It is settled that it does not.
The Supreme Court en banc ruled in Frias vs. Bautista-Lozada in 2006 that Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline is null and void. It was struck down for being inconsistent with the previous rulings of the Supreme Court. This was reiterated in Rian vs Icao (2008). However, the Supreme Court, Second Division in the case of Ienhardt vs Real (2012) opined,
"Anent respondent’s claim of prescription of the offense pursuant to Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, we agree with the Investigating Commissioner that the rule should be construed to mean two years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct. To rule otherwise would cause injustice to parties who may have discovered the wrong committed to them only at a much later date. In this case, the complaint was filed more than three years after the commission of the act because it was only after the property was foreclosed that complainant discovered the SPA."
Although the above opinion gave the impression that the prescriptive period is back on the Rules, in my humble opinion, I still believe that prescription still does not apply in disbarment proceedings.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Should a Lawyer Defend Bad People?
Note: My 10-minute thought on our PALE assignment.
If by bad means probably guilty, Yes.
It's no less than the 1987 Constitution that provides for the presumption of innocence. Section 14(2), Article III says,
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved..."
There cannot be a guilty person prior to the trial. His guilt can only be ascertained after both parties have been heard by an impartial judge. In our justice system, the three players - the prosecution, the defense and the courts have different roles to play.
In the prosecution of criminal cases, the prosecutor, representing the state, has the obligation of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He's tasked by the state to use all legal means to bring about justice and maintain, as a result, the peace and order in the country. The defense, on the other hand, has not only the legal but the ethical duty as well to ensure that he's able to provide the best defense for his clients. As a matter of fact a lawyer has sworn "to conduct himself to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients...without any mental reservation...." His oath is crystal clear. Ambiguity is absent. It is not his duty to decide on the guilt of his client. It's the judge's. If he is in the habit of judging [his] clients, he should wait for the time that he'll wear the black robe.
It is elementary in a democratic state to provide due process. Under section 14, Article III, 1987 Constitution, it says,
"that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law." Nowhere can we find in any provision of law that convicts the accused first before the trial could even commence. The same principle applies to defense counsels. Thus, it is travestry of justice in its purest form if a lawyer would deny giving legal services to a person because he thinks that the person is guilty of the crime charged.
Justice is not served here rather it is being trampled upon.
If by bad means that the accused did it and the lawyer has personal knowledge of it, my answer will still be yes. In criminal law, there are facts that could acquit one's client because they were attended by either exempting or justifying circumstances. Proving ones guilt is not as easy as what others would have thought. Ordinary people have very limited understanding as to the complexity of the defense's job. Even the famous host of the O' Reilly show didn't get it. A few years ago, he [Bill O'Reilly] led a campaign to disbar Defense Counsel Feldman for vigorouly defending his client whom the latter alegedly knew is guilty of killing a child. Others just don't get it. It is not the defense's job to convict his client even if his client actually admitted to it.
At any rate, anyone who is accused of a crime is entitled to be presumed innocent. A defense lawyer is necessary to compel the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt otherwise all he needs is an iota [of doubt] and the state will be obliged to set him free. And besides, as what the famous British legal scholar once said, " It was better to have ten criminals escape punishment than to have one innocent man imprisoned."
GMA Out on Bail
Honestly, it's long overdue. The fact is the Commission on Elections does not have a case against the former president. The filing of the complaint was merely facilitated so she could not leave the country. Remember the Delima doctrine? (The SC-issued TRO cannot be carried out without express consent from the Secretary of Justice. In other words, the TRO cannot be implemented without Delima's assent.) The Supreme Court at that time issued a TRO which in effect, supposedly, restrains the government from preventing the former president from leaving the country. There was no case filed yet against GMA thus her constitutinal right to travel cannot be impaired by anyone even by the state. Nevertheless, you know what happened. She got stuck at the NAIA terminal since apparently the Secretary of Justice is more powerful than the SC. She can and in fact did disregard a lawful order of the highest court of the land and interestingly enough the chief executive agreed. So, to cure the obvious legal defect, they filed this bogus election-related complaint in a matter of hours to legitimize their illegal act. True enough, that same day, the judge issued a hold departure order which effectively rendered the SC-issued TRO moot. The TRO has transformed from being a powerful tool of preventing the commission of injustice to a mere scrap of paper - legally worthless.
Going back to the COMELEC-initiated complaint, they actually have only one witness whose testimony basically says, he "overheard" the former president saying over the phone to an election officer to give her party a 12-0 advantage against the opposition. The problem of this testimony is that it's bordering on heasay if in fact he "overheard" anything. Another point, it wasn't clear whether the president indeed directed the election officer to commit fraud. And why should we make someone languish in jail over some testimony which is not corroborated by anyone? Because of these circumstances, I personally think that the case is weak and the judge, in my opinion, is correct in granting GMA her temporary liberty.
If this administration is so bent on sending her to jail, what they should do is gather more evidence, investigate further, conduct more research and "produce" more witnesses who can corroborate what the lone witness testified to otherwise they should just shut up and stop wasting people's money in filing these baseless complaints.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Presumption of Innocence, Rule of Law and the Supremacy of the Department of Justice
Justice cannot be achieved by committing another injustice. Every man is entitled to due process, to be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. We are equal before the eyes of the law regardless of whether you are rich or poor, famous or not. The law applies to all. The constitutional guarantee covers everyone. No exception. The former president is entitled to the same protection of the constitution precisely that’s why we have the bill of rights so we can protect ourselves from the possible abuse by the state in the exercise of its powers. The state is too huge an opponent. It has the Police, the Armed Forces and all the agencies of the government under its disposal to prosecute and or persecute a person. And, as a people what do we have? Just the words inscribed in the 1987 constitution. To make sure that our rights are protected, we have the courts that will ensure that due process is observed.
It’s no less than the 1987 Constitution that says, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved…” And who will decide whether the accused is guilty of the crime as charged? It’s the court(s). A person cannot and should not be convicted by public opinion. The general public forms its opinion based on the news, on what they’ve heard on the radio, watched on television or read on-line. The media not only delivers news but sometimes biased opinions, as well. The public should exercise extra-caution when presented with reports. To allow the public to use these information(s) to decide on the guilt of the accused without the benefit of trial is a red-carpet entrance to a dungeon of injustice.
In criminal cases, the quantum of evidence required is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. This is enough to show how important right to life, liberty or property is. It requires the state to present damning evidence to buttress or overthrow presumption of innocence. It has the burden of proof. In a democratic country, conviction is rendered by the courts - real Courts. Not Kangaroo Courts. Trial is conducted inside the courts. Not outside. If guilt is to be proven by the opinion of the public, might as well remove the courts and conduct survey instead and whoever gets the 50% and 1 of the votes should be hanged to death. But that’s not how it works. Due to the presumption of innocence and due process requirements and the importance of life, presentation of evidence is required, careful technical evaluation of these evidence have to be observed, and decisions have to be based on the facts of the case, existing jurisprudence and the controlling laws at the time when the alleged crime was committed. We should all remember that we were not there when the alleged offense was committed. That’s why a more detailed presentation and careful assessment of facts, in its totality, have to be done.
I know that probably 80%, or perhaps 99%, of the Filipino people believe that CGMA is probably (others are even so convinced as if they were all there when the alleged crime was committed) guilty of the crime and as such should languish in jail but this does not change the fact that she too is a Filipino entitled to the same protection of our laws. We cannot take a short-cut just so our version of justice is served. The end does not justify the means. While it may be true that our laws require a speedy trial but it doesn’t mean [that] we skip the essentials. It doesn’t follow that we trample upon the rights of the accused. It results to travesty of justice. I think the best test to find out whether the act is JUST is to ask ourselves this simple question, IF IT WAS I IN HER PLACE ACCUSED OF THE SAME CRIME AND I TOO BELIEVE THAT AM NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME THEY CLAIMED I HAVE COMMITTED, SHOULD I JUST GO TO JAIL DIRECTLY WITHOUT A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE THE GENERAL PUBLIC ABHOR MY VERY EXISTENCE?????? If you honestly believe that it’s okay then go ahead. Hang yourself. Be my guest. I commit myself to provide you a happy-meal before you do it.
What I am asking is for all parties to observe the RULE OF LAW, for after all, ours is a government of laws and not of men. The presence of the courts and our obedience to its order on matters that involve the law are requirements sine qua non for our very survival. This separates us from the barbarians. This makes us, among other things, a civilized society. A single defiance, more so if it is attended with malicious intent, signals an era of chaos and the society’s transformation to a state of anarchy. What Secretary De Lima did was not just an ordinary defiance. It was tainted with bad faith, an insult to the Supreme Court and its processes and therefore she should be reminded that she is not above the law. If possible, she should be sent back to San Beda Law School and be taught once more that the Department of Justice is not a co-equal branch of the Supreme Court and neither is it superior than the SUPREME Court. It may be true that majority of the people favor her defiance, but it does not make it right. Her reasoning that she cannot implement the TRO issued by the HIGHEST Court because of its irregularity is actually in the DISSENT of the five Associate Justices but eight says otherwise. So, who should we follow, the 8 or the 5 justices? Do we need a scientific calculator to do that? Her reasoning is disturbing. Looking at her while spewing those words made me ask myself, is she delusional or just patently incompetent? She should not be confirmed by the Senate.
On a question of law, only one has the final say. It is our courts. No matter how irregular it may seem to one, the fact remains that he has to live with it. This very institution was created for a grand, noble and worthwhile purpose. Along with the other two branches of government, the Courts will serve as our last bastion. When Congress enacts bad laws and the executive abuse its powers in the execution of laws, we have the courts to turn to and ask for protection. While it may be true that the state has the Police, the Armed Forces and other agencies of the government under its disposal, and we, as a people – only the words of the Constitution, we should fear not for the gavel of justice can use these same words to hammer down, pound back and remind the government that SOVEREIGNTY resides in the people and the state exists to serve and protect them.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Right to Travel, in the eyes of Sec. Leila De Lima, the Secretary of (In)justice?
Last August 24, the Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima issued an order which placed the husband of former president now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the watchlist in connection with the ongoing investigation by the Senate over the anomalous sale of second-hand helicopters to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009. In effect, the said order seeks to restrain or impair Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel.
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
The Right to Travel, in the eyes of Sec. Leila De Lima, the Secretary of (In)justice?
Last August 24, the Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima issued an order which placed the husband of former president now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the watchlist in connection with the ongoing investigation by the Senate over the anomalous sale of second-hand helicopters to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009. In effect, the said order seeks to restrain or impair Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel.
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
The Right to Travel, in the eyes of Sec. Leila De Lima, the Secretary of (In)justice?
Last August 24, the Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima issued an order which placed the husband of former president now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the watchlist in connection with the ongoing investigation by the Senate over the anomalous sale of second-hand helicopters to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009. In effect, the said order seeks to restrain or impair Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel.
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)