--0--

- buti na lang talaga, madaming gustong maging Presidente sa Senado.-

Arroyo son leads Charter change bid

150 solons sign on for constituent assembly

By Gil C. Cabacungan Jr.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:58:00 11/21/2008
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081121-173468/Arroyo-son-leads-Charter-change-bid

Only 15 votes shy of Cha-cha
By Delon Porcalla Updated November 21, 2008 12:00 AM http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=417260&publicationSubCategoryId=63

isa sa mga pinaka-cool na nakita ko na video...

check niyo, nakakatuwa...

http://www.vimeo.com/1211060

p.s. nagaaral ako. breaktime lang.

Weak slate

Lakas this early, has already announced its probable senatorial candidates.

Not surprisingly, the presidential son, Pampanga Rep. Juan Miguel “Mikey” Arroyo, a third termer congressman who has moreover switched to Kampi, his mother’s political party, is touted as the lead senatorial administration candidate.

From the list of Lakas senatorial probables, it certainly looks like a very weak ticket, composed as it is of graduating congressmen who, unfortunately, are not quite national figures, and who need more national exposure to make it to the Senate, plus a sprinkling of several administration senatorial bets who lost in the last senatorial elections, such as former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson, former Sen. Ralph Recto and former Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor, along with some Cabinet figures.

If elections will be held, and it is doubted that the polls will go through, unless Gloria Arroyo has her protected exit plan all laid out and ready to be implemented, it is almost certain that the Lakas bets will lose and lose big — especially so for Mikey, as he would serve as a proxy of Gloria in yet another protest vote.

Mikey can win in Pampanga, but it is not likely he would be a popular bet in a national election, even if he is a national figure, by virtue of being a presidential son. And that’s even worse being Gloria’s son.

Still, if Mikey does run for the Senate, it is almost certain that not only will money flow like water for his candidacy, but also that there will again be massive cheating, to ensure the victory of Gloria’s favorite son.

After all, if Gloria exits from Malacañang, she needs a senator son to defend her.

One exit plan, so the speculation goes, is for Gloria to take on the seat of son Mikey, which she will probably win, and then, with all her billions — nay trillions — she gets the speakership and thus gain leverage even if an opposition candidate becomes the next president.

With all her money from kickbacks and commissions, it will be cheaper for her to buy off even two thirds of the congressmen to impeach a sitting president that does not play ball with her.

Besides, with her still in power, as the fourth constitutional heir as Speaker, she can continue to ensure her protection after her exit from Malacañang. For one, she will still have control over the Ombudsman, Merceditas Gutierrez, who will have the last say on whether to press charges against a government official, or throw any and all complaints against Gloria.

Also, as she will have the majority of the congressmen in her pocket, she can always threaten the presidency with a veto override on pet presidential measures and even the budget.

For all one knows, even an opposition presidential bet will have entered into some kind of deal with her on the strength of her use of government resources and funds. She would still be sitting in Malacañang when polls are held.

But in the senatorial polls, it is certain that there will be no Lakas or Kampi line-up in presidential elections, as no doubt, there will be another administration ticket team that may even include some so-called opposition figures.

This has happened before in 2001, then in 2004, and in 2007. There is no reason for it not to happen again in 2010.

But a Lakas-Kampi team-up in the presidential and senatorial elections may face a lot of problems, chief of which is their identification with Gloria Arroyo.

In 2010, she will still be a hated political figure, even as she keeps on announcing cash subsidies to the poor, who make up the majority of the electorate.

Worse, there won’t be a sudden and dramatic change in the country in the matter of high prices of essential goods and services, and the tax after tax after tax imposed by Gloria and her administration. The eVAT, the bane of the nation, will still be there in 2010, and no doubt, bigger corruption scandals will continue to rock her and her administration. People will remember and will be voting against her and her administration candidates.

No matter what propaganda she spews about the country attaining First World status when she exits and with the economic prosperity she keeps on promising, none of the presidential propaganda will bear fruit.

With her exit, it will be the end of the decade long-Gloria Arroyo era.

And good riddance too.

Hello.

Tomorrow, the Senate will file its motion for reconsideration re: Neri case. Lawyers of the Senate, as well as some senators, will march from Adamson University to the Supreme Court.

If you want to join the march, be in Adamson University, St. Theresa's Quadrangle, 8am.

p.s. sa mga manggagaling ng ateneo rockwell, magkikita na lang tayo ng 715 am sa ground floor, cashier. :)

text me na lang if you have questions.  Kitakits - Ona, 0906.492.4438

read on.... ( i deleted some unnecessary parts of the article.)

-----

Birthday girl gets pat on the back, hit on chin
By Michael Lim Ubac, Norman Bordadora
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:47:00 04/04/2008

MANILA, Philippines—

(START OF BULLSHIT)

One of them—Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez—says Ms Arroyo deserves the Filipinos’ gratitude for what she has done for the country.

For his part, Gonzalez’s former ally, deposed House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., sees Ms Arroyo’s supposed vindictiveness in his political downfall.

Gonzalez Thursday said a “pat on the back” was what Ms Arroyo wished from the nation as she prepared to mark her 61st birthday on Saturday.

He said Ms Arroyo had been doing everything to move the country forward and yet the country hadn’t thanked her for it.

“Of course she does her best, so we should give her a pat on the back. Yung lang bata pag magaling ang ginagawa binibigyan mo ng lollipop (Even a child gets a lollipop if it does something good),” quipped Ms Arroyo’s most vocal defender in the Cabinet.

For his part, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye wished her "success in all her undertakings."

"The President has expressed hope that the Philippines, through our concerted effort, will be able to come close to First World status within a generation," he added.

Gonzalez’s birthday wish

The First Family will mark the President’s birthday with a Mass in her hometown of Lubao, Pampanga.

Asked what his birthday wish for Ms Arroyo was, Gonzalez said: “I wish her well all the time and I hope critics would stop because she is the President of the country.”

Asked why that was what he wished for, he said: “Can you do governance when you are always heckled? You do everything you can for the country and the people don’t know how hardworking she is. That’s very unfair.”

Opposition, media hecklers

Gonzalez singled out the “hecklers” in the opposition and in the media for failing to appreciate what he said were Ms Arroyo’s good deeds.

“Why do people keep talking against her and not appreciate what she has done?” he asked.

Citing as an example the roads built by the Arroyo administration since 2001, he asked: “How many concrete highways had she built, but people who pass through them, do they appreciate (her)?”

Gonzalez said that instead of seeing the good in Ms Arroyo, her critics would rather believe the testimony of whistle-blower Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada in the National Broadband Network scandal.

“I cannot give her any better gift than my service. The best that you could give to your boss is loyalty,” Gonzalez said.

(Bullshit still continues. Yun nga lang, ang masaklap, sa tin ginagawa.)

read on. re-post in your blogs. explain to your friends.

Primer prepared by Atty. Carlos P. Medina, Executive Director of the Ateneo Human Rights Center

---------

In General: 

What is the case of Neri vs. Senate Committee?

This case is about the Senate investigation of anomalies concerning the NBN-ZTE project.  During the hearings, former NEDA head Romulo Neri refused to answer certain questions involving his conversations with President Arroyo on the ground they are covered by executive privilege.  When the Senate cited him in contempt and ordered his arrest, Neri filed a case against the Senate with the Supreme Court.  On March 25, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Neri and upheld the claim of executive privilege. 

What is “executive privilege”?

It is the right of the President and high-level executive branch officials to withhold information from Congress, the courts and the public.  It is a privilege of confidentiality which applies to certain types of information of a sensitive character that would be against the public interest to disclose.  Executive privilege is based on the constitution because it relates to the President’s effective discharge of executive powers.  Its ultimate end is to promote public interest and no other.

Is executive privilege absolute?

No.  Any claim of executive privilege must be weighed against other interests recognized by the constitution, like the state policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest, the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, the accountability of public officers, the power of legislative inquiry, and the judicial power to secure evidence in deciding cases.

Did the revocation by the President of E.O. 464 on March 6, 2008 diminish the concept of executive privilege?

No.  Executive privilege may still be invoked despite the President’s revocation of E.O. 464 because it is based on the constitution. 

On the Contents of the Supreme Court Decision: 

What events led to the filing of the case before the Supreme Court?

On April 21, 2007, the DOTC and Zhing  Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE), a corporation owned by the People’s Republic of China, executed a “Contract for the Supply of Equipment and Services for the National Broadband Network Project” (NBN-ZTE Contract) worth US$329,481,290.00 (around PhP 16B).  The project sought to provide landline, cellular and internet services in government offices nationwide and was to be financed through a loan by China to the Philippines.  President Arroyo witnessed the contract signing in China. 

After its signing, reports of anomalies concerning the project (e.g., bribery, “overpricing” by US$ 130M, “kickback commissions” involving top government officials, and loss of the contract) prompted the Senate, through the Committees on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon), Trade and Commerce, and National Defense and Security,  to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation.  The inquiry was based on a number of Senate resolutions and in connection with pending bills concerning funding in the procurement of government projects, contracting of loans as development assistance,  and Senate concurrence to executive agreements. 

In one of the hearings held on Sept. 26, 2007, former NEDA Director General Romulo Neri testified that President Arroyo initially gave instructions for the project to be undertaken on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangement so the government would not spend money for it, but eventually the project was awarded to ZTE with a government-to-government loan from China.  He also said that then COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos, the alleged broker in the project, offered him PhP 200M in exchange for NEDA’s approval of the project.  Neri testified that when he told President Arroyo of the bribe offer, she told him not to accept it. But Neri refused to answer questions about what he and the President discussed after that, invoking executive privilege since they concerned his conversations with the President.  The Senate required him to appear again and testify on November 20, 2007.  On November 15, 2007, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita wrote the Senate Committees and asked that Neri’s testimony on November 20, 2007 be dispensed with because he was invoking executive privilege “by Order of the President” specifically on the following questions: 

a.       Whether the President followed up on the NBN project?

b.      Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?

c.       Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe?

When Neri failed to appear on November 20, 2007, the Senate required him to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt.  Neri explained that he thought the only remaining questions were those he claimed to be covered by executive privilege and that should there be new matters to be taken up, he asked that he be informed in advance of what else he needs to clarify so he could prepare himself. 

On Dec. 7, 2007, Neri questioned the validity of the Senate’s show cause order before the Supreme Court.  On January 30, 2008, the Senate cited Neri in contempt and ordered his arrest for his failure to appear in the Senate hearings. On February 1, 2008, Neri asked the Supreme Court to stop the Senate from implementing its contempt order, which the Court granted on Feb. 5, 2008.  The Supreme Court also required the parties to observe the status quo prevailing before the issuance of the contempt order.   

What reasons were given for the claim of executive privilege?

Executive Secretary Ermita said that “the context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China.”  Neri further added that his “conversations with the President dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of the bribery scandal involving high government officials and the possible loss of confidence of foreign investors and lenders in the Philippines.”

What issues were considered by the Supreme Court in resolving the case? 

The Supreme Court said there were two crucial questions at the core of the controversy: 

1. Are the communications sought to be elicited by the three questions covered by executive privilege?
2. Did the Senate Committees commit grave abuse of discretion in citing Neri in contempt and ordering his arrest?

How did the Supreme Court resolve these issues?

The Supreme Court first recognized the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.  The Court said that the power extends even to executive officials and the only way for them to be exempted is through a valid claim of executive privilege. 

On the first question, the Supreme Court said that the communications sought to be elicited by the three questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege, which is one type of executive privilege.  Hence, the Senate cannot compel Neri to answer the three questions. 

On the second question, the Supreme Court said that the Senate Committees committed grave abuse of discretion in citing Neri in contempt.  Hence, the Senate order citing Neri in contempt and ordering his arrest was not valid.     

What are the types of executive privilege?

1. state secrets (regarding military, diplomatic and other security matters)
2. identity of government informers
3. information related to pending investigations
4. presidential communications
5. deliberative process

In what cases is the claim of executive privilege highly recognized?

The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the constitution to the President, such as the commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic powers of the President.  Information relating to these powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others.      

What specifically are the executive privileges relating to deliberations or communications of the President and other government officials?

These are the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege.

How are the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege distinguished?

The presidential communications privilege applies to decision-making of the President.  It pertains to “communications, documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential”.

The deliberative process privilege applies to decision-making of executive officials.  It includes “advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.”

Unlike the deliberative process privilege, the presidential communications privilege applies to documents in their entirety, and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones.

Moreover, congressional or judicial negation of the presidential communications privilege is always subject to greater scrutiny than denial of the deliberative process privilege. 

What is the type of executive privilege claimed in this case? 

The type of executive privilege claimed in this case is the presidential communications privilege. 

Is there a presumption in favor of presidential communications?

Yes.  Presidential communications are “presumptively privileged”.  The presumption is based on the President’s generalized interest in confidentiality.  The privilege is necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential advisors and to provide the President and those who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. 

The presumption can be overcome only by mere showing of public need by the branch seeking access to presidential communications.

Who are covered by the presidential communications privilege?

Aside from the President, the presidential communications privilege covers senior presidential advisors or Malacanang staff who have “operational proximity” to direct presidential decision-making. 

What are the elements of the presidential communications privilege?

The following are the elements of the presidential communications privilege:    

1. The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power”.
2. The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself.  The advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.
3. The privilege is a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate or compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and that the information sought is unavailable elsewhere by an appropriate investigating agency.  

What are examples of “quintessential and non-delegable presidential powers” which are covered by the presidential communications privilege?

The privilege covers only those functions which form the core of presidential authority.  These are functions which involve “quintessential and non-delegable presidential powers” such as the powers of the president as commander-in-chief (i.e., to call out the armed forces to suppress violence, to declare martial law, or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus), the power to appoint officials and remove them, the power to grant pardons and reprieves, the power to receive ambassadors, and the power to negotiate treaties and to enter into execute agreements. 

Are the elements of the presidential communications privilege present in this case?

Yes.  The communications elicited by the three questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege because: 

1. First, the communications relate to the power of the President to enter into an executive agreement with other countries.
2. Second, the communications are received by Neri, who as a Cabinet member can be considered a close advisor of the President. 
3. Third, the Senate Committees have not adequately shown a compelling need for the answers to the three questions in the enactment of a law and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.

Does the grant of the claim of executive privilege violate the right of the people to information on matters of public concern?

No, for the following reasons: 

1. Neri appeared before the Senate on Sept. 26, 2007 and was questioned for 11 hours.  He also expressed his willingness to answer more questions from the Senators, except the three questions. 
2. The right to information is subject to limitation, such as executive privilege.
3. The right of Congress to obtain information in aid of legislation cannot be equated with the people’s right to information.  Congress cannot claim that every legislative inquiry is an exercise of the people’s right to information.

Was the claim of executive privilege properly invoked by the President in this case?

Yes.  For the claim to be properly  invoked, there must be a formal claim by the President stating the “precise and certain reason” for preserving confidentiality.  The grounds relied upon by Executive Secretary Ermita are specific enough, since what is required is only that an allegation be made “whether the information demanded involves military or diplomatic secrets, closed-door Cabinet meetings, etc.”  The particular ground must only be specified, and the following statement of grounds by Executive Secretary Ermita satisfies the requirement:  “The context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China.”

What reasons were given by the Supreme Court in holding that it was wrong for the Senate to cite Neri in contempt and order his arrest?

1. There was a legitimate claim of executive privilege.
2. The Senate’s invitations to Neri did not include the possible needed statute which prompted the  inquiry, the subject of inquiry, and the questions to be asked.
3. The contempt order lacked the required number of votes.
4. The Senate’s rules of procedure on inquiries in aid of legislation were not duly published.
5. The contempt order is arbitrary and precipitate because the Senate did not first rule on the claim of executive privilege and instead dismissed Neri’s explanation as unsatisfactory. 

Implications of the Supreme Court Decision: 

Who has the burden of showing whether or not a claim of executive privilege is valid?

Executive privilege is in derogation of the search for truth.  However, the decision recognized Presidential communications as presumptively privileged.  Hence, the party seeking disclosure of the information has the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of the confidentiality of Presidential communications.  

This presumption is inconsistent with the Court’s earlier statement in Senate vs. Ermita (April 20, 2006) that “the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure”.   It is also inconsistent with constitutional  provisions on transparency in governance and accountability of public officers, and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern.  

Does the decision expand the coverage of executive privilege?

Yes, the decision expands the coverage of executive privilege in at least two ways:    

1. The decision explained that the presidential communications privilege covers communications authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. This means that the privilege applies not only to communications that directly involve the President, but also to communications involving the President’s close advisors, i.e., those in “operational proximity” with the President.  There is no definition of “operational proximity”, so it is not clear how far down the chain of command the privilege extends. This expansion of the coverage of the privilege means that information in many areas of the executive branch will become “sequestered” from public view. 

2. The decision also stated that the presidential communications privilege applies to documents in their entirety, and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones.  This means that the privilege protects not only the deliberative or advice portions of documents, i.e., communications made in the process of arriving at presidential decisions, but also factual material or information concerning decisions already reached by the President. 

How will the decision affect other investigations?

The decision makes it easy for the President to invoke executive privilege, since what is required is only that an allegation be made “whether the information demanded involves military or diplomatic secrets, closed-door Cabinet meetings, etc.” This in effect will  enable the use of executive privilege to hide misconduct or crime. According to Fr. Bernas, S.J., the implication of the ruling is that once the “presidential communications privilege” is invoked, no evidence is needed to support it even if there are valid reasons for disclosing the information sought. “This would revolutionize the doctrine in a manner that can affect all other investigations.  This can, for instance, hamper effective use of the … writ of amparo and writ of habeas data.  It can also cripple efforts to battle official corruption ….”

In particular, what is the effect of the decision on the Senate’s power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation?

The decision severely limits the Senate’s power of legislative inquiry and its ability to investigate government anomalies in aid of legislation.  The decision encroaches upon matters internal to the Senate as an institution separate from and co-equal to other branches of government. 

The decision, for instance, requires the Senate to give its questions in advance of its hearings.  But this is a requirement applicable only to the question hour and not to inquiries in aid of legislation.  Moreover, it is impractical, since follow-up questions of Senators will be difficult to anticipate.

The decision also requires the Senate to publish its rules of procedure on legislative inquiries every three years.  But the Senate  traditionally considered as a continuing body.  Senate committees continue to work even during senatorial elections.   By tradition and practice, the Senate does not re-publish its rules.  To require publication of its rules every three years is unnecessary and inconsistent with its tradition and practice. 

Did the Supreme Court ruling establish a doctrine on executive privilege?

No.  Although the vote is 9 – 6 in favor of upholding the claim of executive privilege, two of the nine Justices concurred merely in the result, while one Justice argued not on the basis of executive privilege.  Hence, only six out of the nine Justices explained their votes in favor of the claim  of executive privilege.  Six out of a total of 15 Justices do not establish a doctrine. 

Can the Senate continue with its investigations despite the Supreme Court ruling?

The decision does not stop the Senate from continuing with its investigations and from undertaking other inquiries, although the government has already declared that officials will not appear unless the Senate rules are first published. Should Neri (and other officials) appear, the Senate can ask him questions other than the three questions.  But Neri may again invoke executive privilege on other questions, which could result in another case before the Supreme Court, and the cycle may be repeated again and again. Such a situation, particularly where there appears to be a pattern of concealment in government activities,  will ultimately be harmful to public interest.   

--------

Sounding Board
A dangerously crippling decision

By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:30:00 03/31/2008

MANILA, Philippines - Without resorting to the language of Governor Salceda, indeed it can be said that the President is the luckiest woman. The Court could have decided that Romulo Neri should answer the three questions pregnant with cloudy foreboding: (a) Whether the President followed up the NBN project; (b) Whether the President directed him to prioritize the ZTE; (c) Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe.

But the Court placed all three questions under executive privilege, and nothing derogatory to the woman, if there was any, as many thought, could come out.

The interest of this piece, however, is not about derogatory imputations but about the scope of executive privilege. Executive privilege, as almost everyone knows by now, is the prerogative of the President to withhold certain types of information from Congress, from the courts and from the public. It is a constitutional right of the President which she alone can claim, but she might also direct the executive secretary to claim it.

Thus, Secretary Ermita, presumably by authority of the President, wrote to the Senate: “The context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Given the confidential nature in which these information were conveyed to the President, he [Neri] cannot provide the Committee any further details of these conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.” Neri also added (also by authority of the President?) that his answers might endanger national security.

The type of executive privilege claimed here is “presidential communication privilege.” Presidential communication is presumptively privileged; but the presumption is subject to rebuttal. Thus, whoever challenges it must show good and valid reasons related to the public welfare.

What reason did the Senate have? Recall that this was in the course of a legislative investigation occasioned by, among others, pending bills about foreign loans. The topic of foreign loans is special. It is not the sole domain of the President. Under our Constitution foreign loans may be incurred by the President but only with the prior consent of the Monetary Board and in accordance with laws passed by Congress. Hence the Senate had very good reason for finding out how the ZTE-NBN loans were handled and how the very unique experience under it which had attracted national interest could contribute to legislation.

When the claim of privilege is disputed by Congress, how and by whom is the dispute to be resolved? US decisions, strewn all over Justice Leonardo-De Castro’s ponencia, say that it is the Court that decides whether the claim of privilege has foundation.

That was the reason why the Court called for the oral argument on the subject. The Court wanted to find out, without compelling Neri to reveal legitimate secrets, how Neri’s answer might affect diplomatic relations and national security. As Chief Justice Puno observed, “The Court cannot engage in guesswork in resolving this important issue.”

Neri was not at the oral argument to explain. When his lawyer was asked to explain, Neri’s lawyer was clueless. His answer, repeated like a mantra, was “I cannot fathom.”

One might also add that, if there was any possible cause for impairment of diplomatic relations with China, one such possible cause would have been the cancellation of the contract. But no diplomatic problem arose from the cancellation.

The Court could have asked for an in camera session for Neri to explain his claim within the hearing of the Court alone. Such a procedure, followed by American practice, could have enabled the Court to sift what was privileged and what was not and then to allow the revelation of what was not privileged. But the Court did not use the procedure, probably because it was already obvious from the oral argument that the claim of privilege could not be sustained. It was, to paraphrase Neri’s lawyer, unfathomable.

But, lo and behold, the ponencia ruled that the matter was covered by executive privilege. Was it fathomed by guesswork, as Puno suggested? That is the way it looks to me.

The implication of this ponencia that shows no effort to look into the underlying substance of the claimed privilege is that once the claim of “presidential communication privilege” is claimed, no evidence is needed to support it even if there are legitimate reasons calling for disclosure. This would revolutionize the doctrine on executive privilege in a manner that can affect all other investigations. This can, for instance, hamper effective use of the recently promulgated writ of amparo and writ of habeas data. It can also cripple efforts to battle official corruption, which is a world-recognized specialty of the Philippines.

But did the Neri decision establish this paralyzing and stifling doctrine? We need to count heads. Two of the nine Justices concurred merely in the result without bothering to explain their concurrence. One Justice chose not to argue from executive privilege. That leaves six of the nine. Six out of 15 do not establish a doctrine, especially since the six concurring opinions might just as well have been unwritten.

The case clearly calls for a reconsideration to give the Court a chance to clarify what doctrine of executive privilege it really wishes to establish. Does the Court want to sublimate guesswork?

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080329-127184/Ateneos-Ona-tops-2007-bar-exams

hehe...nangtri-trip lang... congrats sa lahat ng pumasa.

phil. daily inquirer, march 29

========

MANILA, Philippines--Farmers involved in the Sumilao land dispute with San Miguel Corp. are closer to getting their share of the 144 hectares of land in Bukidnon which they fought for, after the concerned parties at noon Saturday signed a memorandum of agreement (MoA) spelling out the details of the land distribution.

A joint statement from the Sumilao farmers and the SMC said the MoA details “the implementing guidelines for the Basic Agreement entered into by all parties on March 3, 2008 that defined the parameters of the settlement.”

It said the farmers are expected to occupy an initial 50 hectares in the next few days.

The signing ceremony was held at the San Carlos Seminary Complex in Guadalupe with Archdiocese of Manila Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales as witness. After the signing ceremony, the parties paid a courtesy call on President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in Malacanang to present her with a copy of the settlement agreement and thank her for her support.

The signing is a culmination of the quiet backroom negotiations initiated by Manila Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales and participated in by top-level representatives of the Catholic Church, SMC, and the government. The talks lasted nearly three months from January to March 2008.

On Cardinal Rosales’s appeal, the statement said, SMC and its chief executive officer Ramon Ang agreed to release to qualified farmers by deed of donation 50 hectares within the original property of 144 hectares. Further, it said SMC will acquire 94 additional hectares outside of the original 144-hectare property for the farmers to complete the 144 hectares claimed.

According to the statement, the farmers are presently identifying their preferred parcels of land outside the original property from a list given them by SMC; they have agreed to accept this formula of 50 hectares inside the original property and 94 hectares outside.

The Deed of Donation giving the 50 hectares to the farmers was also signed today by San Miguel Food Inc. (SMFI), a subsidiary of SMC.

“The farmers have organized a new cooperative made up of initial qualified beneficiaries which will be the owner of these lands. Other qualified beneficiaries from MAPALAD and SALFA will be included in the succeeding processes. This will finally vindicate their years of sacrifice and relentless efforts,” the statement said.

On the other hand, Arroyo has ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform to expedite the process of determining qualified farmer beneficiaries and pledged the support of all other agencies of government.

DAR has conducted the technical survey delineating the 50 hectares to be given the farmers and is also determining which parcels of land within the vicinity of the original property can be acquired by SMC for distribution to the farmers.

DAR Secretary Nasser Pangandaman has vowed to personally attend to this. President Arroyo also offered the use of Air Force C-130 planes to transport the farmers back to Mindanao where thanksgiving Masses are scheduled on site.

“The farmers are expected to occupy the initial 50 hectares within the SMFI property in a few days. The dropping of all pending cases by all is also part of the agreement,” the statement said.

The settlement is a win-win situation where “all protagonists have won. SMC will be able to continue with their project and has also clearly demonstrated that it is a corporation with social responsibility. The farmers will get the land they have sacrificed and worked for through many years with a promise of a better life for their families,” it added.

Ang tagal na ng mga pics na 'to. 

i miss climbing.

last time--->when i was a first year law student. (shet)

hanapin niyo nasan ako. yung third pic medyo give-away. pero sa first two, medyo mahirap.

nawa'y makaakyat ako pagkatapos ng exams.

such a downer...

-----

SC: Neri can invoke executive privilege

By Tetch Torres, Maila Ager
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 15:23:00 03/25/2008

MANILA, Philippines -- Commission on Higher Education chairman Romulo Neri can invoke executive privilege and cannot be compelled to attend the Senate’s inquiry into the scandal-tainted national broadband network (NBN) deal, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Malacañang immediately welcomed the decision.

“We respect the decision of the Supreme Court,” Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said in a statement.

“We hope that that, looking forward, the Senate and the executive can work out mutually acceptable rules on appearances in Senate inquiries in aid of legislation, which will guarantee the rights of resource persons and parties affected by congressional hearings, as stipulated by the Constitution,” he said.

Neri, in his petition and supplemental petition, said his absence from the November 20, 2007 hearing of the Senate inquiry, for which an order for his arrest was issued, was duly answered by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, who invoked executive privilege for the then socioeconomic planning secretary “by order of the president.”

Neri said Malacañang was concerned about “the impact of the bribery scandal involving high government officials on the country’s diplomatic relations and economic and military affairs, and the possible loss of confidence of foreign investors and lenders in the Philippines.”

Neri had earlier appeared before the Senate to say former Commission on Elections commissioner Benjamin Abalos Sr. had allegedly offered him a bribe to endorse the NBN project, which was awarded to China’s ZTE Corp. for $329-million.

The contract was cancelled by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo soon after the Senate opened its inquiry into allegations the deal was tainted by kickbacks and overpricing, to which her husband, Jose Miguel, was also implicated.

During subsequent hearings, a witness claimed Arroyo herself had profited from the alleged kickbacks

re-post. (from ethel)

nawa'y matamaan ang mga dapat matamaan

disclaimer: wala akong ganto ngayon. sobra trip ko lang yung article, realistic pero at the same time medyo romantic.

para sa mga sana'y-perfect couples ko in law school.

------

The One That Got Away

Source: The Manila Times

By: Mark J. Macapagal

In your life, you’ll make note of a lot of people. Ones with whom you shared something special, ones who will always mean something. There’s the one you first kissed, the one you first loved, the one you lost your virginity to, the one you put on a pedestal, the one you’re with…and the one that got away.

Who is the one that got away? I guess it’s that person with who everything was great, everything was perfect, but the timing was just wrong. There was no fault in the person, there was no flaw in the chemistry, but the cards just didn’t fall the right way, I suppose.

I believe in the fact that ending up with someone, finding a longtime partner that is, does not lie merely in the other person. I can actually argue that an equal part, or maybe even the greater part, has to do with the matter of timing. It has to do with you being ready to settle down and commit to someone in a way that goes beyond the little niceties of giddy romance.

How often have you gone through it without even realizing it? When you’re not ready to commit in that mature manner, it doesn’t matter who you’re with, it just doesn’t work. Small problems become big; inconsequentials become dealbreakers simply because you’re not ready and it shows. It’s not that you and the person you’re with are no good; it’s just that it’s not yet right, and little things become the flashpoint of that fact.

Then one day you’re ready. You really are. And when this happens you’ll be ready to settle down with someone. He or she may not be the most perfect, they might not be the brightest star of romance to ever have burned in your life, but it’ll work because you’re ready. It’ll work because it’s the right time and you’ll make it work. And it’ll make sense, it really will.

So that day comes when you’re finally making sense of things, and you find yourself to be a different person. Things are different, your approach is different, you finally understand who you are and what you want, and you’ve become ready because the time has truly arrived. And mind you, there’s no telling when this day will come. Hopefully you’re single but you could be in a long-term relationship, you could be married with three kids, it doesn’t matter. All you know is that you’ve changed, and for some reason, the one that got away, is the first person you think about.

You’ll think about them because you’ll wonder, “What if they were here today?” You’ll wonder, “What if we were together now, with me as I am and not as I was?” That’s what the one that got away is. The biggest “What if?” you’ll have in your life.

If you’re married, you’ll just have to accept the fact that the one that got away, got away. Believe me, no matter how fairy tale you think your marriage is, this can happen to the best of us. But hopefully you’re mature enough to realize that you’re already with the one you’re with and this is just another test of your commitment, one which will just strengthen your marriage when you get past it. Sure, you’ll think about him/her every so often, but it’s alright. It’s never nice to live with a “might have been,” but it happens.

Maybe the one that got away is the one who’s already married. In which case it’s the same thing. You just have to accept and know that your memories of that person will probably bring a nice little smile to your lips in the future when you’re old and gray and reminiscing.

But if neither of that is the case, then it’s different. What do you do if it’s not yet too late? Simple…find him, find her. Because the very existence of a “one that got away” means that you’ll always wonder, what if you got that one?

Ask him out to coffee, ask her out to a movie, it doesn’t matter if you’ve dropped in from out of nowhere. You’d be surprised, you just might be “the one that got away” as well for the person who is your “the one that got away.”

You might drop in from out of nowhere and it won’t make a difference. If the timing is finally right, it’ll all just fall into place somehow and you know, I’m thinking, it would be a great feeling, in the end, to be able to say to someone, “Hey you, you’re the one that almost got away.”

Basta ang gist na article ay  pumayag na ang San Miguel na ibigay yung 144 hectares sa mga Sumilao farmers.

phil. daily inquirer, March 24

---------

MANILA, Philippines—San Miguel Corp. (SMC) Sunday confirmed that it had reached an agreement with the Higaonon farmers regarding the long-drawn dispute over a 144-hectare property in Sumilao, Bukidnon.

In a text message to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, SMC president and CEO Ramon Ang revealed the important role played by the Catholic Church, through Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, in brokering the agreement.

The controversial piece of real estate is owned by San Miguel Foods Inc. (SMFI), a subsidiary of SMC, Southeast Asia’s largest food and beverage firm.

Asked to confirm if a deal had been reached between SMC and the farmers, Ang replied: “Yes, it’s Cardinal Rosales’ wish.”

Arlene Bag-ao, the farmers’ legal counsel, said on Saturday that while the details of the agreement had yet to be finalized, the contending parties had basically agreed that the land would soon be returned to the farmers.

“We’re 80-percent sure,” farmer Peter Tuminhay said the same day.

No further details about the deal were made available at press time Sunday. Requests for information on the draft agreement that will reportedly apportion to the farmers 50 hectares from the original contested site, plus another 94 hectares from an adjacent property, went unanswered.

The SMC corporate communications staff said it had yet to receive instructions on the matter.

But at the San Jose Major Seminary Church on the Ateneo de Manila University campus, the farmers gathered for an Easter Mass to give thanks for their nearing triumph in the land dispute that has taken almost 10 years.

Some 120 farmers and at least 100 of their longtime supporters marked Christ’s resurrection and prayed for the success of the land agreement.

“Light is drawing near for our brothers and sisters from Sumilao. We are hoping that real victory will happen this week. We should thank God for guiding them through their journey and never allowing them to lose hope,” Fr. Ben Nebres, president of the Ateneo, said in a message he delivered mostly in Filipino toward the end of the hour-and-a-half concelebrated Mass that also drew nuns and students and other supporters.

“They are examples of courage, faith and determination,” Nebres said.

And then, addressing the farmers, he said: “You never gave up and for that, we salute you.

“We have much hope that your triumph will come and your land will be returned to you. We also hope that all details will be promptly arranged.”

The farmers, who walked from Sumilao, a fourth-class municipality (annual income: P20 million-P30 million) of Bukidnon, to Manila in October last year to bring their case to Malacañang, begged off from revealing details of the agreement ahead of a planned joint announcement with SMFI.

Organizers of the Mass told the Inquirer newspaper that in compliance with the embargo arrangement and the wish of the farmers and their supporters that the event be kept low-key, media vehicles were barred from entering the Ateneo’s Quezon City campus.

The organizers, who asked not to be named in keeping with the embargo, also clarified that the Mass was not a celebration but “a thanksgiving” for the glimmer of hope given the farmers.

Text messages about the occasion that made their way to media offices were also not meant as an invitation for coverage, but were a call on supporters to attend the Easter Mass, they said.

Extra-special Easter

In his homily, Fr. Danny Huang said Easter Sunday was extra-special because the Jesuit community and other supporters of the farmers were celebrating the victory at hand.

“We are here to celebrate, first, Christ’s triumph over death, and, second, because of the nearing victory of our brothers and sisters from Sumilao,” Huang said in the homily delivered in Filipino, Visayan and English.

“The details are still being laid out but it is clear that they will achieve victory in their fight to reclaim their land,” he said.

Nebres said that while triumph appeared to be at hand, the farmers’ fight had yet to end.

“In my view, the Sumilao farmers still have a long road to take in seeing the fruits of what they fought for, in realizing their dreams for their children … We know that agriculture and farming are difficult and need diligence,” he said.

Calling on the farmers’ supporters, Nebres said: “I hope this is not the end for us in watching and supporting them. I hope we can still be with them until they are able to settle down because we know it’s hard to till land and cultivate crops.”

Neither Nebres nor Huang made mention of the agreement with SMFI.

Equally reticent was Peter Tuminhay, who told the congregation in Filipino:

“We believe we will get the land, but that is not the end. When the land is there, we have to [cultivate] it and we hope you will be there to guide us.

“There is much to be done … but we are hoping for your tireless support. You have become our family.”

Palace mum

Even Malacañang was mum on the case in which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had taken a direct hand.

“Insofar as the Palace is concerned, it has done its part and it’s leaving it to the two parties to [firm up] the agreement,” said a Palace insider, who asked not to be named for lack of authority to speak on the matter.

But the source said that even before the Holy Week break, Malacañang was aware that the two parties were “already nearing an agreement.”

Thus, Palace officials were puzzled that “noise” was again being made on the issue, the source said.

The insider claimed to have received information that the “noise” was being sparked by a nongovernmental organization assisting the farmers.

“Maybe [the NGO] was trying to justify its receipt of a grant [from a donor] by bringing up the Sumilao issue again,” the insider said.

In December last year, Ms Arroyo authorized the issuance of an order reclassifying the agro-industrial property as agricultural land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

Early this month, the farmers returned to Manila and conducted a “Jericho March” around Malacañang to demand their immediate installation as owners of the land.

Rosales’ parishioners

There are plans for Cardinal Rosales to travel to Sumilao this weekend to officiate at a thanksgiving Mass for the farmers who were his parishioners when he served as bishop of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, for nearly 10 years.

“He is willing, of course, but arrangements are not yet final,” Manila Archdiocese communications director Peachy Yamsuan told the Inquirer in a phone interview.

Rosales, 75, who celebrated his 50th anniversary as a priest Sunday, was instrumental in getting the contending parties to reach an agreement over the disputed land. “He really took it upon himself because the farmers were his parishioners in Malaybalay,” Yamsuan said.

Rosales appointed Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo, who chairs the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ National Secretariat for Social Action, to head the Church Task Force on the Sumilao Case and to monitor the farmers’ plight.

It was Pabillo who relayed to SMFI the wishes of both Rosales and the farmers, Yamsuan said.

Told of the text message sent by SMC’s Ang to the Inquirer, Yamsuan said: “We are thankful for that, and also for the sense of justice and compassion of Mr. Ang.”

She said the SMC president and CEO should be given “credit” as well for understanding the farmers. With reports from Christine O. Avendaño and Nikko Dizon

Lex Comones (Laws in Common)

2008

Law Student Government Coordinating Council (LSGCC) Inter-Law School Sportsfest

Grand Opening This Sunday, Feb 24, 9am, UP Gym

Participating Law Schools: Ateneo (Go Ateneo!), UP, UE, UST

Sports: Basketball, Volleyball, Football, Badminton, Chess, Bowling, Billiards, Table Tennis, Tennis, Fun Games (Dodgeball, Agawan Buko, Agawan Base, Tug-O-War)

Last Saturday, nasimulan na nating gawin ang bahay sa GK Village, South Victoriaville.

Ngayong Sabado (February 16) ulit, itutuloy natin ang pag-gagawa sa bahay na ito.

If you want to come, just text Ona 0906.492.4438.

-Just bring water, be in school by 7am and you're good to go-

-Your SC 08-

p.s. build is scheduled from 8am to 12 noon.

Blood Drive Tomorrow.

Atrium, Ground Floor, Ateneo Rockwell.

12 noon to 5 pm.

- See you -

Your SC 08