Published by Atty. Fred September 15th, 2006 in Corporate and Investments.
There are formal learning institutions dealing in all aspects of business. There are Big Businesses dominating our economy. Of course, there are Pinoys who are very lucky to have graduated from these prestigious institutions and work for or with the Big Businesses. However, outside of formal learning institutions, budding Pinoy entrepreneurs refer to materials from various sources in order to gain knowledge and insights on how business clicks.
Continue reading ‘Business Philippines, Helpful Government Sites’
Published by Atty. Fred September 14th, 2006 in Obiter/News.
Here’s something interesting.
Legal blogs, referred to as “blawgs” by some, are being cited in court decisions in the U.S. As reflected in a collection of court cases that cite legal blogs, there are 32 citations of legal blogs from 27 different cases, with 8 legal blogs being cited (as of 6 August 2006). 3L Epiphany notes that: Continue reading ‘Legal blogs cited in court decisions’
The Presidential Commission on Good Goverment (PCGG) yesterday filed a petition for habeas corpus to compel the Senate to present Camilo Sabio, PCGG Chairman, before the Supreme Court and to justify his arrest and detention that was ordered by the Senate in connection with its on-going inquiry in aid of legislation. You probably read about the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Jocelyn “Joc-joc†Bolante against U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other ranking US government officials in order to gain freedom in the United States.The term “writ of habeas corpus” had surfaced many times before. Let’s discuss this subject matter.
Continue reading ‘Habeas corpus’
What’s the significance of a declaration of a “state of rebellion”? Legally, none. It is a legal superfluity. In the 2003 Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary, case, the Supreme Court ruled that:
xxx in calling out the armed forces, a declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter superfluity. At most, it only gives notice to the nation that such a state exists and that the armed forces may be called to prevent or suppress it. Perhaps the declaration may wreak emotional effects upon the perceived enemies of the State, even on the entire nation. But this Court’s mandate is to probe only into the legal consequences of the declaration. This Court finds that such a declaration is devoid of any legal significance. For all legal intents, the declaration is deemed not written.
The case involves Proclamation 427, declaring a “state of rebellion” and calling out the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to quell the “Oakwood mutiny”. The SC sustained the validity of Proclamation 427, which is based on the Commander-in-Chief powers of the President.
Continue reading ‘Declaration of a State of Rebellion: A Legal Superfluity’
We previously wrote that on 24 June 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9346, entitled ‘An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines‘. Let’s examine the Supreme Court decisions after the abolition of the Death Penalty.
The case of People of the Philippines vs. Quiachon (G.R. 170236, 31 AUgust 2006) involves an accused who raped his 8-year old daughter, a deaf-mute. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty should have been death. With the abolition of the Death Penalty, however, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Continue reading ‘Cases after the death of Death Penalty’
It is settled that Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, has the power to discipline its members, as well as non-members. This power is again in the spotlight.
First - the power to discipline a member. This is expressly provided in Article VI, Section 16 (3) of the Constitution:
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
Continue reading ‘Showdown in Congress: the Power to Discipline’
Published by Atty. Fred September 8th, 2006 in Obiter/News.
The translation of court decisions and proceedings into Filipino to enhance access to justice. This is among the initiatives adopted during the National Forum on Liberty and Prosperity, spearheaded by no less than the Supreme Court, held on August 24-25 at the Manila Hotel.
This proposal is worth pursuing. As stated in the purpose of this site, and in the words of Judge Navarro, the law should be presented in a form that can be understood by the people because the law, after all, is for THEM. We should bring the law closer to the people; which brings us to an interesting issue - Bakit nakasulat ang blawg o law blog na ito sa wikang Ingles? (”Why is this blawg or law blog written in English?”)
Continue reading ‘Translation of court decisions into Filipino’
We previously discussed that Filipinos who lost their citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country may now re-acquire their Philippine citizenship, and thereafter exercise civil and political rights, including the right to vote. This is provided in Republic Act No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003). On the other hand, with respect to the right of suffrage or to vote, the Constitution provides that it may only be exercised by Filipino citizens who, among others, shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year.
May dual citizens vote even without the one-year residency requirement provided in the Constitution? Yes, according to the Supreme Court in the case of Nicolas-Lewis vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 162759, 4 August 2006).
Continue reading ‘Dual Citizens may Vote sans one-year Residency’
(This is written by Dean Jorge Bocobo at Philippine Commentary, reposted here with his permission. Also known as “Rizalist”, DJB is one of the respected writers around).
Anti-terrorism laws unavoidably entail some curtailment of the general public’s freedoms. But hardly anyone objects very strenuously even to draconian countermeasures when a credible threat is demonstrated, as in the case of a ban on carrying on-board commercial aircraft, components of liquid improvised explosives in the foiled London airliner bombing conspiracy. But last week, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel and Rep. Nereus Acosta, vice chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee declared their intention to hold up, once more, the passage into Law of the long-debated Anti-Terrorism Bill because they say the authorities may use it against legitimate political and opposition leaders. On ABSCBN/ANC last night, Twink Macaraeg’s televised one-on-one debate between National Security Undersecretary Ricardo Blancaflor and the Secretary General of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) Renato Reyes, also revolved around the issue of how the defense of human and civil rights ought to be conducted while the international community fights a war on international terrorism. Although Neric Acosta seems comfortable endlessly debating “the definition of terrorism” as an irresolvable or inescapable rut, his, is really a cop-out position. Nene Pimentel touches on more substantive civil libertarian issues by invoking the ghost of martial laws past and the Marcosian legacy of officially denied salvagings, unexplained desaparecidos … and other human rights atrocities of the recent past. The concerns of both legislators are serious, but can, and have already been amply addressed during the debates over the anti-terror bill. I might only add the following thoughts:
Continue reading ‘Special Court could Oversee Anti-Terror Law’
Published by Atty. Fred September 7th, 2006 in Family and Property Law.
Love is not totally alien to law. The Supreme Court once quoted the truism that “the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know.” Now, what if someone you love promises to marry you but then refuses to honor that promise?
This, of course, is a breach of promise to marry. However, a breach of promise to marry does not automatically entitle the offended party to an award of damages. This is the issue in the 1964 case of Wassmer vs. Velez (G.R. No. L-20089). Let’s briefly discuss the case.
Continue reading ‘Breach of Promise to Marry’
Recent Comments