Saturday, December 31, 2011
2011 YEAR END REVIEW
Friday, December 23, 2011
Making Sense of Sendong
My childhood
nanny is living just a couple of blocks past the hanging bridge of Isla de Oro
from where we first made sense of what just happened. Anxiously I decided to check her situation. As
I ploughed through the thick mud going to my nanny’s place, I passed by the
hanging bridge connecting Burgos to Isla de Oro. So many people and what was
left of their belongings were scattered around. They were all soaked in mud and
some still shivering cold under the heat of the morning sun. Then it dawned on
me that houses or things were not the only casualties, but human lives as well.
I can vividly remember walking pass 2 teenagers crying. They were inside a
muddied motorela bowing and weeping their hearts out and their faces clearly
speak the grief of family members lost. A couple of feet away, I can hear
people already speaking of missing loved ones and all stood still before a
rescue team recovering bodies scattered at the river banks. It was a horrible
unimaginable and heart wrenching scene. I felt I was in the aftermath scene of a
disaster movie but this one is real and raw. I was then able to assess the
situation of my nanny and her family. Thank God they are all safe but all their
properties are gone. Thursday, December 08, 2011
Ready to Engage in Law School
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The Lawyer on my mind
Monday, October 24, 2011
Random Thoughts: Problem of too much FBing
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Why do I support the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill?
Monday, October 17, 2011
FIRST SEM FIRST YEAR LAW SCHOOL IS OVER.
Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
With the debate going on now on the urgency or non-urgency of the Freedom of Information Bill one might get the impression that the Bill is about a novel right. As a matter of fact, however, there already is a constitutional provision on the subject. The debate is more about the clarification of the right and about the advantages and disadvantages, or even of the danger, of providing for a statutory version.
The constitutional guarantee now reads:
“The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”
As can be seen, the provision is both a grant of the right and a clarification that the right may be subjected to statutory limitations. The right was first introduced in the 1973 Constitution. It is an improvement on what was originally proposed to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. The orgitnal proposal simply said that access to official records and the right to information "shall be afforded the citizens as may be provided by law." It therefor was not a self-executory provision. It needed statutory implementaion. The draft was later reworded to make the Constitution itself give the right, but subject to statutory limitations.
The significance of this change may be seen when viewed in the light of the pre-1973 case of Subido v. Ozaeta. The question presented before the Court was whether the press, and, for that matter, the public, had a constitutional right to demand the examination of public land records. The Court answered: “We do not believe that this constitutional right [freedom of the press] is in any way involved. The refusal by the respondent does not constitute a restriction upon or censorship of publication. It only affects facilities of publication, and the respondents are correct in saying that freedom of information or freedom to obtain information for publication is not guaranteed by the constitution.” Fortunately, however, the Court finally ruled that the press had a statutory right to examine the records of the Register of Deeds because the interest of the press was real and adequate.
The 1973 Constitution went beyond the Subido case and recognized the right of access to public documents and records as a self-executory constitutional right. The role given to the National Assembly was not to give the right but simply to set limits on the right granted by the Constitution. The right is now recognized as a public right where the real parties in interest are the people. Hence, every citizen has “standing” to challenge any violation of the right and may seek its enforcement by mandamus.
The 1987 Constitution has preserved the 1973 text but with the addition of the phrase "as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development." The amendment came as a reaction to the government practice during the martial law regime of withholding social research data from the knowledge of the public whenever such data contradicted policies which the government wanted to espouse. The reference, however, is to "government research data," that is, to the findings of government funded research and not to the findings of privately funded research over which private proprietary rights might exist.
The constitutional right, however, does not mean that every day is an open house in public offices. The right given by the Constitution is "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." Thus, while access to official records may not be prohibited, it certainly may be regulated. The regulation can come either from statutory law or from what the Supreme Court has called the "inherent power [of an officer] to control his office and the records under his custody and . . . to exercise [some discretion] as to the manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine, or copy the record may exercise their rights."
The question then boils down now to determining the scope of official regulatory discretion. This is what the Freedom of Information Bill tries to do. While the Constitution says that the right may be limited by law, the Bill in effect seeks to limit the scope of official regulatory discretion.
The problem, however, lies in determining what matters are of public concern and what are not. For, certainly, every act of a public officer in the conduct of the governmental process is a matter of public concern. Jurisprudence in fact has said that “public concern,” like “public interest,” eludes exact definition and embraces a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives or simply because such matters arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.
It is true that the right, as held by the Court, may be asserted by any citizen. But in the face of the unclarity of the meaning of matters of public concern, every time the right to freedom of information is asserted now, judicial intervention can become necessary. Clearly what is needed is balance. The challenge is how to achieve this balance especially in the face of the recognized right of “executive privilege” which has also been the subject of much dispute in recent months.
17 October 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
LISTS OF PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINE
• doctrine of attractive nuisance
• doctrine of non-suability of the government - doctrine of immunity from suit - doctrine of governmental immunity from suit - doctrine of state immunity - doctrine of sovereign immunity
• doctrine of primary jurisdiction
• doctrine of renvoi
• doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity
• doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
• doctrine of "operative facts"
• doctrine of last clear chance - doctrine of supervening negligence - doctrine of discovered peril
• doctrine of res judicata
• doctrine of processual presumption
• doctrine of statistical improbabilities
• doctrine of unforeseen events
• doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment
• doctrine of non-interference
• doctrine of pari delicto
• doctrine of qualified political agency
• doctrine of real and hypothecary nature of maritime law
• doctrine of rational equivalence
• Aguinaldo doctrine
• doctrine of corporate negligence
• doctrine of necessary implication
• doctrine of ostensible agency
• doctrine of apparent authority
• doctrine of estoppel - doctrine of promissory estoppel
• doctrine of corporate responsibility
• doctrine of privileged communication
• doctrine of lis pendens
• DOCTRINE OF SECONDARY MEANING
• doctrine of judicial stability
• doctrine of legal entity of the separate personality of the corporation
• doctrine of self-help
• doctrine of presumed identity
• doctrine of separation of powers
• doctrine of finality of judgment
• doctrine of "imputed negligence"
• doctrine of forum non conveniens
• doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
• doctrine of implied municipal liability
• doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
• doctrine of equitable recoupment
• doctrine of laches - doctrine of stale demands
• doctrine of absolute privilege
• doctrine of ripeness for judicial review
• doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere - doctrine of stare decisis
• doctrine of mortgagee in good faith
• doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment
• doctrine of "mechanical equivalents"
• doctrine of supervening event
• Cunanan doctrine
• doctrine of bar by prior judgment - doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment
• doctrine of eo nomine
• doctrine of equivalents
• DOCTRINE OF "COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY" (EO 226, s. 1995)
• doctrine of "Let the buyer beware" - doctrine of caveat emptor
• doctrine of prior restraint
• doctrine of quantum meruit
• doctrine of implications
• doctrine of "strained relations"
• doctrine of "inverse condemnation"
• doctrine of prejudicial question
• doctrine of waiver
• doctrine of in pari delicto
• doctrine of the law of the case
• doctrine of jus soli - doctrine of jus sanguinis
• doctrine of parens patriae
• doctrine of "compassionate justice"
• doctrine of 'political question'
• doctrine of corporate negligence
• act of state doctrine
• doctrine of executive privilege
• doctrine of merger
• doctrine of non-delegation
• doctrine of co-equal or coordinate departments
• doctrine of holdover
• doctrine of absorption of common crimes (Hernandez doctrine)
• doctrine of res gestae
• doctrine of adherence to precedents
• doctrine of ultra vires
• doctrine of privity of contract
• doctrine of relation back
• doctrine of condonation
• doctrine of limited liability
• doctrine of interlocking confessions
• doctrine of vicarious liability
• doctrine of respondeat superior - doctrine of facit per alium
• doctrine of public policy
• doctrine of the third group
• doctrine of malicious prosecution
• doctrine of res perit domino
• doctrine of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant
• doctrine of separability
• doctrine of part performance
• doctrine of deference and non-disturbance
• doctrine of quantum meruit
• doctrine of waiver of double jeopardy
• doctrine of supremacy of law
• doctrine of substantial compliance
• doctrine of liberal construction of retirement laws
• doctrine of lis pendens
• doctrine of mortgagee in good faith
• doctrine of presumptive grant
• doctrine of protection against compulsory disclosures
• doctrine of notice
• doctrine of mutuality of remedy
• doctrine of conclusiveness of the factual findings
• doctrine of qualified political agency
• doctrine of sole and exclusive competence of the labor tribunal
• doctrine of loss of confidence
• doctrine of disregarding the distinct personality of the corporation - doctrine of alter ego
• doctrine of agency by estoppel
• doctrine of admissions
• doctrine of reasonableness and intention
• doctrine of proximate cause
• doctrine of separate corporate personality
• DOCTRINE OF LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF PROCEDURE
• doctrine of hierarchy of courts
• doctrine of management prerogative
• doctrine of successor-employee
• doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona
• doctrine of vagueness
• doctrine of overbreadth
• doctrine of lack of capacity to sue
• doctrine of presumptive compensability
• doctrine of separation of church and state
• doctrine of part performance
• doctrine of judicial supremacy
• doctrine of completeness
• doctrine of pro reo
• doctrine of ratification
• doctrine of fair comment
• doctrine of election of remedies
• doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title
• doctrine of constructive trust
• doctrine of subrogation
• doctrine of implied trust
• doctrine of incompatibility of public offices
• doctrine of assumed risks
• doctrine of comparative negligence
Saturday, October 08, 2011
The foundation of studying smart
All these are ideals that I established for myself to at least “operationalize” in my daily dealings as a student of the law. Studying is just one aspect of so many aspects in law school. Ultimately, the foundation of studying smart is really understanding your own mind in how it processes input – know thyself.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Cagayan de Oro City
MANIFESTO
WE, THE CONSUMERS OF WATER PROVIDED BY THE CAGAYAN DE ORO WATER DISTRICT (COWD) , HEREBY PROTEST THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE COWD PROPOSED 30% INCREASE FOR PAYMENT OF WATER CONSUMPTION. TO GATHER OUR COLLECTIVE CONCERNS AND OBJECTION TO THE WATER RATE HIKE, WE HAVE ORGANIZED OURSELVES INTO A TASK FORCE DUBBED “TASK FORCE TOO- BIG ". IT IS A MULTI-SECTORIAL GROUP COMPOSED OF THE BISHOP- BUSINESSMEN'S CONFERENCE- CAGAYAN DE ORO CHAPTER, CATHOLIC SOCIAL ACTIONS IN ARCHDIOCESE PARISHES,CAGAYAN DE ORO COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, KONSUMENTING KAGAY-ANON, CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS AND GROUPS OF THIS CITY.
OUR MAIN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL HINGES ON: WHY PASS ON THE CONSUMERS THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OF COWD'S OPERATIONS WHEN ITS EXISTING REVENUE CAN TAKE CARE OF THE COSTS IF PROPERLY MANAGED?
THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) AUDIT REPORTS ON COWD'S FINANCIAL OPERATIONS (2005-2009) SHOWED EXPENSES "WITHOUT LEGAL BASES" AMOUNTING TO PHP 411.52 MILLION FOR THE 5-YEAR PERIOD. ALSO, UNBILLED WATER (OR SYSTEMS LOSS THROUGH LEAKAGES,ETC) HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY RISING AND HAS REACHED 53.1% IN 2009, WHICH TRANSLATES INTO MILLIONS OF PESOS OF LOSS. THIS IS OUR CONTENTION: UNLESS THESE FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR, CORRECTED NOT REPEATED, THEN THE PROPOSED 30% INCREASE BECOMES UNJUSTIFIABLE, UNREASONABLE, UNACCEPTABLE AND UNTENABLE.
WE, THE CONSUMERS WHO DESIRE, HOPE FOR AND SUPPORT AN EFFICIENT PUBLIC SERVICE IN WATER SUPPLY, SEEK OTHER SOLUTIONS TO EXISTING PROBLEMS OF COWD THAT WILL ADDRESS ISSUES ON GOOD GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND STRUCTURE TO HELP COWD ASSUME ITS MISSION OF SERVING THE PUBLIC.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Grave Abuse of Discretion
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Conjugal Property Distinguished from System of Absolute Community:
In terms of marriage settlements, the Family Code provides the following:
The future spouses may in the marriage settlements; agree upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime. In the absence of marriage settlements, or when the regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of property as established in this Code shall govern.[1]
In order to have a better appreciation and understanding between conjugal partnership of gains and the system of absolute community, it is best to know their difference. These two property regimes are just a part of other property regimes spouses may enter into.
Conjugal Property Distinguished from System of Absolute Community:
What is a system of absolute community?
This is one of the regimes or systems of property relations between the spouses and the default system in the absence of a prenuptial agreement or when the agreed system is null and void. This system commences at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated, and any stipulation for the commencement of the community regime at any other time is void. In a nutshell, the husband and the wife are considered as co-owners of all properties they bring into the marriage (those that they owned before the marriage), as well as the properties acquired during the marriage, except for certain properties express excluded by law (listed below). The rules on co-ownership apply in all matters not provided under the Family Code.[2]
What is the Conjugal Property of Gains?
Oftentimes referred to as the CPG, it is one of the property relations between the spouses, under which the husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance, and, upon dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained by either or both spouses shall be divided equally between them, unless otherwise agreed in the marriage settlements. In other words, the following are placed in a common fund:
1. The proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties; and
2. Those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance.[3]
A. In the system of absolute community, all the properties owned by the spouses at the time of the marriage become community property. In the conjugal partnership, each spouse retains his or her property before the marriage, and only the fruits and income of such properties become part of the conjugal properties during the marriage.
B. In the system of absolute community, what is divided equally between the spouses or their heirs upon the dissolution and liquidation of the community property is the net remainder of the properties of the absolute community, so that it may happen that a piece of land owned by either spouse before the marriage, being the only property left after the dissolution of the absolute community, would be divided between the spouses or their heirs. In the conjugal partnership of gains, however, the separate properties of the spouses are returned upon the dissolution of the partnership, and only the net profits of partnership are divided equally between the spouses or their heirs.
C. The system of absolute community is based essentially on mutual trust and confidence between the spouses and fosters oneness and unity between them. This is in fact the tradition and custom among the great majority of Filipinos and this is the reason why the Family Code adopts this system instead of the conjugal partnership of gains, which is taken from Spanish law. In conjugal partnership of gains, the capital or properties of the spouses are kept separate and distinct from the benefits acquired by them during the marriage. This constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the presumption of solidarity between the spouses.[4]
D. It is easier to liquidate the absolute community property because the net remainder of the community properties are just divided between the spouses or their heirs. In the conjugal partnership, the exclusive properties of the parties will have to be identified and returned, and sometimes, this identification is very difficult. [5]
[1] Article 75, Family Code of the Philippines
[4] National Bank v. Quintos, 46 Phil. 370
[5] Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, p62, 1995 Edition
Friday, August 19, 2011
Legal Latin Words
| | |
| Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit | The law looks forward, not backward |
| Lex de Futuro, Judex de Praterio | The law provides for the future, the judge for the past |
| Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non Indiget | When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of its required |
| Optima Statuti interpretatix Est Insum Statutum | The best interpreter of the statute is the statute itself |
| Ratio Legis | Interpretation according to spirit |
| Ratio Legis Est Anima | The reason of the law is its soul |
| Cessante Ratione Cesat Ipsa Lex | When the reason for the law ceases, the law ceases also to exist |
| Expresio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius | Express mention is implied exclusion |
| Generalia specialibus non derogant | A general law does not nullify a specific or special law |
| Dura Lex Sed Lex | The law may be harsh but it is still the law |
| Cogitationis Poenam Nemo Emeret | No man may be punished for his thought |
| Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea | The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so |
| Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus | An act done by me against my will is not my act |
| Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusant | Ignorance of the law excuse no one |
| Ignorantia Facto Excusat | Ignorance or mistake in point of fact is an excuse |
| Ubi Lex Non Distinguit Nea Nos Distiguere Debemos | Where the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish |
| Mens Legislatores | Liberal construction |
| Reddendo Singula Singulis | Referring each to each |
| Cassus Omissus Pro Omisso Habbendus Est | A case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted |
| Noscitur a sociis | Finding the context |
| Ejusdem generis | When general words follow the designation of particular things, or classes of persons or subjects, the general words will usually be construed to include only those persons or things of the same class or general nature as those specifically enumerated. |













