There is no denying that even before the contenders filed their certificate of candidacy (COC) they have long campaigned through radio, print and TV ads. These were all done in the guise of “infomercials”. But just the same they all refer to the same banana. Supposedly the purpose of infomercials is to inform or create awareness among the listeners and viewers about issues that directly concern them. But the current version of infomercials is tainted with dark hidden agenda. People can’t pretend to be naïve with all these. The proliferation of “infomercials” during the election season is alarming for it shifted the balance of fair and honest elections to waste. It deprives those who are better yet not gifted with hefty bank accounts for they cannot afford to launch a long and super early campaign. This is not only unfair but also deceptive and Machiavellian. This is an explicit showing of support for oligarchy. We already know that our elections are all about money. And that it’s only a game exclusively for those who haves but then again we do not need to be reminded of it on a daily basis.
Applying how little Juan understands it, if one plans to run for public office and starts to appear on TV and other media few months before the election, you can’t help but wonder why start with the ads now? Why didn’t they do it two years ago? Why suddenly when election is fast approaching we start seeing their faces like permanent screensavers on our PCs? You can’t help but notice this patently unfair fact. These people are so desperate that they will stop at nothing just so they’ll get what they wanted. Take Villar, for example, who already spent hundreds of millions even before formally announcing his plans of running for the highest office of the land. This man scares the hell out of me. He epitomizes not the rags to riches success-story but the old corrupt, callous and oligarchic ascent to power.
Admittedly, while we think of all these as really “premature campaigning”, the law has, as always, assumed a more technical meaning. The same goes to what really makes a person an official candidate. Of course, there cannot be premature campaigning without a candidate and a campaign period specifically prescribed by law. I was in quandary like probably most of you as to what the law and the recent jurisprudence have to say regarding this matter. It is for this reason that I started scouting for some legal provisions and resources and what I am about to share with you is a rather interesting case.
As a starting point I would like us all to take a peek at the laws directly related to this matter and these are:
1.) SECTION 80. Election campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. — It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period: Provided, That political parties may hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.
2.) SECTION. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having xxx (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.
3.) SECTION 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369. Official Ballot.
xxxx For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period:..
4.) SECTION 79. Definitions. - As used in this Code:
x x x x
(b) The term “election campaign” or “partisan political activity” refers to an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office which shall include:
(1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate;
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate;
(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office;
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate.
And now the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Penera vs COMELEC which I’m sure will not fail to titillate the minds of those interested about dynamics of Philippine elections. Here, you will see how the Supreme Court flip flopped in its interpretation of the law. You will see how the majority suddenly disappeared and what was the dissenting opinion suddenly, after less than two months, became the better view.
PENERA vs COMELEC
The COMELEC’S Decision
The facts below were taken directly from the decision of the Supreme Court.
This case stemmed from the filing of a motion for disqualification against the petitioner Rosalinda A. Penera (Penera) as a candidate for the position of mayor of the Municipality of Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte (Sta. Monica) in the 2007 Synchronized National and Local Elections. Penera and private respondent Edgar T. Andanar (Andanar) were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica during the 14 May 2007 elections.
Penera and private respondent Edgar T. Andanar (Andanar) were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica during the 14 May 2007 elections. The latter accused Penera and her political party of unlawfully engaging in election campaigning and partisan political activity prior to the commencement of the campaign period.
Chronological presentation of facts:
29 March 2007 – a day before the start of the authorized campaign period on 30 March 2007 – Penera and her partymates went around the different barangays in Sta. Monica, announcing their candidacies and requesting the people to vote for them on the day of the elections.
2 April 2007 - Andanar filed before the Office of the Regional Election Director (ORED), Caraga Region (Region XIII), a Petition for Disqualification against Penera.
19 April 2007 – Penera filed her answer arguing, citing the case of Barroso v. Ampig wherein the Court supposedly ruled that a motorcade held by candidates during the filing of their COCs was not a form of political campaigning.
14 May 2007 – election took place and Penera was declared the winner. The case for disqualification was still pending in the COMELEC head office, second division.
24 July 2007 – Penera was disqualified for engaging in premature campaigning, in violation of Sections 80 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. The decision was penned by Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer (Ferrer), Second Division. Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento dissented with the opinion of the two commissioners.
The COMELEC en banc upheld the second division and so as the Supreme Court in its first decision rendered on September 11, 2009.
The Supreme Court Decision
In the first decision, the majority agreed with the dissenters that one can only be considered a candidate when the following requisites are present: 1.) he/ she has already filed his COC, and 2.) at the commencement of the campaign period. Absent of any of them, one therefore cannot be considered a candidate pursuant to the provision of Sec 15 of RA 8436.
The disagreement lies in the interpretation and application. Although the majority agreed with the definition however they reasoned that upon the filing of his/ her COC, the prospective candidate already explicitly declares his/ her intention to run as a candidate in the coming elections. The commission by such a person of any of the acts enumerated under sec 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code (i.e holding rallies or parades, making speeches, etc) can, thus, be logically and reasonably construed as for the purpose of his/ her intended candidacy. To stress its point the majority said that “when the campaign period arts and said person proceeds with his/ her candidacy, his/ her intent turning into actuality, we can already consider his/ her acts, after the filing of his/ her COC and prior to the campaign period, as he promotion of his/ her election as a candidate, hence, constituting premature campaigning, for which he/ she ma be disqualified. Also, conversely, if said person, for any reason, withdraws his/ her COC before the campaign period, then there is no point to view his/ her acts prior to said period as acts for the promotion of his/ her election as a candidate. In the latter case, there can be no premature campaigning as there is no candidate, whose disqualification may be sought, to begin with.”
The opinion of the majority in the first decision though legally flawed I must admit is fair, sensible and appropriate. When one filed his candidacy, he/ she already made his intention known to the world that he/ she’s running for public office thus making speeches, posting banners, holding parades or rallies after he filed his COC and before the campaign period is in truth and in fact premature campaigning and undeniably he has created an undue advantage against the opposing candidate. He does all these acts precisely to advance and increase his chances of winning. What else would it be for? The often he’s seen the better.
On the other hand, the then minority which became now the new majority has the law on their side at least technically speaking. A person who filed his COC cannot be considered a candidate for all its intent and purposes under the law unless until the campaign period, thus suffice it to say premature campaigning has been rendered practically extinct under the new law. Therefore under the present jurisprudence, no person can be guilty of premature campaigning either before or after he filed his COC. Just perfect! So, brace yourself for the next succeeding elections you will see faces that will bore you to death.
The very act that I thought was unfair is now being given by the Supreme Courts its imprimatur. There is no stopping these people now from starting to post, flash, advertize, and bore us with their faces all year round. Just great!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Study of Law (Part 1)
Last semester, my professor asked us the most fundamental of all questions, “Why do you want to take up law?” It is basic yes but the answer has a lifelong impact to the person answering the question and to the people that he will serve in the future. You can hear all sorts of answers ranging from funny to more serious ones and all of the answers have but one similarity – helping those who are in need of the protection of the law. For young students of law (me included), they may not yet understand the nobility of the profession and I must admit to most of us passing the law subjects is our primordial goal thus studying is merely used as a means to an immediate end, the immediate end being to finish the semester without any failing marks but really beyond passing there lies the most significant role of us all – helping people in the best way we know.
The first time I went back to Law school I was feeling lost a bit - out of touch. What can you expect after almost five years of absence? I was really in quandary. Good thing I had professors who pushed me hard without them knowing it probably. To name one that would be Professor Ada Abad aka Bostsip, the President/ CEO of AHINI Corporation.* * *Bostsip was one of those who made me realized (again) how interesting the study of law is with all its intricacies and nuances. If there is one thing that I am confident that I learned by heart that would be Labor Relations. And this semester? …
To be continued…
*** Our class functioned not as an ordinary class but as a company and we chose Ahini (named after the infamous Ah1n1). One thing nice about the set up was that the class was made to feel how it’s like to be in a company with each one of us occupying different positions - Managers, bar tenders, waiters/ waitress, valet parker, Finance Officer, HR and so on and so forth. I can still remember the “bickering” within the rank-and-file union during the CBA negotiation and of course the administrative investigation when the witness was asked to start all over again because he was caught lying as manifested by the inconsistencies of his testimony.
The first time I went back to Law school I was feeling lost a bit - out of touch. What can you expect after almost five years of absence? I was really in quandary. Good thing I had professors who pushed me hard without them knowing it probably. To name one that would be Professor Ada Abad aka Bostsip, the President/ CEO of AHINI Corporation.* * *Bostsip was one of those who made me realized (again) how interesting the study of law is with all its intricacies and nuances. If there is one thing that I am confident that I learned by heart that would be Labor Relations. And this semester? …
To be continued…
*** Our class functioned not as an ordinary class but as a company and we chose Ahini (named after the infamous Ah1n1). One thing nice about the set up was that the class was made to feel how it’s like to be in a company with each one of us occupying different positions - Managers, bar tenders, waiters/ waitress, valet parker, Finance Officer, HR and so on and so forth. I can still remember the “bickering” within the rank-and-file union during the CBA negotiation and of course the administrative investigation when the witness was asked to start all over again because he was caught lying as manifested by the inconsistencies of his testimony.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
A Challenging Day in Law School
Yesterday, I was (un)lucky enough to be the last one to recite, good thing it was already few minutes before the dismissal otherwise I would have been standing for an hour or two. I am not really lucky in every first oral exams coz out of 40 or so students my index card more often than not will be the one got picked by my Profs. Yesterday wasn’t an exception. It’s a 5-unit subject by the way. So there I was standing again and answering the questions to the best (?) I can and on the latter part of the RECIT my Prof. further pushed and tested me and it was at this moment that he said, thinking perhaps that my answers sounded as if it’s my own opinion, “Mr. Bentor, answer like a lawyer!”. (-:
I have been away from law school for almost six years now. The last time I attended was way back in 2004 right after I finished my Masters in Public Administration. And my foundation subjects were taken long time ago – 2000. Just imagine the effort that I have to exhaust to be able to reach the same level as that of my present classmates in terms of the basics of the law but I’m not giving up. Who says I’m giving up? Indeed, this makes my study of law very challenging and interesting and what is more rewarding is the fact that my grades are way better than some of my full time classmates. I guess it’s a combination of luck and luck?! (-:
In the Institute, people are way different than any of the students in any of the Institutes in the University. Everything is just not usual. The language, the choice of words, the tone, the phrasing, the pacing not to mention the posture - everything is just so different. The way a law student responds to a question. The way he starts his answer and the words he has to use must be lifted from his own library of legal terms – no lay man’s term as much as possible and mind you law students have their own some sort of intonation which is weird. I call it lawyer-like intonation or tone if you may. It’s serious, in order, old-sounding but interesting. Generally, this is what you’ll hear. It’s seldom that you’ll hear anyone with a twang. Being away from such an environment and being so out of the normal regular world, my choice of words, tone, the phrasing(?) are way below this standard and I must admit I am deeply disturbed.
In the class, once you stand up and start answering the questions, your answer must be precise based only on law, jurisprudence and or authorities in the field. No matter how your professor tries to confuse you by throwing all sorts of questions, you have to remain composed, prepared to answer back and stick to your answer come what may. In such an instance, you will hear your teacher say things. Others can go as far as mocking you, which I also did when I was teaching. Some would make fun of your answer due to the obvious inconsistencies in the subject and verb and of course the paradoxical lines that you decided to unwittingly relate as if they’re really the same. While your answering, you can see the face of your teacher reacting to every answer you give but you should not be dissuaded from proceeding and standing by your answer except of course if the facts presented have totally changed the point thus necessitating a shift of your answer as well. Flip Flopping is frowned upon. It’s an indication of your personal confusion on the issue and worse it could be interpreted as “not prepared”.
By the way, you might be thinking if my answers were correct, yes they’re all correct but did I pass the standard in terms of how a law student should answer a legal question? No I failed big time. So next time, we will see. (-: Welcome to law school!
I have been away from law school for almost six years now. The last time I attended was way back in 2004 right after I finished my Masters in Public Administration. And my foundation subjects were taken long time ago – 2000. Just imagine the effort that I have to exhaust to be able to reach the same level as that of my present classmates in terms of the basics of the law but I’m not giving up. Who says I’m giving up? Indeed, this makes my study of law very challenging and interesting and what is more rewarding is the fact that my grades are way better than some of my full time classmates. I guess it’s a combination of luck and luck?! (-:
In the Institute, people are way different than any of the students in any of the Institutes in the University. Everything is just not usual. The language, the choice of words, the tone, the phrasing, the pacing not to mention the posture - everything is just so different. The way a law student responds to a question. The way he starts his answer and the words he has to use must be lifted from his own library of legal terms – no lay man’s term as much as possible and mind you law students have their own some sort of intonation which is weird. I call it lawyer-like intonation or tone if you may. It’s serious, in order, old-sounding but interesting. Generally, this is what you’ll hear. It’s seldom that you’ll hear anyone with a twang. Being away from such an environment and being so out of the normal regular world, my choice of words, tone, the phrasing(?) are way below this standard and I must admit I am deeply disturbed.
In the class, once you stand up and start answering the questions, your answer must be precise based only on law, jurisprudence and or authorities in the field. No matter how your professor tries to confuse you by throwing all sorts of questions, you have to remain composed, prepared to answer back and stick to your answer come what may. In such an instance, you will hear your teacher say things. Others can go as far as mocking you, which I also did when I was teaching. Some would make fun of your answer due to the obvious inconsistencies in the subject and verb and of course the paradoxical lines that you decided to unwittingly relate as if they’re really the same. While your answering, you can see the face of your teacher reacting to every answer you give but you should not be dissuaded from proceeding and standing by your answer except of course if the facts presented have totally changed the point thus necessitating a shift of your answer as well. Flip Flopping is frowned upon. It’s an indication of your personal confusion on the issue and worse it could be interpreted as “not prepared”.
By the way, you might be thinking if my answers were correct, yes they’re all correct but did I pass the standard in terms of how a law student should answer a legal question? No I failed big time. So next time, we will see. (-: Welcome to law school!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Can ex-President Estrada run again this 2010 Election?
The 2010 Presidential election is fast approaching. The presidential wannabes, showing their lack of delicadeza, have started their TV ad campaign as early as January this year. While there is no law prohibiting them from doing so, however delicadeza dictates that they should have at least waited for the campaign period to begin before brandishing their faces on TV. The nerve! I couldn’t bear seeing their faces every time I turned on the monitor - Villar, Roxas and Binay. They’re all alike no matter how many times they’d deny it - trapos, trapos and trapos forever. Probably, if you will insist that they’re different, I’d say that the old generation politicians were comparable to Pentium 1 and the current ones are Pentium II but still not core-duo. See the point? Updated version but still outdated thus must be junked. These kind of candidates are the ones that people should really shun away from like the way we’ve been trying to prevent and protect ourselves from A-H1N1 virus. They’re contagious.
Quite honestly, I’m almost oblivious of what’s going on not because I don’t care but It’s actually more of a choice since I am sensing that our version of politics has become routinary, therefore boring, but also toxic. You’ll feel so dried up to the bone by just looking at them ranting and mudslinging. Political bickerings have become part of our daily course despite the call for unity not just by the President, who simply can’t convince them, but also by the Church, the Civil society and other cause-oriented groups. All the time, they’ll reason that the noise they’re making (as if I give a hoot) is for the people, for the truth and blah blah blah. Yeah right! These politicians will stop at nothing just to advance their hidden agenda even to the point of appearing alone in Senate investigations asking all sorts of questions just for media mileage. Wow! or should I say whew?! But guess what, despite all these exposures who is having a good laugh? The deposed president. And why? because he is leading the surveys with VP de Castro. Have we not had enough of him? When will this stupidity end?
There seems to be no noise about his impending come back. I wonder. But then again I realized - who would when all the noisy are on the same side of the fence. His possible candidacy will be the greatest insult to all of us who joined hands in EDSA, in Cebu and in some parts of the country just to kick him out of Malacañang due to corruption and incompetence. By merely entertaining the thought that he’s coming back makes me sick. The absence of discussion as to the question of whether or not he can run made me review my political law and the jurisprudence involving his ouster in 2001. Now the question, can he really run? With all my readings considered, the answer is NO.
The Supreme Court in the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo GR #146738 March 2, 2001 through the pen of now Chief Justice Puno said,
“The issue then is whether the petitioner resigned as President or should be considered resigned as of January 20, 2001 when respondent took her oath as the 14th President of the Republic. Resignation is not a high level abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements are beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not a governed by any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.
In the cases at bar, the facts shows that petitioner did not write any formal letter of resignation before he evacuated Malacañang Palace in the afternoon of January 20, 2001 after the oath-taking of respondent Arroyo. Consequently, whether or not petitioner resigned has to be determined from his acts and omission before, during and after January 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.
Using this totality test, we hold that petitioner resigned as President.”
And what does it mean when a president resigned from his post? The 1987 Consitution has a very explicit and unequivoval answer. Sec 4, of Art VII in part says,
“…The president shall NOT be eligible for re-election…Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.”
What can Estrada do now is hope and pray that the Consitution will be tinkered prior to the 2010 election because his future under the present [consitution] is nothing but a nightmare. The provision is very simple. It doesn’t need translation. You need not be a rocket scientist to understand what it provides but for emphasis I will say it again, He cannot run for President because:
1.) He resigned and;
2.) His resignation cannot be considered as an interruption of his full term.Meaning, even if he only served for less than 3 years, it’s considered full term.
Again, under the pain of redundancy, HE RESIGNED thus he can’t run for re-election. He’s considered to have served the full term. This is the opinion of the Supreme Court, the very court that will later sit as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the body that settles presidential contests
Quite honestly, I’m almost oblivious of what’s going on not because I don’t care but It’s actually more of a choice since I am sensing that our version of politics has become routinary, therefore boring, but also toxic. You’ll feel so dried up to the bone by just looking at them ranting and mudslinging. Political bickerings have become part of our daily course despite the call for unity not just by the President, who simply can’t convince them, but also by the Church, the Civil society and other cause-oriented groups. All the time, they’ll reason that the noise they’re making (as if I give a hoot) is for the people, for the truth and blah blah blah. Yeah right! These politicians will stop at nothing just to advance their hidden agenda even to the point of appearing alone in Senate investigations asking all sorts of questions just for media mileage. Wow! or should I say whew?! But guess what, despite all these exposures who is having a good laugh? The deposed president. And why? because he is leading the surveys with VP de Castro. Have we not had enough of him? When will this stupidity end?
There seems to be no noise about his impending come back. I wonder. But then again I realized - who would when all the noisy are on the same side of the fence. His possible candidacy will be the greatest insult to all of us who joined hands in EDSA, in Cebu and in some parts of the country just to kick him out of Malacañang due to corruption and incompetence. By merely entertaining the thought that he’s coming back makes me sick. The absence of discussion as to the question of whether or not he can run made me review my political law and the jurisprudence involving his ouster in 2001. Now the question, can he really run? With all my readings considered, the answer is NO.
The Supreme Court in the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo GR #146738 March 2, 2001 through the pen of now Chief Justice Puno said,
“The issue then is whether the petitioner resigned as President or should be considered resigned as of January 20, 2001 when respondent took her oath as the 14th President of the Republic. Resignation is not a high level abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements are beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not a governed by any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.
In the cases at bar, the facts shows that petitioner did not write any formal letter of resignation before he evacuated Malacañang Palace in the afternoon of January 20, 2001 after the oath-taking of respondent Arroyo. Consequently, whether or not petitioner resigned has to be determined from his acts and omission before, during and after January 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.
Using this totality test, we hold that petitioner resigned as President.”
And what does it mean when a president resigned from his post? The 1987 Consitution has a very explicit and unequivoval answer. Sec 4, of Art VII in part says,
“…The president shall NOT be eligible for re-election…Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.”
What can Estrada do now is hope and pray that the Consitution will be tinkered prior to the 2010 election because his future under the present [consitution] is nothing but a nightmare. The provision is very simple. It doesn’t need translation. You need not be a rocket scientist to understand what it provides but for emphasis I will say it again, He cannot run for President because:
1.) He resigned and;
2.) His resignation cannot be considered as an interruption of his full term.Meaning, even if he only served for less than 3 years, it’s considered full term.
Again, under the pain of redundancy, HE RESIGNED thus he can’t run for re-election. He’s considered to have served the full term. This is the opinion of the Supreme Court, the very court that will later sit as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the body that settles presidential contests
Friday, April 24, 2009
Obstruction of Justice, Failon’s Case - Opinion of a Non-Lawyer.
The incident last week involving the arrest of Ted Failon’s house help, driver and close relatives brought so much disgust and dismay among those who’ve seen the manner the arrest was carried out. It was brazen, callous, barbaric, draconian, sadistic display of arrogance. There was obviously a clear abuse of authority on the part of the arresting officers. While their intentions may be noble however their actions reflect otherwise - it was a direct assault on people’s rights. It was simply unacceptable. If they were able to do it in front of the cameras how much more off cam?
I was appalled by their complete disregard of these people’s most basic right - to be respected as a human being atleast. The arrest in the hospital was very inhumane and excessive. I was aghast. The relatives of the deceased were never respected. A relative was dragged like a 14th century criminal. All these things happened even before the filing of a formal complaint. Even a criminal doesn’t deserve to be treated the way the relatives and the household members of the victim were treated. And what’s more painful is that they were deprived of the last chance to be by the victim’s bedside especially in the times that their presence was needed the most. That was the last chance that they can be with Trina alive. I was enraged.
In the course of making one of the arrests (I believe it was in the house), one inquired as to the reason, the dark corrupt looking cop responded, “Obstruction of Justice”. How convenient. And just to show to the world that they’re indispensable, the arrest was done without warrant, and the reading of Miranda rights? I guess that’s not even necessary for these people. They just didn’t do it, not that I expected them to but they could have at least pretended to care even just for the cameras. I don’t care how many “takes” it would take, they should have just done it. Read their rights for God’s sake. This will bring me back to my greatest fear, how much more off cam? I can just imagine the situations in the provinces (where people are yet to see how cameras look like) how cops implement the arrest, the kicking, the pulling, the pushing, the hitting, the punching and God knows what else they’ve been doing - Poor Juan dela Cruz.
What is obstruction of justice anyway? By definition, it denotes an interference with the orderly administration of law, impeding or obstructing those who seek justice in court or those who have duties or power of administering justice therein.[1] In the Philippines, this was made flesh by the late Dictator F. Marcos when he signed into law, Presidential Decree 1829 “Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders”. What acts does it penalize?
“It criminalizes the act of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats;
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction;
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal’s offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;.chan robles virtual law library
(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; .chan robles virtual law library
(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;
(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or the court.”
My guess, the provision that they claimed to have been violated, would be par. b of sec 1 of the said decree. My take is, how could there be any obstruction of justice when there is no crime in the first place? Isn’t it that a crime must have been committed first before a simple act of cleaning the mess be converted to “altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing evidence” rendering it useless in court proceedings? But there was no crime. It was suicide. What surprised me is the fact that the QCPD people were too eager to incarcerate the news anchor and poor helpers they bore the brunt of the police officers who, I later heard, have some ax to grind after Failon exposed them in DZMM regarding the shootouts in EDSA. Can they not just accept the fact that they may have committed a mistake there and that Failon was just doing his job as a commentator? The last time I remember, this country is still a democratic one. What happened? Did it just change when I was asleep?
What’s happening now is a clear indication of the malady. It strikes to the very core of justice and equality. While we need the cops to implement the laws zealously, however we don’t mean that they can just tromp on people’s rights and overdo things. There has to be balance. We have to see the worth of every penny that we paid for our taxes. I certainly cannot stomach the fact that the very people who derived their pay from our taxes and who are supposed “to serve and protect us” are the very same people who will mock our rights and treat us as criminals even before proven guilty by any court of law. Disgusting!
[1] AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice § 2 (citing People v. Ormsby, 310 Mich 291, 17 NW2d 187; People v. Somma, 123 Mich App 658, 333 NW2d 117, Shackelford v. Commonwealth, 185 Ky 51, 214 SW 788).
For the analysis of Presidential Decree 1829, check this out > http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn6
I was appalled by their complete disregard of these people’s most basic right - to be respected as a human being atleast. The arrest in the hospital was very inhumane and excessive. I was aghast. The relatives of the deceased were never respected. A relative was dragged like a 14th century criminal. All these things happened even before the filing of a formal complaint. Even a criminal doesn’t deserve to be treated the way the relatives and the household members of the victim were treated. And what’s more painful is that they were deprived of the last chance to be by the victim’s bedside especially in the times that their presence was needed the most. That was the last chance that they can be with Trina alive. I was enraged.
In the course of making one of the arrests (I believe it was in the house), one inquired as to the reason, the dark corrupt looking cop responded, “Obstruction of Justice”. How convenient. And just to show to the world that they’re indispensable, the arrest was done without warrant, and the reading of Miranda rights? I guess that’s not even necessary for these people. They just didn’t do it, not that I expected them to but they could have at least pretended to care even just for the cameras. I don’t care how many “takes” it would take, they should have just done it. Read their rights for God’s sake. This will bring me back to my greatest fear, how much more off cam? I can just imagine the situations in the provinces (where people are yet to see how cameras look like) how cops implement the arrest, the kicking, the pulling, the pushing, the hitting, the punching and God knows what else they’ve been doing - Poor Juan dela Cruz.
What is obstruction of justice anyway? By definition, it denotes an interference with the orderly administration of law, impeding or obstructing those who seek justice in court or those who have duties or power of administering justice therein.[1] In the Philippines, this was made flesh by the late Dictator F. Marcos when he signed into law, Presidential Decree 1829 “Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders”. What acts does it penalize?
“It criminalizes the act of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats;
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction;
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal’s offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;.chan robles virtual law library
(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; .chan robles virtual law library
(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;
(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or the court.”
My guess, the provision that they claimed to have been violated, would be par. b of sec 1 of the said decree. My take is, how could there be any obstruction of justice when there is no crime in the first place? Isn’t it that a crime must have been committed first before a simple act of cleaning the mess be converted to “altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing evidence” rendering it useless in court proceedings? But there was no crime. It was suicide. What surprised me is the fact that the QCPD people were too eager to incarcerate the news anchor and poor helpers they bore the brunt of the police officers who, I later heard, have some ax to grind after Failon exposed them in DZMM regarding the shootouts in EDSA. Can they not just accept the fact that they may have committed a mistake there and that Failon was just doing his job as a commentator? The last time I remember, this country is still a democratic one. What happened? Did it just change when I was asleep?
What’s happening now is a clear indication of the malady. It strikes to the very core of justice and equality. While we need the cops to implement the laws zealously, however we don’t mean that they can just tromp on people’s rights and overdo things. There has to be balance. We have to see the worth of every penny that we paid for our taxes. I certainly cannot stomach the fact that the very people who derived their pay from our taxes and who are supposed “to serve and protect us” are the very same people who will mock our rights and treat us as criminals even before proven guilty by any court of law. Disgusting!
[1] AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice § 2 (citing People v. Ormsby, 310 Mich 291, 17 NW2d 187; People v. Somma, 123 Mich App 658, 333 NW2d 117, Shackelford v. Commonwealth, 185 Ky 51, 214 SW 788).
For the analysis of Presidential Decree 1829, check this out > http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn6
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Manong Ed and the Filipino Electorate
(This is directly taken from my reply to Prof Agnes of FEU, Institute of Arts and Sciences)
Hello Sir Agnes. Long time no hear? Hehehehehe
I just finished reading the doc you sent. It seems to me that you like this area a lot - electoral process. This is one of the interesting areas in the field of political science esp. in Philippines setting. It’s very dynamic and it’s one of the most talked about topics. It’s also something that oftentimes disheartens those who really value election.
In the case of Manong Ed, no offense, I think he’s too ambitious. He committed the gravest error of equating Pampanga to the rest of the country. His dramatic win in his locale is an isolated case. Replication is out of the picture. He is even now facing heavy opposition in his own province. Running a “national campaign” is certainly not a walk in the park. It takes more than “moral regeneration” (for want of a better term), as his primary platform, to win the presidency. It takes more than naiveté. It takes more than provincial know-how to be in Malacañang. It takes more than what he has to be the next Commander in Chief of the AFP. He just simply doesn’t have what it takes to be the next president for now and my guess even in the future, not that I belittle him or his ability although I really do. While there is no denying that we need a leader who possesses moral strength or someone who exemplifies moral uprightness or someone who embodies Filipino values, he is just too self-righteous for me and I find it dangerous. His presence can further blur the very thin line that separates the Church and the State.
Speaking of the Filipino electorate, I honestly find it hard to describe who and what we really are in terms of what we prefer in a candidate. A lot of factors come into play. Apart from personal character-traits, there are more that seem to matter to a lot of us: name recall, performance (if candidate has previously held public office), popularity, political machinery, grassroots support, support of the religious and the pretending to be religious groups, support of Juday (pun intended), money, which is oftentimes derived from crimes that seemed to proliferate only when election is nearing such as kidnapping, bank robbery and so on and so forth, and believe it or not others vote depending on who is ahead in the latest survey, the list is never ending. We are simply insatiable.
With all things considered, I really think the multi-party system is to blame not the electorate. Why? Because relying on the latter to become what we envisioned them to become is wishful thinking. We are simply unique though predictable. And we shouldn’t even think that education is the remedy. It certainly is not the solution because we really cannot control how we want them to think or at least be like us in the way we think because this simply presupposes intellectual arrogance and therefore must be obscured along with the crude practices that we had and continue to have. A Harvard graduate still prefers Estrada, come what may, and a Georgetown alumnus may continue to find the petite Gloria better than the rest. This is a perfect juxtaposition of how we Filipino think even with education – voting wise. Despite the weirdness, I still find wisdom in the overall choice of the Filipino people for after all that’s the real beauty of democracy – choosing the person you think can deliver. There’s nothing much that w can do when we speak of the “Filipino electorate”
I will dedicate another chapter to explain why I believe multi party system is to blame but for now I have to limit my explanation since my eyes are now super tired and my fingers have become numb. I have been typing the whole day. (-:
It’s always a pleasure sharing ideas with you, Sir.
Hello Sir Agnes. Long time no hear? Hehehehehe
I just finished reading the doc you sent. It seems to me that you like this area a lot - electoral process. This is one of the interesting areas in the field of political science esp. in Philippines setting. It’s very dynamic and it’s one of the most talked about topics. It’s also something that oftentimes disheartens those who really value election.
In the case of Manong Ed, no offense, I think he’s too ambitious. He committed the gravest error of equating Pampanga to the rest of the country. His dramatic win in his locale is an isolated case. Replication is out of the picture. He is even now facing heavy opposition in his own province. Running a “national campaign” is certainly not a walk in the park. It takes more than “moral regeneration” (for want of a better term), as his primary platform, to win the presidency. It takes more than naiveté. It takes more than provincial know-how to be in Malacañang. It takes more than what he has to be the next Commander in Chief of the AFP. He just simply doesn’t have what it takes to be the next president for now and my guess even in the future, not that I belittle him or his ability although I really do. While there is no denying that we need a leader who possesses moral strength or someone who exemplifies moral uprightness or someone who embodies Filipino values, he is just too self-righteous for me and I find it dangerous. His presence can further blur the very thin line that separates the Church and the State.
Speaking of the Filipino electorate, I honestly find it hard to describe who and what we really are in terms of what we prefer in a candidate. A lot of factors come into play. Apart from personal character-traits, there are more that seem to matter to a lot of us: name recall, performance (if candidate has previously held public office), popularity, political machinery, grassroots support, support of the religious and the pretending to be religious groups, support of Juday (pun intended), money, which is oftentimes derived from crimes that seemed to proliferate only when election is nearing such as kidnapping, bank robbery and so on and so forth, and believe it or not others vote depending on who is ahead in the latest survey, the list is never ending. We are simply insatiable.
With all things considered, I really think the multi-party system is to blame not the electorate. Why? Because relying on the latter to become what we envisioned them to become is wishful thinking. We are simply unique though predictable. And we shouldn’t even think that education is the remedy. It certainly is not the solution because we really cannot control how we want them to think or at least be like us in the way we think because this simply presupposes intellectual arrogance and therefore must be obscured along with the crude practices that we had and continue to have. A Harvard graduate still prefers Estrada, come what may, and a Georgetown alumnus may continue to find the petite Gloria better than the rest. This is a perfect juxtaposition of how we Filipino think even with education – voting wise. Despite the weirdness, I still find wisdom in the overall choice of the Filipino people for after all that’s the real beauty of democracy – choosing the person you think can deliver. There’s nothing much that w can do when we speak of the “Filipino electorate”
I will dedicate another chapter to explain why I believe multi party system is to blame but for now I have to limit my explanation since my eyes are now super tired and my fingers have become numb. I have been typing the whole day. (-:
It’s always a pleasure sharing ideas with you, Sir.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Going Back to Law School
I am so determined to go back to school this first semester. Going back has never been as exciting as this one. I have been away for so many years. The thought of once again memorizing provisions will surely be a welcome addition to my seemingly routine life - house, work then house and work again, sleep, eat, and sleep and eat again - nothing extra ordinary. It has become so boring. Love life is boring not that I am complaining it’s just that it’s not as interesting as it used to be. Sex life? Goodness! When was the last time I really sweat? I can’t even recall. The only consolation will probably be my work because I am kind of enjoying it. There is a perfect balance in it. It requires a lot of thinking which I really need getting used to.(-: 90% less customer contact and more independence. Thus, school is something that will spice up my life more. As I said it’s a welcome addition. It’s hard to be not in school. If only I could just study forever, of course with lots of money to support me, I would have.
Meeting thinking people, reading law books, encountering exciting professors, meeting deadlines, taking extremely long and nosebleed-exams are things I am missing. Standing up with almost nothing to say bec you’re so damned scared not knowing what sort of questions will be asked and the most important thing of all what possible answers can you scout from the recesses of your mind and translate them into mature, lawyer-like phrases…Gosh! Scary? Definitely. Exciting? You bet. I remembered vividly when I was in one of my classes way back 2002 (I know. I told you it’s been awhile) She was kind enough to allow me to read the provision. Thinking that it was the only thing she’d like me to do, I stood up with no hesitation and I must say I read the provision with eloquence and with my undying unique accent but guess what after the reading there was a question- a difficult one. I never expected it. I thought she was just missing my reading skills (just kidding). I love situations, scenarios, cases and the like but dude that day I surely wasn’t loving it. I can’t remember anything. My spirit went somewhere else and so she asked me again to read a line from the same provision and this time I could even barely read. I was no better than a 5th grader. My accent was gone. (-: And by the way, she flunked me that semester. She must have been very disappointed bec she was the type who doesn’t really fail students unless they’ll force her to. That will give you a glimpse of how I probably looked like that day in her classroom. I missed it. Weird huh but I really missed it. The sudden gush of blood from your heart going straight to your head that renders you oblivious for awhile, others call it adrenaline rush, I call it torture and bliss. (-: I am so excited. FEU, here I come.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Inquisitorial Power of the Philippine Congress
Sec. 21, Art VI, of the Phil Constitution states, ” The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.”
The above provision clearly states the basis of Congress in conducting investigations, and the same provision provides the limitations in the execise of such power. Congress, specifically the Senate, has been very busy conducting hearings. Almost every month, the Senate opens an investigations in almost everything under the sun or I should say where there is a lot of media coverage (Look at Mar. He is everywhere with this Legacy scam. Why? Obviously bec as early as 2008, he’s already declared his candidacy for the Presidency though vicariously. The nerve).
A reasonable man would even think that the Senate has now become the Dept of Justice, PNP and the Court all at the same time. Out of the hundreds of investigations that the Senate has conducted, how many of them have been translated into laws or better yet has there been any conclusion to all of these hearings at all? What has happened to the ZTE scandal and fertilizer fund inquiries to mention a few?! And now this Legacy scam? Is there even an end to all of these? Certainly this is not what I imagined where my taxes would go. It wouldn’t hurt if there’s even a single law enacted after the hearings but there’s none. This is no longer in aid of legislation but in aid of publication.
The above provision clearly states the basis of Congress in conducting investigations, and the same provision provides the limitations in the execise of such power. Congress, specifically the Senate, has been very busy conducting hearings. Almost every month, the Senate opens an investigations in almost everything under the sun or I should say where there is a lot of media coverage (Look at Mar. He is everywhere with this Legacy scam. Why? Obviously bec as early as 2008, he’s already declared his candidacy for the Presidency though vicariously. The nerve).
A reasonable man would even think that the Senate has now become the Dept of Justice, PNP and the Court all at the same time. Out of the hundreds of investigations that the Senate has conducted, how many of them have been translated into laws or better yet has there been any conclusion to all of these hearings at all? What has happened to the ZTE scandal and fertilizer fund inquiries to mention a few?! And now this Legacy scam? Is there even an end to all of these? Certainly this is not what I imagined where my taxes would go. It wouldn’t hurt if there’s even a single law enacted after the hearings but there’s none. This is no longer in aid of legislation but in aid of publication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)