Lagman: Nothing unchristian in move to exhume Marcos remains

Lagman: Nothing unchristian in move to exhume Marcos remains There is nothing unchristian in exhuming the remains of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani because jurisprudence allows it in cases of litigation, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said on Tuesday. In the press briefing of the “Magnificent Seven” minority bloc at the House of Representatives, Lagman, a petitioner against Marcos’ burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, said the Supreme Court has made decisions allowing the exhumation of one’s remains. Lagman said the Supreme Court earlier allowed the wife of a deceased lawyer to exhume the remains of her the husband after the common-law wife managed the burial. “They are most likely unaware of Supreme Court decisions which have ruled that exhumation in proper places is allowed. There was one case where the legal wife was separated from the deceased husband a long time, and the common-law wife managed the burial,” Lagman said of those criticizing their move to exhume the Marcos body as “unchristian.” “The legal wife filed the petition, it was initially denied by the trial court but consequently the Supreme Court ruled that the legal wife has the right to … determine where the deceased husband should be buried. So the Supreme Court ordered the exhumation,” he added. READ: Lagman: Ask SC to exhume Marcos’ body to check if wax or not Lagman said there are several more Supreme Court decisions allowing the exhumation of a body in cases of litigation which do not describe the exhumation as unchristian. “The Supreme Court did not consider that unchristian, because such a Supreme Court decision to order the exhumation of the deceased in proper cases. And this case is a proper case, because the implementation of the decision of the Supreme Court is not valid and executory,” Lagman said. Lagman filed a motion to exhume the body before the Supreme Court in order to determine if the interred remains were the bones or the wax figure of the dictator. WATCH: Marcos buried at Libingan ng mga Bayani Lagman also said the hasty secret burial was “premature, void and irregular” because the Supreme Court decision was “indubitably not final and executory, and the lifting of the status quo ante order, an accessory directive, was also not yet final.” Lagman also sought the Supreme Court’s agreement to have the Marcos family cited in contempt for conspiring with the military and police in preparing the “premature and clandestine Marcos burial.” RAM/rga shared from

SHELL INSATIABLE GREED

Ex-overseas worker who won labor case, shot dead in front of daughter

By: Erika Sauler

@erikasauler

Philippine Daily Inquirer

05:42 AM December 23rd, 2015

MANILA, Philippines — A former overseas worker who won a labor case against his employer was shot dead in front of his daughter Tuesday afternoon in Quezon City.

The victim, Christopher Timbreza, 41, resident of Caloocan City, was shot at the back of his head by the still unidentified assailant at 1:45 p.m. along Visayas Avenue, Barangay Vasra.

PO2 Julius Raz of the Quezon City Police District said Timbreza was with his 14-year-old daughter and another companion, Anthony Ogbinar, executive director of the International Seafarers Action Center, at the time.

Initial investigation showed that Timbreza had just come from the National Labor Relation Commission to collect compensation for the second time from the settlement with the Batangueño Human Resources Inc.

After having lunch, the father and daughter were waiting for Ogbinar at the parking lot when the assailant walked to them and shot him at the back of his head.

The attacker who was wearing a helmet tried to get the bag containing some P300,000 held by Timbreza’s daughter but the latter resisted.

Timbreza was to turn 42 on Dec. 25.  (With a report from Krizia Jamille Yap, trainee).  SFM

READ MORE
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Royal Dutch Shell plc .com

News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Tax court asks Pilipinas Shell to pay gov’t P3B

shared from

By: Tetch Torres-Tupas

@T2TupasINQ

INQUIRER.net

07:44 PM October 6th, 2015

The Court of tax appeals

The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has ordered Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) to pay the government more than P3-billion worth of unpaid excise taxes and Value Added Tax (VAT) for the importation of raw materials used to produce Clean Air Act compliant unleaded gasoline for the period of 2006 to 2009.

In a 42-page decision penned by Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova, the CTA en banc (full court) modified the ruling of its Third Division.

PSPC then filed a motion asking the CTA Third Division to declare as ineffective the order of former Commissioner of Internal Revenue Joel Tan-Torres to subject CCG and LCCG to corresponding taxes.

The CTA Third Division stopped the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) from collecting the unpaid excise taxes and VAT for the importations of Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (CCG) and Light Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (LCCG) from 2004 to 2009.

BOC and BIR, on the other hand urged the Tax Court to reverse its ruling.

The CTA Third Division granted PSPC’s motion but denied BOC and BIR’s appeal which prompted them to ask the CTA en banc (full court) to rule on the case.

PSPC told the CTA en banc that CCG and LCCG were imported as intermediate or raw gasoline materials used as blending components and not as finished gasoline products intended for domestic sale thus, should not be subject to excise tax upon entry.

But the government through the BOC and BIR argued that CCG and LCCG falls within “things imported” under section 129 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).

The Tax Court agreed with the government saying “since the phrase ‘things imported’ was worded without any qualification, the Court is duty-bound to abide strictly by its literal meaning and to refrain from resorting to any, convoluted attempt at construction.”

The Tax Court added that both CCG and LCCG are “excisable petroleum products” falling under “similar products of distillation” under section 148 of the NIRC.

PSPC cited the opinion of Vicente Quintos, former Director of the National Tax Research Center saying specific tax is imposed on finished commodities whether imported or locally produced.

But the Tax Court said what should be determined is the “language of the law that the lawmakers voted on.”

It added that if the lawmakers intend to exempt CCG and LCCG from taxes, it should have specifically mentioned it in the law.

“Unfortunately for PSPC, Sec. 148 neither provides a specific rule nor an exempting proviso on imported CCG and LCCG when used or consumed as raw materials. If at all, imported CCG and LCCG once reprocessed, rerefined or recycled are subject again to excise tax pursuant to the principle on paragraph (a) of the said Section,” the Tax Court said.

The case stemmed from the importation of  CCG and LCCG from 2004, 2005 and 2009 worth P3.7-billion and P3.5-billion for importations from 2006 to 2008.

The Tax Court said since PSPC was able to avail of a Tax Amnesty for 2004 and 2005, it “is liable only to pay excise tax on the remaining contested periods from years 2006 to 2009.” TVJ

READ MORE

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Escudero urges BoC to file smuggling raps vs Virginia Torres

Escudero urges BoC to file smuggling raps vs Virginia Torres

By: Maila Ager

@MAgerINQ

INQUIRER.net

08:36 AM September 22nd, 2015

Former Land Transportation Office (LTO) Chief Virginia Torres. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

The Bureau of Customs (BoC) should file smuggling charges against former Land Transportation Office (LTO) chief Virginia Torres for allegedly trying to negotiate the release of P100 million-worth of smuggled Thai sugar, Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero said on Tuesday.

Escudero said the BoC should send a strong message that the administration is serious in its bid to curb smuggling that even perceived administration allies would not be spared.

“Cases must be filed against her if indeed there’s evidence to prove that she intervened or is trying to intervene in an illegal shipment,” he said in a statement.

READ MORE

INQUIRER.net

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Environment groups to file case vs ‘big polluters’ before CHR

Environment groups to file case vs ‘big polluters’ before CHR

INQUIRER.net

By: Kristine Angeli Sabillo 04:51 PM September 21st, 2015FILE PHOTO

Environmental groups led by Greenpeace will file on Tuesday a potential landmark case through a complaint before the Commission on Human Rights.The groups cited a study by scientist Richard Heede, which named 90 “Carbon Majors” or “big polluters” composed of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies and cement producers.

The complaint asks the CHR to investigate top fossil fuel and cement producers dubbed “Carbon Majors” believed to have been committing human rights violations by producing carbon emissions and eventually contributing to climate change.The groups said they would file the case before the CHR, which has the power to investigate on complaints on all forms of human, civil and political rights, because “climate change interferes with the enjoyment of our fundamental rights as human beings.”

Carbon Majors Heede’s study tracked “anthropogenic” or human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 1751 to 2010. It was later updated to include 2011, 2012 and 2013. Heede’s study showed that 50 investor-owned Carbon Major companies contributed 315 gigatons (Gt) of equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) or 21.72 percent of global industrial emissions through 2010.

READ MORE

shared from 

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

4 SC justices hit Enrile bail

READ MORE

shared from

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Released into wild, Philippine Eagle ‘Pamana’ shot dead

Pamana the eagle soars after her release. PHOTO FROM PROVINCE OF DAVAO ORIENTAL 
FACEBOOK PAGE
Released into wild, Philippine Eagle ‘Pamana’ 

shot dead

Three-year-old Philippine Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi) named “Pamana” (heritage) was shot dead on Wednesday two months after she was released in the wild.

Pamana sustained a gunshot wound in her right breast, Philippine Eagle Foundation (PEF) Executive Director Danny Salvador said.

“Unfortunately, there’s this man with a gun who thinks that apparently, he can shoot anything and did this,” Salvador said in an interview on ABS-CBN News Channel.

Read more

shared from

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

CJ acted on Mendoza’s letter

CJ acted on Mendoza’s letter

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

The ‘Arroyo 8’ justices

The ‘Arroyo 8’ justices (original from the globalnation.inquirer.net)

By Ted Laguatan

5:36 pm | Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

Should the 8 Arroyo Justices be allowed to continue to abuse the nation?
Concerned about former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and her husband, former First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo (FG), eluding prosecution for serious crimes — Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima correctly issued a watch list order (WLO) or hold order — to prevent them from going abroad and maybe escaping.

Perhaps sensing that charges were about to be filed against them, GMA and FG petitioned the Philippine Supreme Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to invalidate the WLO — reasoning that GMA needed to get medical attention which she claimed was not available in the Philippines.

“Hogwash!” quips one Filipino specialist doctor trained in one of the best medical establishments in the U.S. ”We have so many qualified competent doctors here trained abroad who can attend to her.” Secretary of Health Dr. Ike Ona echoed the same sentiments.

Oral arguments on the TRO petition were scheduled on November 22, 2011 — a normal procedure which would give all parties the opportunity to present their positions — consistent with procedural due process principles.

But instead, what did eight Supreme Court Justices do? Led by GMA midnight appointee Chief Justice Renato Corona and seven other GMA appointees, the eight rushed the unilateral approval of the TRO petition — not giving the government the opportunity to present counter arguments and not waiting for the scheduled oral arguments to take place.

As if on signal, the Arroyos rushed to the airport the same day seeking to board a flight to Singapore. They reserved five different flights to Singapore using different airlines. From there, their itinerary included a flight to Spain, a country with which the Philippines has no extradition treaty — and which really does not exactly have international renown for exceptional medical expertise.

These facts suggest that de Lima’s concerns are not without basis.

Showing uncommon common sense, Secretary de Lima stayed the WLO preventing the Arroyos from leaving.

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., former dean of the Ateneo law school, known as a “Constitutionalist” takes the position that the decisions of the Supreme Court should absolutely always be obeyed. Otherwise, he asserts, we will have chaos or risk having a Constitutional crisis.

He asserted the same stand when the Supreme Court composed of GMA appointees confirmed the midnight appointment of Renato Corona as Chief Justice — even if precedent law indicates that this is illegal. Bernas is absolute in his position that the Supreme Court should always be obeyed.

He criticizes Secretary de Lima in his column — that she should have immediately obeyed the TRO of the Supreme Court and allowed the Arroyos to travel — even if there is a risk that the Arroyos may escape prosecution and never return.

Issue: Should the decision of the Supreme Court be absolutely obeyed at all times?

Here’s my take on this:

The concerns of Secretary de Lima who represent the people of the Philippines are legitimate concerns. This is not the same as saying that the Arroyos do not have individual rights. Everyone recognizes that they do.

But if the eight Justices of the Supreme Court were acting in good faith, they would have given the government the opportunity to present counter arguments against the Arroyos’ TRO petitions and waited for the submission of briefs and the oral arguments before making a decision.

The government who collectively represent the Filipino people should be afforded the same procedural due process rights as the Arroyos. If the eight justices do not see that or refuse to see it, surely, it should be obvious that de Lima, as an individual — has due process rights.

In emergency situations, a proper court may unilaterally issue a TRO to instantly prevent some harm from occurring where the facts clearly suggest this might happen.

This is not the situation here. Even GMA’s doctors affirm she is in no immediate danger of dying or suffering irreparable injury. They even state that she should recover in a few months.

Nevertheless, in her petition for a TRO, Arroyo insists that she needs to immediately go abroad for medical treatment. On its part, the government will be claiming that GMA can get the necessary treatment in the Philippines and that more likely than not, she is using her illness as an excuse to be able to leave the country and elude prosecution for the serious charges of plunder and electoral sabotage — no bail offenses for which she could spend a very long time in jail if convicted.

As in every case, credibility is always an issue. It is only proper for the Justices to scrutinize if the parties are telling the truth and which party has the weightier more rational arguments — before making their decisions. At all times, the Justices are supposed to remain neutral and fair and base their decisions on proper procedure and objective evidence.

Here, the eight Arroyo appointed Justices never provided the government the opportunity to present written briefs contra to the TRO petitions nor did they bother to wait for the scheduled oral arguments which would have taken place in a few days. Instead, contrary to the protestations of the five dissenters, they unilaterally granted the TRO petition of the Arroyos.

Notwithstanding these irregularities, Constitutionalist Fr. Bernas declares that this tyranny of a clearly biased majority cabal of justices should nevertheless absolutely be obeyed.

Having gone to a Jesuit law school in the United States and continuously doing cases in California and federal courts for some thirty years which includes litigating many complex immigration and human rights cases involving US Constitutional Law, I am somewhat sad to see that a Jesuit priest who is also a lawyer — fails to see the more important issue here.

With no disrespect intended, I note that Fr. Bernas takes a mechanistic absolutist position in declaring that the decisions of the Supreme Court should always be followed.

I grant, that in general, the decisions of the Supreme Court should be followed — unless they are in conflict with moral laws — as in this case. As a matter of conscience, man made laws should be ignored, disobeyed and fought against where they conflict with moral law.

There was a time when slavery and segregation laws were part of the United States Constitution. Some law professors and Constitutionalists admonished that the law had to be obeyed simply because it was the law — notwithstanding the terrible injustice and extent of suffering that this inflicted on other human beings who were not even defined as human beings under this same law but as chattels or personal property.

Some humanists like Henry David Thoreau were willing to go to jail and suffered personal consequences rather than accept and give legitimacy to such anti-human laws.

The laws are made for man rather than man being made for the laws. Some laws are clearly unjust or the way some good laws as applied are clearly unjust. Conscience dictates that in these situations, civil disobedience should be resorted to. Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Ninoy Aquino, Jose Rizal – all these great men listened to the calling of their hearts and moral law rather than to tyrannical artificial laws made by corrupt greedy men.

They paid heavily, some with their lives, to be true to God’s law that they found within their deepest selves – but with their sacrifices, unquestionably left the world a better place for others.

Here, by their actuations, eight pro Arroyo Justices show that they are placing the interests of their patron above that of the Filipino people. They are using their official powers to dish out laws or orders that tyrannize and brutalize the rights of the citizenry. How different is this from the tyranny of an individual dictator?

It is one thing for a Constitutional law professor to explain that in general, Supreme Court orders should be obeyed. It is another thing for him to say they still need to be obeyed even if clearly tyrannical, unjust and immoral. Fr. Bernas may sincerely believe he is promoting public order with such admonition.

In actuality, he is creating instability and distrust by insisting that the public accept and swallow the unpalatable biased decisions of a majority of Justices in the Supreme Court who are all GMA appointed.

Let’s take a second issue: Should the Executive branch risk causing a Constitutional crisis by defying the Supreme Court?

Defying biased eight pro Arroyo is not the same as disrespecting the Supreme Court as an institution. Secretary de Lima is simply affirming the rights of the Filipino people in taking a stand against judicial tyranny. This important stand inevitably needs to be done now at this point in Philippine history. It is not the end of the world if President Simeon Aquino assumes this risk which he should. In fact, he is showing true moral leadership if he does.

This touchy situation of a majority of Justices, who by their actuations, show more loyalty to GMA and to themselves than to the people and to principles of promoting justice – needs to be resolved now.

Unless resolved now, it will repeat itself. The Secretary of Justice and the Ombudsman can file all kinds of charges against the Arroyos and their cronies, exert tremendous efforts and spend millions to win these cases.

Assuming they win, expect these cases to be appealed to the Supreme Court and to the waiting hands of the biased Arroyo 8. Let’s call a spade a spade. What will happen there is predictable and foreseeable. They will decide in favor of GMA. Fr. Bernas will again say we should absolutely accept their decision.

Faced with a Supreme Court with a majority of Justices clearly loyal to GMA, what then should President Aquino and Secretary de Lima do?

They should continue to defy the Arroyo 8 Justices when they come out with unjust results – such as ordering de Lima to obey the TRO and allowing GMA to depart.

Aquino should use all of his formidable political powers against the Arroyo 8.
He is the the elected President of the Philippines – voted into office by millions of Filipinos. They expect him to provide strong moral leadership. He is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Under him also is the NBI and the PNP. He also has tremendous other resources at his command. Most importantly, he has the support of the Filipino people in the fight against corruption and injustice.

What about these eight justices?

They were appointed by a discredited President who like her husband is perceived as having betrayed the country with their unbridled greed and corruption. The midnight appointee Chief Justice and the seven others have no credibility in the eyes of the people.

If the President and Justice de Lima defy their orders, the people will understand and support them knowing they do it for the sake of justice and that it is the right and moral thing to do.

What will the Arroyo 8 do – hold de Lima in contempt? Aquino can simply just immediately pardon her.

Who will the eight order to arrest de Lima? The President has the loyalty of the Armed Forces, the PNP and the NBI.

The President should not hesitate to use his political powers to accomplish good for the sake of the people. He cannot allow 8 questionable individuals who repeatedly abuse their discretion in using their offices to thwart the ends of justice.

He should pressure them to resign or caused them to be impeached. Replacing them with new Justices should bring back credibility and respect back to the Supreme Court as an institution.

The people will love him more for showing strong moral leadership.

Note: San Francisco based Atty. Ted Laguatan is a member of the California Bar. He does complex litigation and is the Legal Counsel and Spokesperson for US Pinoys for Good Governance. Emaillaguatanlaw@gmail.com