Statement of Pnoy After the Hostage Taking at Grandstand

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

August 23, 2010.  A mortifying and tragic incident that involved the whole world with the spotlight on the country. Taken from the official website of the Office of the President, I share to you the statement given by our President Noynoy Aquino.  (spitting!)
STATEMENT of His Excellency BENIGNO S. AQUINO III
President of the Philippines
On the hostage-taking incident at the Quirino Grandstand
[August 23, 2010]
With the rest of the Filipino people, I wish to offer our deepest condolences to the families of the victims whose lives were lost in the hostage situation at the Quirino Grandstand. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs has conveyed our deep feelings of sorrow to the Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong through Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang. I have tasked Secretaries Soliman and Lim to provide everything necessary for the recovery and return home of the survivors. I have directed the fullest cooperation with the Hong Kong authorities on the part of our officials.
From the onset of this incident, the hostage-taker seemed to not be belligerent, as shown by the release of hostages. These were encouraging signs.
We were going to wait him out. The idea was to let the ground commanders who are the experts in this field handle the operation with minimal interference from people who are less expert.
But the situation deteriorated rapidly when, during the course of the negotiations, he was given the letter of the Ombudsman in which she promised to personally review his case. As he was reading the contents of the letter, while talking to an unknown individual on the phone, he became increasingly agitated.
The presence of his brother also added to the tension.
At this point, he threatened to kill a hostage. The police decided to remove the brother from the scene. As the negotiators were departing, the negotiators were shot at.
Media coverage of his brother being taken into custody further agitated the hostage-taker.
Shots were fired. They seemed to be warning shots, as there was no audible indication of tumult or chaos to show that the hostages were in immediate danger.
Nonetheless, the negotiators tried to reestablish contact with the hostage-taker but they were unsuccessful as the cellphone of the hostage-taker was continuously busy. He also refused to answer the throw-phone provided for him by the authorities.
The escape of the driver, combined with his reports that the hostages were being harmed, forced the assault to happen. When the vehicle began to move, and with reports that he had hand grenades, a decision was made to immobilize the vehicle as it would have made the situation even more dangerous.
As we know, the incident tragically ended in the deaths of eight innocent civilians.
We expect more of the facts to come to light and I have ordered Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to thoroughly lead this review
What say you?  Satisfied?  

Exam Week

Monday, August 23, 2010

Its the midterms exam for the University this week and fortunately, I got my Paid Time Off request from work approved!  Awesome! Right? Yay!

this one's with Fek and Fammie outside the office

To start off my week, I headed straight to work to confirm with my supervisor if my PTO really was approved and so it is.  It was early in the morning and I was craving for some McDonald's pancakes, only to realize that the McDonald's down at Lacson street was being renovated.  In my utter disbelief, I decided have some quality date time at Starbucks with my self and my Revised Penal Code book instead.  So much for a luxury time.


Now that I am home, its time to get down to business.  Oh, but wait!  I still have to watch the newly posted True Blood Episode!  Acccck Batman!  The video should have been posted by now!  I can't believe there are only 3 more episodes left!  Will get back right at you once I am done!

Moving to Word Press

Sunday, August 22, 2010

hi guys!  moving my blog to http://triggeredmadness.wordpress.com/ but you still use the pages for Constitutional Law and Persons here....follow me at the new site!

Flair Candy Strikes Again!

Friday, August 20, 2010


Seen the new Pantene shampoo commercial lately?  The one with the testimonials?  Hannah, strikes again!  Thats 2nd from the left.  

Do I get a wooot* wooot*!

I'm so proud of you Hannah!


What Made Step Up 3D Climb Up A Notch Even Higher?

Wednesday, August 18, 2010


this song........push play. Listen.


This song makes me feel dramatically good...I don't know but it does in a way that I can't comprehend. 

"You know I know how, to make em stop and stare as I zone out....the club can't even handle me right now.....watching you watching me I go all out."
For some reason, this song gives me an overwhelming sense of rock star attitude. Like, I got some break neck power or sumthing.



Resistance is Futile

Its 5am on the clock...way past my wake up time.  My alarm went off at 1am but then again, who wants to wake up at that ungodly hour when my pillow and comfy bed call on me like a jealous boyfriend?  So here I am, trying to catch up on the things I should have been doing while frolicking in the land of dreams. 

Honestly, I have no clue where to start!  Picture me, pulling my hair down until the roots begin to bleed. Ack! To solve my problem, hopefully, I will make a list.  They say a list of "Things to do Today" really does help  organize the disordered mind.  Therefore, here goes:
  1. 1st on my list is to go to the bathroom, take a shower to freshen my self up and get rid of the morning glories.  Oh, and I need to drop the coins in the bank....my stomach has been upsetting me all night.  Its time I let go of the stinking you-know-what.
  2. Before I get down and dirty with my case briefs and CrimLaw,its FACEBOOKING time!
  3. I think, I will call in sick for work today, I hear my stomach rumbling like a thunderstorm out a sea......okay, there! just called the hotline.
  4. Breakfast, breakfast.  There is tuna but I'm in the mood for spicy Jiampong today.  Huh! So much for that upset stomach.  
  5. There is this interesting series at Starz about a gladiator that is about to get me hooked.  It just so happened that my friend  has a copy of the Season one episodes, I will watch it right after this.
  6. Getting down to business, I have read the 2010 Moot Court Problem that we have to make a case brief on.  Here I go again, pulling my hair! I just don't know where to effing start!
  7. Criminal Law is my favorite subject.  However, the teacher is kind of the reincarnation of Hitler.  So as not to be persecuted in class, I have to read extensively. Oh, and note to self, wear heavy duty deodorant because after reciting in class, my armpits will be wetter than the Pacific Ocean! Wahahaha!
  8. Sleep, smoke and eat in betweens. Oh yeah!
  9. Meet up Jassy, Trina and Novie for our Case Brief at Bob's Courtyard.
Phew-hu!  Hopefully, I can survive the whole day!  

Palace: Cha-cha A Possibility

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

The Aquino administration is open to amending the 1987 Constitution as it seeks peace with Moro secessionists but Charter change (Cha-cha) is not the government's priority, Malacanang said.

"Charter change is not a priority for the President at this point, there are many other things he has to resolve first, more pressing problems," said Ricky Carandang, head of the Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning (PCDSP), at a press briefing in Malacañang Tuesday.
Marvic Leonen, dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law and the head of the government team that will negotiate with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), said the administration is not closing its door on amending the Constitution to achieve lasting peace with the Moro secessionists.

The government nearly signed a memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain with the MILF in 2008. However, the signing was stopped when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

"I know there's talk of of Charter change in relation to peace talks with the MILF but at this point we have not even begun the discussions with the MILF and any talk about Charter change is very speculative at this point. We don't even know where it's going to go. Will we reach an agreement that will require an amendment? We don't know," said Carandang.

Carandang, however, maintained that the government is open to amending the Charter at the right time and under the right circumstances.

President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III promised during his campaign that he will form a Charter change commission to determine if there is a need to amend the 1987 Constitution, and if so, how it should be amended.

The Aquino administration is set to resume peace negotiations with the MILF after the Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting which began on August 11 and will end on September 9.

Lawmakers welcome Aquino's stance.
Meanwhile, several lawmakers welcomed Aquino's openness to amend the 1987 Constitution to reach a peace settlement with the Moro rebels. In a text message to GMANews.TV, Marikina Rep. Romero Federico Quimbo said Charter change is essential not just for the peace process but for economic and political reform. “It’s time to reassess our timid stance on the Charter change. We need it badly. We need it now," he said. Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casino said Charter change “is a logical outcome of the peace process whether with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) or National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP)." Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara lauded the President for knowing that a good negotiator does not close any doors at the start of a negotiation. “To end the decades-old conflict in Mindanao, there must be some creative solutions on the part of both sides so the country and the Mindanaoans can unlock the vast potentials of Mindanao in terms of supplying food and jobs," he said in a separate text message to GMANews.TV. Davao Rep. Karlo Nograles said Charter change is the correct legal position if the MILF insists on their claim of ancestral domain or if they demand for more autonomy. However, the President must make a judgment call, he said. “Is this the only way to broker for peace in Mindanao. And if we agree to this, will we be guaranteed that no other splinter group will break away from the MILF and start another war?" he said. He said the administration has to be very clear on all points and conditions for peace, and “this has to be very transparent to the people so we will not risk any confusion or misunderstandings that might aggravate the situation."

Evardone's warning Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone, for his part, warned that the administration could probably not avoid discussing other issues once the “floodgates are open." “How can you prevent the delegates from discussing other issues?" he asked reporters. "Kung Cha-cha dapat ngayon na hindi sa latter part ng term ni President Noy. Mahihirapan na naman, sasabihin na it will be designed to prolong, extend the term of the incumbent," he said. In the House of Representatives, former President and incumbent Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her ally, Cavite Rep. Elipio Barzaga are both pushing for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Charter.

Arroyo welcomes Aquino's stand on Cha-cha.

The Arroyo camp sees Aquino's openness to charter change as significant in promoting peace and development in Mindanao and opening up economic opportunities for the entire country.

"These are the reasons why one of her first bills is on Chacha and autonomy in specific areas of Mindanao. Dr. Arroyo is seeking for more long term peace and development of the country that only a constitutional change can bring," Elena Bautista-Horn said in a text message.

Meanwhile, Arroyo's son, Ang Galing Pinoy Rep Juan Miguel Arroyo believed that Aquino's stance is a vindication of sorts for the past administration. He says more people seem to be open to Cha-cha now, unlike before when any move for charter change was met with opposition. "It is only now that everyone is seeing the wisdom behind the cha-cha and I believe it is a most welcome development for the country. with the popularity President Aquino enjoys, I hope he could muster all the support needed to finally push for cha-cha as what the past administration had been pushing all along, with the country’s progress and development foremost on the agenda," he said.

Negros Occidental Rep. Ignacio Arroyo, on the other hand, said Cha-cha may be necessary for a peace settlement with the MILF but it is still premature to talk about amendments at this point.
"The government has to know first what the MILF wants. Certainly a separate homeland is not possible. The Aquino government requires enough political will and innovation to pursue talks with the MILF. The level of trust in his government is high. PNoy should capitalize on it," he said in a text message to GMANews.TV.

Meanwhile, Aquino's ally in the House, Muntinlupa Rep. Rodolfo Biazon believed that the statement of government negotiator Leonen about the administration being open to Cha-cha, was "unwise."

“The statement of the GRP (Government of the Republic of the Philippines) panel assigned to the negotiation with the MILF that the government is open to charter change is unwise especially with when the MILF took a saber-rattling posture that say they are ready for war," Biazon said at a press conference. 
with Amita Legaspi/VVP/RSJ, GMANews.TV

Remains To Be Seen

Here comes another lazy lunch at Rib Breakers.............dugay na ni pero bgo lang na post
and of course, my Tupperware smile =)

but shout out to the one who cannot be named....................!  HAPPY BIRTHDAY SA PINA KA LAB KO GID SA TANAN IN THE WHOLE WIDE SUPER WORLD!  

MANILA, Philippines - A group of farmer-beneficiaries of Hacienda Luisita Inc. asked the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday to nullify the compromise agreement signed by HLI with a faction of the farmers earlier this month.

The farmer-beneficiaries belonging to the Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA) said they were misrepresented in the signing of the deal last Aug. 6.

The group urged the high court to reject the agreement and consider it void for carrying the stock distribution option (SDO), a scheme whose legality is being questioned before the SC.

AMBALA, in a 30-page petition, urged the SC to proceed with the oral arguments set for tomorrow and resolve the case based on the issues presented.

The compromise agreement gave farmers the choice to retain shares of the company under the SDO scheme, as was agreed upon in 1989, or own a parcel of land in the plantation.

Around 1,400 hectares comprising a third of the 6,500-hectare hacienda will be put up for distribution. The agreement also includes a P150-million financial assistance for the 12,000 farmer-beneficiaries of HLI.
The agreement was signed by HLI and representatives of the AMBALA, ULWU and the Supervisory Group of HLI.

AMBALA, however, pointed out the resolution of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in 2005 that revoked the stock distribution option is still legally binding since the scheme was found to be in violation of the CARP law.

“Therefore the compromise agreement should not be considered at all,” AMBALA lawyer Jobert Pahilga said.

“The alleged overwhelming majority who chose to remain under the stock distribution option scheme did not cure the illegality and invalidity of the stock distribution option,” the group said.

The SC earlier took over the question of the legality of the stock distribution option scheme under the memorandum of agreement signed between HLI and the farmers in 1989.

The stock distribution option plan was recalled by DAR in 2005 following complaints that the scheme defeated the purpose of CARP and put them at a disadvantage.

The HLI immediately filed a petition before the SC in February 2006 seeking the invalidation of the DAR order recalling the stock distribution option agreement.

AMBALA stressed the compromise deal signed on Aug. 6 violated Section 65 of the CARP law, citing for instance, the waiver to question the conversion and development of the land to non-agricultural use.

The petitioners also claimed the agreement had violated Section 4 of the CARP law, which provides that agricultural land in excess of five hectares shall be distributed to farmers, while the landowner shall be given just compensation for the value of the land.

Under the CARP’s compulsory or mandated land acquisition scheme, the government will pay the landowner the cost of the property that will be distributed to the farmers.

The land value of Luisita will be assessed to determine the cost.

AMBALA also claimed HLI conducted a referendum among the farmers before the deal was signed, which undermined the jurisdiction of the SC over the case.

AMBALA said the management should have asked permission from the SC before conducting the survey among farmers and forging the deal with the farmers since the case is already under judicial jurisdiction.

The HLI had submitted to the SC a copy of the compromise agreement, urging the high court to approve and consider the deal with the farmers as a positive step towards the implementation of CARP.

The SC, however, cautioned the compromise agreement submitted by HLI would not automatically resolve their dispute and divest the high court of jurisdiction over the case.

Misrepresentation


In the same petition, AMBALA claimed they have been misrepresented in the deal, accusing the supposed signatory, Noel Mallari, of being a fake.


“Mr. Mallari, who claims to be the president of AMBALA, has never been president of the said organization and he had long been ousted there from acts inimical to the interest of the farm workers… He had long been not a member or officer of the group,” they said.


AMBALA, now led by Felix Nacpil, said they have already clarified this issue with the SC in a manifestation last January.


“This case is not just an ordinary intra-corporate issue. The issue here is social justice for farmers under the agrarian reform law,” AMBALA lawyer Pahilga said.

They also alleged that Eldifonso Pingol, another signatory in the deal representing the United Luisita Workers’ Union (ULWU), has no authority to represent the union.

They said ULWU did not appoint Pingol to represent them in the signing of the agreement on Aug. 6.

AMBALA urged the high court to order the immediate distribution of the remaining agricultural lands to the farmer-beneficiaries.


At the same time, another labor dispute in Hacienda Luisita was heard by the Court of Appeals (CA) yesterday.


The Central Azucarera de Tarlac (CAT), which operates a sugar mill and refinery, distillery and carbon dioxide plants in Barrio San Miguel in Tarlac, asked the CA’s special 17th division to stop the implementation of an order of National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) last year to compensate the plantation’s security guards in the amount of P4.35 million in back wages.


The CA is reviewing a ruling issued by the NLRC on Feb. 26 last year that found CAT liable, along with security agencies Evergreen Security Services and Limbas Investigation and Security Agency, to pay the security guards their separation pay and full back wages from 2004.


Rommel Reyes, one of the security guards seeking compensation from CAT, told the CA that a total of 116 security personnel were initially involved in the complaint but only eight were left to pursue the case before the NLRC since the others opted for an out-of-court settlement.


Reyes said they were forced to resign from their work due to nonpayment of their salaries.


He said CAT stopped paying their salaries following the Luisita massacre incident where hundreds of workers of the sugar plantation staged a violent strike in 2004 to demand the reinstatement of some of their colleagues who were dismissed by management.


The strike prompted CAT to cease operations until December 2005, when all the striking union members were allowed to return to work.

Hands off

President Aquino yesterday said he would leave resolution of the issue between the family-owned hacienda and its workers to the concerned parties, stressing the parties themselves know what is in their best interest in forging the deal.

The President added he is not in a position to meddle in the talks between the HLI and the farmers since he had no interest in the management of the sugar plantation.


He said he left the decision to his relatives in the management of the sugar plantation since “I have divested myself of any interests there.”


“But who has interests there now? Farmer-beneficiaries and members of my family and other stockholders. The question now is, who is in the best position to know what should happen to them? I believe the ones who are directly involved, and not those outside making comments, would know where the corporation should go,” Mr. Aquino pointed out.


The President made the statement after being criticized for keeping his distance from the Luisita case since his relatives own the land and the corporation that manages the sugar plantation.


Mr. Aquino visited his family’s residence in Luisita over the weekend but said he neither talked with the farmers nor with HLI management. The President went to the hacienda for a short break while the farmers were lining up for the financial package offered to them by HLI.

“I adopted a hands off policy for me to act properly,” he said.


If he would interfere in the negotiations, Mr. Aquino said it would appear that he was imposing on the parties concerned.


The President said he made a promise to the people that they would be his boss and the farmers as well as the HLI management were part of those he would want to serve.

“They are the ones who have interests there, so they should tell me directly the direction they want to take,” he said.


Mr. Aquino also said he did not want to make any comment since it would be seen as prejudging the issue that is now under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.


On the other hand, Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo, head of the social arm of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), said Mr. Aquino would likely adopt the stand of DAR that did not honor the stock distribution option scheme offered by Hacienda Luisita.

Pabillo pointed out the recommendation made by Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) in shooting down the stock distribution option scheme as illegal was adopted by DAR.


“The position of the PARC, that is the position of the government, so naturally that is also the position of the President,” Pabillo said.


According to Pabillo, Malacañang had assured him that “they would support the position of the PARC.”


Pabillo earlier urged President Aquino to show “leadership by example” by intervening in the issue and upholding the interests of the farmers.


Pabillo asked that the compromise agreement be set aside to allow the genuine process of agrarian reform.

He said HLI should not insist on offering the stock distribution option to the farmers since the legality of the scheme has been questioned before the SC. 
 With Aurea Calica, Evelyn Macairan, Sandy Araneta - By Edu Punay (Philstar News Service, www.philstar.com) 

SC fines Negros Oriental Judge For Sitting On Annulment Case

Monday, August 16, 2010

he Supreme Court has castigated a Negros Oriental judge for his failure to resolve an annulment case filed seven years ago.

In a decision promulgated last August 12, the court's Third Division also imposed a P15,000 penalty on Winston Villegas, presiding judge of Tanjay City Regional Trial Court Branch 43.

"Wherefore, premises considered, Judge Winston M. Villegas is found guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision on Civil Case No. 192. Accordingly, he is fined P15,000.00, with a stern warning against the commission of a similar offense," said the court's ruling penned by Associate Justice Arturo Brion.

The court's decision was in response to the November 2007 complaint filed by Evangeline Vera Cruz, who accused Villegas of sitting on the case.

In March 2006, Vera Cruz filed an annulment of marriage case, which was assigned to Villegas' sala. However, the case's hearing was last held in July 2006. By 2008, it was still on pre-trial stage.


No connivance with litigant Vera Cruz also filed an administrative complaint against Villegas for supposedly "fraternizing" with Carmelita Vera Cruz, one of the respondents in the annulment case, saying this was in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.


Evangeline Vera Cruz alleged that Villegas sat on the case because he and Carmelita were neighbors, whose houses were only 250 meters apart.


However, the Supreme Court, through the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), dismissed the administrative complaint against the judge for lack of evidence.

"The charges of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and fraternizing with litigants must fail. As the OCA correctly concluded, Evangeline failed to adduce substantial evidence to support Judge Villegas’ guilt. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence," said the SC

— LBG, GMANews.TV

Civil Law Case Doctrines

Persons and Family Relations Case Doctrines

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled in favor of a multinational firm, food and beverage manufacturer Nestlé, in an infringement case it filed against a locally-owned distributor of a milk brand supposedly similar to the one it produces. In a 20-page decision penned by Justice Antonio Carpio, the high court reversed two earlier rulings by the Court of Appeals and ruled that Nestlé’s registered trademark for its infant powdered milk with brand “Nan" was infringed by a “confusingly similar" milk brand called “Nanny," distributed by 5M Enterprises.

In its ruling, the SC said the use of the brand “Nanny" would imply that it is also manufactured by Nestlé, since it exactly has the first three letters of the brand name of the milk product produced by the giant food and beverage manufacturer. The high court also ruled that the milk products branded “Nanny" have the same classification, descriptive properties and physical attributes as Nestlé’s “Nan" products, making it difficult for consumers to tell the difference between the two brands.

The same SC decision reinstated the original 1998 decision of the Cebu City Regional Trial Court Branch 9, which favored Nestlé’s case against 5M.

Andreo C. Calonzo/JV, GMANews.TV

Step Up 3D

Sunday, August 15, 2010

I admit to being a newbie in 3D movies.  Step Up 3D is my first three dimensional experience in movies and I can say that the movie did not disappoint. At all.  Very nice but not excellent.  And why? you may ask?  Although the soundtrack was very cool, I the dance moves seemed like they were making the dancers too tired and moldy. 


Malacañang on Friday named Asian Institute of Management Policy Center executive director Ma. Lourdes Aranal-Sereno as the latest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
 
Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda made the announcement in a press briefing.

Sereno will occupy the post vacated by Renato Corona when former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed him chief justice on May 17.


Her appointment — the first Aquino made to the Supreme Court — completes the 15-member bench.


Sereno took up law at the University of the Philippines College of Law, where she graduated cum laude and class valedictorian in 1984. She obtained her Master of Laws degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1993.


Lacierda said Aquino choose Sereno based on the list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council and does not know Sereno on a personal basis, although Aquino and Sereno were one batch apart at the Ateneo de Manila University where they both took the same undergraduate course, AB Economics.

"The names were submitted to him based on the Judicial and Bar Council practice of giving names to the president, and from there all the names were vetted by the president," said Lacierda.

Sereno graduated from the Ateneo with a degree in AB Economics in 1980, while Aquino graduated from the same course in 1981. Both were born in 1960.


Sereno has been a faculty member of the Philippine Judicial Academy since 2000 and has taught civil law, negotiable instruments law, and international trade law. She was also a member of the faculty at the Hague Academy of International Law in Cambodia in November 2004.


Lacierda said Sereno's credentials were "admirable."


The Palace spokesman said she was one of the lawyers who briefed the Aquino government on the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. (Piatco) case before the International Chamber of Commerce-International Court of Arbitration in Singapore.


The Philippines won the case with her as co-counsel.


Other JBC nominees who were considered for the position were former UP law dean Raul Pangalangan; Court of Appeals Associate Justices Noel Tijam, Hakim Abdulwahid, and Japar Dimaampao; and Commission on Elections Commissioner Rene Sarmiento.
Jam L. Sisante/JV, GMANews.TV

Persons and Family Reviewer with Cases

Saturday, August 14, 2010

PerFamily

By Thea Alberto, Yahoo! Southeast Asia 
 Photo by Jerome Ascano, NPPA Images
No special treatment should be given to anyone, especially those who are closely related to President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III.
Palace said this Friday as it reacted to reports that Aquino’s most popular sister, actress Kris was not penalized after her car was seen parked illegally.
“Let me tell the MMDA officials, all officials concerned, walang kinikilangan ang pamahalaang ito. Kung sino man ang nagkasala, ticket-an po ninyo,” Lacierda said in a press conference.
Lacierda urged officials concerned to enforce the law as required.
“Do not be afraid even if he’s related to the President or related to any cabinet secretaries or the cabinet secretaries themselves. You apply the law without fear or favor,” he added.
The presidential spokesman warned against anyone using the President’s name to avoid penalties.
“Malaki ang burden sa kanila ngayon. Ang pangako ng pangulo ay kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap; walang wang-wang. Siguro it’s a burden on their part really to uphold the virtues and the promises of the president more than anybody else,” he said.
In her noontime show, Kris admitted her driver violated the law but the Metro Manila Development Authority officer refused to issue a ticket.
“Kasalanan po talaga ng driver ko, pasensiya na po kayo at ticketan ninyo yung driver ko dahil siya po ang nag double parking,” Kris said in Pilipinas Win na Win.
Kris said she has asked her driver to ask a ticket from the traffic officer.
“Nanawagan po ako sa MMDA na ticketan yung driver ko, balik na kayo, Mario kunin mo yung ticket kasalanan mo yan,” said Kris.

Statutory Construction-Agpalo

Agpalo Notes 2003

I've moved to http://triggeredmadness.wordpress.com/!! Follow me there!

The Usual Suspects

Thank gawd its Friday.  Not that its the weekend but because its the beginning of a two day relaxing kicker backer list of subjects: Legal Research, Legal Forms, Legal Profession and Statutory Construction. 

hagaray coffee sa library mode
(Karen, Jassy, Trina and Steve)

@ the coffee place.  Mainstrip Alley

@Atty. Batapa's Legal Research class fueled by coffee

Cases for this Saturday's StatCon Class

Friday, August 13, 2010


LEGISLATIVE CONTENT

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION

ON CONSTRUCTION OF  STATUTES
·         NITAFAN vs. CIR, 152 SCRA 284
SUBJECTS OF CONSTRUCTION
A.      Constitution/statute
·         Ayson vs. Provincial Board 39 Phil 932 (Subject of Bill)
·         (Practical rather than technical construction of Subject)
·         People vs. Echavez 95 SCRA 663 (Whereas Clause)

B.      Publication Requirement
·         Tanada vs. Tuvera 136 SCRA 27
·         Tanada vs. Tuvera 140 SCRA 446

C.      Enrolled Bill

D.      Effect of the Withdrawal of Authentication in a Bill

E.       On the Preamble of a Presidential Decree

F.       Effect of the Rules and Regulations Issued by Executive or Administrative Officers, Requisites

G.     On Statute vs. Administrative Regulations

H.      Presumption of Constitutionality
·         Drilon vs. Lim, 235 SCRA 135

I.        On Locus Standi
·         IBP vs. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81

J.        Ordinance

K.      Grant of Power to Local Government


GMANews.TV - Friday, August 13
Senator Miriam Defensor has filed a joint resolution asking both houses of Congress to terminate the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) because it is supposedly not a valid treaty recognized by the United States.

In a statement, Santiago said that the US does not recognize the VFA as a treaty because its Congress has never ratified the agreement, which the Philippine Congress ratified in 1999.

She said the US President merely "transmitted" to the US Congress the VFA and all other executive agreement.

"The VFA was submitted as a compliance with an American law called the Case-Zablocki Act," the senator said. This US law requires the US President, through the Secretary of State, “to transmit to Congress, the international agreements entered into by the US government … which are not characterized as treaties."

“Thus, the US government does not characterize the VFA as a treaty," Santiago said.

Because of this, the senator said that the Philippine Congress has the "correct authority" to terminate the treaty. "It is within the powers of Congress to unilaterally terminate the VFA through a joint resolution. The executive's role is to give notice of termination to the United States, although the decision itself is one for Congress to make," she said.


"The fatal flaw of the VFA is the failure to specify the period of stay of visiting forces, and the failure to define what are the ‘activities’ that they can engage in while in Philippine national territory. It calls itself a ‘visiting’ agreement, but it has been in force for some 10 years. Its flaws and failures warrant its termination," said Santiago.

In 2009, Senator Francis Pangilinan filed a Senate resolution saying that the VFA violated the country's constitutional provision banning the presence of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country.

Also last year, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 205 which called for the renegotiation of the VFA. But Santiago said that the Department of Foreign Affairs has yet to submit its recommendations to the Senate.

The RP-US agreement provides that it shall remain "in force" until 180 days expire from the date on which either party notifies the other party in writing that it desires to terminate the agreement.—Kimberly Jane T. Tan/JV, GMANews.TV

Partners in Crime

Wednesday, August 11, 2010


Its a good thing Judge A. was not so borderline Hitleristic today.  Nice.  I wish she would be like what she was all throughout the semester.  

My classmates and I had some unwinding session since Crim Grim class was dismissed early (I don't know, maybe due to "good mood"?).
hehehe

(Mark, Teddy, Trina, Steve, Jassy, Karen)

For my Kryptonite

Should I stay or should I go?  If I choose to go, you tell me to stay.  And if I choose to stay, you take me for granted.  Not knowing where I stand is the most painful thing in the world.  You leave me hanging and so dense, I've got nowhere to go and don't know how to take another step.  I wish I could see you behind other people's eyes and realize I don't need you after all.

Grounds for Legal Separation

Monday, August 9, 2010

Marriage not what you wished it would be?  Too bad there is no Divorce in the Philippines, however, there is Annulment which makes the union null or never to have existed to begin with.  If the budget just doesn't cut it, then you can opt for a Legal Separation instead.    Under Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the grounds for Legal Separation are:

(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;
(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned;
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad;
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.
You might find your self jumping for joy since you met one or two or worst, all of the categories but hold your horses dearies!  Under Article 57, an action for legal separation shall be filed within five years from the time of the occurrence of the cause.  You will be denied your petition if any one of the following is held true:
(1) Where the aggrieved party has condoned the offense or act complained of;
(2) Where the aggrieved party has consented to the commission of the offense or act complained of;
(3) Where there is connivance between the parties in the commission of the offense or act constituting the ground for legal separation;
(4) Where both parties have given ground for legal separation;
(5) Where there is collusion between the parties to obtain decree of legal separation; or
(6) Where the action is barred by prescription. (100a)
Once you have been granted the green light, the effects on your marriage will be:
(1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other, but the marriage bonds shall not be severed;
(2) The absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Article 43(2);
(3) The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse, subject to the provisions of Article 213 of this Code; and
(4) The offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will of the innocent spouse shall be revoked by operation of law. (106a)


Made up your mind about separating with the one you once tied the knot with?  Don't worry, once you have already filed for Legal Separation, your case will not be held in a period of six months.  The reason for this is to give the you and your spouse time to reconcile your differences and save your marriage.  In the period of six months, the court will also take necessary steps to bring you back together.

So, do you still want to do this?  Think, think, think.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails