Saturday, February 7, 2015

Executive clemency; pardoning power - gr 206666.pdf

See - 206666.pdf

"x x x.

The pardoning power of the President cannot be limited by legislative action.

The 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 19 of Article VII and Section 5 of Article IX-C, provides that the President of the Philippines possesses the power to grant pardons, along with other acts of executive clemency, to wit:

Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after

conviction by final judgment.

He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.

x x x x

Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the

Commission.

It is apparent from the foregoing constitutional provisions that the only instances in which the President may not extend pardon remain to be in:

(1) impeachment cases; (2) cases that have not yet resulted in a final conviction; and (3) cases involving violations of election laws, rules and regulations in which there was no favorable recommendation coming from the COMELEC. Therefore, it can be argued that any act of Congress by way of statute cannot operate to delimit the pardoning power of the President.

In Cristobal v. Labrador27 and Pelobello v. Palatino,28 which were decided under the 1935 Constitution, wherein the provision granting pardoning power to the President shared similar phraseology with what is found in the present 1987 Constitution, the Court then unequivocally

declared that “subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by legislative action.”

The Court reiterated this pronouncement in Monsanto v. Factoran, Jr.29 thereby establishing that, under the present Constitution, “a pardon, being a presidential prerogative, should not be circumscribed by legislative action.”

Thus, it is unmistakably the long-standing position of this Court that the exercise of the pardoning power is discretionary in the President and may not be interfered with by Congress or the Court, except only when it exceeds the limits provided for by the Constitution.

This doctrine of non-diminution or non-impairment of the President’s power of pardon by acts of Congress, specifically through legislation, was strongly adhered to by an overwhelming majority of the framers of the 1987 Constitution when they flatly rejected a proposal to carve out an exception

from the pardoning power of the President in the form of “offenses involving graft and corruption” that would be enumerated and defined by Congress through the enactment of a law. The following is the pertinent portion lifted from the Record of the Commission (Vol. II): x x x.

x x x.:

Disqualified from running for local elective positions - 206666.pdf

See - 206666.pdf

"x x x.

Sec. 40, Local Government Code:

SECTION 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:

(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;

(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;

(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;

(d) Those with dual citizenship;

(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad;

(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and

(g) The insane or feeble minded. (Emphasis supplied.)

Sec. 12, Omnibus Election Code:

Section 12. Disqualifications. - Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for any offensefor which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any public office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty. (Emphases supplied.)

x xx."

Erap's pardon; full text - 206666.pdf

See - 206666.pdf

Text of GMA's pardon of Erap -

"On October 25, 2007, however, former President Gloria Macapagal  Arroyo (former President Arroyo) extended executive clemency, by way of  pardon, to former President Estrada. The full text of said pardon states:

MALACAÑAN PALACE
MANILA

By the President of the Philippines

PARDON

WHEREAS, this Administration has a policy of releasing inmates who  have reached the age of seventy (70),

WHEREAS, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has been under detention for six and  a half years,

WHEREAS, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office,

IN VIEW HEREOF and pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by by the Constitution, I hereby grant executive clemency to JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, convicted by the Sandiganbayan of Plunder and imposed a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is hereby restored to his
civil and political rights.

The forfeitures imposed by the Sandiganbayan remain in force and in full, including all writs and processes issued by the Sandiganbayan in pursuance hereof, except for the bank account(s) he owned before his tenure as President.

Upon acceptance of this pardon by JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, this pardon shall take effect. "

Hearsay evidence - 212140-41.pdf

See - 212140-41.pdf

"x x x.

Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. However, in administrative cases, where rights and obligations are finally adjudicated, what is required is “substantial evidence” which cannot rest entirely or even partially on hearsay evidence. Substantial basis is not the same as substantial evidence because substantial evidence excludes hearsay evidence while substantial basis can include hearsay evidence. To require the application of Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS, in preliminary investigations will change the quantum of evidence required in determining probable cause from evidence of likelihood or probability of guilt to substantial evidence of guilt.

x x x."

Preliminary investigation - 212140-41.pdf

See - 212140-41.pdf

"x x x.

The rights to due process in administrative cases as prescribed in Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS, are granted by the Constitution; hence, these rights cannot be taken away by mere legislation. On the other hand, as repeatedly reiterated by this Court, the right to a preliminary investigation is merely a statutory right,32 not part of the “fundamental and essential requirements” of due process as prescribed in Ang Tibay and amplified in GSIS. Thus, a preliminary investigation can be taken away by legislation. The constitutional right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him does not apply in preliminary investigations; nor will the absence of a preliminary investigation be an infringement of his right to confront the witnesses against him.33 A preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial.34

x x x."

Probable cause - 212140-41.pdf

See - 212140-41.pdf

"x x x.

It should be underscored that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is only for the determination of probable cause, and “probable cause merely implies probability of guilt and should be determined in a summary manner. A preliminary investigation is not a part of the trial and it is only in a trial where an accused can demand the full exercise of his rights, such as the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers to establish his innocence.”18 Thus, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are limited to those granted by procedural law.

x x x."

Evidence - 212140-41.pdf

See - 212140-41.pdf

"x x x.

Any lawyer worth his salt knows that quanta of proof and adjective rules vary depending on whether the cases to which they are meant to apply are criminal, civil or administrative in character. In criminal actions, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction; in civil actions and proceedings, preponderance of evidence, as support for a judgment; and in administrative cases, substantial evidence, as basis for adjudication. In criminal and civil actions, application of the Rules of Court is called for, with more or less strictness. In administrative proceedings, however, the technical rules of pleading and procedure, and of evidence, are not strictly adhered to; they generally apply only suppletorily; indeed, in agrarian disputes application of the Rules of Court is actually prohibited.17

x x x."

Notary public suspended - 09-6-1-SC.pdf

See - 09-6-1-SC.pdf

"x x x.

In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to disciplinary action for notarizing documents outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an expired commission. In the case of Nunga v. Viray,14 a lawyer was suspended by the Court for three (3) years for notarizing an instrument without a commission. In Zoreta v. Simpliciano, 15 the respondent was likewise suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years and was permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public for notarizing several documents after the expiration of his commission. In the more recent case of Laquindanum v. Quintana,16 the Court suspended a lawyer for six (6) months and was disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years because he notarized documents

outside the area of his commission, and with an expired commission.

x x x."

Notarization - 09-6-1-SC.pdf

See - 09-6-1-SC.pdf

"x x x.

Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.12 It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this

reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

x x x."

High Court bars lawyer convicted for homicide | Tempo - News in a Flash

See - High Court bars lawyer convicted for homicide | Tempo - News in a Flash

"x x x.

Disbarred was Raul H. Sesbreño who was found guilty of murder by the Cebu City Regional Trial Court. However, on appeal, the SC downgraded the crime to homicide for which he was sentenced to a prison term ranging from nine years to 16 years.

Sesbreño was released from detention in 2001 after his acceptance of the conditions of his parole.

A complaint for disbarment filed by Dr. Melvyn Garcia stated that homicide is a crime against moral turpitude and, thus, Sesbreño should not be allowed to continue practicing law.

In his defense, Sesbreño argued that the executive clemency granted to him restored his full civil and political rights.

Affirming the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the SC disbarred Sesbreno. It said: “Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended as attorney by this Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. This Court has ruled that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.”

The SC also ruled that there was no mention that the executive clemency granted to Sesbreño was absolute and unconditional and that it had restored his full civil and political rights.

x x x."

Suppression of Testimony: | MVP Law | Philippines

See - Suppression of Testimony: | MVP Law | Philippines

"x x x.

Under Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court, the rule that “evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced” does notapply if (a) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties; (b) the suppression was not willful; (c) it is merely corroborative or cumulative; and (d) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. Plainly, there was no suppression of evidence in this case. First, the defense had the opportunity to subpoena Rowena even if the prosecution did not present her as a witness. Instead, the defense failed to call her to the witness stand. Second, Rowena was certified to be suffering from “Acute Psychotic Depressive Condition” and thus “cannot stand judicial proceedings yet.” The non-presentation, therefore, of Rowena was not willful. Third, in any case, while Rowena was the victim, Nimfa was also present and in fact witnessed the violation committed on her sister. (People vs. Padrigone [2002]).

x x x."

FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION VS. LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION: | MVP Law | Philippines

See - FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION VS. LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION: | MVP Law | Philippines

"x x x.

Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading. x x x If the allegations of the complaint do not aver the concurrence of the elements of cause of action, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. Evidently, it is not the lack or absence of a cause of action that is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint but the fact that the complaint states no cause of action. Failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest stages of an action through a motion to dismiss, but lack of cause of action may be raised at any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of the stipulations, admissions, or evidence presented.

x x x."

Subpoena: | MVP Law | Philippines

See - Subpoena: | MVP Law | Philippines

"x x x.

Subpoena:

Back to Law Library

A subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or trial of an action or at any investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines, or for the taking of his deposition. In this jurisdiction, there are two (2) kinds of subpoena, to wit: subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum. The first is used to compel a person to testify, while thesecond is used to compel the production of books, records, things or documents therein specified. As characterized in H.C. Liebenow vs. The Philippine Vegetable Oil Company: The subpoena duces tecum is, in all respects, like the ordinary subpoena ad testificandum with the exception that it concludes with an injunction that the witness shall bring with him and produce at the examination the books, documents, or things described in the subpoena.

Well-settled is the rule that before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the court must first be satisfied that the following requisites are present: (1) the books, documents or other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the controversy (test of relevancy); and (2) such books must be reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified (test of definiteness).

x x x."

Friday, February 6, 2015

Five Thoughts on the Future for Solo and Small Firm Lawyers - Attorney at Work - Attorney at Work

See - Five Thoughts on the Future for Solo and Small Firm Lawyers - Attorney at Work - Attorney at Work

"x x x.

So how do I advise solo and small firm lawyers to brace for the future? Here are a few thoughts.

1. Your future success is directly tied to your effective use of technology. Lawyers manage information — lots of information — for the benefit of their clients. To believe recent and future advances in information technology can be ignored is increasingly foolish and shortsighted. While there are still a few exceptions to this rule (primarily for lawyers who are able to hire tech-savvy staff), generally lawyers need to be hands-on with their technology and pay attention to new developments.

The lawyer of several decades ago required an expensive infrastructure of highly paid staff. Today, a lawyer with tech smarts, a laptop and an Internet connection is ready to practice. If you don’t feel that you have those smarts yet, get them. The Internet is full of blogs and online publications with tech education for lawyers.

2. No one is in charge, but we have lots of drivers. One major driver of change has been increased competition. There are not only more lawyers today, but there are also more non-lawyers and do-it-yourself consumer websites providing what were once thought of as exclusively lawyer-provided services. And they are heavily targeted directly at the middle-class clients that most small law firms serve.

But another powerful driver for change that’s emerging is the press for access to justice. A lot of smart people are addressing this issue, and their solutions may involve less work done by lawyers in private practice. (See Washington state’s new Limited License Legal Technicians.) When a person can only afford to pay a few hundred dollars for legal services and not several thousand, the lawyer will have few options — primarily, to either cease doing that kind of work or figure out a way of doing it profitably at a reduced rate.

3. Invest in improving your firm’s operations. Lawyers generally have improved their work product by focusing on better substantive legal work. This includes creative document drafting, constructing winning legal arguments, studying up at CLE programs, crafting novel legal strategies and the like. Until recently, though, little thought had been given to business process improvement. The reason is simple. Law firms have operated the same way for many, many years. Even computers first made their way into law offices to do the same things lawyers had always done, but just a little better. Email replaced couriers, and word processing eliminated repetitive retyping.

Now, however, myriad types of tools are available and the small firm lawyer ignores them at his peril. Headlining these are practice management software, automated document assembly and billing by completed project rather than hours expended. Even a seemingly small thing like videoconferencing with clients can save time and improve the client experience.

4. Delegate and conquer. The billable hour promotes the myth that each of your hours is of equal value, but we know that is not the case. Some law office tasks can even be done well without a lawyer.

Different types of law practices sustain different levels of staff support, but the trend in all law practices is less support staff per lawyer. We have seen the rise of the “true solos” ─ computer-literate lawyers with no staff. While this has been a formula for success for many lawyers, the model works best for specialized practices. Consumer-based practices — especially in smaller communities, where a storefront location is seen as being a part of the local business community — need to think differently. For example, outsourcing services now provide an array of options that allow you to get clerical and paralegal help when needed, and to adjust service levels in slower times. Successful small firm lawyers have also created support networks that include lawyers with deep expertise who are available for consultation, vendors for outside IT support, and friendly accountants available for quick questions and referrals. These lawyers pay attention to nurturing those relationships and developing new ones.

5. Take charge of yourself and your firm’s assets. Lawyers in very large firms fit into defined areas, usually related to practice groups or particular client service teams. Small firm lawyers have a much greater opportunity to define themselves and focus the direction of their practice. So, lawyer, advise thyself. What do you enjoy doing? What are you very proficient at accomplishing? What are the unmet needs in your community?

Small firm lawyers are said to have more freedom, but economic realities and urgent client needs temper this freedom. Still, no matter how busy you are or how many fires you have to put out today, you need to spend at least an hour or two each month focusing on long-range planning and taking charge of your own future.

Jim Calloway is Director of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Management Assistance Program, author of the popular Jim Calloway’s Law Practice Tips blog and co-host of theDigital Edge podcast. He writes frequently on practice management and legal technology topics and is a fellow of the College of Law Practice Management. Follow him on Twitter @jimcalloway.

Sponsored Links
»The 10 Deadliest Sins of Choosing a Cloud Vendor.
»Learn more about the way attorneys get paid. Free trial.
»Dominate your depositions. Free e-book.

x x x."

Nevada court hears Barrick Gold-Philippines province appeal - Yahoo Finance UK

See - Nevada court hears Barrick Gold-Philippines province appeal - Yahoo Finance UK

"x x x.

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- A Philippine island province that experienced mining waste disasters in the 1990s but has been unable to find a court to hear its claim for damages is asking Nevada's highest court to rekindle a nearly 10-year-old state lawsuit against Barrick Gold Corp.

Attorney James McCarthy pleaded with six Nevada Supreme Court justices Tuesday to let the Province of Marinduque sue in Nevada because the Toronto-based mining company has substantial operations in the state.

"We filed here for all the right reasons," McCarthy said. "We chased them here. They fled the Philippines."

McCarthy told the justices Philippine courts ruled that Barrick can't be sued there because it doesn't do business there.

Steve Morris, a Las Vegas lawyer representing Barrick, accused McCarthy of choosing Nevada because he hoped to find a judge amenable to his claim.

"He chose this forum, I believe, because he thought he could persuade the court, just by filing here, by trumpeting these ... evil activities that occurred in the Philippines, that he could persuade the court out of sympathy to say, 'You can try these claims here,'" Morris said.

x x x."

The dissent: Erap can’t hold office - Yahoo News Philippines

See - The dissent: Erap can’t hold office - Yahoo News Philippines

"x x x.

Former President and now Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada should be ousted from his post and no longer be allowed to join elections, a Supreme Court (SC) justice has argued.

In his 74-page dissenting opinion on the SC ruling last month upholding the eligibility of Estrada in the 2013 mayoralty race, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office imposed by the Sandiganbayan in his 2007 plunder conviction was absolute.

Leonen said Estrada “continues to suffer the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification and is thereby disqualified from exercising the right to vote in any election for any popular elective office or to be elected to such office.”

This could mean the former president should be barred from seeking election in the 2016 polls.

Contrary to the majority ruling, Leonen believed the pardon granted by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Estrada did not restore his right to suffrage.

“The pardon extended to Estrada is definite by its omission: There is neither an express restoration of Estrada’s rights to vote and be voted for elective public office nor a remission of his perpetual absolute disqualification. To this extent, it is clear and unambiguous. This should suffice to put an end to Estrada’s asseverations that he was qualified to run for mayor of Manila,” Leonen pointed out.

“Estrada remains bound to suffer the effects of the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification, as listed in Article 30 of the Revised Penal Code. Specifically, he remains disqualified from exercising the right to vote in any election for any popular elective office, and he remains barred from occupying any public office, elective or otherwise,” he added.

Leonen further stressed that since Estrada’s perpetual absolute disqualification was not remitted, and his rights to vote and be voted for elective public office not having been restored, the Commission on Elections should have disqualified him in the mayoralty race.

In effect, Estrada’s rival and former mayor Alfredo Lim – who placed second to him in the elections – should have been declared winner instead.

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio agreed with Leonen’s opinion.

But they were the minority during deliberations of the high court last Jan. 21.

The majority, consisting of 11 justices, held that the pardon extended by Arroyo following Estrada’s conviction by the Sandiganbayan was “absolute,” thereby restoring his qualifications to stand as candidate in the last mayoralty elections.

The ruling opinion penned by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro also cited Estrada’s acceptance of absolute pardon, which “removed the disqualification arising under Section 40 of the Local Government Code in relation to section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code.”

It upheld the decision of the Comelec declaring Estrada qualified to run for mayor of the City of Manila in the May 13, 2013 elections.

Estrada won the mayoralty race with 343,993 votes, against Lim’s 308,544 votes. Estrada was then proclaimed mayor of Manila by the poll body.

x x x."

13 ex-PEA execs get 8 years | Headlines, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

See - 13 ex-PEA execs get 8 years | Headlines, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines - With a price tag of P800 million, the 5.1-kilometer Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard was considered one of the world’s most expensive roads and believed overpriced by P100 million.

Now 13 former officials of the Public Estates Authority (PEA) will serve up to eight years in prison after they were convicted of graft for the overpriced project.

Assistant Ombudsman and spokesperson
Asryman Rafanan announced yesterday that the Sandiganbayan had found the former PEA board members guilty of involvement in the anomaly.

Those convicted were Manuel Berina Jr., Jaime Milla, Bernardo Viray, Theron Victor Lacson, Raphael Pocholo Zorilla, Cristina Amposta Mortel, Frisco Francisco San Juan, Carmelita de Leon Chan, Daniel Dayaw, Salvador Malbarosa, Leo Padilla, Elpidio Damaso and Jesusito Legaspi.

Rafanan said the Sandiganbayan has also directed the former PEA officials to reimburse the government a little over P100 million representing the overprice amount or improper contract price adjustment.

He explained that the road project was implemented through simplified public bidding despite lack of funds and without presidential approval, which resulted in overpricing.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

The charges were filed in 2003 after the Office of the Ombudsman found the public officials liable for conniving to overprice the 5.1-kilometer highway.

Government lawyers then found that PEA officials conspired to unlawfully pay contractor J.D. Legaspi construction firm an amount that was clearly improper, illegal and without the requisite presidential approval.

The Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard, designed to lighten traffic along Roxas Boulevard and the Coastal Road in Parañaque City, was originally estimated at P500 million, but the amount swelled to P800 million, allegedly due to cost padding.

x x x."

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Pimentel wants a modern penitentiary complex to replace ‘outdated’ prisons | Inquirer News

See - Pimentel wants a modern penitentiary complex to replace ‘outdated’ prisons | Inquirer News

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines — Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III is urging the government to replace the country’s “outdated, outmoded and dilapidated correctional facilities” like the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City with a “modern national penitentiary complex.”

“Gone should be the notion that prisoners are criminals who deserve little or no sympathy at all,” Pimentel said during a recent privilege speech at the Senate.

Citing the United Nations Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, the senator said, all prisoners should be treated with “respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings.”

He also quoted democracy icon Nelson Mandela of South Africa, saying “no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones.”

Based on records by the Bureau of Corrections , Pimentel said, the country’s seven penitentiaries have a total prison population of 40,185 inmates as of August last year when they are only good for 16,000 inmates, translating to a congestion rate of about 150 percent.

He said the Bilibid Prison, site of a recent scandal involving high-profile inmates, was more “disconcerting” as it has a congestion rate of 170 percent with a population of roughly 22,800 in a prison which was intended for 8,400 inmates only.

The inadequate and poor maintenance of penal facilities resulted in bloody fights and anarchy and the proliferation of criminal activities while others live like kings in their air-conditioned special cells, called “kubols,” the senator said.

Pimentel also noted the overlapping functions of various national agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the different local government units (LGUs) charged with similar correction and rehabilitation functions.

A 2003 study conducted by the Supreme Court in coordination with the United Nations, he said, showed lack of information technology and expertise to properly maintain the inmates’ records and process documents for their release.

There is also concern to improve overall management capacity and resources and resolve issues on unattractive compensation, emoluments and benefits and inadequate training facilities, he said.

Among the reforms cited in the study are provisions for opportunities to develop proper work skills and acquire education and training which will translate into economic self-sufficiency upon release of the inmates.

“Next is the engagement of inmates in meaningful work assignments to help defray the tax burden of their incarceration, and provisions for counselling, life skills training and spiritual guidance to give inmates new directions in their lives,” Pimentel said.

He said many inmates also live in poor living condition and have limited access to legal services, problems that are compounded by delays in the administration of justice.

The senator then asked his colleagues to commit themselves to the unfinished task at hand “to bring about genuine and lasting reforms that will center on our incarcerated countrymen.”

Congress recently enacted Republic Act No. 10575 or the Bureau of Corrections Act of 2013, mandating government to zealously promote the general welfare and safeguard the basic rights of every prisoner.

BuCor chief: Situation in state penitentiary like a ‘bomb waiting to explode’ | Inquirer News

See - BuCor chief: Situation in state penitentiary like a ‘bomb waiting to explode’ | Inquirer News

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines — The head of the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) compared on Tuesday the condition inside the state penitentiary to a “bomb waiting to explode.”

Bucor Director Franklin Jesus Bucayu said during the hearing of the Senate committee on justice joint with the committees on public order, family relations, and local government that as of January 2015, the country’s inmate population is now about 41,000.

More than half of the population or 23,000 prisoners, he said, were housed at the National Bilibid Prison (NBP).

“Built in 1935 to accommodate 8, 500 inmates, at present, the NBP has a congestion rate of 164 percent. In its maximum compound alone, which houses the high profile and high risk prisoners, the population has reached 14,500,” Bucayu said.

Alarmingly, he said, the prison guard to inmate ratio was at its highest at 1:64 since the ideal ratio is 1:8.

Bucayu said the high ratio compromises the most basic correctional responsibilities of managing prisons and providing inmates and jail guards the ample security and protection.

“With the increasing inmate population rate of 4 percent over the last five years, we can compare the situation inside the state penitentiary to a bomb waiting to explode. As I’ve sad earlier, we have a state of emergency in our state penitentiary,” he pointed out.

The Bucor chief then urged legislators to immediately reform the country’s prison system and “adequately and substantially fund this reform measures embodied in the Bureau of Corrections Modernization Law, which was enacted into law in 2013.

“Distinguished senators, your honors, we need to do now the steps we should have implemented many years ago to significantly improve the NBP which is one of the largest in the world,” Bucayu said.

“We also need to confront squarely the plight of the inmates and prison guards and the entire support system of the NBP,” he said, “Painful as it may be, we need to bring dramatic changes and improvements on the Bureau of Corrections and how it implements reforms that will ensure that the Philippine prison system complies with the basic international standards at the very least.”

SC modifies ruling against DAP, partly grants gov't MR | Inquirer News

See - SC modifies ruling against DAP, partly grants gov't MR | Inquirer News

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines–The Supreme Court on Tuesday modified its July 2014 decision declaring parts of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional.

Theodore Te, the high court spokesperson, said the Supreme Court en banc partially granted the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General.

In its recent ruling, the high court said only the declaration of savings before the fiscal year and cross-border transfer of savings are unconstitutional.

1. The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Act.

2. The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive.

The high court added that only the authors can be held liable, unless a proper tribunal found that they acted in good faith. It now excludes from liability the proponents and implementors of the DAP prior to the ruling.

Last year, the high court struck down National Budget Circular No. 541 and other related issuances related to the DAP issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

The circular allows withdrawn allotments to be used to augment existing programs and projects of any agency. It also allows withdrawn allotments to fund priority programs and projects not considered in the 2012 budget but are expected to be implemented during the current year.