I've been gone (from Manila) for about 1.5 weeks and things get exciting--explosions at the mall and a pardon for a plunderer. Wow, maybe I really should get out more.
Seriously, when the Erap pardon first came out, I was just about to prepare for a retreat and all of a sudden, I get this deluge of sms from irate friends cussing in all shades of blue (many of them female). Many asked me why, which is funny because I really don't know the answer (I have my speculations but, of course, your guess is as good as mine).
Let me hazard a guess though.
The Erap pardon is not an act of grace nor an act of forgiveness--it is purely political. Gloria is storing capital for 2010 because when she steps down--assuming she's not sooner removed before then--she is going to be sued for plunder, just like Erap. Right now, there is no one looking out for her because when she loses power in 2010, she will just be another ex-president facing a plunder charge. So the Erap pardon is clearly political security for her even as she anticipates the deluge of plunder suits she and Mike Arroyo will face.
As to why Erap accepted it--why shouldn't he? It is a golden opportunity to parlay into political capital once again his tarnished name and reputation. And if it means not calling for Gloria to step down sooner than 2010 and calling her "President", it is a cheap price to pay and a not too bitter pill to swallow.
In the meantime, we, the people, have just been had again.
Old dogs do learn new tricks--Erap and Gloria did. Whyever can't we, the people, learn?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Lives resume, never to be the same again
As the beating of the snare drums dies down, and the last barricade removed, Taft becomes normal again, signalling the end of the Bar Examinations of 2007.
Far from going back to normal, lives are resumed but are changed--never more to be the same again.
4 years of law school does not prepare you for the 5 months of review and the one month of last-minute preparation to take the 8 exams spread across 4 Sundays.
4 years of law school does not prepare you for the terrible bouts of confusion, despair, depression, anxiety, fatigue, illness, and surrender that dances across one's emotional spectrum every day.
4 years of law school also does not prepare you for the joy of newly-discovered relationships with others in the same journey; of bonds formed and forged forever in the crucible of shared anxieties, shared triumphs, shared joys and shared decisions; of unlikely friendships created out of perhaps a mutual need, truly serendipitous moments or perhaps even divine intervention.
4 years of law school will never prepare you for the epiphany that there is more to life than law school but that a life lived in the pursuit of the law may, after all, be one of life's nobler callings.
After 4 years of law school 5 months of review and 4 Sundays, lives resume but are never the same again.
To the U.P. bar examinees of 2007: may you truly live changed lives--seeking always for what is best in this profession that is often a picture of what is worst, striving always for the justice that is desired by many yet is elusive to they who need it most; speaking always the truth that sets people free but is often masked and hidden by the lies that chain and bind; standing always for freedom that is the greatest gift yet is often never received.
To the U.P. Bar examinees of 2007: many of you have said, "we hope to make you proud." You honor me greatly by that, as I do not deserve that privilege. My answer to you has always been--and remains still--"you already have."
Far from going back to normal, lives are resumed but are changed--never more to be the same again.
4 years of law school does not prepare you for the 5 months of review and the one month of last-minute preparation to take the 8 exams spread across 4 Sundays.
4 years of law school does not prepare you for the terrible bouts of confusion, despair, depression, anxiety, fatigue, illness, and surrender that dances across one's emotional spectrum every day.
4 years of law school also does not prepare you for the joy of newly-discovered relationships with others in the same journey; of bonds formed and forged forever in the crucible of shared anxieties, shared triumphs, shared joys and shared decisions; of unlikely friendships created out of perhaps a mutual need, truly serendipitous moments or perhaps even divine intervention.
4 years of law school will never prepare you for the epiphany that there is more to life than law school but that a life lived in the pursuit of the law may, after all, be one of life's nobler callings.
After 4 years of law school 5 months of review and 4 Sundays, lives resume but are never the same again.
To the U.P. bar examinees of 2007: may you truly live changed lives--seeking always for what is best in this profession that is often a picture of what is worst, striving always for the justice that is desired by many yet is elusive to they who need it most; speaking always the truth that sets people free but is often masked and hidden by the lies that chain and bind; standing always for freedom that is the greatest gift yet is often never received.
To the U.P. Bar examinees of 2007: many of you have said, "we hope to make you proud." You honor me greatly by that, as I do not deserve that privilege. My answer to you has always been--and remains still--"you already have."
Saturday, September 15, 2007
"The voice of one crying in the wilderness. . ." (Matthew 3:3)
Jovito R. Salonga, the Best President we never had, Senate President, Senator, Patriot, Nationalist, Ramon Magsaysay Awardee, Political Detainee, War Veteran, U.P. Lawyer and Bar Topnotcher--moral force, man of God and Sigma Rhoan no more.
The newspapers today speak of a real man standing for his principles and standing by his word, even when it is unpopular, even when it goes against the grain, even when it is not expedient, for so long as it is the right thing to do: Jovito Salonga resigns from Sigma Rhoa "effective immediately."
I have had the happy honor of not only meeting the man personally many times over but to have worked with and for him. I first met him when he called me over the phone and introduced himself as "Professor Te, si Salonga ito." He asked to meet with me at his home in Valle Verde and there he broached to me the possibility of forming a student monitoring team to look into cases of delay in the courts as well as to be a watchdog for judicial appointments--this was to become Bantay Katarungan. I gave my two cents worth and he listened; he later offered me a job with Bantay Katarungan to be the coordinator; I was flattered no end but had to decline it because my schedule at that time would not allow it--it was still during the reign of the death penalty and my docket was, literally, clogged. I was greatly honored to even be considered and I told him that. And his answer was, "Professor, just continue doing what you are doing; you are doing good work." To this day, he calls me "Professor" or "Attorney", and to this day, it is impossible not to feel greatly honored that this man, Jovito Salonga, would address you with two titles that he, himself, has distinguished and brought great honor to.
Since that time, I have met him many times; I have represented him in two cases before the Supreme Court and have had the benefit of his legal acumen in the formulation of arguments and even the acerbic and dry wit that is rarely seen. Unforgettable for me is his response when we (Senator Bobby Tanada and I) were offering him the "first chair" as it were in arguing before the Supreme Court our petition to declare the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) unconstitutional; he said, with a hint of a smile, "huwag na ako, at baka masigawan ko pa ang Korte. . . (pause). . .alam mo naman ako'y bingi na."
Ka Jovy, as I call him, is a man who knows the right thing to do at the right time. His stand on many things is well-known. Yet, many people were surprised to hear him speak out on the Cris Mendez/Sigma Rho issue; not a few dismissed his "promise" that he would resign if Sigma Rho would be shown to have been involved in Mendez's death. His resignation from Sigma Rho is not surprising, it is simply Salonga.
Today, Jovito R. Salonga has once again shown what it truly means to have honor, to have courage, to have integrity. May he, like John the Baptist (Matthew 3:3) , be a voice crying out to proclaim the good news that is to come but may he, unlike John, not be simply the "voice of one crying in the wilderness" but the first voice in a cacophony and chorus that is to come.
The newspapers today speak of a real man standing for his principles and standing by his word, even when it is unpopular, even when it goes against the grain, even when it is not expedient, for so long as it is the right thing to do: Jovito Salonga resigns from Sigma Rhoa "effective immediately."
I have had the happy honor of not only meeting the man personally many times over but to have worked with and for him. I first met him when he called me over the phone and introduced himself as "Professor Te, si Salonga ito." He asked to meet with me at his home in Valle Verde and there he broached to me the possibility of forming a student monitoring team to look into cases of delay in the courts as well as to be a watchdog for judicial appointments--this was to become Bantay Katarungan. I gave my two cents worth and he listened; he later offered me a job with Bantay Katarungan to be the coordinator; I was flattered no end but had to decline it because my schedule at that time would not allow it--it was still during the reign of the death penalty and my docket was, literally, clogged. I was greatly honored to even be considered and I told him that. And his answer was, "Professor, just continue doing what you are doing; you are doing good work." To this day, he calls me "Professor" or "Attorney", and to this day, it is impossible not to feel greatly honored that this man, Jovito Salonga, would address you with two titles that he, himself, has distinguished and brought great honor to.
Since that time, I have met him many times; I have represented him in two cases before the Supreme Court and have had the benefit of his legal acumen in the formulation of arguments and even the acerbic and dry wit that is rarely seen. Unforgettable for me is his response when we (Senator Bobby Tanada and I) were offering him the "first chair" as it were in arguing before the Supreme Court our petition to declare the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) unconstitutional; he said, with a hint of a smile, "huwag na ako, at baka masigawan ko pa ang Korte. . . (pause). . .alam mo naman ako'y bingi na."
Ka Jovy, as I call him, is a man who knows the right thing to do at the right time. His stand on many things is well-known. Yet, many people were surprised to hear him speak out on the Cris Mendez/Sigma Rho issue; not a few dismissed his "promise" that he would resign if Sigma Rho would be shown to have been involved in Mendez's death. His resignation from Sigma Rho is not surprising, it is simply Salonga.
Today, Jovito R. Salonga has once again shown what it truly means to have honor, to have courage, to have integrity. May he, like John the Baptist (Matthew 3:3) , be a voice crying out to proclaim the good news that is to come but may he, unlike John, not be simply the "voice of one crying in the wilderness" but the first voice in a cacophony and chorus that is to come.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
A Primer (of sorts) on The Hazing Law (RA 8049)
For a more constructive debate and a clearer idea of what the Hazing Law can do or cannot do --
Q. How is hazing defined?
A. As used in the law, hazing is an initiation rite or practice used as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization. (sec. 1)
Q. How is it done?
A. Under RA 8049, the essence of hazing is "placing the recruit, neophyte, or applicant in some emarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him(her) to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury." (sec. 1) [My observation: the only difference apparently between hazing as defined and recitation in the UP Law School is that the law student is already in the college of law but the neophyte is still aspiring to enter.]
Q. Who are covered by the hazing law?
A. Any club, or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, Philippine Military Academy, or officer and cadet corps of the Citizen's Military Training or Citizen's Army Training except those "physical, mental and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and ehance the physical and mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular members" of the AFP, PNP as approved by concerned government officials. (sec. 1)
Q. When is hazing allowed?
A. It is allowed only if there is a prior written notice to the scholl authorities or head of organization seven (7) days before the initiation; the notice shall indicate the period of the initiation which shall not exceed three (3) days, shall include the names of those to be subjected to the activities and shall "contain an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites."
(sec. 2) [My observation: Yeah, right.] Additionally, under section 3, the head of the school or organization or their representative must assign at least two (2) representatives of the school or organization to be present. It is the duty of such representative to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant. (My observation and query: now who was the representative during the hazing of Cris Mendez? Your guess. . . should be kept to yourself unless you want to be sued for libel. 
)
Q. What are the legal consequences of hazing? Who are liable for hazing?
A. It depends on what happens to the neophyte or applicant.
a) If he/she is physically injured or dies as a result of hazing (whether authorized or otherwise), the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals and shall suffer a range of penalties raning from prision correccional (six months and one day to six years) to reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years), depending on the extent and nature of injuries inflicted (if death results, the penalty is automatically reclusion perpetua). The maximum of the penalty, in each case, will be imposed if: (a) the recruitment is attended by force, intimidation, violence or deceit; (b) the person who decides to quit is prevented from doing so; (c) the person, after being hazed, is prevented from reporting the incident to parents, police or other authorities; (d) the hazing is committed outside the school or institution; (e) the victim is below 12 years old at the time of hazing.
b) The owner of the place where the hazing is done is liable as an accomplice when he actually knew that hazing would be conducted but failed to prevent the same; if the hazing is held in the home of any of the officers or members, the parents are liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing and failed to prevent it.
c) The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to prevent the same are liable as accomplices.
d) The officers, former officers, alumni who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts are committed are liable as principals. Officers or members who knowingly cooperate by inducing the victim to be present are liable as principals. The adviser who is present when the acts are committed and failed to take action is liable as principal.
e) The president, manager, director or other officer of a corporation engaged in hazing as a requirement for employment.
Q. What is the liability of a person who is merely present?
A. The presence of any person during a hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as a principal unless he prevented the hazing.
Q. Can the mitigating circumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a wrong" or praeter intentionem be allowed?
A. No, under sec. 4, this mitigating circumstance is expressly disallowed.
Q. How is hazing defined?
A. As used in the law, hazing is an initiation rite or practice used as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization. (sec. 1)
Q. How is it done?
A. Under RA 8049, the essence of hazing is "placing the recruit, neophyte, or applicant in some emarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him(her) to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury." (sec. 1) [My observation: the only difference apparently between hazing as defined and recitation in the UP Law School is that the law student is already in the college of law but the neophyte is still aspiring to enter.]
Q. Who are covered by the hazing law?
A. Any club, or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, Philippine Military Academy, or officer and cadet corps of the Citizen's Military Training or Citizen's Army Training except those "physical, mental and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and ehance the physical and mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular members" of the AFP, PNP as approved by concerned government officials. (sec. 1)
Q. When is hazing allowed?
A. It is allowed only if there is a prior written notice to the scholl authorities or head of organization seven (7) days before the initiation; the notice shall indicate the period of the initiation which shall not exceed three (3) days, shall include the names of those to be subjected to the activities and shall "contain an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites."
(sec. 2) [My observation: Yeah, right.] Additionally, under section 3, the head of the school or organization or their representative must assign at least two (2) representatives of the school or organization to be present. It is the duty of such representative to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant. (My observation and query: now who was the representative during the hazing of Cris Mendez? Your guess. . . should be kept to yourself unless you want to be sued for libel. )Q. What are the legal consequences of hazing? Who are liable for hazing?
A. It depends on what happens to the neophyte or applicant.
a) If he/she is physically injured or dies as a result of hazing (whether authorized or otherwise), the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals and shall suffer a range of penalties raning from prision correccional (six months and one day to six years) to reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years), depending on the extent and nature of injuries inflicted (if death results, the penalty is automatically reclusion perpetua). The maximum of the penalty, in each case, will be imposed if: (a) the recruitment is attended by force, intimidation, violence or deceit; (b) the person who decides to quit is prevented from doing so; (c) the person, after being hazed, is prevented from reporting the incident to parents, police or other authorities; (d) the hazing is committed outside the school or institution; (e) the victim is below 12 years old at the time of hazing.
b) The owner of the place where the hazing is done is liable as an accomplice when he actually knew that hazing would be conducted but failed to prevent the same; if the hazing is held in the home of any of the officers or members, the parents are liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing and failed to prevent it.
c) The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to prevent the same are liable as accomplices.
d) The officers, former officers, alumni who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts are committed are liable as principals. Officers or members who knowingly cooperate by inducing the victim to be present are liable as principals. The adviser who is present when the acts are committed and failed to take action is liable as principal.
e) The president, manager, director or other officer of a corporation engaged in hazing as a requirement for employment.
Q. What is the liability of a person who is merely present?
A. The presence of any person during a hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as a principal unless he prevented the hazing.
Q. Can the mitigating circumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a wrong" or praeter intentionem be allowed?
A. No, under sec. 4, this mitigating circumstance is expressly disallowed.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Ang mamatay nang dahil sa 'yo, ang pinatay nang dahil sa wala
Note to the faint of heart: I am angry; no, I am enraged. The words that will follow are angry words. If you are looking for nice, peaceful and sweet-sounding words, skip this one. But if you are as enraged as I am, read on and participate.
Note to those who will take the other side: I welcome constructive debate from people who are willing to put their names where their thoughts are. For masked thugs trolling the blogs of those who oppose you, you have no place in this debate. Go, make yourself scarce; if possible, for all time.
Ang mamatay nang dahil sa 'yo (to die for you) -- the last line from the Lupang Hinirang, our national anthem, speaks of the nobility of a death that is achieved for a purpose bigger than one's self and one's life. It is--or should be--the ultimate goal of any person who loves--be it country, principle, faith, fellowmen or God.
Certainly not for a fraternity. And most certainly, not for a fraternity that holds itself out to be gentlemen warriors but does not have the integrity to own up to killing one of they would claim as their own nor the courage to name the ones responsible.
Ang pinatay nang dahil sa wala (to be killed for nothing) best describes Cris Mendez and other nameless, faceless victims of this system of barbarism that is the hallmark of fraternity initiations. Indeed, it is as if Cris Mendez's death was for nothing as even the very fraternity he aspired to join would not even come forward to offer a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
There is a rule in Evidence that speaks of Character--which is who or what you are, when no one is looking. It is very easy to look noble when you are being watched; it is very easy to look dignified when you are on a stage. But when you can exercise that nobility and possess that dignity even when no one's watching, that is character.
To those who killed Cris Mendez, no one was watching as you beat him to a pulp; no one was watching as you reduced a life to nothing but a carcass; no one was watching when you inflicted blow upon blow in the name of a "brotherhood" that deserves no glory other than that which is associated with that other organization that practices omerta.
There is no nobility in beating up someone who cannot fight back, there is only cowardice. A warrior with honor never raises his fist or his sword against a defenseless foe, only a thug does. Sigma Rhoan Juan Ponce Enrile described you best: not gentlemen warriors but-a bunch of "thugs" with no character, with no honor, and as the Romulans would say, with no name.
Until the day when you surrender those among you who killed Cris Mendez, until the day when your current leaders have the honor, the character, the courage and, if you will pardon the sexist term, the balls to fall on your sword and come forward to be held accountable, you do not exist, in my contemplation.
And for those in law school, you had better pray that you never enroll in any of my classes, ever--and that includes the OLA program, which is mandatory for a UP degree--because I cannot give a grade to someone who does not exist.
And for the alumni of this collection of thugs that killed Cris Mendez, stop basking in romanticized glory and do the right thing--withdraw ALL support from these thugs and let the law take its course.
Note to those who will take the other side: I welcome constructive debate from people who are willing to put their names where their thoughts are. For masked thugs trolling the blogs of those who oppose you, you have no place in this debate. Go, make yourself scarce; if possible, for all time.
Ang mamatay nang dahil sa 'yo (to die for you) -- the last line from the Lupang Hinirang, our national anthem, speaks of the nobility of a death that is achieved for a purpose bigger than one's self and one's life. It is--or should be--the ultimate goal of any person who loves--be it country, principle, faith, fellowmen or God.
Certainly not for a fraternity. And most certainly, not for a fraternity that holds itself out to be gentlemen warriors but does not have the integrity to own up to killing one of they would claim as their own nor the courage to name the ones responsible.
Ang pinatay nang dahil sa wala (to be killed for nothing) best describes Cris Mendez and other nameless, faceless victims of this system of barbarism that is the hallmark of fraternity initiations. Indeed, it is as if Cris Mendez's death was for nothing as even the very fraternity he aspired to join would not even come forward to offer a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
There is a rule in Evidence that speaks of Character--which is who or what you are, when no one is looking. It is very easy to look noble when you are being watched; it is very easy to look dignified when you are on a stage. But when you can exercise that nobility and possess that dignity even when no one's watching, that is character.
To those who killed Cris Mendez, no one was watching as you beat him to a pulp; no one was watching as you reduced a life to nothing but a carcass; no one was watching when you inflicted blow upon blow in the name of a "brotherhood" that deserves no glory other than that which is associated with that other organization that practices omerta.
There is no nobility in beating up someone who cannot fight back, there is only cowardice. A warrior with honor never raises his fist or his sword against a defenseless foe, only a thug does. Sigma Rhoan Juan Ponce Enrile described you best: not gentlemen warriors but-a bunch of "thugs" with no character, with no honor, and as the Romulans would say, with no name.
Until the day when you surrender those among you who killed Cris Mendez, until the day when your current leaders have the honor, the character, the courage and, if you will pardon the sexist term, the balls to fall on your sword and come forward to be held accountable, you do not exist, in my contemplation.
And for those in law school, you had better pray that you never enroll in any of my classes, ever--and that includes the OLA program, which is mandatory for a UP degree--because I cannot give a grade to someone who does not exist.
And for the alumni of this collection of thugs that killed Cris Mendez, stop basking in romanticized glory and do the right thing--withdraw ALL support from these thugs and let the law take its course.
The Blood of Brothers
I have written on this before and it gives no pleasure to write again on this. But another son, brother, person, human being has been killed by a fraternity: Chris Mendez by Sigma Rho. Never mind that there is no official acknowledgement by Sigma Rho; its silence on this matter speaks more eloquently than any official confession.I have been reading many of my students' blogs on this latest episode of fraternity violence, this time inflicted on one it would call their own, and almost all have asked the question, "why?" There is no answer there that can be found other than to say that it is perhaps a mindless adherence to an outdated tradition of compelling loyalty by means of blood-letting and blood sharing. Yet, we live in times that we would consider civilized, how then explain the almost morbid fascination of fraternities (and I generalize here to include ALL Fraternities; it is their burden to prove me wrong) with exacting loyalty and commitment by means of physical violence?I am not a frat man and I am not a barbarian, they are the barbarians, for how else explain the ritualistic blood-letting that must accompany every entry into these greek-lettered societies?I have never considered physical violence to be a measure of anything other than the shallowness of a person's capacity to reason and the absence of a person's capacity to inspire. Commitment and true brotherhood may be exacted by reason and inspiration, blind loyalty by beatings. That is the difference between humans and horses; you can inspire a person to follow you into the gates of hell but you will have to beat that into a horse.Yet, these fraternities pride themselves to be the best that there is to offer; Sigma Rho, in its posters extolling alumni (some of whom have publicly distanced themselves from the violence but without resigning), call themselves "gentlemen warriors." If you truly are the best, gentlemen, you do not need to beat commitment into your neophytes; if the gospel you preach is truly the good news, then the ultimate act of hate has no place in it.I am not a frat man but I am part of a brotherhood--a brotherhood that preaches the good news that, yes, everyone is entitled to respect. My brothers are committed to me and I, to them, not because we were beaten up but because we share the same principles, the same way of living, the same faith and the same experience of love and being loved. So, even if I am not a frat man, I do know of whence I speak when I speak of being a brother to another.In Genesis 4:9, ". . .the Lord said to Cain, 'Where is Abel, your brother?' He said, 'I do not know, am I my brother's keeper?'"Cris Mendez was hazed so that he could be a brother; ultimately, his blood was spilled by those who would call him, yet not keep him, as brother. The greater tragedy is not that he was killed in the name of brotherhood, but that the brotherhood to which he aspired would even wash his blood off their hands by simply asking, "am I (Cris's) keeper?" To those who killed Cris Mendez, let me say this: Yes, you are your brother's keeper and his blood is on your hands--not only by you who lifted your hand against him to beat him, to maul him, to spill his blood, but also by you who would stand mute and lift no voice of condemnation for those among your brothers who killed Cris. Yes, you are your brother's keeper and, if you would cherish his memory, you would not stand mute in the face of the grief and bereavement of his family and his friends but rather break your silence to let the truth out.Yes, you are your brother's keeper for, ultimately, as Donne puts it "any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
Friday, December 08, 2006
Bastusan Na!
The Filipino language has a beautiful and appropriate word for what happened at the House of De Venecia (I refuse to call it the House of Representatives anymore as they no longer represent me in any way) the past two days BASTUSAN.
Resolution No. 1450 passed by De Venecia’s kennel can be best described in that one single word: BASTUSAN.
The nearest approximation that would do justice to the flavor and meaning of this one word is an abject lack of respect.
Turn about is fair play, (none of you are worthy of the appellation “Mr”, which I proudly claim, so henceforth you are simply) De Venecia, Nograles, Defensor, Lagman, Salapudin, Del Mar and everyone else, male or female, in the House of De Venecia who refused to stand on principle and give the sovereign Filipino people the respect they deserve. Bastusan na ba? E di, bastusan na nga!
The latest issuance from the House of De Venecia in full (without annotation, as words fail to capture the venality of this piece of [fill in your own expletive])
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Quezon City, Metro Manila
Thirteenth Congress
Third Regular Session
RESOLUTION NO. 1450
RESOLUTION CALLING ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISION OF, THE CONSTITUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, ARTICLE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, there is a growing clamor from various sectors of oursociety to amend or revise the Constitution;
WHEREAS, it is imperative that any proposal to amend or revise anyprovision of the Constitution shall adhere to the express provision ofthe Constitution as provided by Section 1, Article 17 of the Constitution;
WHEREAS, Section 1, Sub-paragraph 1 of Article 17 of theConstitution provides that: "Any amendment to, or revision of, thisConstitution may be proposed by: the Congress upon a vote ofthree-fourths of all its members.”
WHEREAS, while there are alternate modes of effecting charterchange, adopting the afore-cited Constitutional provision quoted inthe immediately preceding paragraph hereof is the mode recommended byan overwhelming majority of the Members of Congress;
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that proposals to amend or revise theConstitution could be considered by Congress in an orderly andpractical manner, a call for ALL THE MEMBERS of Congress to propose amendments to, or revision of, the Constitution shall be made, as thisresolution proposes.
WHEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED TO CALL ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTiON TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION AT THE PLENARY HALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BATASAN COMPLEX, QUEZON CITY BEGINNING AT 10 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 UNTIL THE APPROVAL OF THE PARTICULAR AMENDMENTS OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR SUBMISSION FOR THE PEOPLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATION IN ACCORDANCE OF SECTION IV, ARTICLE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Very Afraid
Since the word came out that Miriam might be Chief Justice, people have been asking if that is at all possible. In a word: Yes.
There is no rule or law that limits the choice of Chief Justice to those who are already on the Court. The appointment of the Chief Justice from among the incumbents is tradition but not law. So too is the appointment of the most Senior Associate Justice to succeed the Chief Justice; this was notably not followed by Marcos when he bypassed former Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee twice.
In the United States, Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed directly as Chief Justice without sitting on the Bench; so too the current Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts.
Perhaps the question about Miriam in relation to the prospect of being Chief Justice is not whether it is possible but how probable it is. Again, in a word: Quite. Probable, that is.
The last question that should be asked about Miriam being Chief Justice is, “should we be afraid? “ In a word: No. We should be VERY AFRAID.
There is no rule or law that limits the choice of Chief Justice to those who are already on the Court. The appointment of the Chief Justice from among the incumbents is tradition but not law. So too is the appointment of the most Senior Associate Justice to succeed the Chief Justice; this was notably not followed by Marcos when he bypassed former Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee twice.
In the United States, Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed directly as Chief Justice without sitting on the Bench; so too the current Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts.
Perhaps the question about Miriam in relation to the prospect of being Chief Justice is not whether it is possible but how probable it is. Again, in a word: Quite. Probable, that is.
The last question that should be asked about Miriam being Chief Justice is, “should we be afraid? “ In a word: No. We should be VERY AFRAID.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
A Win?
It’s not exactly a win; in fact the dispositive portion of the Decision says all the Petitions are granted only in part and dismissed as to all other respects. But at least something came out of it.
I’m referring to the Supreme Court’s Decision in the CPR case, which I argued before the Supreme Court En Banc on April 4, promulgated yesterday.
The Court upheld the law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, which is Marcos vintage, but struck down the press release, i.e., CPR. For me, it was a foregone conclusion that CPR would be struck down but I was more interested in striking down Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. Unfortunately the Court did not see it my way.
What is interesting about the CPR Decision is this part:
“In sum, this Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people, especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In several policy addresses, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed to uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their prosperity. He said that “in cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny.”
For this reason, the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. On the other hand, B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time, place and manner of assemblies. Far from being insidious, “maximum tolerance” is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally “permits” is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard.
In this Decision, the Court goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B.P. No. 880. If, after that period, no such parks are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the law, all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein. The only requirement will be written notices to the police and the mayor’s office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED in part, and respondents, more particularly the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision, subject to the giving of advance notices, no prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law. Furthermore, Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR), insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID and respondents are ENJOINED to REFRAIN from using it and to STRICTLY OBSERVE the requirements of maximum tolerance. The petitions are DISMISSED in all other respects, and the CONSTITUTIONALITY of Batas Pambansa No. 880 is SUSTAINED.”
What the Court essentially ordered is that all local governments all over the country must designate freedom parks within 30 days, otherwise the “no permit, no rally” provision in the law, sec. 4, becomes inoperative. Essentially, the right to freedom of assembly has become subject to a “resolutory” condition of sorts.
That’s why it’s a weird decision, from where I sit.
Also, the Court said the law was not vague nor overbroad and that it was not a content-based restriction to freedom of assembly and expression. Of course, I disagreed with this in my Memorandum to the Court but, hey, you lose some and then you lose some more.
It’s the latest thing nowadays—a “win-win” formula for cases of transcendental public importance; for example the recent EO 464 case. I’m not sure I like this trend of decision-making of the Court right now—I’d rather lose and know why I lost rather than lose and not be able to figure out why I lost, which is what these “win-win” cases actually are not able to tell me.
In the meantime, the CPR Decision, particularly that part on Freedom Parks, is going to raise more questions than answers, particularly for May 1—where rallies are traditional and expected. I would not be exaggerating if I say that this won’t be the last we will hear of BP 880 being challenged in the Court; hopefully, the next time the Court sees the light.
I’m referring to the Supreme Court’s Decision in the CPR case, which I argued before the Supreme Court En Banc on April 4, promulgated yesterday.
The Court upheld the law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, which is Marcos vintage, but struck down the press release, i.e., CPR. For me, it was a foregone conclusion that CPR would be struck down but I was more interested in striking down Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. Unfortunately the Court did not see it my way.
What is interesting about the CPR Decision is this part:
“In sum, this Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people, especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In several policy addresses, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed to uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their prosperity. He said that “in cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny.”
For this reason, the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. On the other hand, B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time, place and manner of assemblies. Far from being insidious, “maximum tolerance” is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally “permits” is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard.
In this Decision, the Court goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B.P. No. 880. If, after that period, no such parks are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the law, all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein. The only requirement will be written notices to the police and the mayor’s office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED in part, and respondents, more particularly the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision, subject to the giving of advance notices, no prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law. Furthermore, Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR), insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID and respondents are ENJOINED to REFRAIN from using it and to STRICTLY OBSERVE the requirements of maximum tolerance. The petitions are DISMISSED in all other respects, and the CONSTITUTIONALITY of Batas Pambansa No. 880 is SUSTAINED.”
What the Court essentially ordered is that all local governments all over the country must designate freedom parks within 30 days, otherwise the “no permit, no rally” provision in the law, sec. 4, becomes inoperative. Essentially, the right to freedom of assembly has become subject to a “resolutory” condition of sorts.
That’s why it’s a weird decision, from where I sit.
Also, the Court said the law was not vague nor overbroad and that it was not a content-based restriction to freedom of assembly and expression. Of course, I disagreed with this in my Memorandum to the Court but, hey, you lose some and then you lose some more.
It’s the latest thing nowadays—a “win-win” formula for cases of transcendental public importance; for example the recent EO 464 case. I’m not sure I like this trend of decision-making of the Court right now—I’d rather lose and know why I lost rather than lose and not be able to figure out why I lost, which is what these “win-win” cases actually are not able to tell me.
In the meantime, the CPR Decision, particularly that part on Freedom Parks, is going to raise more questions than answers, particularly for May 1—where rallies are traditional and expected. I would not be exaggerating if I say that this won’t be the last we will hear of BP 880 being challenged in the Court; hopefully, the next time the Court sees the light.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Orals
The Resolution reads, in part:
“For PETITIONERS, Atty. Theodore Te will argue for a maximum of twenty five (25) minutes and he will decide on how to share his time with the other counsel/s for petitioners.”
Its not my first oral argument before the Supreme Court En Banc—its my fifth (previously on the Death Penalty [People v. Malabago], Oil Deregulation [Edcel Lagman, Joker Arroyo et al. v. Executive Secretary], Visiting Forces Agreement [Jovito Salonga, Wigberto R. Tanada, et al. v. Executive Secretary, Electricity rates [Freedom from Debt Coalition et al. v. ERC and MERALCO]) but the thrill—and the anxiety—is still there.
Today, the Court set orals for the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) issue (Del Prado et al. v. Ermita et al.) and at 1 pm, I will stand before the 15-member Court and once again start with that over-used opening, “May it please this Court. . .”
I’ve been preparing for this for what seems like ages and to speak only for 25 minutes. In an oral argument, however, 25 minutes is like the last two minutes of a basketball game—it can last for hours. In the Meralco orals, I started at 10 in the morning with my presentation and ended my presentation at 4 in the afternoon straight (without lunchbreak, coffeebreak or bathroom break); the orals for that case ended eventually at 9 in the evening.
I pray not only for wisdom, guidance, inspiration but also that I won’t need a bathroom break for hours.
“For PETITIONERS, Atty. Theodore Te will argue for a maximum of twenty five (25) minutes and he will decide on how to share his time with the other counsel/s for petitioners.”
Its not my first oral argument before the Supreme Court En Banc—its my fifth (previously on the Death Penalty [People v. Malabago], Oil Deregulation [Edcel Lagman, Joker Arroyo et al. v. Executive Secretary], Visiting Forces Agreement [Jovito Salonga, Wigberto R. Tanada, et al. v. Executive Secretary, Electricity rates [Freedom from Debt Coalition et al. v. ERC and MERALCO]) but the thrill—and the anxiety—is still there.
Today, the Court set orals for the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) issue (Del Prado et al. v. Ermita et al.) and at 1 pm, I will stand before the 15-member Court and once again start with that over-used opening, “May it please this Court. . .”
I’ve been preparing for this for what seems like ages and to speak only for 25 minutes. In an oral argument, however, 25 minutes is like the last two minutes of a basketball game—it can last for hours. In the Meralco orals, I started at 10 in the morning with my presentation and ended my presentation at 4 in the afternoon straight (without lunchbreak, coffeebreak or bathroom break); the orals for that case ended eventually at 9 in the evening.
I pray not only for wisdom, guidance, inspiration but also that I won’t need a bathroom break for hours.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Rising higher than the source
Ever since I started teaching law (in 96), this time of year has always been special. It’s the time of the year that the Bar results come out.
For the civilians (read: non-lawyers) out there, this is going be totally difficult to understand because you just have to experience it to know what I am talking about. The Bar, that is, and the seemingly interminable wait for the results.
When the results of my bar exams came out, I and a classmate (now my law partner) were outside the Supreme Court well into the early hours of the April morning; we had commandeered a public pay phone and, with the help of classmates and batchmates inside the Court, were listing as many names of classmates and batchmates we could remember. I remember whooping out loud when I finally heard that my name was on the list (because of my initials, my name would appear on the last few pages). And suddenly, the four years of studying suddenly took on some meaning.
Now that I am teaching law, this time of year takes on special significance—it’s the time of the year that I remember those whom I’ve taught and are now officially members of the legal profession. As I was scanning the list on the net earlier this morning, I started conjuring up faces and even seating positions in the various classes they took under me. Funny (for me) and tragic (for them) moments of inane recitation came back unbidden—sometimes, I even remember what I said as riposte to particular gems of “how not to recite in law school.”
I remember all of these even as I hope that they will become better lawyers than I am for otherwise, all I did then was to mold mediocrity. Unlike the saying, I believe that the stream must rise higher than its source for it is only then that there can be change, for the better.
The Bar is a rite of passage, of sorts. But now the real test starts: you join a profession that is far from perfect and far from noble, you will soon be among the ranks of men and women who, in their all too human moments , will succumb to the temptation to use the law for reasons other than to do justice and to transform society and its inhabitants. Your passage from onlooker and bystander to actor and participant in the stage of Philippine life and society is at hand. The choice is always yours.
May you make a choice to make this far from perfect and far from noble profession one that will truly live up to its calling to do justice to every person and to transform society.
Until then, congratulations Batch 2005! See you in court!
For the civilians (read: non-lawyers) out there, this is going be totally difficult to understand because you just have to experience it to know what I am talking about. The Bar, that is, and the seemingly interminable wait for the results.
When the results of my bar exams came out, I and a classmate (now my law partner) were outside the Supreme Court well into the early hours of the April morning; we had commandeered a public pay phone and, with the help of classmates and batchmates inside the Court, were listing as many names of classmates and batchmates we could remember. I remember whooping out loud when I finally heard that my name was on the list (because of my initials, my name would appear on the last few pages). And suddenly, the four years of studying suddenly took on some meaning.
Now that I am teaching law, this time of year takes on special significance—it’s the time of the year that I remember those whom I’ve taught and are now officially members of the legal profession. As I was scanning the list on the net earlier this morning, I started conjuring up faces and even seating positions in the various classes they took under me. Funny (for me) and tragic (for them) moments of inane recitation came back unbidden—sometimes, I even remember what I said as riposte to particular gems of “how not to recite in law school.”
I remember all of these even as I hope that they will become better lawyers than I am for otherwise, all I did then was to mold mediocrity. Unlike the saying, I believe that the stream must rise higher than its source for it is only then that there can be change, for the better.
The Bar is a rite of passage, of sorts. But now the real test starts: you join a profession that is far from perfect and far from noble, you will soon be among the ranks of men and women who, in their all too human moments , will succumb to the temptation to use the law for reasons other than to do justice and to transform society and its inhabitants. Your passage from onlooker and bystander to actor and participant in the stage of Philippine life and society is at hand. The choice is always yours.
May you make a choice to make this far from perfect and far from noble profession one that will truly live up to its calling to do justice to every person and to transform society.
Until then, congratulations Batch 2005! See you in court!
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Short memories
What we are seeing now is the clearest sign that in any upheaval, to the victor go the spoils.
When Gloria launched her own coup d’etat against Erap in 2001, she had her own left and right “tactical alliance”—this much is already part of history. Dinky Soliman, the first member of her cabinet to be announced, was most probably already thinking up and doing the many gimmicks she is doing now, as part of the so-called “civil society.” When her coup d’etat succeeded, the criminals took over government.
In law, there is a theory of non-liability that is premised on the existence of a crime but no criminal; it is called an exempting circumstance. In a coup d’etat, it appears that success is an exempting circumstance; for certainly, no one will prosecute the successful coup stagers as they would have taken over the government already. There is a crime but no criminal—well, at least none that can be prosecuted, during their tenure.
Gloria should remember her history and she should stop being so hypocritical, if this is not a genetic trait on her part (if it is, then she should try very hard to not be so hypocritical). The left and right tactical alliance she is decrying now is taken from her own playbook.
Those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
When Gloria launched her own coup d’etat against Erap in 2001, she had her own left and right “tactical alliance”—this much is already part of history. Dinky Soliman, the first member of her cabinet to be announced, was most probably already thinking up and doing the many gimmicks she is doing now, as part of the so-called “civil society.” When her coup d’etat succeeded, the criminals took over government.
In law, there is a theory of non-liability that is premised on the existence of a crime but no criminal; it is called an exempting circumstance. In a coup d’etat, it appears that success is an exempting circumstance; for certainly, no one will prosecute the successful coup stagers as they would have taken over the government already. There is a crime but no criminal—well, at least none that can be prosecuted, during their tenure.
Gloria should remember her history and she should stop being so hypocritical, if this is not a genetic trait on her part (if it is, then she should try very hard to not be so hypocritical). The left and right tactical alliance she is decrying now is taken from her own playbook.
Those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Good man gone
His “resignation” letter gave the end date as “April 1, 2006 or until my replacement is appointed, whichever is earlier.” Thus ended the public life of Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo, Tribune of the People.
He is a good man in a rotten government; a good lawyer in a lawless reign.
Thrust into the thankless defense of an indefensible government and an illegitimate ruler, this good man became the public face of a government that deserved to be publicly humiliated. Before his peers in a Court he had served long and faithfully, the Tribune of the People simply could not provide the reasons for something that was totally beyond reason. And when that public humiliation did come—within the halls of the Court and in the bar of public opinion—it was all he could do to put a brave smile on his face and pretend that nothing was wrong.
Yet, it is in the character of the man who would not simply allow that brave smile and feeble pretense to be his legacy.
That he “resigned” yesterday, pending the submission of a Memorandum that would rationalize the dictator’s rule, betrayed the turmoil behind that brave smile. That an “equal” in the Secretary of Justice (I use this loosely in relation to the current Secretary of Justice because he is far from being Benipayo’s equal--in erudition, in integrity, in character) would “accept” or even “demand” his resignation is the unkindest cut of all.
Someday, perhaps, when there is no longer a reason for that brave smile and the feeble pretense, Benipayo may tell us the reasons why he would abandon the dictator at the most crucial point in its legal battle for legitimacy. As he belts Sinatra and Bennett, one day, Benipayo may tell us what everyone now “knows”—that he was fired because he could not defend the indefensible and could not legitimize the illegitimate.
In the meantime, the Tribune of the People is gone; long may he live!
He is a good man in a rotten government; a good lawyer in a lawless reign.
Thrust into the thankless defense of an indefensible government and an illegitimate ruler, this good man became the public face of a government that deserved to be publicly humiliated. Before his peers in a Court he had served long and faithfully, the Tribune of the People simply could not provide the reasons for something that was totally beyond reason. And when that public humiliation did come—within the halls of the Court and in the bar of public opinion—it was all he could do to put a brave smile on his face and pretend that nothing was wrong.
Yet, it is in the character of the man who would not simply allow that brave smile and feeble pretense to be his legacy.
That he “resigned” yesterday, pending the submission of a Memorandum that would rationalize the dictator’s rule, betrayed the turmoil behind that brave smile. That an “equal” in the Secretary of Justice (I use this loosely in relation to the current Secretary of Justice because he is far from being Benipayo’s equal--in erudition, in integrity, in character) would “accept” or even “demand” his resignation is the unkindest cut of all.
Someday, perhaps, when there is no longer a reason for that brave smile and the feeble pretense, Benipayo may tell us the reasons why he would abandon the dictator at the most crucial point in its legal battle for legitimacy. As he belts Sinatra and Bennett, one day, Benipayo may tell us what everyone now “knows”—that he was fired because he could not defend the indefensible and could not legitimize the illegitimate.
In the meantime, the Tribune of the People is gone; long may he live!
Friday, March 03, 2006
Going beyond mootness
Now that the dictator’s decree is lifted, is it over? Not by a long shot.
Things are not back to normal—media is still chilled, despite their denials; censorship by the police will still continue; warrantless arrests and the threat thereof will still continue; E.O. 464 is still in effect; CPR is still in force.
The Filipino people have said, “Never Again!” It’s time the Supreme Court says it too.
I urge the Supreme Court not to hide behind the seeming mootness of the petitions challenging 1017 and to decide them on the merits. Do not dismiss them simply because they are moot—in that way, you will legitimize a dictator. Instead, use the power of the pen—be once again the “conscience of government”—and say to the dictator and anyone else who would follow after her: “never again.”
Certainly, the Supreme Court cannot—and must not--turn a blind eye on the assault on truth, the attack on press freedom. So, hide not behind mootness, rule instead that Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5 are patently unconstitutional. In Salonga v. Cruz Pano and Evelio Javier v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled despite mootness.
So I say to the Supreme Court: decide in favor of democracy, not dictatorship. Say in one voice, with the people, “never again!” Do not hold your peace, speak out now.
Things are not back to normal—media is still chilled, despite their denials; censorship by the police will still continue; warrantless arrests and the threat thereof will still continue; E.O. 464 is still in effect; CPR is still in force.
The Filipino people have said, “Never Again!” It’s time the Supreme Court says it too.
I urge the Supreme Court not to hide behind the seeming mootness of the petitions challenging 1017 and to decide them on the merits. Do not dismiss them simply because they are moot—in that way, you will legitimize a dictator. Instead, use the power of the pen—be once again the “conscience of government”—and say to the dictator and anyone else who would follow after her: “never again.”
Certainly, the Supreme Court cannot—and must not--turn a blind eye on the assault on truth, the attack on press freedom. So, hide not behind mootness, rule instead that Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5 are patently unconstitutional. In Salonga v. Cruz Pano and Evelio Javier v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled despite mootness.
So I say to the Supreme Court: decide in favor of democracy, not dictatorship. Say in one voice, with the people, “never again!” Do not hold your peace, speak out now.
Friday, February 24, 2006
You can't do that
Gloria Arroyo effectively declared martial law without calling it such under Proclamation No. 1017 today.She just declared a “state of emergency” (see Constitution, art. XII, sec. 17 which deals with national emergency that confers extraordinary economic powers on the Chief Executive), which does not entitle her to call out the armed forces (art. VII, sec. 18). Yet, I just heard her do exactly that—by leaving it to the military and police to take care of things.As they say in Nickleodeon, “you can’t do that.”
"I read the news today, oh boy"
Woke up to news of arrests of military men supposedly involved in a coup attempt. A few hours after, Gloria’s Chief of Staff Mike Defensor would announce that arrests of military men and civilians would be made; he also announced that Gloria would make an announcement in a few minutes (30 minutes ago, as of this writing). Many are speculating that Gloria will declare a state of rebellion, a state of emergency or even martial law.
Here’s what the Constitution provides on martial law:
Article VII, sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly,* by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
On the other hand, here’s what the Constitution provides on state of emergency:
Article XII, sec. 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
Article XII, sec. 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.
Given that the military has already announced that what supposedly transpired this morning was a coup attempt, it is highly unlikely that Gloria would declare only a state of emergency as the powers that would be conferred by such a declaration would be only economic in nature. It becomes more probable that a state of rebellion or a proclamation of martial law would be declared.
Here’s what the Constitution provides on martial law:
Article VII, sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly,* by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
On the other hand, here’s what the Constitution provides on state of emergency:
Article XII, sec. 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
Article XII, sec. 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.
Given that the military has already announced that what supposedly transpired this morning was a coup attempt, it is highly unlikely that Gloria would declare only a state of emergency as the powers that would be conferred by such a declaration would be only economic in nature. It becomes more probable that a state of rebellion or a proclamation of martial law would be declared.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
The Great Escape
Two of my clients escaped last week. Apparently, they were helped by their fellow officers. I won’t dwell on the legalities and technicalities but on the experience of having someone who has trusted you with their lives escape before their cases can be terminated.
I went to the taping of Debate last week and met a particularly repulsive Congressman (I would have wanted to say, “is there any other kind?” but my friends Erin Tanada and Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel are members of Congress and they’re not repulsive and among the nicest persons you will ever meet) who greeted me by asking, “aren’t you offended that your clients escaped, that means they don’t trust you? You should feel betrayed.”
Because he is particularly repulsive, I actually just smiled and said nothing; but on-air, Winnie Monsod also asked me practically the same question.
That got me thinking.
After having witnessed two of my clients killed before my very eyes, I’ve now experienced something new again—to have two clients escape.
Honestly, I don’t know what to think.
I went to the taping of Debate last week and met a particularly repulsive Congressman (I would have wanted to say, “is there any other kind?” but my friends Erin Tanada and Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel are members of Congress and they’re not repulsive and among the nicest persons you will ever meet) who greeted me by asking, “aren’t you offended that your clients escaped, that means they don’t trust you? You should feel betrayed.”
Because he is particularly repulsive, I actually just smiled and said nothing; but on-air, Winnie Monsod also asked me practically the same question.
That got me thinking.
After having witnessed two of my clients killed before my very eyes, I’ve now experienced something new again—to have two clients escape.
Honestly, I don’t know what to think.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Blind and toothless
“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave the world blind and toothless.”
- Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof
For once, I agree with Raul Gonzales—arming judges will not stop the killing of judges.
It is difficult to agree with the utterly illogical statement of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban reminding judges that they can arm themselves. This, in the wake of the killing of Judge Henrick Gingoyon, a former FLAG lawyer from cebu who had to relocate to Manila after his and his family’s safety and security were threatened by the military for his uncompromising stand against human rights abuses.
Giving a judge a gun is not the answer to the violence that sweeps the country now. That it is the Chief Justice of the Philippines saying this bodes ill for all of us.
Neither is the reimposition of the death penalty the solution. The il-logic behind this is that had the State continued to execute people, Henrick Gingoyon would still be alive today. The il-logic behind this is that had the State continued to kill people after January 4, 2000, many of the victims of rape, kidnapping, drugs, murders would not have been victimized.
Really?
When Leo Echegaray was executed on February 5, 1999 and Bobby Andan on October 26, 1999, crime did not grind to a halt thereafter. After the last execution (so far) on January 4, 2000, crime was not wiped off the face of the Philippines (I write this on the 6th year since the de facto moratorium the Philippines has imposed on executions.
The death penalty is not a silver bullet for criminality. Neither is arming judges a wonder pill for violence against judges.
What we will be doing, if we join the rabble for more guns and for more death, is consign each of us—our generation and the generations to come—to the mindless, heartless, hopeless cycle of violence and insanity that we are in. We will be creating what Tevye prophesied—a country that is blind and toothless.
- Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof
For once, I agree with Raul Gonzales—arming judges will not stop the killing of judges.
It is difficult to agree with the utterly illogical statement of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban reminding judges that they can arm themselves. This, in the wake of the killing of Judge Henrick Gingoyon, a former FLAG lawyer from cebu who had to relocate to Manila after his and his family’s safety and security were threatened by the military for his uncompromising stand against human rights abuses.
Giving a judge a gun is not the answer to the violence that sweeps the country now. That it is the Chief Justice of the Philippines saying this bodes ill for all of us.
Neither is the reimposition of the death penalty the solution. The il-logic behind this is that had the State continued to execute people, Henrick Gingoyon would still be alive today. The il-logic behind this is that had the State continued to kill people after January 4, 2000, many of the victims of rape, kidnapping, drugs, murders would not have been victimized.
Really?
When Leo Echegaray was executed on February 5, 1999 and Bobby Andan on October 26, 1999, crime did not grind to a halt thereafter. After the last execution (so far) on January 4, 2000, crime was not wiped off the face of the Philippines (I write this on the 6th year since the de facto moratorium the Philippines has imposed on executions.
The death penalty is not a silver bullet for criminality. Neither is arming judges a wonder pill for violence against judges.
What we will be doing, if we join the rabble for more guns and for more death, is consign each of us—our generation and the generations to come—to the mindless, heartless, hopeless cycle of violence and insanity that we are in. We will be creating what Tevye prophesied—a country that is blind and toothless.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Deeply offended
I blogged about this a few weeks back—the supposed three-way race for Chief Justice. Now, it has come to pass. The race really was a rout. The front-runner had no chance—none at all because Gloria Arroyo is starting to show her true colors: Marcosian.
I have also said this before, she is worse than Marcos and this shows it.
This might get me into a lot of trouble because: 1. I am a lawyer with cases pending before the Supreme Court and I am blogging about Gloria Arroyo’s choice for Chief Justice of the Philippines; 2. I have nothing against Justice Panganiban (I have some of his books because he sends them to me; apparently, I am on his mailing list); 3. I am subject to the discipline of the Supreme Court; and 4. I have friends on Justice Panganiban’s chambers, who might feel bad about my blogging about their boss in this way.
Because lawyering is the only way I know how to put butter on my bread, I will say this: this is not about Justice Panganiban, this is about Gloria Arroyo and the damage she has inflicted on the court and the judicial system because of her senseless and totally trapo (shorthand for “traditional politician” but also very aptly vernacular for “dirty rag”, good only for throwing away) “revolving door” policy.
But because lawyering is also the only way I know how to serve, I will say this: this is also about the Court and the way it’s independence will be determined in the future.
I write about this not because I do not like Justice Panganiban (I have no basis to “not like him” as I do not know him that well personally) or because I do not like Gloria Arroyo but because I am a member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Filipino. And I am offended, deeply offended, that Gloria Arroyo would insult everyone by foisting this appointment on us.
I stated before that I am not a rabid fan of Mr. Justice Puno but I do admire his judicial philosophy. We are, if I may be so bold to claim, kindred spirits in espousing greater protection for civil rights and human freedoms. Often, his pen--wielded mightily and consistently--and wit-- manifesting itself very often acerbically--have cut through layers of government-sponsored balderdash to expose and lay bare to the people what is most important to them: the truth. I often do not agree with his decisions but I have yet to find occasion to disrespect him. Of the three who were in the “race”, he was, in my opinion, the best qualified—coincidentally also, the most senior.
What offends me about Gloria Arroyo’s appointment of Justice Panganiban as Chief Justice of the Philippines is that she cheapens the Judiciary by making the highest post open to the simple expediency of accommodation. What offends me about Gloria Arroyo’s appointment of Justice Panganiban as Chief Justice of the Philippines is that she would choose not the best qualified and also the most senior but that she would choose based on a policy of appeasement. What offends me about this appointment is not that Justice Panganiban was chosen over Justice Puno but that Gloria Arroyo thinks that the rule of law should be made subject to a simplistic and “simpletonic” (my own word; don’t bother looking it up) policy of “giving everyone a chance.”
The direction of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch should be determined by a vision, not by political accommodation and expediency. It should be charted by someone who has a clear grasp of where the Court should go and how it should get there; it should be led by one who has a firm and long view of how law may help change and shape society.
It should not be charted by one who is, effective from the date of his appointment, a lame duck. This, unfortunately, is the situation that Gloria Arroyo has placed Justice Panganiban in. By not putting a premium on seniority as well as vision but instead stressing accommodation and by highlighting that Justice Puno would still have another chance to be Chief Justice when Justice Panganiban retires in 2006, Gloria Arroyo has put a lame duck in the Supreme Court. Starting today, everyone knows the clock is ticking and that Justice Panganiban is a seat warmer--that is an insult Justice Panganiban does not deserve, that is an insult the Court does not deserve, that is another offense by Gloria Arroyo against the Filipino people for which she should not be forgiven.
I have been a lawyer for 15 years and a law professor for almost 10 and I love the law and the rule of law. Thus, Gloria Arroyo’s insult, I take personally. She is singlehandedly destroying all the democratic institutions that generations of martyrs had shed blood for. There are no two ways about it: she must go.
I end this blog entry with my Congratulations to Mr. Justice, now Chief Justice, Panganiban. May his one year as Chief Justice be fruitful and may he strive mightily, with God’s help, to do what is right, not only what is popular or what is expected of him by Gloria Arroyo. May he, in his one year as Chief Justice, rise above the unfair label that Gloria Arroyo has pinned on him and prove me—and all the others who believe Justice Puno should have gotten the appointment—wrong. I would be the happiest Filipino in one year’s time should this happen.
In the meantime, sic Gloria transit mundi; this too, will pass. So will Gloria Arroyo.
I have also said this before, she is worse than Marcos and this shows it.
This might get me into a lot of trouble because: 1. I am a lawyer with cases pending before the Supreme Court and I am blogging about Gloria Arroyo’s choice for Chief Justice of the Philippines; 2. I have nothing against Justice Panganiban (I have some of his books because he sends them to me; apparently, I am on his mailing list); 3. I am subject to the discipline of the Supreme Court; and 4. I have friends on Justice Panganiban’s chambers, who might feel bad about my blogging about their boss in this way.
Because lawyering is the only way I know how to put butter on my bread, I will say this: this is not about Justice Panganiban, this is about Gloria Arroyo and the damage she has inflicted on the court and the judicial system because of her senseless and totally trapo (shorthand for “traditional politician” but also very aptly vernacular for “dirty rag”, good only for throwing away) “revolving door” policy.
But because lawyering is also the only way I know how to serve, I will say this: this is also about the Court and the way it’s independence will be determined in the future.
I write about this not because I do not like Justice Panganiban (I have no basis to “not like him” as I do not know him that well personally) or because I do not like Gloria Arroyo but because I am a member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Filipino. And I am offended, deeply offended, that Gloria Arroyo would insult everyone by foisting this appointment on us.
I stated before that I am not a rabid fan of Mr. Justice Puno but I do admire his judicial philosophy. We are, if I may be so bold to claim, kindred spirits in espousing greater protection for civil rights and human freedoms. Often, his pen--wielded mightily and consistently--and wit-- manifesting itself very often acerbically--have cut through layers of government-sponsored balderdash to expose and lay bare to the people what is most important to them: the truth. I often do not agree with his decisions but I have yet to find occasion to disrespect him. Of the three who were in the “race”, he was, in my opinion, the best qualified—coincidentally also, the most senior.
What offends me about Gloria Arroyo’s appointment of Justice Panganiban as Chief Justice of the Philippines is that she cheapens the Judiciary by making the highest post open to the simple expediency of accommodation. What offends me about Gloria Arroyo’s appointment of Justice Panganiban as Chief Justice of the Philippines is that she would choose not the best qualified and also the most senior but that she would choose based on a policy of appeasement. What offends me about this appointment is not that Justice Panganiban was chosen over Justice Puno but that Gloria Arroyo thinks that the rule of law should be made subject to a simplistic and “simpletonic” (my own word; don’t bother looking it up) policy of “giving everyone a chance.”
The direction of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch should be determined by a vision, not by political accommodation and expediency. It should be charted by someone who has a clear grasp of where the Court should go and how it should get there; it should be led by one who has a firm and long view of how law may help change and shape society.
It should not be charted by one who is, effective from the date of his appointment, a lame duck. This, unfortunately, is the situation that Gloria Arroyo has placed Justice Panganiban in. By not putting a premium on seniority as well as vision but instead stressing accommodation and by highlighting that Justice Puno would still have another chance to be Chief Justice when Justice Panganiban retires in 2006, Gloria Arroyo has put a lame duck in the Supreme Court. Starting today, everyone knows the clock is ticking and that Justice Panganiban is a seat warmer--that is an insult Justice Panganiban does not deserve, that is an insult the Court does not deserve, that is another offense by Gloria Arroyo against the Filipino people for which she should not be forgiven.
I have been a lawyer for 15 years and a law professor for almost 10 and I love the law and the rule of law. Thus, Gloria Arroyo’s insult, I take personally. She is singlehandedly destroying all the democratic institutions that generations of martyrs had shed blood for. There are no two ways about it: she must go.
I end this blog entry with my Congratulations to Mr. Justice, now Chief Justice, Panganiban. May his one year as Chief Justice be fruitful and may he strive mightily, with God’s help, to do what is right, not only what is popular or what is expected of him by Gloria Arroyo. May he, in his one year as Chief Justice, rise above the unfair label that Gloria Arroyo has pinned on him and prove me—and all the others who believe Justice Puno should have gotten the appointment—wrong. I would be the happiest Filipino in one year’s time should this happen.
In the meantime, sic Gloria transit mundi; this too, will pass. So will Gloria Arroyo.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Retroactive 5.0 for Miriam in Evidence
As one who has been teaching Evidence for some time, I am ashamed of myself.
I must apologize to all my students, present and past, for failing to tell them that triple hearsay is not only admissible but is also impressed with high probative weight. I must confess that since I never had the “brilliant” Miriam Defensor-Santiago as my professor for Evidence, I really missed that particular legal principle. I feel that I must commit the academic equivalent of hara kiri by turning in my teaching license, as it were, and make a public apology to all my students, present and past, for misleading them.
Hah, she wishes.
Miriam is the one who is a monumental embarrassment to the name of U.P. and particularly the College of Law. She’s not even funny anymore—even when she goes from her “lucid intervals” to her “normal state”—she’s tiresome and tiring; a total waste of taxpayer’s money.
She should be given a retroactive 5.0 for Evidence and her diploma as a UP graduate should be withdrawn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)