reach out to third parties that can help. Organizations you may contact include your state's attorney general, the Better Business Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission.
Organizations you may contact include your state's attorney general, the Better Business Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission.
When reaching out to any of these agencies, be prepared to provide the name and address of the seller, the amount they charged you, and the date of the transaction. Explain what was wrong with the product or service, any actions you have already taken, and what outcome you are seeking. To file your claim, go to the website of the agency. You may file online or via U.S. mail. For links to third-party consumer protection websites, go to wiki.ezvid.com and search for "how to file a complaint against a company". Or, click the link under this video.
#4. Get legal help. If none of the above options work, you may wish to seek legal help. While we aren't lawyers and this isn't legal advice, an attorney experienced in consumer protection laws may be able to help resolve your problem. He or she may guide you through a court case or through an alternative dispute program like arbitration, conciliation, or mediation.
Often, the money involved in these types of cases is not enough to warrant hiring a lawyer, and court cases can be drawn out, according to the nonprofit group Consumer Action. However, know that an attorney can provide advice about your legal options.
However, know that an attorney can provide advice about your legal options.
In all, these options will help you to file a complaint effectively and hopefully see results. Be organized and persistent, and you're more likely to get the outcome you're seeking. For our guide which includes help finding legal assistance, visit wiki.ezvid.com now and search for "how to file a complaint against a company." x x x."
In Depth
Have you been scammed by a business? If so, you're probably familiar with the sick feeling in the pit of your stomach when you realize you're the victim of a con artist. Maybe you fell for a bait-and-switch tactic, or maybe you never even received the product you paid for. Know your options for recourse.
First things first: Don't beat yourself up. Thousands of people fall for scams every day. Many of these frauds occur online. One increasingly common example is that of unsuspecting dog lovers losing hundreds or even thousands due to puppy scams. They respond to online ads featuring adorable puppies of all breeds, only to send money and receive no puppy in return.
Whether you've fallen victim to such a blatant scam or whether you've received a product or service that fell short of what was advertised, don't let such a company pocket your hard-earned dollars. Here are four things you can do to get a refund as well as some satisfaction.
Whether you've fallen victim to such a blatant scam or whether you've received a product or service that fell short of what was advertised, don't let such a company pocket your hard-earned dollars.
#1: Gather supporting documents. These include sales receipts, warranties, and contracts from the purchase. Print out any email correspondence you've had with the seller regarding the purchase. No matter where you file your complaint, you'll need these items as proof. For a list of what and what not to include, visit wiki.ezvid.com now and search for "how to file a complaint against a company." Or, click the link below this video.
#2. Contact the seller. Before going elsewhere, you may be able to resolve the problem by simply contacting the seller, either through a salesperson or the customer service department. If this doesn't help, try a supervisor or manager. Going all the way to the top may be worth a try, by contacting the company's national headquarters.
To find a phone number or email address, go to the company's website and look for the "contact us," "about us," or "customer service" sections. Put things in writing whenever possible, either over email or through U.S. mail. This creates a record of correspondence if you need to take things further.
This creates a record of correspondence if you need to take things further.
Know that you may also receive satisfaction through your bank. Take the example of Tom Teodorczuk, who was dying to see a Chelsea soccer match the week he would be in London. Tickets were sold out, but he found a Craigslist seller offering a pair for $250. He needed to deposit the funds into the seller's account. However, once he did that, the seller stopped being responsive and never provided any tickets.
After multiple phone calls to both banks involved provided no resolution, Tom Teodorczuk became frustrated and located the email address of his bank's CEO. He sent an emotionally-charged message outlining his experience. The CEO then passed along his email to a bank representative, who was able to arrange for a refund from the U.K. digital banking services company involved. Teodorczuk's persistence finally paid off and he received the outcome he desired.
#3. Contact third parties. Maybe you have had absolutely no luck when communicating with the seller. Now it's time to reach out to third parties that can help. Organizations you may contact include your state's attorney general, the Better Business Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission.
Organizations you may contact include your state's attorney general, the Better Business Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission.
When reaching out to any of these agencies, be prepared to provide the name and address of the seller, the amount they charged you, and the date of the transaction. Explain what was wrong with the product or service, any actions you have already taken, and what outcome you are seeking. To file your claim, go to the website of the agency. You may file online or via U.S. mail. For links to third-party consumer protection websites, go to wiki.ezvid.com and search for "how to file a complaint against a company". Or, click the link under this video.
#4. Get legal help. If none of the above options work, you may wish to seek legal help. While we aren't lawyers and this isn't legal advice, an attorney experienced in consumer protection laws may be able to help resolve your problem. He or she may guide you through a court case or through an alternative dispute program like arbitration, conciliation, or mediation.
Often, the money involved in these types of cases is not enough to warrant hiring a lawyer, and court cases can be drawn out, according to the nonprofit group Consumer Action. However, know that an attorney can provide advice about your legal options.
However, know that an attorney can provide advice about your legal options.
In all, these options will help you to file a complaint effectively and hopefully see results. Be organized and persistent, and you're more likely to get the outcome you're seeking. For our guide which includes help finding legal assistance, visit wiki.ezvid.com now and search for "how to file a complaint against a company." x x x."
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC), Solicitor General (SolGen), Secretary of Justice (SOJ)
See - https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/215878-analysis-deep-dive-does-president-really-need-many-lawyers?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0SugnMaccAA4wFlmWiGr3_AQvnqh7rdV0mGJIAs0sxjS-UIRfhmP57aVM#Echobox=1541387730
"x x x.
Does the President really need so many lawyers?
"x x x.
Does the President really need so many lawyers?
Because the burden of the presidency is heavy, with multifarious demands all having legal implications and consequences, the President is expected to secure the best legal advice available
By Theodore Te
Published 11:00 AM, November 05, 2018
Updated 11:00 AM, November 05, 2018
www.rappler.com
By Theodore Te
Published 11:00 AM, November 05, 2018
Updated 11:00 AM, November 05, 2018
www.rappler.com
They go by different titles – Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC), Solicitor General (SolGen), Secretary of Justice (SOJ) – but they are all the President’s lawyers, giving advice to him directly or his government.
But why does he need 3, isn’t one lawyer enough? What happens when they disagree with each other?
Just recently, the President’s lawyers differed on the remedy to take from the decision of a trial court that denied a request for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. In that particular instance, it was the Secretary of Justice, who had a different position, who prevailed over the CPLC and the Solicitor General, who were in agreement with each other.
In this Deep Dive, we look at how the CPLC, the SOJ, and the SolGen differ from each other in terms of roles, powers, functions, and duties.
The President's lawyer
The CPLC, currently Salvador Panelo, is the President’s lawyer. His mandate and powers are spelled out in Memorandum Order No. 235 (s. 2006), amending Memorandum Order No. 152 (s. 2004).
The CPLC “shall advise the President…on matters requiring (his/her) action” and shall, among others, “(r)eview and/or draft legal orders referred to him by the President on the following matters that are the subject of decisions by the President.” This mandate to “review and/or draft legal orders….subject of decisions by the President” means that the CPLC is most likely the final filter before presidential approval of any order or instruction.
The Secretary of Justice
Under Executive Order No. 292 or Revised Administrative Code of 1987, the Secretary of Justice, currently Menardo Guevarra, is the Attorney General, the government’s lawyer, and also its chief prosecutor. He is also the ex-officio legal adviser of government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCC) and their subsidiaries.
He settles controversies between/among government agencies, including government-owned and controlled corporations, including their subsidiaries. He acts on all queries and/or requests for legal advice and guidance from private parties and other officials and employees of the government. The SOJ also sits on the Judicial and Bar Council.
The SOJ may be viewed as the head of the largest law office in the country – with prosecutors, defense counsel, and investigators (through the National Bureau of Investigation) nationwide under his charge – and due to his role as legal advisor of government, his/her duties and the discharge thereof are clearly imbued with the greatest degree of public interest.
The Solicitor General
Also under EO 292, specifically sections 34 and 35, the SolGen, currently Jose Calida, is the government’s principal law officer and defender but also the Tribune of the People.
His mandate is to represent the Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, he shall also represent government-owned or controlled corporations.
Notably, while the SolGen is expressly mandated to represent the Government, he is also expressly mandated to be the “Tribune of the People” or the “People’s Tribune.” Section 35 (11) expressly empowers the SolGen to “(a)ct and represent the Republic and/or the people before any court, tribunal, body or commission in any matter, action or proceeding which, in his opinion, affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require.”
In his concurring opinion in Poe-Llamanzares v. Comelec,[1]Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, himself a former Solicitor General, said that “(w)hen the Solicitor General acts as the People's Tribune, it is incumbent upon him to present to the court what he considers would legally uphold the best interest of the government although it may run counter to the position of the affected government office.”
Under this mandate as “People’s Tribune,” the SolGen may opt not to defend the government but to act for the Republic and the people if he believes that it would be in the best interests of the Republic not to defend government.
Practical dynamics
Of the 3, only the CPLC is the President’s lawyer, as the SOJ and the SolGen both perform functions that directly impact on governance and the public, and not just on the President. The SOJ is tasked with administering the justice machinery while the SolGen represents the government and, in specific cases, the People.
Does the President really need so many lawyers?
Because the burden of the presidency is heavy, with multifarious demands all having legal implications and consequences, the President is expected to secure the best legal advice available. Thus, the triumvirate of the CPLC, SOJ, and SolGen is expected to provide the best legal advice to the President.
While more does not necessarily mean better, the more fundamental question is asked: will the President listen?
Can these functions be merged into one, to avoid conflicting opinions?
The short answer is “no” even if on at least two previous occasions, the Secretary of Justice has acted as the Solicitor General.
Estelito Mendoza was Ferdinand Marcos’ longtime minister of justice and concurrent solicitor general from 1972 to 1986. Alberto Agra was Gloria Arroyo’s acting solicitor general and concurrently acting secretary of justice, a designation that was challenged for being in violation of Article VII, section 13 of the 1987 Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in Funa v. Agra, struck down Agra’s dual designation as acting solicitor general and concurrently acting secretary of justice as it violated Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibiting, among others, Cabinet members from holding any other office or employment. Following Funa, these 3 lawyer positions – CPLC, SOJ, and SolGen – cannot be merged into one person.
Do we realistically expect these lawyers to disagree with the President, or give legal advice that he may not like?
The ideal answer would be “yes” but the realistic answer is “no.”
As members of the Cabinet without tenure, the CPLC, the SOJ, and the SolGen may be transferred or removed by the President, as he sees fit. For this reason, it would be unrealistic to think that they would go against the President’s desired positions.
Every lawyer is expected to do what is best for his client, or his principal but every lawyer is also bound “to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes” under Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which, under Canon 6, is expressly made applicable to lawyers in the government service.
Ideally, and if the President’s lawyers take these burdens seriously, we should expect and not be surprised that all 3 may, on occasion, have different and possibly conflicting opinions because the lens through which each views his or her role and the discharge of respective mandates are different.
But as things are not ideal, it is both not surprising and not unexpected that all 3 lawyers will tend to speak consistently and uniformly with the same voice – the President’s, which begs the question we started out with: does the President need so many lawyers? – Rappler.com
Theodore Te, Ted to many, is a human rights lawyer and advocate, law educator, font geek and comic book fan, occasional movie and music reviewer, a life-long Boston Celtics fan and a loud opponent of the death penalty, violations of human rights, government abuse, and social injustice. Deep Dive is his attempt at probing into issues of law and rights, politics and governance (and occasionally entertainment and sports) beyond the headlines, the sound bites, the spin, and the buzz.
[1]; G.R. No. 221697 and 221698-700, March 8, 2016
x x x."
But why does he need 3, isn’t one lawyer enough? What happens when they disagree with each other?
Just recently, the President’s lawyers differed on the remedy to take from the decision of a trial court that denied a request for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. In that particular instance, it was the Secretary of Justice, who had a different position, who prevailed over the CPLC and the Solicitor General, who were in agreement with each other.
In this Deep Dive, we look at how the CPLC, the SOJ, and the SolGen differ from each other in terms of roles, powers, functions, and duties.
The President's lawyer
The CPLC, currently Salvador Panelo, is the President’s lawyer. His mandate and powers are spelled out in Memorandum Order No. 235 (s. 2006), amending Memorandum Order No. 152 (s. 2004).
The CPLC “shall advise the President…on matters requiring (his/her) action” and shall, among others, “(r)eview and/or draft legal orders referred to him by the President on the following matters that are the subject of decisions by the President.” This mandate to “review and/or draft legal orders….subject of decisions by the President” means that the CPLC is most likely the final filter before presidential approval of any order or instruction.
The Secretary of Justice
Under Executive Order No. 292 or Revised Administrative Code of 1987, the Secretary of Justice, currently Menardo Guevarra, is the Attorney General, the government’s lawyer, and also its chief prosecutor. He is also the ex-officio legal adviser of government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCC) and their subsidiaries.
He settles controversies between/among government agencies, including government-owned and controlled corporations, including their subsidiaries. He acts on all queries and/or requests for legal advice and guidance from private parties and other officials and employees of the government. The SOJ also sits on the Judicial and Bar Council.
The SOJ may be viewed as the head of the largest law office in the country – with prosecutors, defense counsel, and investigators (through the National Bureau of Investigation) nationwide under his charge – and due to his role as legal advisor of government, his/her duties and the discharge thereof are clearly imbued with the greatest degree of public interest.
The Solicitor General
Also under EO 292, specifically sections 34 and 35, the SolGen, currently Jose Calida, is the government’s principal law officer and defender but also the Tribune of the People.
His mandate is to represent the Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, he shall also represent government-owned or controlled corporations.
Notably, while the SolGen is expressly mandated to represent the Government, he is also expressly mandated to be the “Tribune of the People” or the “People’s Tribune.” Section 35 (11) expressly empowers the SolGen to “(a)ct and represent the Republic and/or the people before any court, tribunal, body or commission in any matter, action or proceeding which, in his opinion, affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require.”
In his concurring opinion in Poe-Llamanzares v. Comelec,[1]Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, himself a former Solicitor General, said that “(w)hen the Solicitor General acts as the People's Tribune, it is incumbent upon him to present to the court what he considers would legally uphold the best interest of the government although it may run counter to the position of the affected government office.”
Under this mandate as “People’s Tribune,” the SolGen may opt not to defend the government but to act for the Republic and the people if he believes that it would be in the best interests of the Republic not to defend government.
Practical dynamics
Of the 3, only the CPLC is the President’s lawyer, as the SOJ and the SolGen both perform functions that directly impact on governance and the public, and not just on the President. The SOJ is tasked with administering the justice machinery while the SolGen represents the government and, in specific cases, the People.
Does the President really need so many lawyers?
Because the burden of the presidency is heavy, with multifarious demands all having legal implications and consequences, the President is expected to secure the best legal advice available. Thus, the triumvirate of the CPLC, SOJ, and SolGen is expected to provide the best legal advice to the President.
While more does not necessarily mean better, the more fundamental question is asked: will the President listen?
Can these functions be merged into one, to avoid conflicting opinions?
The short answer is “no” even if on at least two previous occasions, the Secretary of Justice has acted as the Solicitor General.
Estelito Mendoza was Ferdinand Marcos’ longtime minister of justice and concurrent solicitor general from 1972 to 1986. Alberto Agra was Gloria Arroyo’s acting solicitor general and concurrently acting secretary of justice, a designation that was challenged for being in violation of Article VII, section 13 of the 1987 Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in Funa v. Agra, struck down Agra’s dual designation as acting solicitor general and concurrently acting secretary of justice as it violated Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibiting, among others, Cabinet members from holding any other office or employment. Following Funa, these 3 lawyer positions – CPLC, SOJ, and SolGen – cannot be merged into one person.
Do we realistically expect these lawyers to disagree with the President, or give legal advice that he may not like?
The ideal answer would be “yes” but the realistic answer is “no.”
As members of the Cabinet without tenure, the CPLC, the SOJ, and the SolGen may be transferred or removed by the President, as he sees fit. For this reason, it would be unrealistic to think that they would go against the President’s desired positions.
Every lawyer is expected to do what is best for his client, or his principal but every lawyer is also bound “to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes” under Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which, under Canon 6, is expressly made applicable to lawyers in the government service.
Ideally, and if the President’s lawyers take these burdens seriously, we should expect and not be surprised that all 3 may, on occasion, have different and possibly conflicting opinions because the lens through which each views his or her role and the discharge of respective mandates are different.
But as things are not ideal, it is both not surprising and not unexpected that all 3 lawyers will tend to speak consistently and uniformly with the same voice – the President’s, which begs the question we started out with: does the President need so many lawyers? – Rappler.com
Theodore Te, Ted to many, is a human rights lawyer and advocate, law educator, font geek and comic book fan, occasional movie and music reviewer, a life-long Boston Celtics fan and a loud opponent of the death penalty, violations of human rights, government abuse, and social injustice. Deep Dive is his attempt at probing into issues of law and rights, politics and governance (and occasionally entertainment and sports) beyond the headlines, the sound bites, the spin, and the buzz.
[1]; G.R. No. 221697 and 221698-700, March 8, 2016
x x x."
Landmark cases in criminal law - www.projectjurisprudence.com
See - https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2017/05/landmark-cases-in-criminal-law.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR2WYM_fZP5bnxrR4yT65A5nIbsJgM7UX1yCi5w1umfxEViHVw_dAcFMgY4&m=1
"x x x.
236 LANDMARK CASES IN CRIMINAL LAW
The following are jurisprudential gems that must be read by every law student in order to fully understand criminal law. This list is updated from time to time.
People vs. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, 30 October 2006
People vs. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 135919, 09 May 2003, 403 SCRA 153
Velasco vs. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006, 483 SCRA 649
Resay vs. People, G.R. No. 154502, 27 April 2007
People vs. Zeta, G.R. No. 178541, 27 March 2008
Quinto vs. Andres, G.R. No. 155791, 16 March 2005, 453 SCRA 511
People vs. Valledor, G.R. No. 129291, 03 July 2002, 383 SCRA 653
Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143838, 09 May 2002, 382 SCRA 182
People vs. Caballero, 149028-30, 02 April 2003, 400 SCRA 424
People vs. Palaganas, G.R. No. 165483, 12 September 2006
People vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, 21 June 2001, 359 SCRA 220
G.R. No. 138943, 17 September 2001, 365 SCRA 373
People vs. Aca-ac, G.R. No. 142500, 20 April 2001, 357 SCRA 373
Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, 21 June 2007, 525 SCRA 306
People vs. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 180
People vs. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, 08 June 2004, 431 SCRA 366
People vs. Manijas, G.R. No. 148699, 15 November 2002, 391 SCRA 731
People vs. Compo, G.R. No. 112990, 28 May 2001, 358 SCRA 266
People vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 135204, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 299
People vs. Galvez, G.R. No. 157221, 30 March 2007
Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, 17 February 2005, 451 SCRA 673
People vs. Enfectana, G.R. No. 132028, 19 April 2002, 381 SCRA 359
Manaban vs. CA, G.R. No. 150723, 11 July 2006, 494 SCRA 503
People vs. Pateo, G.R. No. 156786, 03 June 2004, 43O SCRA 604
People vs. Arnante, G.R. No. 148724, 15 October 2002, 391 SCRA 155
People vs. Court of Appeals and Tangan, G.R. Nos. 103613 and 105830, 23 February 2001, 352 SCRA 599
People vs. San Juan, G.R. No. 144505, 06 August 2002, 386 SCRA 400
People vs. Tejero, G.R. No. 135050, 19 April 2002, 381 SCRA 382
People vs. Geneblazo, G.R. No. 133580, 20 July 2001, 361 SCRA 572
People vs. Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, 06 December 2000, 347 SCRA 374
Sanchez vs. People, G.R. No. 161007, 06 December 2006
People vs. Vicente, G.R. No. 137296, 26 June 2003, 405 SCRA 40
Senoja vs. People, G.R. No. 160341, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 695
People vs. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, 16 August 2006
People vs. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, 22 August 2002, 387 SCRA 85
Rimano vs. People, G.R. No.156567, 27 November 2003, 416 SCRA 569
People vs. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, 08 May 2003, 403 SCRA 92
Ty vs. People, G.R. No. 149275, 27 September 2004, 439 SCRA 220
Mamangun vs. People, G.R. No. 149152, 02 February 2007
People vs. Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, 29 May 2002, 382 SCRA 751
Jose vs. People, G.R. No. 162052, 13 January 2005, 448 SCRA 116
People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 136844, 01 August 2002, 386 SCRA 74
People vs. Pacis, G.R. No. 146309, 18 July 2002, 384 SCRA 696
Chang vs. People, G.R. No. 165111, 21 July 2006, 496 SCRA 321
People vs. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, 23 February 2007
People vs. Beltran, G.R. No. 168051, 27 September 2006
Romera vs. People, G.R No. 151978, 14 July 2004, 434 SCRA 467
People vs. Malejana, G.R. No. 145002, 24 January 2006, 479 SCRA 610
Andrada vs. People, G.R. No. 135222, 04 March 2005, 452 SCRA 685
People vs. Montinola, G.R. Nos. 131856-57, 09 July 2001, 360 SCRA 631
People vs. Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 277
Davalos vs. People, G.R. No. 145229, 20 April 2006, 488 SCRA 84
Kimpo vs. Sandiganbayan
People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, 09 March 2000, 327 SCRA 695
People vs. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 254
People vs. Perreras, G.R. No. 139622, 31 July 2001, 362 SCRA 202)
People vs. Rios, G.R. No. 132632, 19 June 2000, 333 SCRA 823
People vs. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 98431, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 104
People vs. Taño, G.R. No. 133872, 05 May 2000, 331 SCRA 448
People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492, 31 January 2001, 350 SCRA 679
People vs. Silva, G.R. No. 140871, 08 August 2002, 387 SCRA 77
People vs. Librando, G.R. No. 132251, 06 July 2000, 335 SCRA 232
People vs. Mondijar, G.R. No. 141194, 21 November 2002, 392 SCRA 356
People vs. Campomanes, G.R. No. 132568, 06 February 2002, 376 SCRA 307
People vs. Ventura, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, 05 July 2004, 433 SCRA 389
People vs. Labuguen, G.R. No. 127849, 09 August 2000, 337 SCRA 488
People vs. Lobrigas, G.R. 147649, 17 December 2002, 394 SCRA 170
People vs. Sansaet, G.R. No. 139330, 06 February 2002, 376 SCRA 426
People vs. Ausa, G.R. No. 174194, 20 March 2007
People vs. Hammer, G.R. No. 147836, 17 December 2002, 394 SCRA 182
People vs. Hormina, G.R. No. 144383, 16 January 2004, 420 SCRA 102
People vs. Delmindo, G.R. No. 146810, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 546
People vs. Calago, G.R. No. 141122, 22 April 2002, 381 SCRA 448
People vs. Magbanua, G.R. No. 133004, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 617
People vs. Ilo, G.R. No. 140731, 21 November 2002, 392 SCRA 326
People vs. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 482
People vs. Loterono, G.R. No. 146100, 13 November 2002, 391 SCRA 593
People vs. Escote, 140756, 04 April 2003, 400 SCRA 603
People vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. 143935, 04 June 2004, 431 SCRA 42
People vs. Costales, G.R. Nos. 141154-56, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 269
People vs. Catapang, G.R. No. 128126, 25 June 2001, 359 SCRA 459
People vs. Parreno, G.R. No. 144343, 07 July 2004, 433 SCRA 591
People vs. Enguito, G.R. No. 128812, 28 February 2000, 326 SCRA 508
People vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, 17 June 2003, 404 SCRA 170
People vs. Catian, G.R. No. 139693, 24 January 2002, 374 SCRA 514
People vs. Baroy, G.R. Nos. 137520-22, 09 May 2002, 382 SCRA 56
People vs. Tadeo, G.R. Nos. 127660 and144011-12, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 20
People vs. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, 19 September 2000, 340 SCRA 617
People vs. Bernal, G.R. Nos. 132791 and 140465-66, 02 September 2002, 388 SCRA 211
People vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 123939, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 52
People vs. Roche, G.R. No. 115182, 06 April 2000, 330 SCRA 91
People vs. Garcia, G.R. Nos. 133489 and 143970, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 134
Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134730, 18 September 2000, 340 SCRA 545
People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 139179, 03 April 2002, 380 SCRA 171)
People vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 128900, 14 July 2000, 335 SCRA 646
People vs. Obedo, G.R. No. 123054, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 431
People vs. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, 14 September 2005, 469 SCRA 647
People vs. Latupan, G.R. Nos. 112453-56, 28 June 2001, 360 SCRA 60
People vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 138261, 17 April 2001, 356 SCRA 595
People vs. Sanidad, G.R. No. 146099, 30 April 2003, 402 SCRA 381
People vs. delos Santos, G.R. No. 131588, 27 March 2001, 355 SCRA 415
People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 141125, 28 February 2002, 378 SCRA 266
People vs. Abungan, G.R. No. 136843, 28 September 2000, 341 SCRA 258
Recebido vs. People, G.R. No. 141931, 04 December 2000, 346 SCRA 881
Brillante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118757 and 121571, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 541
Del Castillo vs. Torrecampo and People, G.R. No. 139033, 18 December 2002, 394 SCRA 221
Pangan vs. Gatbalite, G.R. No. 141718, 21 January 2005, 449 SCRA 144
People vs. Patriarca, G.R. No. 135457, 29 September 2000, 341 SCRA 464
Basilio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113433, 17 March 2000, 328 SCRA 341
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. People, G.R. No. 147703, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 526
Pangonorom and MMTC vs. People, G.R. No. 143380, 11 April 2005, 455 SCRA 211
Astorga vs. People, G.R No. 154130, 20 August 2004, 437 SCRA 152
People vs. Oliva, G.R. No. 106826, 18 January 2001, 341 SCRA 78
People vs. Silongan, G.R. No. 137182, 24 April 2003, 401 SCRA 459
Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 138553, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 350
Adaza vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154886, 28 July 2005, 464 SCRA 460
Goma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168437, 08 January 2009
Lumancas vs. Intas, G.R. No. 133472, 05 December 2000, 347 SCRA 22
Villanueva vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 162187, 18 November 2005, 475 SCRA 495
Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159751, 06 December 2006
Balderama vs. People, G.R. Nos. 147598-605, 28 January 2008
Merencillo vs. People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70, 13 April 2007
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 155574, 20 November 2006
People vs. Ting Lan Uy, G.R. No. 157399, 17 November 2005, 475 SCRA 248
Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 161784-86, 26 April 2005, 457 SCRA 301
Perez vs. People, G.R. No. 164763, 12 February 2008
Pondevida vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 160929-31, 16 August 2005, 467 SCRA 219
Agullo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 132926, 20 July 2001, 361 SCRA 556
Chan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 149613, 09 August 2005, 466 SCRA 190
Abdulla vs. People, G.R. No. 150129, 06 April 2005, 455 SCRA 78
Tetangco vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 156427, 20 January 2006, 479 SCRA 249
Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 166326, 25 January 2006, 480 SCRA 188
People vs. Whisenhunt, G.R. No. 123819, 14 November 2001, 386 SCRA 586
People vs. Unlagada, G.R. No. 141080, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 224
Li vs. People, G.R. No. 127962, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 217
People vs. Buban, G.R. No. 166895, 24 January 2007
People vs. Olaybar, G.R. Nos. 130630-31, 01 October 2003, 412 SCRA 490
People vs. Fetalino, G..R. No. 174472, 19 June 2007
People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, 16 November 2001, 369 SCRA 179.
People vs. Basquez, G.R. No. 144035, 27 September 2001, 366 SCRA 154
People vs. Plurad, G.R. Nos. 138361-63, 03 December 2002, 393 SCRA 306
People vs. Soriano, G.R. Nos. 142779-95, 29 August 2002, 388 SCRA 140
People vs. Gondaway, G.R. Nos. 144344-68, 23 July 2002, 385 SCRA 155
People vs. Paycana, G.R. No. 179035, 16 April 2008
People vs. Muit, G.R. 181043, 08 October 2008
People vs. Mamantak, G.R. 174659, 28 July 2008
People vs. Suriaga, G.R. No. 123779, 17 April 2002, 381 SCRA 159
People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 177566, 26 March 2008
People vs. Castro, G.R. No. 132726, 23 July 2002, 385 SCRA 24
People vs. Ejandra, G.R. No. 134203, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 364
People vs. Solangon, G.R. No. 172693, 21 November 2007.
People vs. Pastrana, G.R. No. 143644, 14 August 2002, 387 SCRA 342
People vs. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144316, 11 March 2002, 378 SCRA 708
Maderazo vs. People, G.R. No. 165065, 26 September 2006
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No.135682, 26 March 2003, 399 SCRA 528
De Guzman vs. People, G.R. No.166502, October 2008
People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 171449, 23 October 2006
People vs. Milliam, G.R. No. 129071, 31 January 2000, 324 SCRA 155
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, 13 April 2004, 427 SCRA 28
People vs. Jabiniao, G.R. No. 179499, 30 April 2008
People vs. Temanel, G.R. Nos. 97138-39, 28 September 2000, 341 SCRA 319
People vs. Zuela, G.R. No. 112177, 28 January 2000, 323 SCRA 589
People vs. Dinamling, G.R. No. 134605, 12 March 2002, 379 SCRA 107
People vs. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919, 04 February 2003, 396 SCRA 687
People vs. Fabon, G.R. No. 133226, 16 March 2000, 328 SCRA 302
People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, 25 January 2002, 374 SCRA 667
People vs. Verceles, G.R. No. 130650, 10 September 2002, 388 SCRA 515
People vs. Seguis, G.R. No. 135034, 18 January 2001, 349 SCRA 547
People vs. Gano, G.R. No. 134373, 28 February 2001, 353 SCRA 126
People vs. Regala
Laurel vs. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, 13 January 2009
People vs. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 125936, 23 February 2000, 326 SCRA 324
Cariaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143561, 09 June 2001, 358 SCRA 583
Roque vs. People, G.R. No. 138954, 25 November 2004, 444 SCRA 98
Murao vs. People, G.R. No. 141485, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 366
Nepomoceno vs. People, G.R. No. 166246, 30 April 2008
Cosme vs. People, G.R. No. 149753, 27 November 2006
Lee vs. People, G.R. No. 157781, 11 April 2005, 455 SCRA 256
Salazar vs. People, G.R. No. 149472, 15 October 2002, 391 SCRA 162
People vs. Comila, G.R. No. 171448, 28 February 2007
People vs. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 133645, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 71
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 154159, 31 March 2005, 454 SCRA 635
People vs. Nagrampa, G.R. No. 146211, 06 August 2002, 386 SCRA 412
Flores vs. People, G.R. Nos. 146921-22, 31 January 2002, 375 SCRA 491
People vs. Holzer, G.R. No. 132323, 20 July 2000, 336 SCRA 319.
Dy vs. People, G.R. No. 158312, 14 November 2008
People vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, 03 June 2004, 430 SCRA 436
Ong vs. People, G.R. No. 165275, 23 September 2008
People vs. Durano, G.R. No. 175316, 28 March 2007
Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, 27 June 2006, 493 SCRA 517
People vs. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, 26 September 2006
Manuel vs. People, G.R. No. 165482, 29 November 2005, 476 SCRA 461
Morigo vs. People, G.R. No. 145226, 06 February 2004, 422 SCRA 376
Binay vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 170643, 08 September 2006
Figueroa vs. People, G.R. No. 159813, 09 August 2006
Magno vs. People, G.R. No. 133896, 27 January 2006, 480 SCRA 276
Buatis vs. People, G.R. No. 142509, 24 March 2006, 485 SCRA 275
Brillante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118757 and 121571, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 541
Jalandoni vs. Hon. Secretary of Justice, G.R. Nos. 115239-40, 02 March 2000, 327 SCRA 107
Guingguing vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128959, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 196
220 CA-G.R. CR No. 13561, 06 November 1995
Fermin vs. People, G.R. No. 157643, 28 March 2008
Tulfo vs. People, G.R. No. 161032, 16 September 2008
Villanueva vs. People, G.R. No. 160351, 10 April 2006, 487 SCRA 42
Loney vs. People, G.R. No. 152644, 10 February 2006, 482 SCRA 194
"x x x.
236 LANDMARK CASES IN CRIMINAL LAW
The following are jurisprudential gems that must be read by every law student in order to fully understand criminal law. This list is updated from time to time.
People vs. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, 30 October 2006
People vs. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 135919, 09 May 2003, 403 SCRA 153
Velasco vs. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006, 483 SCRA 649
Resay vs. People, G.R. No. 154502, 27 April 2007
People vs. Zeta, G.R. No. 178541, 27 March 2008
Quinto vs. Andres, G.R. No. 155791, 16 March 2005, 453 SCRA 511
People vs. Valledor, G.R. No. 129291, 03 July 2002, 383 SCRA 653
Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143838, 09 May 2002, 382 SCRA 182
People vs. Caballero, 149028-30, 02 April 2003, 400 SCRA 424
People vs. Palaganas, G.R. No. 165483, 12 September 2006
People vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, 21 June 2001, 359 SCRA 220
G.R. No. 138943, 17 September 2001, 365 SCRA 373
People vs. Aca-ac, G.R. No. 142500, 20 April 2001, 357 SCRA 373
Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, 21 June 2007, 525 SCRA 306
People vs. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 180
People vs. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, 08 June 2004, 431 SCRA 366
People vs. Manijas, G.R. No. 148699, 15 November 2002, 391 SCRA 731
People vs. Compo, G.R. No. 112990, 28 May 2001, 358 SCRA 266
People vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 135204, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 299
People vs. Galvez, G.R. No. 157221, 30 March 2007
Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, 17 February 2005, 451 SCRA 673
People vs. Enfectana, G.R. No. 132028, 19 April 2002, 381 SCRA 359
Manaban vs. CA, G.R. No. 150723, 11 July 2006, 494 SCRA 503
People vs. Pateo, G.R. No. 156786, 03 June 2004, 43O SCRA 604
People vs. Arnante, G.R. No. 148724, 15 October 2002, 391 SCRA 155
People vs. Court of Appeals and Tangan, G.R. Nos. 103613 and 105830, 23 February 2001, 352 SCRA 599
People vs. San Juan, G.R. No. 144505, 06 August 2002, 386 SCRA 400
People vs. Tejero, G.R. No. 135050, 19 April 2002, 381 SCRA 382
People vs. Geneblazo, G.R. No. 133580, 20 July 2001, 361 SCRA 572
People vs. Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, 06 December 2000, 347 SCRA 374
Sanchez vs. People, G.R. No. 161007, 06 December 2006
People vs. Vicente, G.R. No. 137296, 26 June 2003, 405 SCRA 40
Senoja vs. People, G.R. No. 160341, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 695
People vs. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, 16 August 2006
People vs. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, 22 August 2002, 387 SCRA 85
Rimano vs. People, G.R. No.156567, 27 November 2003, 416 SCRA 569
People vs. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, 08 May 2003, 403 SCRA 92
Ty vs. People, G.R. No. 149275, 27 September 2004, 439 SCRA 220
Mamangun vs. People, G.R. No. 149152, 02 February 2007
People vs. Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, 29 May 2002, 382 SCRA 751
Jose vs. People, G.R. No. 162052, 13 January 2005, 448 SCRA 116
People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 136844, 01 August 2002, 386 SCRA 74
People vs. Pacis, G.R. No. 146309, 18 July 2002, 384 SCRA 696
Chang vs. People, G.R. No. 165111, 21 July 2006, 496 SCRA 321
People vs. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, 23 February 2007
People vs. Beltran, G.R. No. 168051, 27 September 2006
Romera vs. People, G.R No. 151978, 14 July 2004, 434 SCRA 467
People vs. Malejana, G.R. No. 145002, 24 January 2006, 479 SCRA 610
Andrada vs. People, G.R. No. 135222, 04 March 2005, 452 SCRA 685
People vs. Montinola, G.R. Nos. 131856-57, 09 July 2001, 360 SCRA 631
People vs. Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 277
Davalos vs. People, G.R. No. 145229, 20 April 2006, 488 SCRA 84
Kimpo vs. Sandiganbayan
People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, 09 March 2000, 327 SCRA 695
People vs. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 254
People vs. Perreras, G.R. No. 139622, 31 July 2001, 362 SCRA 202)
People vs. Rios, G.R. No. 132632, 19 June 2000, 333 SCRA 823
People vs. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 98431, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 104
People vs. Taño, G.R. No. 133872, 05 May 2000, 331 SCRA 448
People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492, 31 January 2001, 350 SCRA 679
People vs. Silva, G.R. No. 140871, 08 August 2002, 387 SCRA 77
People vs. Librando, G.R. No. 132251, 06 July 2000, 335 SCRA 232
People vs. Mondijar, G.R. No. 141194, 21 November 2002, 392 SCRA 356
People vs. Campomanes, G.R. No. 132568, 06 February 2002, 376 SCRA 307
People vs. Ventura, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, 05 July 2004, 433 SCRA 389
People vs. Labuguen, G.R. No. 127849, 09 August 2000, 337 SCRA 488
People vs. Lobrigas, G.R. 147649, 17 December 2002, 394 SCRA 170
People vs. Sansaet, G.R. No. 139330, 06 February 2002, 376 SCRA 426
People vs. Ausa, G.R. No. 174194, 20 March 2007
People vs. Hammer, G.R. No. 147836, 17 December 2002, 394 SCRA 182
People vs. Hormina, G.R. No. 144383, 16 January 2004, 420 SCRA 102
People vs. Delmindo, G.R. No. 146810, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 546
People vs. Calago, G.R. No. 141122, 22 April 2002, 381 SCRA 448
People vs. Magbanua, G.R. No. 133004, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 617
People vs. Ilo, G.R. No. 140731, 21 November 2002, 392 SCRA 326
People vs. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 482
People vs. Loterono, G.R. No. 146100, 13 November 2002, 391 SCRA 593
People vs. Escote, 140756, 04 April 2003, 400 SCRA 603
People vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. 143935, 04 June 2004, 431 SCRA 42
People vs. Costales, G.R. Nos. 141154-56, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 269
People vs. Catapang, G.R. No. 128126, 25 June 2001, 359 SCRA 459
People vs. Parreno, G.R. No. 144343, 07 July 2004, 433 SCRA 591
People vs. Enguito, G.R. No. 128812, 28 February 2000, 326 SCRA 508
People vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, 17 June 2003, 404 SCRA 170
People vs. Catian, G.R. No. 139693, 24 January 2002, 374 SCRA 514
People vs. Baroy, G.R. Nos. 137520-22, 09 May 2002, 382 SCRA 56
People vs. Tadeo, G.R. Nos. 127660 and144011-12, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 20
People vs. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, 19 September 2000, 340 SCRA 617
People vs. Bernal, G.R. Nos. 132791 and 140465-66, 02 September 2002, 388 SCRA 211
People vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 123939, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 52
People vs. Roche, G.R. No. 115182, 06 April 2000, 330 SCRA 91
People vs. Garcia, G.R. Nos. 133489 and 143970, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 134
Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134730, 18 September 2000, 340 SCRA 545
People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 139179, 03 April 2002, 380 SCRA 171)
People vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 128900, 14 July 2000, 335 SCRA 646
People vs. Obedo, G.R. No. 123054, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 431
People vs. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, 14 September 2005, 469 SCRA 647
People vs. Latupan, G.R. Nos. 112453-56, 28 June 2001, 360 SCRA 60
People vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 138261, 17 April 2001, 356 SCRA 595
People vs. Sanidad, G.R. No. 146099, 30 April 2003, 402 SCRA 381
People vs. delos Santos, G.R. No. 131588, 27 March 2001, 355 SCRA 415
People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 141125, 28 February 2002, 378 SCRA 266
People vs. Abungan, G.R. No. 136843, 28 September 2000, 341 SCRA 258
Recebido vs. People, G.R. No. 141931, 04 December 2000, 346 SCRA 881
Brillante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118757 and 121571, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 541
Del Castillo vs. Torrecampo and People, G.R. No. 139033, 18 December 2002, 394 SCRA 221
Pangan vs. Gatbalite, G.R. No. 141718, 21 January 2005, 449 SCRA 144
People vs. Patriarca, G.R. No. 135457, 29 September 2000, 341 SCRA 464
Basilio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113433, 17 March 2000, 328 SCRA 341
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. People, G.R. No. 147703, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 526
Pangonorom and MMTC vs. People, G.R. No. 143380, 11 April 2005, 455 SCRA 211
Astorga vs. People, G.R No. 154130, 20 August 2004, 437 SCRA 152
People vs. Oliva, G.R. No. 106826, 18 January 2001, 341 SCRA 78
People vs. Silongan, G.R. No. 137182, 24 April 2003, 401 SCRA 459
Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 138553, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 350
Adaza vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154886, 28 July 2005, 464 SCRA 460
Goma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168437, 08 January 2009
Lumancas vs. Intas, G.R. No. 133472, 05 December 2000, 347 SCRA 22
Villanueva vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 162187, 18 November 2005, 475 SCRA 495
Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159751, 06 December 2006
Balderama vs. People, G.R. Nos. 147598-605, 28 January 2008
Merencillo vs. People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70, 13 April 2007
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 155574, 20 November 2006
People vs. Ting Lan Uy, G.R. No. 157399, 17 November 2005, 475 SCRA 248
Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 161784-86, 26 April 2005, 457 SCRA 301
Perez vs. People, G.R. No. 164763, 12 February 2008
Pondevida vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 160929-31, 16 August 2005, 467 SCRA 219
Agullo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 132926, 20 July 2001, 361 SCRA 556
Chan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 149613, 09 August 2005, 466 SCRA 190
Abdulla vs. People, G.R. No. 150129, 06 April 2005, 455 SCRA 78
Tetangco vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 156427, 20 January 2006, 479 SCRA 249
Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 166326, 25 January 2006, 480 SCRA 188
People vs. Whisenhunt, G.R. No. 123819, 14 November 2001, 386 SCRA 586
People vs. Unlagada, G.R. No. 141080, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 224
Li vs. People, G.R. No. 127962, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 217
People vs. Buban, G.R. No. 166895, 24 January 2007
People vs. Olaybar, G.R. Nos. 130630-31, 01 October 2003, 412 SCRA 490
People vs. Fetalino, G..R. No. 174472, 19 June 2007
People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, 16 November 2001, 369 SCRA 179.
People vs. Basquez, G.R. No. 144035, 27 September 2001, 366 SCRA 154
People vs. Plurad, G.R. Nos. 138361-63, 03 December 2002, 393 SCRA 306
People vs. Soriano, G.R. Nos. 142779-95, 29 August 2002, 388 SCRA 140
People vs. Gondaway, G.R. Nos. 144344-68, 23 July 2002, 385 SCRA 155
People vs. Paycana, G.R. No. 179035, 16 April 2008
People vs. Muit, G.R. 181043, 08 October 2008
People vs. Mamantak, G.R. 174659, 28 July 2008
People vs. Suriaga, G.R. No. 123779, 17 April 2002, 381 SCRA 159
People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 177566, 26 March 2008
People vs. Castro, G.R. No. 132726, 23 July 2002, 385 SCRA 24
People vs. Ejandra, G.R. No. 134203, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 364
People vs. Solangon, G.R. No. 172693, 21 November 2007.
People vs. Pastrana, G.R. No. 143644, 14 August 2002, 387 SCRA 342
People vs. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144316, 11 March 2002, 378 SCRA 708
Maderazo vs. People, G.R. No. 165065, 26 September 2006
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No.135682, 26 March 2003, 399 SCRA 528
De Guzman vs. People, G.R. No.166502, October 2008
People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 171449, 23 October 2006
People vs. Milliam, G.R. No. 129071, 31 January 2000, 324 SCRA 155
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, 13 April 2004, 427 SCRA 28
People vs. Jabiniao, G.R. No. 179499, 30 April 2008
People vs. Temanel, G.R. Nos. 97138-39, 28 September 2000, 341 SCRA 319
People vs. Zuela, G.R. No. 112177, 28 January 2000, 323 SCRA 589
People vs. Dinamling, G.R. No. 134605, 12 March 2002, 379 SCRA 107
People vs. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919, 04 February 2003, 396 SCRA 687
People vs. Fabon, G.R. No. 133226, 16 March 2000, 328 SCRA 302
People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, 25 January 2002, 374 SCRA 667
People vs. Verceles, G.R. No. 130650, 10 September 2002, 388 SCRA 515
People vs. Seguis, G.R. No. 135034, 18 January 2001, 349 SCRA 547
People vs. Gano, G.R. No. 134373, 28 February 2001, 353 SCRA 126
People vs. Regala
Laurel vs. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, 13 January 2009
People vs. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 125936, 23 February 2000, 326 SCRA 324
Cariaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143561, 09 June 2001, 358 SCRA 583
Roque vs. People, G.R. No. 138954, 25 November 2004, 444 SCRA 98
Murao vs. People, G.R. No. 141485, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 366
Nepomoceno vs. People, G.R. No. 166246, 30 April 2008
Cosme vs. People, G.R. No. 149753, 27 November 2006
Lee vs. People, G.R. No. 157781, 11 April 2005, 455 SCRA 256
Salazar vs. People, G.R. No. 149472, 15 October 2002, 391 SCRA 162
People vs. Comila, G.R. No. 171448, 28 February 2007
People vs. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 133645, 17 September 2002, 389 SCRA 71
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 154159, 31 March 2005, 454 SCRA 635
People vs. Nagrampa, G.R. No. 146211, 06 August 2002, 386 SCRA 412
Flores vs. People, G.R. Nos. 146921-22, 31 January 2002, 375 SCRA 491
People vs. Holzer, G.R. No. 132323, 20 July 2000, 336 SCRA 319.
Dy vs. People, G.R. No. 158312, 14 November 2008
People vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, 03 June 2004, 430 SCRA 436
Ong vs. People, G.R. No. 165275, 23 September 2008
People vs. Durano, G.R. No. 175316, 28 March 2007
Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, 27 June 2006, 493 SCRA 517
People vs. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, 26 September 2006
Manuel vs. People, G.R. No. 165482, 29 November 2005, 476 SCRA 461
Morigo vs. People, G.R. No. 145226, 06 February 2004, 422 SCRA 376
Binay vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 170643, 08 September 2006
Figueroa vs. People, G.R. No. 159813, 09 August 2006
Magno vs. People, G.R. No. 133896, 27 January 2006, 480 SCRA 276
Buatis vs. People, G.R. No. 142509, 24 March 2006, 485 SCRA 275
Brillante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118757 and 121571, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 541
Jalandoni vs. Hon. Secretary of Justice, G.R. Nos. 115239-40, 02 March 2000, 327 SCRA 107
Guingguing vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128959, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 196
220 CA-G.R. CR No. 13561, 06 November 1995
Fermin vs. People, G.R. No. 157643, 28 March 2008
Tulfo vs. People, G.R. No. 161032, 16 September 2008
Villanueva vs. People, G.R. No. 160351, 10 April 2006, 487 SCRA 42
Loney vs. People, G.R. No. 152644, 10 February 2006, 482 SCRA 194
x x x."
Putang Ina Principle - www.projectjurisprudence.com
See - https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2018/07/the-putang-ina-principle-reyes-vs-people-l-21528-defamation.html?fbclid=IwAR0EhYwhsTMI2DwHLItyNmGYB8EMH3J-vcY4yDIEuvAzMe5NhE1h7BCd9Qg&m=1
"x x x.
Have you heard of the Putang Ina Principle? According to law students, this page is from a book authored by Judge Marlo Bermejo Campanilla. He cited Reyes vs. People (G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529; March 28, 1969)
SUPREME COURT: The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the utterance of the words, "Agustin, putang ina mo". This is a common enough expression in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the virtues of a mother. In the instant case, it should be viewed as part of the threats voiced by appellant against Agustin Hallare, evidently to make the same more emphatic. In the case of Yebra, G.R. No. L-14348, Sept. 30, 1960, this Court said:
The letter containing the allegedly libelous remarks is more threatening than libelous and the intent to threaten is the principal aim and object to the letter. The libelous remarks contained in the letter, if so they be considered, are merely preparatory remarks culminating in the final threat. In other words, the libelous remarks express the beat of passion which engulfs the writer of the letter, which heat of passion in the latter part of the letter culminates into a threat. This is the more important and serious offense committed by the accused. Under the circumstances the Court believes, after the study of the whole letter, that the offense committed therein is clearly and principally that of threats and that the statements therein derogatory to the person named do not constitute an independent crime of libel, for which the writer maybe prosecuted separately from the threats and which should be considered as part of the more important offense of threats.
x x x."
"x x x.
Have you heard of the Putang Ina Principle? According to law students, this page is from a book authored by Judge Marlo Bermejo Campanilla. He cited Reyes vs. People (G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529; March 28, 1969)
SUPREME COURT: The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the utterance of the words, "Agustin, putang ina mo". This is a common enough expression in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the virtues of a mother. In the instant case, it should be viewed as part of the threats voiced by appellant against Agustin Hallare, evidently to make the same more emphatic. In the case of Yebra, G.R. No. L-14348, Sept. 30, 1960, this Court said:
The letter containing the allegedly libelous remarks is more threatening than libelous and the intent to threaten is the principal aim and object to the letter. The libelous remarks contained in the letter, if so they be considered, are merely preparatory remarks culminating in the final threat. In other words, the libelous remarks express the beat of passion which engulfs the writer of the letter, which heat of passion in the latter part of the letter culminates into a threat. This is the more important and serious offense committed by the accused. Under the circumstances the Court believes, after the study of the whole letter, that the offense committed therein is clearly and principally that of threats and that the statements therein derogatory to the person named do not constitute an independent crime of libel, for which the writer maybe prosecuted separately from the threats and which should be considered as part of the more important offense of threats.
x x x."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)