[LEGAL NOTES] Extracting good policy from bad legislation: A review of Executive Order No. 79, Series of 2012

Are all critical areas in “No-Go Mining Zones” actually mine-free? Does the moratorium on mining prohibit the operations of mining within the protected areas? Are LGUs deprived of their Rule-Making Power when it comes to mining?

[LEGAL NOTES] Queries on CARPER beyond 2014

The DAR’s continuing mandate and authority to process and proceed with the acquisition and distribution of agricultural landholdings issued with Notices of Coverage prior to CARP expiration on June 30, 2014.

Utilization of legislated budget for a government program for its full implementation shall be allowed even after the expiration of said program.

No less than Section 4, Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution  mandates that “The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farm workers, who are landless, to own directly or indirectly the land they till.” The same section adds that, “the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may provide xxx.” 

[LEGAL NOTES] Simplifying the Senate Rules on impeachment trials

What is the nature of the impeachment proceedings before the Senate?  How will the trial proceed?  What are the salient features of the Senate Rules?  

      

The impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona has already begun and the people are eager to watch, learn and analyze the ongoings. Hence, it is just but fitting that a short rundown of the Senate rules on impeachment trial be made so that the ordinary citizen may be apprised of the rules that govern this all-important proceeding which would ultimately affect the nation and the people’s lives.  

[LEGAL NOTES] Supreme Court Chief Justice Corona betrayed the trust reposed in him by the Filipino people

Did Respondent Corona commit culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust?

  

The Constitution expressly provides that “Public office is a public trust.  Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives” [1]. Any act of a public officer which defies the said constitutional mandate and renders the public officer unfit for his or her office is a “betrayal of the public trust”. 

[LEGAL NOTES] Making sacred cows accountable: Impeachment as the most formidable weapon in the arsenal of democracy

What is an impeachment?  Was the Constitutional process fully complied with regards the impeachment complaint filed by the 188 members of the House of Representatives against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona?

The Philippine democracy, young as it is, has weathered several challenges and has also given rise to a few innovations, so to speak. Among the more important ones is the concept and practice of “people power” which more than 25 years ago helped give back the power to the Filipino people and gave birth to the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Since then, despite certain weaknesses in the fundamental law and unfortunate abuse by officials, both appointed and elected, Philippine democracy has been “tried and tested” and constantly emerged victorious, embattled but reinforced. The cornerstone of this democracy is the fact that the electorate, the Filipino people are always considered to be the ultimate source of power and that public welfare is the be all and end all for all public officials. Thus, breaking the public trust, even by the highest officials of the land had always been met not only by criticism but by reformatory action, which although considered drastic is always within bounds of the law and supported by the people themselves.

[LEGAL NOTES] Void or valid?: The legal acrobatics of the Supreme Court decision on Hacienda Luisita

Tweet

Decision or Confusion?

In its decision dated July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) revoking the Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) of the Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI). At first glance, it may seem that the decision is a victory for the farmers. However, a close reading of the lengthy decision will show that it leaves much to be desired.

[LEGAL NOTES] HB 13, or the so-called Right to Life of the Unborn Child Bill, is not pro-life

Tweet

Contrary to the claims of anti-RH lobbyists, nothing in the RH bill changes the law against abortion. The only bill that by implication would change the anti-abortion provision of the Revised Penal Code is HB 13, the so-called Right to Life of the Unborn Child championed by Rep. Golez and Pampanga Rep. GMA. By lowering the penalty for the crime of abortion, HB 13 is actually encouraging abortion. 

Delineating between abortifacients and contraceptives       

One of the arguments of anti-RH groups is that contraceptives are abortifacients. However, the two terms, often-used in discourses regarding the RH bill, should not be used interchangeably because there exists a huge and glaring difference between words “abortifacients” and “contraceptives”.

[LEGAL NOTES] Reproductive Health Bill: A pro-life bill

Tweet

One of the constant tirades hurled against the Reproductive Health Bill by Anti-RH groups is that the bill is not a pro-life legislation.

This criticism is absolutely baseless as a close scrutiny of the provisions of the RH bill will show that it is actually a pro-life legislation.

Despite the clear import of the RH bill, its critics are determined to obstruct its passage in the House of Representatives. Their arguments range from the allegation that the bill is an anti-life bill and referred to themselves as a pro-life group, as opposed to the proponents of the bill which they labeled as anti-life.

[LEGAL NOTES] HLI must subscribe to the tenets of social justice and distribute the land to the farmers

Tweet

The Stock Distribution Program being implemented by Hacienda Luisita is contrary to the purpose of the agrarian reform law and violates the constitution. 

To meet the ends of social justice, the distribution of the land to the farmers who have tilled it all their lives is in order.

The provision in the law which allows such option should also be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for being contrary to the noble purpose of agrarian reform.

[LEGAL NOTES] Legal implications of continuing with the impeachment proceedings for the House of Representatives

Tweet

Today (September 28, 2010), the House Committee on Justice is expected to continue to perform its constitutional mandate and to tackle the status quo ante order issued by the Supreme Court.

Will the committee be cited for contempt? I think citing the House Committee on Justice in contempt of court is adding insult to a Constitutional injury.

The matter of impeachment is purely a political question which is not subject to judicial inquiry.  The Supreme Court does not have the power even to cite the House Committee on Justice in contempt of court should it choose to proceed with the impeachment proceedings.

[LEGAL NOTES] Impeaching Merceditas: Status unknown

Tweet

Assuming that the House Committee on Justice will simply tackle the first complaint and leave the second complaint to the rulings of the Supreme Court, or assuming that the House Committee on Justice, proceeds with the hearings on the basis of an ad cautelam proceeding, will the Supreme Court cite the HCJ in contempt of court?

When the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the Committee on Justice of the House of Representative is being questioned; when the Supreme Court does not have the right to pass upon the sufficiency of the form and substance of the complaints; when the Supreme Court does not have the right to pass upon the propriety of having two impeachment complaints: the Supreme Court does not have the power even to cite the Committee on Justice in contempt of court. 

[LEGAL NOTES] Can and should the government teach sex education?

Tweet

Last Wednesday, DepEd Sec. Armin Luistro hastily cut short the pilot-testing of the controversial sex education program.This legal briefer tackles the issue head-on: Why should there be sex education? Can sex education be conducted in schools? Does the Government have the legal mandate to develop policies and programs that promote sex education? 

Sex Education. The mere utterance of such a phrase drives people into an orgasmic frenzy of discussions for and against teaching this subject in school. Both opposing camps will argue that each is after the welfare of the child by teaching or not teaching sex education in school. Everyone seems to be looking out for the general welfare of the children. And yet, both sides cannot seem to agree on how. 

[LEGAL NOTES] Impeaching Ombudsman Gutierrez in the 15th Congress

Tweet

This document seeks to answer the following questions: 1. Whether there is legal basis for the filing of an impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez; 2. Whether the same allegations that were filed during 14th Congress can be used as the basis of a new complaint, and; 3. Whether double jeopardy is applicable.