Published by jlp July 10th, 2007 in Criminal Law.
(Note: RA 9372 is often referred to as the “Anti-Terror Law” or “Anti-Terrorism Law“. As will be seen in the text of the law, however, this is properly known as the “Human Security Act of 2007.” This law takes effect this coming Sunday, 15 July 2007. Here’s the full text of the law.)
——————————————————–
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372
AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall henceforth be known as the “Human Security Act of 2007.â€
Continue reading ‘R.A. 9372 - Human Security Act of 2007 (full text)’
Published by Atty. Fred July 5th, 2007 in Family and Property Law.
Custody of children is one of the most intense aspects in family litigation. A custody battle could be an independent case or a mere incident in an annulment/separation case. Here are some basic matters relating to custody.
In custody disputes, what is the paramount criterion?
The paramount criterion in custody disputes is the welfare and well-being of the child, or the best interest of the child. The court, in arriving at its decision as to whom custody of the minor should be given, must take into account the respective resources and social and moral situations of the contending parents. Nevertheless, this primordial rule can override the rights of one or both parents over their children. Continue reading ‘Basic issues in child custody’
In a recent press statement, Lieutenant Colonel Jose Feliciano Loi noted that under the military justice system, Trillanes should not be going out of his detention cell as in the case of other personnel charged before the military’s general court martial.
The statement suggests that there is no provision in military laws, particularly in the Articles of War, that allows the granting of bail to military officer and men who are facing charges before any military tribunal. Continue reading ‘Senator-elect Trillanes right to bail’
One of the more popular posts in this Forum is Annulment, Divorce and Legal Separation in the Philippines: Questions and Answers. It’s time we collate other common issues relating to this topic. When we speak of the “annulment process”, we’re using it in a general sense to include both a petition for annulment and a petition for declaration of nullity (the difference between the two was already discussed in Part I).
Should I seek an annulment?
This is a personal decision that should not be taken lightly. While divorce is not allowed in the Philippines, the fact that the law provides for annulment means that there are meritorious instances that would justify the annulment of marriage.
What specifically is the role of the Solicitor General in the process of annulment? Is it true that the SolGen is often the source of delay?
The Solicitor General is authorized to intervene and take part in the proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages before the RTC and on appeal to higher courts.The Solicitor General is the principal law officer and legal defender of the land. His intervention in the proceedings ensures that the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing collusion between the parties, or the fabrication or suppression of evidence. This is the express pronouncement of the Supreme Court. The SolGen may or may not appeal an annulment decision, and such decision is within its authority. In other words, it’s not true, and unfair to say, that the SolGen is the cause of delay. Continue reading ‘Annulment in the Philippines: Questions and Answers (Part 2)’
On June 15, 2007, Sun.Star Pampanga carried an interesting news report: “Vice guv rejects Panlilio’s plea to stop bidding“. Pampanga’s Acting Governor Guaio’s rejection stemmed from Governor-elect Eddie Panlilio’s request contained in his letter of June 13, 2007 asking Guiao to defer a scheduled bidding, saying “yours is no more than a caretaker administration” and cited a 45-year-old Supreme Court case of Dominador Aytona vs. Andres V. Castillo, et al. (GR. No. L-19313, January 19, 1962).
Guiao posited that the present administration still has the authority to administer the province until noon of June 30, 2007 and there is no valid reason why the bidding should be postponed, considering that the projects for bidding have been posted at the provincial bulletin and at the Phil G-EPS website, suggesting tender procedures.
This news caught my interest because a landmark Supreme Court case (Dominador Aytona vs. Andres V. Castillo) was cited, which we studied and discussed comprehensively last year in Political Law I.
Guiao’s argument is meritorious. I believe Governor-elect Panlilio was ill-advised on this particular issue. Whoever advised him has misconstrued the aforementioned jurisprudence. The case of Aytona vs Castillo is summarized below: Continue reading ‘Dominador Aytona vs. Andres Castillo, GR. No. L-19313, 19 January 1962′
I often come across debtors dropping the hint of filing, or actually filing, a case for insolvency or bankruptcy just to bring home the (alleged) point that they have nothing more to cough out. It is true that once a petition for insolvency is granted, the debtor-insolvent is discharged from all his existing debts. The decision to file for insolvency, however, should not be taken lightly. Here are a few reasons why:
The alleged insolvent debtor may be subject to criminal prosecution. There are a number of criminal cases that an alleged insolvent debtor may face. For instance, the debtor may be charged with fraudulent insolvency, a criminal offense, if it is shown that he transferred his property to another place beyond the reach of the creditors. Article 314 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) reads: Continue reading ‘Criminal Cases and Insolvency’
There are a number of good reasons in favor of having and using a credit card. Still, we all know the possible adverse results in the unchecked use of “plastics” or credit cards, such as this one:
THERE’S a credit-card horror story that’s become some sort of an urban legend: A television personality, after losing his job in a top network, resorts to using his plastic money. By the time he finds employment in the rival network, he has wracked up P58,000 in credit card bills. But he figures he’s not yet ready to pay in full, so he pays just the minimum amount due. Yet after five years, he is shocked to realize that his credit card debt had ballooned more than 10 times to P700,000.
Perhaps you’ve heard, or, most probably, experienced certain “innovative” strategies used by credit card companies and their collection agencies in “persuading” you to pay (they are, of course, entitled to payment). With the rising complaints against these strategies, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) issued a set of rules and regulations governing the credit card operations of banks and affiliate credit card companies. Continue reading ‘Credit cards and unfair collection practices’
There is an ongoing debate as to whether Senator Lito Lapid will be considered as having forfeited his Senate seat when he ran for Mayor of Makati City. Let me offer what I understood about this issue.Before the passage of Fair Election Act (Republic Act No. 9006), Sen. Lapid would have been considered as having forfeited his Senate seat. The Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 67) provides that :
Sec. 67. Candidates holding elective office. - Any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
In the the landmark case of Dimaporo vs. Mitra (G.R. No. 96859, 15 October 1991), the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of Speaker Mitras’ administrative act of erasing Ali Dimaporo name from the Roll of the House, pursuant to Sec. 67 of B.P. 881. The High Tribunal underscored the basic concept that a public office is a public trust - it is created for the interest and benefit of the people. As such, the holder thereof is subject to such regulations and conditions as the law may impose and he cannot complain of any restrictions which public policy may dictate on his office. Continue reading ‘Is Lito Lapid Still A Senator?’
Published by Atty. Fred June 5th, 2007 in Libel.
We previously discussed that the two complaints for libel were dismissed as against RP Nuclei Solutions and Abe Olandres (Part IV). However, the cases were filed in court as against the two other individual respondents (Part III), who were the supposed authors of the allegedly libelous comments (Part II - basic facts).
RP Nuclei Solutions, represented by Abe, filed a counter-charge for perjury (under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code), which was consolidated with the two libel complaints (this simply means that the three complaints were joined and decided by the same Investigating Prosecutor).
According to RP Nuclei Solutions, it is the owner of plogHost (ploghost.com), a web hosting service aimed at providing affordable and efficient ways to deliver web hosting services to the local market. RP Nuclei Solutions or plogHost claims that as such web host, it leases its servers to registered owners of websites or web logs (blogs), among others, and that a web host is entirely different from the registered owner of a website or blog.
The charge for perjury is based on the allegation that RP Nuclei Solutions is liable for libel on the ground that greedyolddumbass.com is œowned and operated by the Respondent RP NUCLEI SOLUTIONS CORP. According to RP Nuclei Solutions, it is not the owner and operator of greedyolddumbass.com, contrary to the allegation of the complainant in the libel complaints.
The counter-charge of perjury, however, was also dismissed. Continue reading ‘Anatomy of an Internet Libel Case (Part V)’
Published by Atty. Fred June 5th, 2007 in Libel.
This is the fourth of a six-part series discussing two complaints for internet libel. As stated in Part I (Introduction), this part will focus on the resolution in favor of Abe Olandres and the RP Nuclei Solutions, Inc.
As noted in Part II (basic facts of the complaints), RP Nuclei Solutions, Inc. was impleaded as a co-respondent because it is allegedly the “owner” of the internet forum greedyolddumbass.com. The complainant subsequently acknowledged that RP Nuclei Solutions, as a juridical entity, may not properly be charged with libel. The complainant, however, impleaded Abe Olandres in place of RP Nuclei Solutions.
The Investigating Prosecutor dismissed the complaints as against RP Nuclei Solutions and Abe. Continue reading ‘Anatomy of an Internet Libel Case (Part IV)’
Recent Comments