Showing posts with label NEWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEWS. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
EDITORIAL | Make them regret it
 EDITORIAL | Make them regret it
InterAksyon.com
The online news portal of TV5
On the burial of Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, President Duterte is responsible and he will ultimately be proven wrong. But that is not to say that his allowing it was impeachable. It is not. It was political prerogative - a gamble, a gambit, maybe even a deal - exercised on legal footing.
The Supreme Court assures him so. The President had the right. Which is not to say that either of them was right. Indeed, worse than risking being wrong, nine justices voted to merely make the High Court irrelevant. Marcos is not only NOT a hero, in 1987 his despotism became the very basis for an entire new Constitution, a wholly rebooted republic reconsecrated not to national independence or republican trends, but to human rights, democracy, and good government. The arguably paranoid Constitution under which we now strive was hammered out not only with those ideals in mind, but with bloodied survivors doodling on the margins: #NeverAgain.
The Supreme Court says there is no law (and Duterte says there is no movie) that calls out Marcos as a criminal unworthy of anything. The government has written out checks to thousands in reparation for human rights victims, specifically human rights victims of the Marcos regime. Our Bill of Rights was reformulated and strengthened so that only courts can issue warrants. Just between and among us Filipinos, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is now nearly impossible to suspend, Duterte's blithe musings notwithstanding. And the PCGG was created specifically to recover billions of dollars in Marcos' ill-gotten wealth.
There is no mention of Marcos in the Constitution not because he was out of mind. Search not the Constitution for his name, but scour instead the minutes of every committee of the Commission that drafted the charter. There reminders of Marcos' atrocities will have been intoned with such frequency and degree as to make it obvious: the omission is the actual recognition of the evil by which that name is officially denounced.
As Lady Sansa said to Ramsay Bolton: "Your words will disappear. Your house will disappear. Your name will disappear. All memory of you will disappear."
Except that Sansa - raped, tortured, mocked, her home pillaged, but ultimately the survivor and victor - then made sure she fed her tormentor to the dogs. In stark contrast, our government - our governments - struck deals for the Marcos clan to come home before any apology, without acknowledging any sins, much less returning any loot and doing justice by their human rights victims. We let Imelda run for President. Elected her children to Congress. Leaders, legislators, politicians signed resolutions endorsing Marcos to the LNMB long before Digong came into the picture. Then the Supreme Court voted to keep itself out of it.
It was into this pathetic history that Duterte, first as a candidate and then as President, finally stepped in to say: "Let's just do this and move on."
So we know how we got here. Duterte was not alone in leading.
But he was still misguided.
Where his avowed goal is national healing, his action in fact only reopened very deep, painful wounds. Where Duterte joins Bongbong Marcos in urging people to move on, they have only succeeded to rouse the marchers. Where they insist this is a petty fight among political families of the past, they have only woken the youth who evidently somehow learned - as Duterte's own mother railed - that Marcos' rule is about tens of thousands of human rights victims, a nation stunted and still handicapped by decades of unparalleled kleptocracy, about values and direction of a whole nation.
Make no mistake, President Duterte must be held accountable for whatever comes next. Discord, disunity... violence?
But what if Filipinos do in fact move on? If even those most outraged today run out of stamina tomorrow; if the protests do not grow and in fact never make it out of Facebook; if this insult does not disrupt nor even interrupt talks with the Left for whom "a just and lasting peace" is a pillar of negotiation; if, as Bongbong has exhumed his father, there is no effort to breathe new life into the cases against their entire clan…
In other words, if there is no political price to pay... then Duterte deserves the chance to prove that there is progress worth the perilous path of denial and apathy that we all will have paved.
As a politician, the President must be persuaded that burying Marcos at the LNMB is not only a mistake, it is not worth it. Appealing to his political sensibilities may seem a long shot or wishful thinking. But it is no more delusional than counting on the SC Justices to take away the President's options after they gave it to him. It is certainly no more delusional than insisting that underneath the anti-Marcos movement is a silent anti-Duterte majority.
Duterte, as Father of the Nation, can take it as tantrums of temperamental brats, or he can it take as well-meaning warning: If he wants the nation to heal, listening to Bongbong will only be damaging.
The Marcoses, too, must be made to regret. In wanting us to forgive, Bongbong should meet a people decidedly more unforgiving. We are asked to unite behind indifference to atrocities; let us be more obnoxious about justice. Bongbong would bury his father. Let us unearth everything we have forgotten or may have overlooked, particularly over the quarter century that Marcos Sr. was lying peacefully in a private mausoleum in Batac. The son thinks it a triumph to have transferred his father to a public cemetery imbued with higher public purpose? He should see, everyday, what exactly he wished for.
Two dates, two rallies, two venues - neither of which is anywhere near the LNMB - frankly make for ridiculous, comical scenes when both purport to make a point about how Bongbong's making a political pawn of his father's corpse will unite those who #NeverForget. But we suspect – and any truly loving Marcos child should fear - that there will be not a few moments when beyond the rallies, groups and individuals will indeed be visiting LNMB and paying Marcos the respect they think he deserves.
Nothing can stop them. Nothing should stop them. The LNMB is a public place. No Filipino should be denied entry, nor even be so much as questioned as to why he or she is there. Force the Supreme Court to explain that to Duterte, so he can shrug when Bongbong requests for round-the-clock security for their plot.
Just saying: It will be an impossible task keeping that tomb spotless. If Marcos taught Filipinos that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, Filipinos will likely prove to Bongbong that that too is the price he and his siblings will pay just to convince themselves they did not unearth their father to subject him to… what?
For as long as the Marcoses insist that Ferdinand Sr. deserves a hero's spot in land that we all own, his resting place will be anything but. Around that plot will erupt a battle to create a symbol. Of what? Of moving on or of refusing to budge? When the day comes, will you go to the gravesite? What will you bring? Flowers? Candles? Or things less fragrant?
Filipinos will move on, one way or another. The question is, to what? Whether the Marcoses will regret or gloat, whether we move on or march forward, will be determined by each Filipino's completing this sentence: "One day I will visit that grave and ____________."
shared from
 |
NALUSAW ANG PUSONG BATO NI GEN "BATO"
Published on Nov 23, 2016
GEN. BATO NAPAIYAK SA HIRAP NG PROBLEMA NG PNP NGUNIT NANGAKONG TATAPUSIN LAHAT ANG MGA ITO.
|
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
TV Patrol: Dayan, sinabing 7 taon silang nagka-relasyon ni De Lima
Published on Nov 22, 2016
Idiniretso ng PNP sa Camp Crame si Ronnie Dayan, at iniharap sa media.
|
SC defers petition to exhume Marcos
SC defers petition to exhume Marcos
|
Lagman: Nothing unchristian in move to exhume Marcos remains
|
SC asked to order exhumation of Marcos' remains
 SC asked to order exhumation of Marcos' remainsIna Reformina, ABS-CBN News
MANILA - Opposition lawmaker and Albay Representative Edcel Lagman urged the Supreme Court (SC) to order the exhumation of the remains of former President Ferdinand Marcos, three days after Marcos was interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).
In an 8-page pleading filed with the high court before lunchtime on Monday, Lagman said the exhumation of Marcos' remains was necessary since his burial was "premature, precipitate and irregular" on the basis that the decision allowing the burial "has not attained finality and was not executory."
On November 8, the high court, voting 9-5, with one abstention, junked seven petitions assailing the move of President Duterte to allow Marcos' interment at the LNMB. The ruling also ordered the lifting of a status quo ante order (SQAO) earlier issued that halted the burial for some two months.
"Since the object of the premature burial is the so-called interred 'mortal remains' of Marcos, perforce the same must be exhumed as a rectification of the void execution.
"The exhumation is imperative in order not to render moot and academic the petitioners' forthcoming and seasonable motion/s for reconsideration, the resolution of which had been preempted by the precipitate burial in the wake of nationwide protests and cogent commentaries against the subject Decision of the [SC]," Lagman's motion read.
The exhumation is also intended to "effectively censure and discipline" the Marcos family and top defense and military officials for their "disrespect" against the SC, the motion stressed.
The motion further pointed out that "with the inordinate haste and stealthy circumstances which shrouded the interment, there is no certainty as to what was actually buried in the LNMB."
As such, Lagman asked that a forensic examination of the buried remains be conducted to determine whether what was actually interred were Marcos' remains, and "not any other artifact or a wax replica of the late dictator, since his remains could have been buried decades ago in Batac, Ilocos Norte as he reportedly wished to be buried near his mother, the late Doña Josefa Edralin Marcos in Batac."
Lagman also informed the high court that he will also be filing a pleading to cite respondents in contempt of court.
Another group of petitioners, led by former Bayan Muna Representative Saturnino Ocampo, filed a separate petition with the SC, also on Monday, to cite respondents in indirect contempt.
shared from
 |
Ruling in Nalundasan case may yet bar Marcos burial at Libingan
 Ruling in Nalundasan case may yet bar Marcos burial at Libingan
MANILA, Philippines – In the rules of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, AFP Regulations G 161-375 to be exact, only two conditions disqualify deceased personnel from being buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The first is dishonorable discharge from the service; the second is conviction by final judgment “for an offense involving moral turpitude.”
The second may yet apply to former President Ferdinand Marcos whose burial at the Libingan, 27 years after his death, was upheld by the Supreme Court in a decision on Nov. 8, to the anger of people who say he doesn’t deserve a hero’s burial.
Seventy-six years ago on October 22, 1940, the Supreme Court itself convicted Marcos for an offense that may be judged as involving moral turpitude.
He and three of his relatives were found guilty of contempt of court for filing eight separate complaints against the principal witness of the prosecution in the murder of Julio Nalundasan, even before the conclusion of the trial.
Nalundasan was the rival of Ferdinand’s father, congressman Mariano Marcos. The story goes that Nalundasan was killed by a sniper’s bullet on the night of September 20, 1935, while he was brushing his teeth by the window of his home in Batac, Ilocos Norte.
This was just a few days after he defeated Mariano in the congressional elections, and was declared the duly elected representative of Ilocos Norte’s second district.
Charged with murder were Mariano, his brother Pio, their brother-in-law Quirino Lizardo, and Ferdinand, then an 18-year-old University of the Philippines student and, by various accounts, a sharpshooter.
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which recounts in G.R. No. L-47388, People of the Philippines v. Mariano Marcos et al., that the four filed eight separate complaints against Calixto Aguinaldo, the prosecution’s principal witness. They accused him of making false testimony against them during the preliminary investigation on Dec. 7, 1938, and during their trial.
But it turns out that they filed those eight complaints when only Lizardo’s trial had commenced. The trial of the three Marcoses had then not even begun. The rules of court require a judgment to be rendered before a charge of false testimony can be filed against a witness.
Ilocos Norte’s Court of First Instance found Quirino Lizardo, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos guilty of contempt of court.
The Supreme Court said, “It is evident that the charges for false testimony filed by the four accused above mentioned could not be decided until the main case for murder was disposed of, since no penalty could be meted out to Calixto Aguinaldo for his alleged false testimony without first knowing the extent of the sentence to be imposed against Lizardo and the Marcoses (Revised Penal Code, art. 180).”
“The latter should therefore have waited for the termination of the principal case in the lower court before filing the charges for false testimony against Calixto Aguinaldo. Facts considered, we are of the opinion that the action of the Marcoses and Lizardo was calculated, or at least tended, directly or indirectly to obstruct the administration of justice and that, therefore, the trial court properly found them guilty of contempt,” the High Court said.
The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte had convicted Ferdinand Marcos and Lizardo of murder and contempt. Ferdinand, then a law student, brought the case to the Supreme Court and asked that it overturn his and Lizardo’s conviction.
Mariano and Pio, meanwhile, appealed their conviction for contempt.
Justice Jose Laurel penned the decision acquitting Marcos and Lizardo of the murder charge. But it sustained the Ilocos Norte Court of First Instance’s decision that all three Marcoses and Lizardo were guilty of desacato (contempt). The Court of First Instance ordered them to pay a fine of P200 or, in case of insolvency or non-payment, the corresponding jail time. Laurel’s decision for the Supreme Court lowered the fine to P50. But the conviction stayed.
Hence, the first element in the AFP provision for disqualification is met. For the contempt of court offense, after Marcos was afforded due process by the Court of First Instance and heard on appeal by the Supreme Court, a final judgment was reached. He was guilty.
Moral turptitude?
But does a guilty for contempt of court verdict necessarily mean having committed an act involving moral turpitude? What is moral turpitude in the first place?
Until 1940, the Supreme Court made only two rulings involving moral turpitude.In the first case, a lawyer was convicted of abduction with consent, and the petitioner asked that he be suspended or disbarred. The Supreme Court issued a one-year suspension to be served after he was released from prison.
In his decision on that case, In Re: Basa (December 7, 1920), in what is considered the first decision involving the issue, Justice George Malcolm used Bouvier’s Law Dictionary to define it.
“Moral turpitude, it has been said, includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals,” Malcolm said.
“The inherent nature of the act is such that it is against good morals and the accepted rule of right conduct,” Malcolm continued.
Another pre-1940 case In Re: Isada (November 16, 1934), also penned by Malcolm, maintained that the crime of concubinage involves moral turpitude. The respondent, also a lawyer, after serving his conviction for the main crime, was also suspended for a year.
Succeeding Supreme Court rulings have either adhered to the law dictionary definition of moral turpitude as established in In Re: Basa (though they have moved on from Bouvier’s to Black’s) or have done particular refinements on how to determine if moral turpitude is concomitant with certain offenses.
The court now holds that “not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude” (dela Torre v. Comelec, G.R. 121592, July 5, 1996). What evolved in practice is “the way for a case-to-case approach in determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude” (Brion concurring in Teves v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009), and “as to what crime involves moral turpitude is for the Supreme Court to determine” (A.M. 1162, A.C. 1163, A.M. 1164, August 29, 1975).
In recent cases involving moral turpitude, the Supreme Court employs three approaches in making its determination (Brion concurring in Teves v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009).
First, to determine whether “the act itself must be inherently immoral”; second, “to look at the act committed through its elements as a crime”; and the third, “essentially takes the offender and his acts into account in light of the attendant circumstances of the crime: was he motivated by ill will indicating depravity?”
In deciding Garcia v. De Vera (A.C. No. 6052. December 11, 2003), the Supreme Court had occasion to rule on whether or not indirect contempt of court can be an offense involving moral turpitude.
But following the Supreme Court’s own prescription for determining involvement of moral turpitude in a case, that decision does not automatically preclude all contempt of court cases—both direct and indirect—as free of moral turpitude.
In that case, the respondent had been previously found guilty of indirect contempt by the Supreme Court itself for having made a statement in public that in the court’s appreciation, was “clearly made to mobilize public opinion and bring pressure on the Court.”
For that very specific act alone, the Court said, “the act for which he was found guilty of indirect contempt” does not involve moral turpitude because “it cannot be said that the act of expressing one’s opinion on a public interest issue can be considered as an act of baseness, vileness or depravity.”
In the Philippines, contempt can be considered criminal or civil. According to the Supreme Court in People vs. Godoy (G.R. Nos. 115908-09, March 29, 1995), “the real character of the proceedings is to be determined by the relief sought, or the dominant purpose, and the proceedings are to be regarded as criminal when the purpose is primarily punishment, and civil when the purpose is primarily compensatory or remedial.”
In Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, et al. v. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines, et al. (G.R. No. 155849, August 31, 2011), the Supreme Court stated that “proceedings for contempt are sui generis, in nature criminal.”
The Court said that a criminal contempt “consists in conduct that is directed against the authority and dignity of a court or of a judge acting judicially, as in unlawfully assailing or discrediting the authority and dignity of the court or judge, or in doing a duly forbidden act.”
Meanwhile, it stated that a civil contempt “consists in the failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or judge in a civil case for the benefit of the opposing party therein.”
The Court continued: “Where the dominant purpose is to enforce compliance with an order of a court for the benefit of a party in whose favor the order runs, the contempt is civil; where the dominant purpose is to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court, and to protect the interests of the general public, the contempt is criminal.”
In the final decision on the Nalundasan case, Laurel said, “The inherent power to punish for contempt should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle (Villavicencio vs. Lukban 39 Phil., 778), and on the corrective and not on the retaliatory idea of punishment.”
Based only on this statement, it would appear that the contempt committed by the Marcoses was construed by the High Court as being indirect and civil in nature.
However, in the same decision, the Supreme Court described the action of the Marcoses and Lizardo as “directly or indirectly [obstructing] the administration of justice,” which could mean they committed “a duly forbidden act.”
While there is currently no jurisprudence in the Philippines that states that obstruction of justice involves moral turpitude, what Marcos and his relatives did was to harass the main witness in their murder trial with legal action.
They filed eight separate complaints alleging that the principal witness for the prosecution, Calixto Aguinaldo, committed false testimony while the Nalundasan murder trial was still ongoing.
At the very least, this demonstrates a lack of faith in the judge trying the case, insinuating he is incapable of discerning the veracity of the testimony of witnesses before his court.
In American jurisprudence (see Padilla v. Gonzales, 397 F.3d 1016), obstruction of justice is considered a crime involving moral turpitude.
Since the possible sentence for Marcos and his kin for the murder of Nalundasan ranged from 12 to 20 years imprisonment to death, the Revised Penal Code provides that had they been convicted and Aguinaldo proven to have committed false testimony, then Aguinaldo would be in jail from six to 20 years. The cost of defending himself against eight lawsuits would have also been prohibitive.
Marcos and his relatives may not have committed an act that is evil in itself, but there is no doubt malice, the ill will that was inherent in their action to corrupt legal avenues for redress for their own self-serving ends.
(Miguel Paolo P. Reyes and Joel F. Ariate Jr. are researchers at the Third World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Diliman. Christian Victor Masangkay provided research assistance in writing this article.)
shared from
 |
Monday, November 21, 2016
Tsunami Warning Issued as Quake Strikes Off Fukushima in Japan
 Tsunami Warning Issued as Quake Strikes Off Fukushima in JapanBY Edward Johnson edwardrjohnsonNovember 21, 2016 — 1:46 PM PST
A magnitude 7.3 earthquake struck Japan off the coast of Fukushima, home to the nuclear power plant badly damaged in a March 2011 quake, triggering a tsunami alert. The local currency rose.
The temblor struck at 5:59 a.m. local time at a depth of 10 kilometers, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency. Tokyo Electric Power Co. said it was checking the plant and would issue updates as soon as information became available.
State-run broadcaster NHK said a tsunami was expected imminently at Iwaki City.
shared from
 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
