Republic Act No. 10533 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

see - Republic Act No. 10533 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10533]

AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as the “Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013″.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — The State shall establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people, the country and society-at-large.

Likewise, it is hereby declared the policy of the State that every graduate of basic education shall be an empowered individual who has learned, through a program that is rooted on sound educational principles and geared towards excellence, the foundations for learning throughout life, the competence to engage in work and be productive, the ability to coexist in fruitful harmony with local and global communities, the capability to engage in autonomous, creative, and critical thinking, and the capacity and willingness to transform others and one’s self.

For this purpose, the State shall create a functional basic education system that will develop productive and responsible citizens equipped with the essential competencies, skills and values for both life-long learning and employment. In order to achieve this, the State shall:

(a) Give every student an opportunity to receive quality education that is globally competitive based on a pedagogically sound curriculum that is at par with international standards;

(b) Broaden the goals of high school education for college preparation, vocational and technical career opportunities as well as creative arts, sports and entrepreneurial employment in a rapidly changing and increasingly globalized environment; and

(c) Make education learner-oriented and responsive to the needs, cognitive and cultural capacity, the circumstances and diversity of learners, schools and communities through the appropriate languages of teaching and learning, including mother tongue as a learning resource.

SEC. 3. Basic Education. — Basic education is intended to meet basic learning needs which provides the foundation on which subsequent learning can be based. It encompasses kindergarten, elementary and secondary education as well as alternative learning systems for out-of-school learners and those with special needs.

SEC. 4. Enhanced Basic Education Program. — The enhanced basic education program encompasses at least one (1) year of kindergarten education, six (6) years of elementary education, and six (6) years of secondary education, in that sequence. Secondary education includes four (4) years of junior high school and two (2) years of senior high school education.

Kindergarten education shall mean one (1) year of preparatory education for children at least five (5) years old as a prerequisite for Grade I.

Elementary education refers to the second stage of compulsory basic education which is composed of six (6) years. The entrant age to this level is typically six (6) years old.

Secondary education refers to the third stage of compulsory basic education. It consists of four (4) years of junior high school education and two (2) years of senior high school education. The entrant age to the junior and senior high school levels are typically twelve (12) and sixteen (16) years old, respectively.

Basic education shall be delivered in languages understood by the learners as the language plays a strategic role in shaping the formative years of learners.

For kindergarten and the first three (3) years of elementary education, instruction, teaching materials and assessment shall be in the regional or native language of the learners. The Department of Education (DepED) shall formulate a mother language transition program from Grade 4 to Grade 6 so that Filipino and English shall be gradually introduced as languages of instruction until such time when these two (2) languages can become the primary languages of instruction at the secondary level.

For purposes of this Act, mother language or first Language (LI) refers to language or languages first learned by a child, which he/she identifies with, is identified as a native language user of by others, which he/she knows best, or uses most. This includes Filipino sign language used by individuals with pertinent disabilities. The regional or native language refers to the traditional speech variety or variety of Filipino sign language existing in a region, area or place.

SEC. 5. Curriculum Development. — The DepED shall formulate the design and details of the enhanced basic education curriculum. It shall work with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to craft harmonized basic and tertiary curricula for the global competitiveness of Filipino graduates. To ensure college readiness and to avoid remedial and duplication of basic education subjects, the DepED shall coordinate with the CHED and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).

To achieve an effective enhanced basic education curriculum, the DepED shall undertake consultations with other national government agencies and other stakeholders including, but not limited to, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), the private and public schools associations, the national student organizations, the national teacher organizations, the parents-teachers associations and the chambers of commerce on matters affecting the concerned stakeholders.

The DepED shall adhere to the following standards and principles in developing the enhanced basic education curriculum:

(a) The curriculum shall be learner-centered, inclusive and developmentally appropriate;

(b) The curriculum shall be relevant, responsive and research-based;

(c) The curriculum shall be culture-sensitive;

(d) The curriculum shall be contextualized and global;

(e) The curriculum shall use pedagogical approaches that are constructivist, inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative and integrative;

(f) The curriculum shall adhere to the principles and framework of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) which starts from where the learners are and from what they already knew proceeding from the known to the unknown; instructional materials and capable teachers to implement the MTB-MLE curriculum shall be available;

(g) The curriculum shall use the spiral progression approach to ensure mastery of knowledge and skills after each level; and

(h) The curriculum shall be flexible enough to enable and allow schools to localize, indigenize and enhance the same based on their respective educational and social contexts. The production and development of locally produced teaching materials shall be encouraged and approval of these materials shall devolve to the regional and division education units.

SEC. 6. Curriculum Consultative Committee. — There shall be created a curriculum consultative committee chaired by the DepED Secretary or his/her duly authorized representative and with members composed of, but not limited to, a representative each from the CHED, the TESDA, the DOLE, the PRC, the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), and a representative from the business chambers such as the Information Technology – Business Process Outsourcing (IT-BPO) industry association. The consultative committee shall oversee the review and evaluation on the implementation of the basic education curriculum and may recommend to the DepED the formulation of necessary refinements in the curriculum.

SEC. 7. Teacher Education and Training. — To ensure that the enhanced basic education program meets the demand for quality teachers and school leaders, the DepED and the CHED, in collaboration with relevant partners in government, academe, industry, and nongovernmental organizations, shall conduct teacher education and training programs, as specified:

(a) In-service Training on Content and Pedagogy — Current DepED teachers shall be retrained to meet the content and performance standards of the new K to 12 curriculum.

The DepED shall ensure that private education institutions shall be given the opportunity to avail of such training.

(b) Training of New Teachers. — New graduates of the current Teacher Education curriculum shall undergo additional training, upon hiring, to upgrade their skills to the content standards of the new curriculum. Furthermore, the CHED, in coordination with the DepED and relevant stakeholders, shall ensure that the Teacher Education curriculum offered in these Teacher Education Institutes (TEIs) will meet necessary quality standards for new teachers. Duly recognized organizations acting as TEIs, in coordination with the DepED, the CHED, and other relevant stakeholders, shall ensure that the curriculum of these organizations meet the necessary quality standards for trained teachers.

(c) Training of School Leadership. — Superintendents, principals, subject area coordinators and other instructional school leaders shall likewise undergo workshops and training to enhance their skills on their role as academic, administrative and community leaders.

Henceforth, such professional development programs as those stated above shall be initiated and conducted regularly throughout the school year to ensure constant upgrading of teacher skills.

SEC. 8. Hiring of Graduates of Science, Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering and Other Specialists in Subjects With a Shortage of Qualified Applicants, Technical-Vocational Courses and Higher Education Institution Faculty. — Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of Republic Act No. 7836, otherwise known as the “Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994″, the DepED and private education institutions shall hire, as may be relevant to the particular subject:

(a) Graduates of science, mathematics, statistics, engineering, music and other degree courses with shortages in qualified Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) applicants to teach in their specialized subjects in the elementary and secondary education. Qualified LET applicants shall also include graduates admitted by foundations duly recognized for their expertise in the education sector and who satisfactorily complete the requirements set by these organizations: Provided, That they pass the LET within five (5) years after their date of hiring: Provided, further, That if such graduates are willing to teach on part-time basis, the provisions of LET shall no longer be required;

(b) Graduates of technical-vocational courses to teach in their specialized subjects in the secondary education: Provided, That these graduates possess the necessary certification issued by the TESDA: Provided, further, That they undergo appropriate in-service training to be administered by the DepED or higher education institutions (HEIs) at the expense of the DepED;

(c) Faculty of HEIs be allowed to teach in their general education or subject specialties in the secondary education: Provided, That the faculty must be a holder of a relevant Bachelor’s degree, and must have satisfactorily served as a full-time HEI faculty;

(d) The DepED and private education institutions may hire practitioners, with expertise in the specialized learning areas offered by the Basic Education Curriculum, to teach in the secondary level; Provided, That they teach on part-time basis only. For this purpose, the DepED, in coordination with the appropriate government agencies, shall determine the necessary qualification standards in hiring these experts.

SEC. 9. Career Guidance and Counselling Advocacy. — To properly guide the students in choosing the career tracks that they intend to pursue, the DepED, in coordination with the DOLE, the TESDA and the CHED, shall regularly conduct career advocacy activities for secondary level students. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9258, otherwise known as the “Guidance and Counselling Act of 2004″, career and employment guidance counsellors, who are not registered and licensed guidance counsellors, shall be allowed to conduct career advocacy activities to secondary level students of the school where they are currently employed; Provided, That they undergo a training program to be developed or accredited by the DepED.

SEC. 10. Expansion of E-GASTPE Beneficiaries. — The benefits accorded by Republic Act No. 8545, or the “Expanded Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education Act”, shall be extended to qualified students enrolled under the enhanced basic education.

The DepED shall engage the services of private education institutions and non-DepED schools offering senior high school through the programs under Republic Act No. 8545, and other financial arrangements formulated by the DepED and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) based on the principles of public-private partnership.

SEC. 11. Appropriations. — The Secretary of Education shall include in the Department’s program the operationalization of the enhanced basic education program, the initial funding of which shall be charged against the current appropriations of the DepED. Thereafter, the amount necessary for the continued implementation of the enhanced basic education program shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

SEC. 12. Transitory Provisions. — The DepED, the CHED and the TESDA shall formulate the appropriate strategies and mechanisms needed to ensure smooth transition from the existing ten (10) years basic education cycle to the enhanced basic education (K to 12) cycle. The strategies may cover changes in physical infrastructure, manpower, organizational and structural concerns, bridging models linking grade 10 competencies and the entry requirements of new tertiary curricula, and partnerships between the government and other entities. Modeling for senior high school may be implemented in selected schools to simulate the transition process and provide concrete data for the transition plan.

To manage the initial implementation of the enhanced basic education program and mitigate the expected multi-year low enrolment turnout for HEIs and Technical Vocational Institutions (TVIs) starting School Year 2016-2017, the DepED shall engage in partnerships with HEIs and TVIs for the utilization of the latter’s human and physical resources. Moreover, the DepED, the CHED, the TESDA, the TVIs and the HEIs shall coordinate closely with one another to implement strategies that ensure the academic, physical, financial, and human resource capabilities of HEIs and TVIs to provide educational and training services for graduates of the enhanced basic education program to ensure that they are not adversely affected. The faculty of HEIs and TVIs allowed to teach students of secondary education under Section 8 hereof, shall be given priority in hiring for the duration of the transition period. For this purpose, the transition period shall be provided for in the implementing rules and regulations (IRK).

SEC. 13. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on the Enhanced Basic Educational Program (K to 12 Program). — There is hereby created a Joint Oversight Committee to oversee, monitor and evaluate the implementation of this Act.

The Oversight Committee shall be composed of five (5) members each from the Senate and from the House of Representatives, including Chairs of the Committees on Education, Arts and Culture, and Finance of both Houses. The membership of the Committee for every House shall have at least two (2) opposition or minority members.

SEC. 14. Mandatory Evaluation and Review. — By the end of School Year 2014-2015, the DepED shall conduct a mandatory review and submit a midterm report to Congress as to the status of implementation of the K to 12 program in terms of closing the following current shortages: (a) teachers; (b) classrooms; (c) textbooks; (d) seats; (e) toilets; and (f) other shortages that should be addressed.

The DepED shall include among others, in this midterm report, the following key metrics of access to and quality of basic education: (a) participation rate; (b) retention rate; (c) National Achievement Test results; (d) completion rate; (e) teachers’ welfare and training profiles; (f) adequacy of funding requirements; and (g) other learning facilities including, but not limited to, computer and science laboratories, libraries and library hubs, and sports, music and arts.

SEC. 15. Commitment to International Benchmarks. — The DepED shall endeavor to increase the per capita spending on education towards the immediate attainment of international benchmarks.

SEC. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — Within ninety (90) days after the effectivity of this Act, the DepED Secretary, the CHED Chairperson and the TESDA Director-General shall promulgate the rules and regulations needed for the implementation of this Act.

SEC. 17. Separability Clause. — If any provision of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity and effectivity of the other provisions hereof.

SEC. 18. Repealing Clause. — Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 or the “Education Act of 1982″, Republic Act No. 9155 or the “Governance of Basic Education.

Act of 2001″, Republic Act No. 9258, Republic Act No. 7836, and all other laws, decrees, executive orders and rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC. 19. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

March 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

see - March 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG


"x x x.

Here are select March 2013 rulings of the Philippine Supreme Court on legal and judicial ethics:

Attorney; a lawyer shall not assist in the unauthorized practice of law.  Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office. He likewise categorically stated that because of some minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against Tapay and Rustia were signed by his secretary, albeit with his tolerance. Clearly, he violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which provides:

CANON 9 – A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

Atty. Bancolo’s authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non-lawyer. Further, under the Rules of Court, a counsel’s signature serves as a certification that (1) he has read the pleading; (2) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and (3) it is not interposed for delay. Thus, by affixing one’s signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone who has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document. For violating rule 9.01 of the CPR, Atty. Bacolo was meted with the penalty the suspension from the practice of law for one year. Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia v. Attys. Charlie Bancolo and Janus Jarder;A.C. No. 9604. March 20, 2013.

Attorney; disbarment complaint; outright dismissal is warranted if the complaint, on its face, lacks merit.  For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the complainant upon the dismissal of the Complaint for disbarment he instituted against the respondent lawyers.  Complainant claims he was denied due process because (1) she was not allowed to file a Reply and (2) the Court deviated from usual procedure when it resolved the disbarment Complaint without first declaring the case to have been submitted for resolution.

The Supreme Court has the power to outrightly dismiss a Complaint for disbarment when on its face, it is clearly wanting in merit. Thus, inInternational Militia of People against Corruption & Terrorism v. Chief Justice Davide, Jr. (Ret.), the Court, after finding the Complaint insufficient in form and substance, dismissed the same outright for utter lack of merit.  In the instant case, the Court did not dismiss outright the disbarment Complaint. In fact, it even required the respondents to file their respective Answers. Then, after a judicious study of the records, it proceeded to resolve the same although not in complainant’s favor. Based on the Complaint and the supporting affidavits attached thereto, and the respective Comments of the respondents, the Court found that the presumption of innocence accorded to respondents was not overcome. Moreover, the Court no longer required complainant to file a Reply since it has the discretion not to require the filing of the same when it can already judiciously resolve the case based on the pleadings thus far submitted. And contrary to complainant’s mistaken notion, not all petitions or complaints reach the reply or memorandum stage. Depending on the merits of the case, the Court has the discretion either to proceed with the case by first requiring the parties to file their respective responsive pleadings or to dismiss the same outright. Likewise, the Court can proceed to resolve the case without need of informing the parties that the case is already submitted for resolution.  Jasper Junno F. Rodica v. Atty. Manuel M. Lazaro, et al.;  A.C. No. 9259. March 12, 2013.

Attorney; duty to exercise due diligence.  The Court reiterated its ruling inDel Mundo v. Capistrano that “when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to client but also to the legal profession, the court and society.”

Respondent’s infractions were aggravated by his failure to comply with CBD’s directives for him to file his pleadings on time and to religiously attend hearings, demonstrating not only his irresponsibility but also his disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. Such conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon to obey court orders and processes and is expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives as an officer of the court. As a member of the bar, he ought to have known that the orders of the CBD as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers were not mere requests but directives which should have been complied with promptly and completely.  Gloria P. Jinon v. Atty. Leonardo E. Jiz; A.C. No. 9615. March 5, 2013.

Attorney; duty to hold in trust money received from client.  Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the purpose, should be returned to the client immediately.  The Court held in Dhaliwal v. Dumaguing that a lawyer’s failure to return the funds he holds on behalf of a client, despite latter’s demand, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use and constitutes a gross violation of general morality and professional ethics. Gloria P. Jinon v. Atty. Leonardo E. Jiz; A.C. No. 9615. March 5, 2013.

Court personnel; simple neglect of duty; failure of branch clerk of court to keep and maintain a general docket.  Branch clerk of court Mr. Teves admitted that he failed to keep and maintain a general docket of cases assigned to their branch.  As such, he failed to comply with his duty under Section 8, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, thus:

Sec. 8. General docket. – The clerk shall keep a general docket, each page of which shall be numbered and prepared for receiving all the entries in a single case, and shall enter therein all cases, numbered consecutively in the order in which they were received, and under the heading of each case, a complete title thereof, the date of each paper filed or issued, of each order or judgment entered, and of each other step taken in the case so that by reference a single page the history of the case may be seen.

With this infraction, Mr. Teves was held liable for simple neglect of duty. Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis, Presideing Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves, Branch Clerk of Court, same court; A.M. No. MTJ-12-1818. March 12, 2013.

Court personnel; simple neglect of duty; failure of branch clerk of court to schedule the promulgation of cases.  In the Datan case, Mr. Teves, instead of scheduling the case for promulgation, just gave the accused a copy of the unpromulgated decision at the time when the presiding judge was serving her suspension. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court states that:

Sec. 6. Promulgation of judgment. – The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court x x x.

Clearly, as found by the OCA, Mr. Teves is guilty of simple neglect of duty. It is his duty to calendar the case for promulgation in accordance with the Rules of Court. He did not only fail to do so. Rather, he, in fact, served copies of the decision to the accused without the judgment having been promulgated first.  Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis, Presideing Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves, Branch Clerk of Court, same court;A.M. No. MTJ-12-1818. March 12, 2013.

Court personnel; simple neglect of duty; imposable penalty.  Simple neglect of duty is defined as the “failure of an employee to give one’s attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.” Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense penalized with suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second.

In the determination of the proper penalty, the Court looked into Mr. Teves’ past administrative cases.

Considering his past infractions and having been warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely, Mr. Teves still has not reformed. He has remained undeterred in disregarding the law and he appears to be unfazed by the previous penalties and warnings he received. Mr. Teves’ repeated infractions seriously compromise efficiency and hamper public service which the Court can no longer tolerate. As such, he was meted with the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis, Presideing Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves, Branch Clerk of Court, same court;  A.M. No. MTJ-12-1818. March 12, 2013.

Judges; duty to adopt an efficient system to monitor the status of cases.  The OCA found that the court failed to maintain a general docket book to keep track of the cases under it. Although the duty is vested with Mr. Teves as the Branch Clerk of Court, it is the duty of Judge Tormis to make sure that the members of her staff perform their duties. The OCA also found that Mr. Teves repeatedly submitted inaccurate reports as to the actual number of cases pending with their court. This is brought about by their failure to adopt an efficient system of monitoring their cases. Again, this is the primary responsibility of Judge Tormis. Finally, the OCA noted that Judge Tormis failed to conduct an actual physical inventory of cases to keep abreast of the status of the pending cases and to be informed that every case is in proper order.

Judge Tormis is guilty of violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars for her failure to comply with her duty to provide an efficient court management system in her court which includes the preparation and use of docket inventory and monthly report of cases as tools thereof.Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves, Branch Clerk of Court, same court; A.M. No. MTJ-12-1818. March 12, 2013.

Judges; gross ignorance of the law; when the law is sufficiently basic, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.  Judge Tormis issued the warrant of arrest in violation of the Rule on Summary Procedure that the accused should first be notified of the charges against him and given the opportunity to file his counter-affidavits and other countervailing evidence. The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure has been in effect since November 15, 1991. It finds application in a substantial number of civil and criminal cases. Judge Tormis cannot claim to be unfamiliar with the same. Every judge is required to observe the law. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; and anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. In short, when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis, Presideing Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves, Branch Clerk of Court, same court;  A.M. No. MTJ-12-1818. March 12, 2013.

Judges; gross inefficiency; gross ignorance of the law; imposable penalties. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated September 11, 2001, violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars, and gross inefficiency are categorized as less serious charges with the following sanctions: (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

Moreover, gross ignorance of the law is classified as serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, and penalized under Section 11 (a), Rule 140 of the same Rules by: (1) Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall, in no case, include accrued leave credits; (2) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3), but not exceeding six (6) months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000.00, but not exceeding P40,000.00.

In determining the proper imposable penalty, we also consider Judge Tormis’ work history which reflects how she performed her judicial functions. We find that there are several administrative cases already filed against her, with most of these cases being decided against her. These cases show her inability to properly discharge her judicial duties. Considering her past infractions and taking into account the number of irregularities she committed in this present case, Judge Tormis was meted with the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.  Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis, Presideing Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves, Branch Clerk of Court, same court;  A.M. No. MTJ-12-1818. March 12, 2013.

Judges; motion to inhibit; grounds.  As held in Sps. Hizon v. Sps. dela Fuente, “an inhibition must be for just and valid reason.” Complainant’s mere imputation that the case was decided by the magistrates of the Court with extreme bias and prejudice is baseless and clearly unfounded.  Jasper Junno F. Rodica v. Atty. Manuel M. Lazaro, et al.; A.C. No. 9259. March 12, 2013.

Judges; undue delay in deciding cases.  The honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved. Under the 1987 Constitution, trial judges are mandated to decide and resolve cases within 90 days from submission for decision or resolution. Corollary to this constitutional mandate, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. The mandate to promptly dispose of cases or matters also applies to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents pending before the magistrate. Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate.  Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves, Branch Clerk of Court, same court; A.M. No. MTJ-12-1818. March 12, 2013; Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Fernando G. Fuentes, RTC, Br. 49, Tagbilaran City / Paulino Bural, Sr. v. Judge Fernando G. Fuentes, RTC, Br. 49, Tagbilaran City;A.M. No. RTJ-13-2342 / A.M. No. RTJ-12-2318. March 6, 2013.

Judge Fuentes III concedes that there is no valid justification for the delay in resolving the cases pending in his court. Indeed, his frequent travels to his residence in Ozamis City, which led to travel fatigue and poor health, will not absolve him from liability. If a judge is unable to comply with the period for deciding cases or matters, he can, for good reasons, ask for an extension. Without an extension granted by the Court, the failure to decide even a single case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction. Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Fernando G. Fuentes, RTC, Br. 49, Tagbilaran City / Paulino Bural, Sr. v. Judge Fernando G. Fuentes, RTC, Br. 49, Tagbilaran City;  A.M. No. RTJ-13-2342 / A.M. No. RTJ-12-2318. March 6, 2013.

Judges; undue delay in deciding cases; administrative sanctions.  An inexcusable failure to decide a case within the prescribed 90-day period constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions such as suspension from office without pay or fine on the defaulting judge. The fines imposed vary in each case, depending on the following factors: (1) the number of cases not decided within the reglamentary period; (2) the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances; (3) the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay; (4) the health and age of the judge; and (5) other analogous circumstances.

In this case, the fine was reduced considering that this was the first infraction of Judge Fuentes III in his more than 15 years in the service. The Court likewise took into consideration the fact that the respondent judge exerted earnest efforts to fully comply with the Court’s directives as contained in the resolution. Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Fernando G. Fuentes, RTC, Br. 49, Tagbilaran City / Paulino Bural, Sr. v. Judge Fernando G. Fuentes, RTC, Br. 49, Tagbilaran City; A.M. No. RTJ-13-2342 / A.M. No. RTJ-12-2318. March 6, 2013.

Judges; undue delay in deciding cases; suspension from office is not a justification for the delay.  Respondent judge claimed that the delay was the consequence of the three suspension orders issued against her as she was suspended for an aggregate period of almost one year and six months. Records reveal, however, that Judge Tormis was repeatedly suspended in cases wherein she committed a breach of her duty as a member of the Bench. She cannot, therefore, be allowed to use the same to justify another violation of her solemn oath to dispense justice. Even if she was allowed to avail of this excuse, as aptly observed by the OCA, several of the cases that she failed to dispose of had been overdue for decision or resolution even prior to said suspensions.  Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves, Branch Clerk of Court, same court; A.M. No. MTJ-12-1818. March 12, 2013.

Jurisdiction of the Court over administrative proceedings.   An administrative matter was instituted against Judge Grageda, based on the result of a judicial audit conducted after his retirement. According to the Supreme Court, for it to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative proceeding, the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee. This is because the filing of an administrative case is predicated on the holding of a position or office in the government service. However, once jurisdiction has attached, the same is not lost by the mere fact that the public official or employee was no longer in office during the pendency of the case.

In present case, Judge Grageda’s retirement effectively barred the Court from pursuing the instant administrative proceeding that was instituted after his tenure in office, and divested the Court, much less the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), of any jurisdiction to still subject him to the rules and regulations of the judiciary and/or to penalize him for the infractions committed while he was still in the service.  Accordingly, the complaint against retired Judge Grageda was dismissed. Office of the Court Administrator v. Jesus L. Grageda; A.M. No. RTJ-10-2235. March 11, 2013.

 (Mon thanks Miracle Anne Rodriguez for assisting in the preparation of this post.).

x x x."

JURIST - Paper Chase: California governor appeals order to curb prison overcrowding

see - JURIST - Paper Chase: California governor appeals order to curb prison overcrowding


WE HOPE PHILIPPINES COURT WOULD BE AS PROACTIVE AS CALIFORNIA COURTS IN MOVING FOR THE REDUCTION OF PRISON POPULATION. READ THE ARTICLE BELOW.


"X X X.
[JURIST] California Governor Jerry Brown [official website] and various state prison officials on Monday filed a notice of appeal [text, PDF] to the US Supreme Court [official website] from an April orderrequiring the governor to reduce California's prison population. In their April order, a panel of federal judges refused to vacate or modify their 2010 order [text, PDF] for reduction of the California inmate population. This order mandated the state to reduce its prison population to within 137.5 percent of institutional design capacity. California Attorney General Kamala Harris [official website] and the additional parties to the appeal state that the April injunction will require the state to reduce its prison population by approximately 9,000 inmates in less than eight months. Further, the appeal states that prison health care in California now "exceeds constitutional standards."

California has been under scrutiny for its prison overcrowding [JURIST news archive] since 2006, when the state's governor proclaimed a prison overcrowding state of emergency [text]. In May 2011, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Plata [opinion, PDF], which upheld [JURIST report] the federal three-judge panel's order that California reduce its state prison population. The court concluded that the extreme overcrowding of the California prison system violated the Eighth Amendment [text] because it prevented the system from providing adequate medical and mental health care to inmates. In January Brown issued a proclamation [text, PDF], which will effectively terminate the 2006 state of emergency. In this proclamation, the governor indicated that the circumstances giving rise to the prison overcrowding state of emergency no longer exist within California prisons.

X XX."

JURIST - Paper Chase: Rhode Island governor signs same-sex marriage bill

see - JURIST - Paper Chase: Rhode Island governor signs same-sex marriage bill


"x x x.

Rhode Island governor signs same-sex marriage bill 
Julie Deisher at 12:27 PM ET

[JURIST] Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee [official website] on Thursday signed [press release] into law a bill [H 5015B, PDF] legalizing same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder]. The bill was signed shortly after the House of Representatives approved it by a vote of 56 to 15 [vote tally] earlier that day, finally passing the legislation that was first introduced in Rhode Island in 1997. Just last week, Rhode Island's Senate voted 26 to 12 in favor of the law. The House hadpassed its own version of the bill [JURIST report] in January, and adopted the Senate's amendments to the bill with Thursday's vote.

Same-sex marriage is now legal in 10 states, as well as the District of Columbia. In March the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two same-sex marriage cases. The first case, Hollingsworth v. Perry [JURIST report], examines the validity ofProposition 8 [JURIST news archive], a California referendum that revoked same-sex marriage rights. In the second case, United States v. Windsor [JURIST report], the court will examine the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive]. The court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the two cases in December. Both cases could have an important impact on the ongoing same-sex marriage controversy in the US.

x x x."

Our twisted system of justice | Inquirer News

see - Our twisted system of justice | Inquirer News


"x x x.

Former police Senior Supt. Cezar Mancao is an example of our twisted system of justice: From a principal witness in a twin murder case to an accused in the same case.

Mancao escaped from his cell at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) jail for fear of his life.

He had earlier linked Sen. Ping Lacson, his former boss, to the abduction-murder of publicist Bubby Dacer and his driver, Emmanuel Corbito.

Now he stands as one of the accused in the abduction-murder case, while Lacson is off the hook.

*   *   *

The Court of Appeals, which is notorious for deciding cases allegedly based on monetary considerations, said it found Mancao’s testimony against Lacson full of “inconsistencies.”

Because of the appellate court’s decision, the Manila regional trial court hearing the abduction-murder case threw out Mancao as a government state witness, making him an ordinary respondent.

As such, he was to be transferred to the Manila City Jail, where all the other accused in the grisly twin murders are detained.

Mancao allegedly got wind of a plot to kill him at the city jail and escaped.

*   *   *

Can you blame Mancao for becoming a fugitive from justice?

He agreed to come back to the Philippines, forsaking a lucrative job as a real estate agent in Florida, after he was convinced that he would serve the ends of justice if he testified against Lacson and another former associate, Michael Ray Aquino.

Lacson was chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and a parallel organization, the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF), when Dacer and Corbito were murdered.

Michael Ray Aquino, Lacson’s right hand at the PAOC-TF, carried out Lacson’s order to do in Dacer, who knew too much about the workings inside the Erap administration, according to Mancao.

Aquino has also been cleared of the charge.

Most of the PAOC-TF members who were implicated in the Dacer-Corbito case are from Cavite, Lacson’s home province.

*   *   *

What Mancao has done—becoming a fugitive from justice—is not new in the Philippine justice system.

Lacson did that when he went into hiding after a warrant was issued for his arrest in connection with the Dacer-Corbito case.

The senator only surfaced after the Court of Appeals virtually acquitted him.

Lacson enjoys the friendship of President Noy who plans to make him a member of his Cabinet when the senator’s term expires in June.

With the President by the senator’s side, Lacson’s reputation as the epitome of a “law-abiding citizen” can no longer be questioned.

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/403379/our-twisted-system-of-justice#ixzz2SXNL8VXQ
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

CA junks Villar’s writ of kalikasan petition | BusinessWorld Online

see - CA junks Villar’s writ of kalikasan petition | BusinessWorld Online


"x x x.

The Court of Appeals (CA) junked for lack of evidence the petition filed by senatorial candidate Cynthia A. Villar which sought to stop a reclamation project along Manila bay’s coastline spanning the municipality of Bacoor and the cities of Las Piñas and Parañaque.

  In a 48-page decision dated April 26, the CA 3rd division denied Ms. Villar’s petition for a writ of kalikasan (nature) against the Las Piñas-Parañaque Coastal Bay project and ruled that “[n]o credible, competent, and reliable evidence had been presented to support the allegations that the proposed coastal bay project would cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the lives, health or properties of the residents of Parañaque and Las Piñas.”

Ms. Villar is the wife of outgoing Sen. Manuel “Manny” B. Villar, Jr. She is running under the administration-led Liberal Party and seeks to replace her husband in the upcoming May 13 elections.

In her petition filed on March 16, 2012 before the Supreme Court (SC), Ms. Villar alleged that the project, which is headed by AllTech Contractors, Inc. in partnership with the government, would “inundate two-thirds of the entire areas of the cities of Las Piñas, Parañaque and Bacoor.”

She claimed that the project would change the natural flows of the Las Piñas, Parañaque and Zapote rivers.

“Coupled with heavy rainfall, storm surge, and other factors brought about by a major typhoon, this will cause immense flooding in the areas and surroundings of the said rivers,” she said, adding: “Such project is not only replete with procedural shortcomings, worse, it is clearly damaging to the environment... and would place [residents] at great risk of losing their lives and properties to catastrophic flooding.”

On April 24, 2012, the SC issued a writ against AllTech Contractors, Inc., Philippine Reclamation Authority, Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Bureau and the Cities of Las Piñas, Parañaque and Bacoor, which required them “to file their verified returns (answers) which shall contain all defense.”

The SC then remanded the case to the appeals court for hearing.

In its decision, the CA, however, said Ms. Villar failed to show a “causal link” between the project and the “catastrophic environmental damage feared [by the petitioner].”

“The credibility, reliability and objectivity of the scientific studies presented by respondent AllTech and the totality of the evidence presented leave very little occasion to ponder that the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology hangs in the balance because of the reclamation project,” read the decision penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.

Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Samuel H. Gaerlan concurred with Mr. Bruselas. -- DEDS.

x x x."

- See more at: http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Nation&title=CA-junks-Villar%E2%80%99s-writ-of-kalikasan-petition&id=69676#sthash.3AUgali3.dpuf

SC rules: Gregory Ong is Filipino | Inquirer News

see - SC rules: Gregory Ong is Filipino | Inquirer News


"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court ruled that Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong is a Filipino citizen.

In a six-page resolution, the high court en banc considered the question on Ong’s citizenship as “closed and terminated.”

Former Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-ignacio questioned Ong’s citizenship, citing his Chinese ancestry. This prompted then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in May 2007 to withdraw Ong’s appointment to the Supreme Court.

But the high court pointed to its previous ruling and the finality of the decision by a lower court in 2007 that recognized Ong as a natural born citizen of the Philippines.

Ong, who joined the Sandiganbayan in October 1998, is currently one of the most senior justices of the special anti-graft court.

In July 2007 the lower court ruled that Ong is a Filipino.

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/401617/sc-rules-gregory-ong-is-filipino#ixzz2SXK26vkp
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook