image CREDIT : www. equalizerpost.com MARCOS'S WARTIME ROLE DISCREDITED IN U.S. FILES By The following article is based on reporting by Jeff Gerth and Joel Brinkley and was written by Mr. Gerth.Special to the New York Times Published: January 23, 1986 WASHINGTON, Jan. 22— The Army concluded after World War II that claims by Ferdinand E. Marcos that he had led a guerrilla resistance unit during the Japanese occupation of his country were ''fraudulent'' and ''absurd.'' Throughout his political career, Mr. Marcos, now President of the Philippines, has portrayed himself as a heroic guerrilla leader, and the image has been central to his political appeal. In almost every speech throughout his current re-election campaign, including at least one this week, Mr. Marcos has referred to his war record and guerrilla experiences in part to show that he is better able than his opponent, Corazon C. Aquino, to handle the present Communist insurgency. Questions Go Unanswered But documents that had rested out of public view in United States Government archives for 35 years show that repeated Army investigations found no foundation for Mr. Marcos's claims that he led a guerrilla force called Ang Mga Maharlika in military operations against Japanese forces from 1942 to 1944. Mr. Marcos declined today to respond to six written questions about the United States Government records, which came to light only recently. The questions were submitted to Mr. Marcos's office this morning in Manila. After repeated telephone calls to the Presidential Palace this afternoon, an aide explained that Mr. Marcos was busy with meetings and a campaign appearance and ''didn't have the opportunity to look into the question.'' The aide said the President might have a response later. In the Army records, Mr. Marcos wrote that he strongly protested the Army's findings, adding that ''a grave injustice has been committed against many officers and men'' of the unit. Since Mr. Marcos became President in 1965, the Government-owned broadcasting network, the main north-south highway on the island of Luzon and a hall in the Presidential Palace all have been named Maharlika - the name means Noble Men - in honor of the unit. In 1978, the Philippine National Assembly considered renaming the nation Maharlika. Recognition Is Denied Between 1945 and 1948 various Army officers rejected Mr. Marcos's two requests for official recognition of the unit, calling his claims distorted, exaggerated, fraudulent, contradictory and absurd. Army investigators finally concluded that Maharlika was a fictitious creation and that ''no such unit ever existed'' as a guerrilla organization during the war. In addition, the United States Veterans' Administration, helped by the Philippine Army, found in 1950 that some people who had claimed membership in Maharlika - pronounced mah-HAHR-lick-kuh - had actually been committing ''atrocities'' against Filipino civilians rather than fighting the Japanese and had engaged in what the V.A. called ''nefarious activity,'' including selling contraband to the enemy. The records include no direct evidence linking Mr. Marcos to those activities. The records, many of which were classified secret until 1958, were on file at the Army records center in St. Louis until they were donated to the National Archives in Washington in November 1984. In 1983, a Filipino opposition figure asked for access to them a few weeks after the assassination in Manila that August of the opposition leader Benigno S. Aquino Jr., but the Army refused to let him see them. Alfred W. McCoy, a historian, discovered the documents among hundreds of thousands of others several months ago while at the National Archives researching a book on World War II in the Philippines. Dr. McCoy was granted the access normally accorded to scholars, and when he came upon the the Maharlika files he was allowed to review and copy them along with others. Archives officials did not learn what the documents contained until after they were copied Richard J. Kessler, a scholar on the Philippines at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, said, ''Marcos's military record was one of the central factors in his developing a political power base.'' A War Hero at Home In the Philippines, the 68-year-old Mr. Marcos is widely described as the nation's most decorated war hero. The Philippine Government says he won 32 medals for heroism during World War II, including two from the United States Army. Two of the medals were for his activities as a guerrilla leader, but the rest were for exploits before the United States surrender in 1942 or after the return of United States forces to Luzon, the main Philippine island, in 1945. The validity of those medals has been challenged by Philippine and American journalists as well as others. In response, the Philippine Government has vigorously contended that they were properly earned and said the records validating them were destroyed in a fire. When the Philippine newspaper We Forum published an article in 1982 questioning Mr. Marcos's war record, Government authorities shut the paper down. The issue of Mr. Marcos's medals is not addressed in the Army records. Like thousands of other Filipinos, immediately after the war Mr. Marcos asked the Army to recognize his unit so that he and others could receive back pay and benefits. In his petitions, Mr. Marcos certified that his unit had engaged in numerous armed clashes with the Japanese, sabotage and intelligence gathering throughout a vast region of Luzon and had been the pre-eminent guerrilla force on the island. In his submissions, he offered widely varying accounts of Maharlika's membership, from 300 men at one point to 8,300 at another. In the years since, Mr. Marcos has said Maharlika was a force of 8,200 men. Some Claims Recognized Shortly after the war, the Army did recognize the claims of 111 men who were listed on the Maharlika roster submitted by Mr. Marcos, but their recognition was only for their services with American forces after the invasion of Luzon in January 1945. One document says the service that Mr. Marcos and 23 other men listed as Maharlika members gave to the First Cavalry Division in the spring of 1945 was ''of limited military value.'' The Army records include conflicting statements on whether the United States intended to recognize the 111 men as individuals or as a Maharlika unit attached to American forces after the invasion. It is clear throughout the records that at no time did the Army recognize that any unit designating itself as Maharlika ever existed as a guerrilla force in the years of the Japanese occupation, 1942 to 1945. The records are a small part of a voluminous file containing more than one million documents on military activities in the Philippines during and after World War II. Approximately 400 pages deal with matters relating to the Government's investigations of Mr. Marcos and his claims. Dr. McCoy, an American professor of history at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, said he was ''stunned'' when he found the records last summer. He said he worked with the records by himself until this month. He brought them to the attention of The New York Times last week. The records were reviewed at the Archives, where officials confirmed their authenticity. In addition, several former American military officers who played important roles in the events described in the records were interviewed. These officers served in the Philippines during the war, supervising Filipino guerrillas in the areas where Mr. Marcos said his unit had operated. Even though most of them say they are strong supporters of Mr. Marcos today - one, Robert B. Lapham of Sun City, Ariz., said he spent 90 minutes with Mr. Marcos while in Manila last week -the officers also confirmed the basic findings in the records and said they had not been aware of Maharlika's activities during the war. They also said they had not known of Mr. Marcos as a guerrilla leader until they read his claims later. 'This Is Not True' Ray C. Hunt Jr., a 66-year-old former Army captain who directed guerrilla activites in Pangasinan Province north of Manila during the war, said: ''Marcos was never the leader of a large guerrilla organization, no way. Nothing like that could have happened without my knowledge.'' Mr. Hunt, interviewed at his home in Orlando, Fla., said he took no position in the current Phillipine election campaign, although he believed Mr. Marcos ''may be the lesser of two evils.'' Still, as he read through the records for the first time, including Mr. Marcos's own description of Maharlika's wartime activities, he said: ''This is not true, no. Holy cow. All of this is a complete fabrication. It's a cock-and-bull story.'' The documents, the latest of which are dated in the early 1950's, include no indication that Mr. Marcos appealed the Army's final ruling against him in 1948. The last entry in the Maharlika file was an affirmation of the rejection. Today Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard L. Armitage, the senior Pentagon official in charge of military relations with the Philippines, said his aides had been unable to find any record that the original Army decision denying benefits to Maharlika had been challenged or investigated after the 1948 ruling. ''Subsequent to '48 I am unaware of any further appeals,'' he said. Donna St. John, a spokesman for the Veterans' Administration, said, ''We're not paying any benefits to Ferdinand Marcos.'' As commanding officer of the unit, Mr. Marcos applied for United States Government recognition of his guerrilla force in the summer of 1945. To support the application, he included a 29-page typed document entitled ''Ang Mga Maharlika - Its History in Brief.'' It says that the unit was ''spawned from the dragging pain and ignominy'' of the Bataan death march and that its members ''grew such a hatred of the enemy as could be quenched with his blood alone.'' Exploits Are Described Most of the document is written in the third person and describes a variety of exploits by Maharlika and Mr. Marcos, who was in his twenties at the time. ''It seemed as if the Japanese were after him alone and not after anyone else,'' it says at one point, referring to Mr. Marcos. The author is never identified, but in two places he lapses into the first person in discussing Mr. Marcos's exploits, indicating the writer was Mr. Marcos. The history and other submissions from Mr. Marcos say Maharlika was officially organized in December 1942 but had been operating for several months before that. It carried out guerrilla operations throughout Luzon and even published an underground guerrilla newspaper three times a day, Mr. Marcos wrote. Membership rosters submitted with the filings listed the names of more than 300 Maharlika members. But Mr. Marcos included no documents or copies of the Maharlika newspaper to support the claim because, he wrote, all documentary evidence was ''lost due to continuous searches by the Japanese.'' Elsewhere, Mr. Marcos wrote that some of the unit's records were burned and others were buried. The official records indicate that the Army grew suspicious of Mr. Marcos's claims right away. Mr. Marcos contended that he had been in a northern province ''in the first days of December 1944 on an intelligence mission'' and was not able to get back to Maharlika headquarters at that time because the American invasion force on Luzon cut him off from Manila. But in the first recorded response to Mr. Marcos's recognition request, in September 1945, Maj. Harry McKenzie of the Army noted that the American invasion of Luzon had not actually begun until a month later and ''could not have influenced his abandoning his outfit.'' As a result, Major McKenzie suggested an ''inquiry into the veracity'' of Mr. Marcos's claims. And almost two years later, the Army wrote Mr. Marcos to notify him of the official finding that his application for recognition ''is not favorably considered.'' Why the U.S. Said No The official notice cited these reasons, among others: * Maharlika had not actually been in the field fighting the Japanese and had not ''contributed materially to the eventual defeat of the enemy.'' * Maharlika had no ''definite organization'' and ''adequate records were not maintained.'' * Maharlika was not controlled adequately ''because of the desertion of its commanding officer,'' Mr. Marcos, who eventually joined an American military unit while in northern Luzon at the time of the American invasion. * Maharlika could not possibly have operated over the wide area it claimed because of problems of terrain, communications and Japanese ''antiresistance activities.'' * ''Many members apparently lived at home, supporting their families by means of farming or other civilian pursuits and assisted the guerrilla unit on a part-time basis only.'' Although the Army did recognize 111 people listed on Mr. Marcos's Maharlika roster for their service to American forces after January 1945, the nature of that service is not fully described. But one document, dated May 31, 1945, says 6 officers and 18 men led by Mr. Marcos and indentifying themselves as Maharlika had ''been employed by this unit,'' the Army's First Cavalry Division, ''guarding the regimental supply dump and performing warehousing details.'' Their work, the document added, was ''of limited military value.'' In his brief history, Mr. Marcos describes his service to the First Cavalry this way: Members of Maharlika ''furnished intelligence and were used for patrolling by this unit until the operations in Manila ended. They participated in the crossing of the Pasig River.'' Mr. Marcos was just one of thousands of Filipinos who asked the United States Army for recognition as a guerrilla. After the Japanese occupation of the Phillipines in 1942, the United States had promised that any Filipinos who continued fighting the Japanese would get back pay and benefits after the war as if they had been members of the American military. Served at Bataan Japan mounted a surprise attack on the islands in December 1941 and quickly conquered them. It was not until 1944 and 1945, that United States and Filipino forces won them back. Not long afterward, on July 4, 1946, the islands gained their final independence from the United States as the Republic of the Philippines. At the time of the Japanese invasion, Mr. Marcos was a lieutenant in the Philippine armed forces and part of the contingent driven back into the Bataan Peninsula. Mr. Marcos has said his fighting delayed the surrender at Bataan for several weeks. After the American surrender, he was imprisoned by the Japanese, but escaped. For his efforts during the Bataan campaign of January 1942, Mr. Marcos was awarded numerous medals, apparently including two from the United States, but not until many years later. It was after the Bataan campaign, Mr. Marcos wrote, that Maharlika was formed. In 1982 and 1983 journalists in the Philippines and the United States, as well as Representative Lane Evans, Democrat of Illinois, tried to determine the validity of the American awards to Mr. Marcos, including the two Bataan-related medals. The Pentagon, in replying in 1984 to Mr. Evans, noted that no official ''citations for these awards'' could be found, but ''they were both attested to in affidavits by the Assistant Chief of Staff'' of the Philippine Army. Whether or not the American medals are valid, they had nothing to do with Mr. Marcos's activities during the Japanese occupation. After the war, roughly 500,000 Filipinos were recognized and paid as guerrilla fighters. But uncounted others were turned down. Mr. Marcos's claim was investigated in the same manner as the others. Affidavits were taken from dozens of American and Filipino military officers, enlisted men and civilians. In addition, investigators studied documentary evidence, including wartime intelligence reports, looking for references to Maharlika's work. After he was turned down, Mr. Marcos asked for reconsideration. An Army captain, Elbert R. Curtis, inquired further but concluded that ''the immensity'' of Mr. Marcos's claim that Maharlika served over the entire island of Luzon was ''absurd.'' After checking intelligence records, Captain Curtis wrote that there was no mention of Maharlika being a source of intelligence information. He wrote that the unit roster was a fabrication, that ''no such unit ever existed'' and that Mr. Marcos's claims about Maharlika were ''fraudulent,'' ''preposterous'' and ''a malicious criminal act.'' Another Army document said Maharlika ''possessed no arms prior to the arrival of the Americans'' despite Mr. Marcos' claim that the unit had 474 assorted weapons and 3,825 rounds of ammunition. The second investigation concluded that ''it is quite obvious that Marcos did not exercise any control over a guerrilla organization prior to liberation'' in January 1945. Although there is no record that Mr. Marcos filed any further objections to those 1948 findings, another Filipino, Cipriano S. Allas, who was listed as a senior Maharlika officer, wrote the Army in 1947 asking for reconsideration of the unit. That request was denied, too. Mr. Allas said he had commanded Maharlika's intelligence section. But numerous American officers and Filipinos who were interviewed by Army, Veterans' Administration and Philippine investigators said Mr. Allas and some of his men had in fact been selling commodities to the Japanese during the war. In a 1947 Army document titled ''Report on Ang Mga Maharlika,'' Lieut. William D. MacMillan wrote that two American officers, including Mr. Lapham, and one Filipino officer had told investigators that ''they had heard'' Mr. Marcos's name ''in connection with the buy and sell activities of certain people,'' referring to the black-market sales to the Japanese, but that the three had added that they had no firm information about Mr. Marcos. In a file titled ''Guerrilla Bandits and Black Marketeers,'' a Philippine Army document concluded that Mr. Allas and several other men listed on the Maharlika roster ''engaged themselves in the purchases and sale of steel cables,'' an important wartime commodity, to the Japanese. 'What a Farce!' A United States Veterans' Administration investigation concluded that some men who claimed membership in Maharlika and another organization were ''hoodlums'' who had committed ''atrocities'' and were ''tied together only for nefarious reasons.'' One man who said he was a member of Maharlika told investigators that the unit ''had committed themselves to trafficking in the sale of critical war materials to the brutal enemy,'' the report said, ''but only to provide means of watching that enemy.'' ''What a farce!'' the V.A. investigator concluded. None of the former officers interviewed this week said they remembered any involvement by Mr. Marcos in the black-market activities or abuses of civilians. Mr. Hunt said he met Mr. Marcos only once during the war, sometime in 1944. A Filipino military officer ''brought him into my guerrilla headquarters,'' Mr. Hunt recalled. ''He was barefoot, unarmed. We talked for 15 or 20 minutes about this or that. He was never identified to me as a guerrilla, and we didn't talk about guerrilla activities.'' ''I had no further contact with him,'' Mr. Hunt added, ''and I didn't hear anything more about him.''

MARCOS PARTY : WE ARE THE WORLD......A GLIMPSE OF THE PLUNDEROUS PAST

Jill Stein: The Two-Party System Is Broken

Published on May 23, 2016 Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein says the two-party system is broken, and that we should vote our values, not our fears.

EAT BULAGA AUGUST 9, 2016_ Kalyeserye #ALDUBTheWoooh

DUTERTE LAMBASTED CJ SERENO

Marcos unfit for hero's burial: historical body By: Agence France-Presse | With InterAksyon.com August 8, 2016 6:30 PM SHARED FROM: InterAksyon.com The online news portal of TV5 MANILA - Philippine activists and a historical body on Monday criticized President Rodrigo Duterte's plan to give late dictator Ferdinand Marcos a hero's burial, saying the ex-leader lied about his military record. Duterte said Sunday he would fulfil his campaign promise to bury Marcos at the national "Heroes' Cemetery", a contentious issue because of widespread corruption and rights abuses under the late dictator. The National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) released a study over the weekend questioning Duterte's stand that Marcos was qualified for a hero's burial because he was a soldier during World War II. "Marcos lied about receiving US medals... (his) military record is fraught with myths, factual inconsistencies," the agency said. "A doubtful record does not serve as sound, unassailable basis of historical recognition of any sort, let alone burial in a site intended, as its name suggests, for heroes." WE Forum raided after medals exposé On December 7, 1982, Marcos' military raided the Quezon City offices and printing press of WE Forum,and arrested its publisher, several columnists and key publishing executives, after the the trailblazing "alternative press" newspaper published a series of investigative articles by Col. Bonifacio Gillego exposing the Marcos medals claim as being of doubtful basis. Publisher Jose Burgos Jr. and his co-accused were released before Christmas owing to an international outcry, and among their defense counsel were some of the leading members of the human rights movement then: Joker Arroyo, Wigberto Tañada, Jejomar Binay, Martiniano Vivo and Rene A.V. Saguisag. The cases against the journalists were dismissed in 1984 by the Supreme Court, which ruled the WE Forum raid and shutdown as illegal. Burgos would later be declared by the International Press Institute as one of the 50 World Press Freedom Heroes of the 20th Century. Marcos was toppled in a military-backed popular revolt in 1986 and died in exile in Hawaii in 1989. But his family has insisted on a hero's burial even though previous presidents refused this. In the meantime, they have kept his preserved body on display in their home town in the northern province of Ilocos Norte. Marcos was elected president in 1965 and declared martial law in 1972, allowing him to rule as a dictator while he, his family and allies enriched themselves through massive corruption as his troops suppressed dissent. 2nd most corrupt of all time Anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International in 2004 named Marcos the second most corrupt leader of all time. Despite his proclaimed stance against corruption, Duterte has heaped praise on Marcos as the Philippines' "best president". He maintains close ties with the Marcos family, who supported his presidential campaign. Duterte boasts that his father served in the Marcos administration and that he voted for Marcos. Duterte's defence secretary ordered the military on Sunday to start preparing for the burial. But activists urged the president to reconsider. "We call on President Duterte not to give a platform for the Marcoses to whitewash the crimes they committed. This man does not deserve any form of honor," said Tinay Palabay, secretary general of rights group Karapatan. Former lawmaker Satur Ocampo, tortured and imprisoned during martial law, said a hero's burial for Marcos would not bring national closure as Duterte promised. "Disunity will continue ... Duterte should not aggravate the injustice done to martial law victims." Marcos' son and political heir, former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jnr, thanked Duterte for granting the family's longstanding wish. "Our campaign has always been towards achieving unity to move the country forward. And it is this kind of pronouncement that we hope could end the decades of divisiveness," Marcos Jnr said on his Facebook page.

LIBINGAN NG MGA TUNAY AT HUWAD NA BAYANI

Almost 19,000 sign petition vs burying Marcos at Libingan ng mga Bayani By: Tricia Aquino, InterAksyon.com May 30, 2016 1:56 PM InterAksyon.com The online news portal of TV5 MANILA - Close to 19,000 people have signed a petition to ask incoming President Rodrigo Duterte to not push through with his plan to have the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The petition “No to Burying Marcos in Heroes’ Cemetery” was created by Dolly De Leon of Mandaluyong City last week on advocacy platform Change.org. Find it on this link: chn.ge/1RDP8io.  The petition stressed that burying the dictator who ruled for two decades, including nine years under martial law, was “an affront to the thousands of lives tortured and murdered during his reign.” It stressed that a hero was one who did not take away freedom; rather, he or she “campaigns for it and fights for its survival for the sake of others.” “Laying (Marcos) to rest at the Heroes’ Cemetery is a disdainful act that will send a message to the future of our nation – our children – that the world we live in rewards forceful and violent hands,” the petition said. It also outlined six reasons why Marcos should not be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. First, it cited Duterte as saying that the issue of Marcos’s burial had long been divisive. In fact, Duterte said in a recent interview, “I am sure that (the burial) would erase from amongst our people one hatred.” The petition said that the reason for the division was not the burial, and that the latter would even “further sever the opportunity for unity, since this is an injustice to the victims of Martial Law and the families they left behind.” According to the petition, 70,000 people were imprisoned, 34,000 were tortured, and 3,240 were killed under Martial Law, which Marcos proclaimed in 1972. The second reason, the petition said, was that the United States Army said that Marcos’s claims that he had led a guerrilla resistance unit during the Japanese occupation were “fraudulent” and “'absurd.” The third reason, the petition said, that Marcos was not being heroic when he fabricated stories about his war accomplishment. In addition, the petition said, Marcos’s “gross plunder and mass murder trumps his status as a soldier.” “Serving one’s country in war does not warrant heroism if they place that same country in ruin. Foreign debt increased from $355 million in 1962 to $28.3 billion in 1986. The peso value to the dollar decreased from 3.90 in 1966 to 20.53 in 1986,” the petition explained. The petition’s fifth reason for not wanting Marcos to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani was because not all soldiers were buried there. “Burying him there will label him a hero whether he was a Philippine soldier or not,” the petition said. Finally, the petition cited the cemetery’s regulations as saying, “Those who were dishonorably separated, reverted, or discharged from the service, and those who were convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude cannot be buried at the cemetery.” “Marcos was ousted from power. On these grounds alone, he is not qualified. Ferdinand E. Marcos is not a hero. Only heroes are buried in the Heroes’ Cemetery as the name so literally states,” the petition said. Duterte nevertheless maintained that he would not change his mind. “Patay na ‘yung tao. Anong gusto ninyo? You want the cadaver to be burnt? Would that satisfy you?” he said in a press conference, addressing those opposed to his decision. He earlier said that he was okay with any date for Marcos’s burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, including the latter’s birthday in September. “I will allow the burial of President Marcos sa Libingan ng mga Bayani, not because he is a hero, kung ayaw nila ng iba na ‘yun, but because he was a Filipino soldier, period,” Duterte reasoned. Duterte’s own mother, Soledad, had helped organize protest rallies for the pro-Aquino movement before the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986. Meanwhile, Senator Bongbong Marcos had thanked Duterte for his statement, saying on his Facebook page that his family always maintained that it was the former president’s right under the law to be buried there being a former soldier and president. “Our campaign has always been toward achieving unity to move the country forward,” said the losing vice-presidential candidate. “And it is this kind of pronouncement that we hope could end the decades of divisiveness that have been imposed upon us by our leaders.” For his part, Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo opposed the plan to bury former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani even though his clan had not returned the billions of money stolen from the government coffers during his regime. The total amount of the ill-gotten wealth acquired by then President Marcos is reportedly between $5 and $10 billion. The late Jovito Salonga, former chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), said in his book Presidential Plunder: The Quest for the Marcos Ill-Gotten Wealth, that as of January 14, 1987, “virtually all of the wealth claimed by Mrs. (Imelda) Marcos, allegedly amounting to around 500 billion pesos, had been sequestered during my one-year assignment, subject to final judicial determination of their ownership.” (This P500 billion pesos is now equivalent to $10.8 billion, with the present dollar-peso exchange rate at $1 = P46.16 and P1 = $0.022. Meanwhile, the exchange rate in 1987 was $1 = P20.57, according to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas: bit.ly/1MC7Snb.) Marcos herself admitted to their vast properties during martial rule. She told The Philippine Daily Inquirer in 1998, “We practically own everything in the Philippines—from electricity, telecommunications, airline, banking, beer and tobacco, newspaper publishing, television stations, shipping, oil and mining, hotels and beach resorts, down to coconut milling, small farms, real estate and insurance.” In addition, she also revealed in an interview with the Associated Press and Agence France-Presse in 1998 that more money had yet to be discovered. “There is more money that the government is not yet aware of, but for the time being, I can admit that there is only $800 million kept in various international banks,” she said. “Papaano ma-u-unite na marami naman tutol dito? Mas lalong ma-di-divide ang country,” Pabillo said. “Palaging hindi nabibigyan ng katarungan ang mga biktima.”

SC can't question wisdom of the President: law dean

courtesy of abs-cbn news

The full text of Sereno's letter to President Duterte AND REFERENCE SC DECISION SHOWING THE LETTER AS MISPLACED COMMUNICATION

Below is the full text of Sereno's letter to President Duterte: shared from Rappler.com 8 August 2016 PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE President of the Philippines Malacañan, Manila Through:Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre Department of Justice Dear Mr. President: I hope that this letter finds you in an excellent state of health and spirit as the country needs the leadership that only its President can provide. I congratulate you for outlining very timely and responsive peace and development objectives in your State of the Nation Address. Allow me to give some observations on seven judges whom you had named in your speech on Sunday morning in Davao City as being involved in illegal drugs, namely: Judge Mupas of Dasmariñas, Cavite Judge Reyes, Baguio City Judge Savilo, RTC Branch 13, Iloilo City Judge Casiple, Kalibo, Aklan Judge Rene Gonzales, MTC, (unknown province) Judge Natividad, RTC Calbayog City Judge Ezekiel Dagala, MTC, Dapa, Siargao Lorenda Mupas was dismissed in 2007 as MTC Judge of Dasmarinas, Cavite for gross ignorance of the law/misconduct. We request that her dishonorable discharge be duly considered and that she be not referred to as part of the judiciary as of nine years ago. Judge Roberto Navidad, formerly of the RTC, Branch 32, Calbayog City, Samar was killed on 14 January 2008 at the age of 69. Judge Rene Gonzales, formerly of the MTCC, Branch 7, Iloilo City, compulsorily retired last 20 June 2016. Judge Exequil Dagala of the MTC, Dapa-Socorro, Surigao, does not have jurisdiction over drugs cases, the same way that Judge Gonzales does not. It would be very helpful if the investigators who included the names of Judges Dagala and Gonzales inform the Court how these MTC judges can be considered as influencing the drug trade. Judge Adriano Savillo, RTC, Branch 30, Iloilo City is a family court judge who does not have jurisdiction over drugs cases except in cases where a minor is a respondent. Judge Domingo Casiple, RTC, Branch 7, Kalibo, Aklan is the judge of a court of general jurisdiction without jurisdiction over drugs cases, i.e., until our recent decision to make all RTCs as drugs courts is implemented with the appropriate administrative circular. It would be helpful to know the specifics on how judges without jurisdiction over drugs cases influence the drug trade in their localities. Judge Antonio Reyes, RTC, Branch 61, Baguio City, Benguet presides over the designated drugs court in that multi-sala court. The Court would consider it important to know the source and basis of any allegation that specific judges are involved in the illegal drugs trade in line with its duty to exercise administrative supervision over all lower courts. The Court looks with alarm at the proliferation of drugs, in a consensus shared with you, Mr. President, that dangerous drugs have been destroying Filipino lives and families. We abhor its ability to even destroy public institutions, thus our proactive investigation of any report that judges and court personnel abet the drug trade. We are currently investigating a report on a judge who may be so involved. He is not on the above list. However, Mr. President, a premature announcement of an informal investigation on allegations of involvement with the drug trade will have the unwarranted effect of rendering the judge veritably useless in discharging his adjudicative role. Thus this Court has been careful, all too aware that more often than not, a good reputation is the primary badge of credibility and the only legacy that many of our judges can leave behind. Too many of our judges have been assassinated, 26 since 1999, a large proportion of them reportedly at the behest of crime lords, more specifically, drug lords. Allow me to submit a separate update on this matter. In order not to cause disruption to public service, we have administrative mechanisms in place to ensure that another judge take over the place of a suspended or disciplined judge. As it appears now, the announcement of the names of some judges is expected to cause problems with the scheduled hearings and conferences in their salas. With all due respect, Mr. President, we were caught unprepared by the announcement. It would matter greatly to our sense of constitutional order, if we were given the chance to administer the appropriate preventive measures without the complications of a premature public announcement. Moreover, because of the extrajudicial killings, which you had spoken out against, perpetrated by persons and groups that remain unidentified, our judges may have been rendered vulnerable and veritable targets for any of those persons and groups who may consider judges as acceptable collateral damage in the “war on drugs.” Also, because we do not have the personnel to protect our judges, we have requested the Philippine National Police to authorize them to carry defensive firearms. We request that you reconsider your reported order that the judges you named, with the above clarification on who these are, continue to bear these licensed self-defense weapons, if any, until a proper investigation concludes that formal criminal charges should be brought against them. As the sole entity charged with the discipline of judges, the Supreme Court decides when judges are excused from bench duty and report to it. We appreciate your zeal in helping us cleanse the ranks of the judiciary of misfits but we assure you, Mr. President, even an informal report from the President or his appropriate alter egos would be sufficient to spur us to action and conduct the investigation immediately without need of requiring them to report physically to any entity and cancel scheduled court activities. To safeguard the role of the judges as the protector of constitutional rights, I would caution them very strongly against “surrendering” or making themselves physically accountable to any police officer in the absence of any duly-issued warrant of arrest that is pending. Mr. President, the judiciary shares with you and the Filipino people a common desire to see a country that is rid of drugs, in the same manner that you share with the judiciary and the Filipino people a common desire to see a country that is governed by the rule of law. Please accept my warmest regards and my assurance of continued fervent prayers for your success. – Rappler.com screenshot:www.scrbd.com screenshot:www.scribd.com BORN OUT OF THE SWORN DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT ARTICLE 7 SECTION 5 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation:chanrobles virtual law library "I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-President or Acting President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." [In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted]. REFERENCE CASE SHOWING CJ SERENO LETTER  AS  MISPLACED COMMUNICATION Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-12592            March 8, 1918 THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE BUSTOS, ET AL., defendants-appellants. Kincaid and Perkins for appellants. Acting Attorney-General Paredes, for appellee. MALCOLM, J.: This appeal presents the specific question of whether or not the defendants and appellants are guilty of a libel of Roman Punsalan, justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol, Province of Pampanga. The appeal also submits the larger question of the attitude which the judiciary should take interpreting and enforcing the Libel Law in connection with the basic prerogatives of freedom of speech and press, and of assembly and petition. For a better understanding, the facts in the present appeal are the first narrated in the order of their occurrence, then certain suggestive aspects relative to the rights of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition are interpolated, then the facts are tested by these principles, and, finally, judgment is rendered. First, the facts. In the latter part of 1915, numerous citizens of the Province of Pampanga assembled, and prepared and signed a petition to the Executive Secretary through the law office of Crossfield and O'Brien, and five individuals signed affidavits, charging Roman Punsalan, justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol, Pampanga, with malfeasance in office and asking for his removal. Crossfield and O'Brien submitted this petition and these affidavits with a complaint to the Executive Secretary. The petition transmitted by these attorneys was signed by thirty-four citizens apparently of considerable standing, including councilors and property owners (now the defendants), and contained the statements set out in the information as libelous. Briefly stated the specific charges against the justice of the peace were. 1. That Francisca Polintan, desiring to make complaint against Mariano de los Reyes, visited the justice of the peace, who first told her that he would draw up complaint for P5; afterwards he said he would take P3 which she paid; also kept her in the house for four days as a servant and took from her two chickens and twelve "gandus;" 2. That Valentin Sunga being interested in a case regarding land which was on trial before the justice of the peace, went to see the justice of the peace to ascertain the result of the trial, and was told by the justice of the peace that if he wished to win he must give him P50. Not having this amount, Sunga gave the justice nothing, and a few days later was informed that he had lost the case. Returning again to the office of the justice of the peace in order to appeal, the justice told him that he could still win if he would pay P50; 3. That Leoncio Quiambao, having filed a complaint for assault against four persons, on the day of the trial the justice called him over to his house, where he secretly gave him (Quiambao) P30; and the complaint was thereupon shelved. The Executive Secretary referred the papers to the judge of first instance for the Seventh Judicial District requesting investigation, proper action, and report. The justice of the peace was notified and denied the charges. The judge of first instance found the first count not proved and counts 2 and 3 established. In view of this result, the judge, the Honorable Percy M. Moir, was of the opinion "that it must be, and it is hereby, recommended to the Governor-General that the respondent be removed from his position as justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol, Province of Pampanga, and it is ordered that the proceedings had in this case be transmitted to the Executive Secretary." Later the justice of the peace filled a motion for a new trial; the judge of first instance granted the motion and reopened the hearing; documents were introduced, including a letter sent by the municipal president and six councilors of Masantol, Pampanga, asserting that the justice of the peace was the victim of prosecution, and that one Agustin Jaime, the auxiliary justice of the peace, had instituted the charges for personal reasons; and the judge of first instance ordered a suppression of the charges against Punsalan and acquitted him the same. Attorneys for complainants thereupon appealed to the Governor-General, but whether the papers were forwarded to the Governor-General as requested the record does not disclose. Criminal action against the petitioners, now become the defendants, was instituted on October 12, 1916, by virtue of the following information: That on or about the month of December, 1915, in the municipality of Macabebe, Pampanga, P. I., the said accused, voluntarily, illegally, and criminally and with malicious intent to prejudice and defame Mr. Roman Punsalan Serrano who was at said time and place justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol of this province, wrote, signed, and published a writing which was false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and libelous against the justice of the peace Mr. Roman Punsalan Serrano, in which writing appear among other things the following: That the justice of the peace, Mr. Roman Punsalan Serrano, of this town of Macabebe, on account of the conduct observed by him heretofore, a conduct highly improper of the office which he holds, is found to be a public functionary who is absolutely unfair, eminently immoral and dangerous to the community, and consequently unworthy of the office. That this assertion of the undersigned is evidenced in a clear and positive manner by facts so certain, so serious, and so denigrating which appear in the affidavits attached hereto, and by other facts no less serious, but which the undersigned refrain from citing herein for the sake of brevity and in order not to bother too much the attention of your Honor and due to lack of sufficient proof to substantiate them. That should the higher authorities allow the said justice of the peace of this town to continue in his office, the protection of the rights and interests of its inhabitants will be illusory and utopic; rights and interest solemnly guaranteed by the Philippine Bill of Rights, and justice in this town will not be administered in accordance with law. That on account of the wrongful discharge of his office and of his bad conducts as such justice of the peace, previous to this time, some respectable citizens of this town of Macabebe were compelled to present an administrative case against the said Roman Punsalan Serrano before the judge of first instance of Pampanga, in which case there were made against him various charges which were true and certain and of different characters. That after the said administrative case was over, the said justice of the peace, far from charging his bad and despicable conduct, which has roused the indignation of this town of Macabebe, subsequently performed the acts abovementioned, as stated in the affidavits herewith attached, as if intending to mock at the people and to show his mistaken valor and heroism.' All of this has been written and published by the accused with deliberate purpose of attacking the virtue, honor, and reputation of the justice of the peace, Mr. Roman Punsalan Serrano, and thus exposing him to public hatred contempt, and ridicule. All contrary to law. It should be noted that the information omits paragraphs of the petition mentioning the investigation before the judge of first instance, the affidavits upon which based and concluding words, "To the Executive Secretary, through the office of Crossfield and O'Brien." The Honorable Percy M. Moir found all the defendants, with the exception of Felix Fernandez, Juan S. Alfonso, Restituto Garcia, and Manuel Mallari, guilty and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of P10 and one thirty-second part of the costs, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. New attorneys for the defense, coming into the case, after the handing down of the decision, file on December 16, 1916, a motion for a new trial, the principal purpose of which was to retire the objection interposed by the then counsel for the defendants to the admission of Exhibit A consisting of the entire administrative proceedings. The trial court denied the motion. All the defendants, except Melecio S. Sabado and Fortunato Macalino appealed making the following assignments of error: 1. The court erred in overruling the motion of the convicted defendants for a new trial. 2. The court erred in refusing to permit the defendants to retire the objection in advertently interposed by their counsel to the admission in evidence of the expediente administrativo out of which the accusation in this case arose. 3. The court erred in sustaining the objection of the prosecution to the introduction in evidence by the accused of the affidavits upon which the petition forming the basis of the libelous charge was based. 4. The court erred in not holding that the alleged libelous statement was unqualifiedly privileged. 5. The court erred in assuming and impliedly holding that the burden was on the defendants to show that the alleged libelous statements were true and free from malice. 6. The court erred in not acquitting the defendants. 7. The evidence adduced fails to show the guilt of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt. This is especially true of all the defendants, except Felipe Bustos, Dionisio Mallari, and Jose T. Reyes. We have thus far taken it for granted that all the proceedings, administrative and judicial, were properly before this court. As a matter of fact counsel for defendants in the lower court made an improvident objection to the admission of the administrative proceedings on the ground that the signatures were not identified and that the same was immaterial, which objection was partially sustained by the trial court. Notwithstanding this curious situation by reason of which the attorney for the defense attempted to destroy through his objection the very foundation for the justification of his clients, we shall continue to consider all the proceedings as before us. Not indicating specifically the reason for this action, let the following be stated: The administrative proceedings were repeatedly mentioned during the trial. These proceedings were the basis of the accusation, the information, the evidence, and the judgment rendered. The prosecution cannot be understood without knowledge of anterior action. Nothing more unjust could be imagined than to pick out certain words which standing by themselves and unexplained are libelous and then by shutting off all knowledge of facts which would justify these words, to convict the accused. The records in question are attached to the rollo, and either on the ground that the attorneys for the defense retired the objection to the introduction of the administrative proceedings by the prosecution, or that a new trial should have been had because under section 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure "a case may be reopened on account of errors at law committed at the trial," or because of the right of this court to call in such records as are sufficiently incorporated into the complaint and are essential to a determination of the case, or finally, because of our conceded right to take judicial notice of official action in administrative cases and of judicial proceedings supplemental to the basis action, we examine the record as before us, containing not alone the trial for libel, but the proceedings previous to that trial giving rise to it. To this action, the Government can not explain for it was the prosecution which tried to incorporate Exhibit A into the record. With these facts pleading justification, before testing them by certain principles which make up the law of libel and slander, we feel warranted in seizing the opportunity to intrude an introductory and general discussion of freedom of speech and press and assembly and petition in the Philippine Islands. We conceive that the time is ripe thus to clear up certain misapprehensions on the subject and to place these basic rights in their proper light. Turning to the pages of history, we state nothing new when we set down that freedom of speech as cherished in democratic countries was unknown in the Philippine Islands before 1900. A prime cause for revolt was consequently ready made. Jose Rizal in "Filipinas Despues de Cien Años" (The Philippines a Century Hence, pages 62 et seq.) describing "the reforms sine quibus non," which the Filipinos insist upon, said: " The minister, . . . who wants his reforms to be reforms, must begin by declaring the press in the Philippines free and by instituting Filipinos delegates. The Filipino patriots in Spain, through the columns of "La Solidaridad" and by other means invariably in exposing the wants of the Filipino people demanded "liberty of the press, of cults, and associations." (See Mabini, La Revolucion Filipina.) The Malolos Constitution, the work of the Revolutionary Congress, in its Bill of Rights, zealously guarded freedom of speech and press and assembly and petition. Mention is made of the foregoing data only to deduce the proposition that a reform so sacred to the people of these Islands and won at so dear a cost, should now be protected and carried forward as one would protect and preserve the covenant of liberty itself. Next comes the period of American-Filipino cooperative effort. The Constitution of the United States and the State constitutions guarantee to the right of freedom of speech and press and the right of assembly and petition. We are therefore, not surprised to find President McKinley in that Magna Charta of Philippine Liberty, the Instructions to the Second Philippine Commission, of April 7, 1900, laying down the inviolable rule "That no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the rights of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, and the Jones Law, the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, in the nature of organic acts for the Philippines, continued this guaranty. The words quoted are not unfamiliar to students of Constitutional Law, for they are the counterpart of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which the American people demanded before giving their approval to the Constitution. We mention the foregoing facts only to deduce the position never to be forgotten for an instant that the guaranties mentioned are part and parcel of the Organic Law — of the Constitution — of the Philippine Islands. These paragraphs found in the Philippine Bill of Rights are not threadbare verbiage. The language carries with all the applicable jurisprudence of great English and American Constitutional cases. (Kepner vs. U. S. [1904], 195 U. S., 100; Serra vs. Mortiga [1907], 204 U. S., 470.) And what are these principles? Volumes would inadequately answer. But included are the following: The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Completely liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and the dignity of the individual be exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as the individual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be born for the common good. Rising superior to any official or set of officials, to the Chief of Executive, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary — to any or all the agencies of Government — public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy. (See the well considered cases of Wason vs. Walter, 4 L. R. 4 Q. B., 73; Seymour vs. Butterworth, 3F. and F., 372; The Queen vs. Sir R. Carden, 5 Q. B. D., 1) The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. The administration of the law is a matter of vital public concern. Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is, therefore, a fit subject for proper comment. If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public officer, public opinion will be effectively muzzled. Attempted terrorization of public opinion on the part of the judiciary would be tyranny of the basest sort. The sword of Damocles in the hands of a judge does not hang suspended over the individual who dares to assert his prerogative as a citizen and to stand up bravely before any official. On the contrary, it is a duty which every one owes to society or to the State to assist in the investigation of any alleged misconduct. It is further the duty of all who know of any official dereliction on the part of a magistrate or the wrongful act of any public officer to bring the facts to the notice of those whose duty it is to inquire into and punish them. In the words of Mr. Justice Gayner, who contributed so largely to the law of libel. "The people are not obliged to speak of the conduct of their officials in whispers or with bated breath in a free government, but only in a despotism." (Howarth vs. Barlow [1906], 113 App. Div., N. Y., 510.) The right to assemble and petition is the necessary consequence of republican institutions and the complement of the part of free speech. Assembly means a right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs. Petition means that any person or group of persons can apply, without fear of penalty, to the appropriate branch or office of the government for a redress of grievances. The persons assembling and petitioning must, of course, assume responsibility for the charges made. Public policy, the welfare of society, and the orderly administration of government have demanded protection for public opinion. The inevitable and incontestable result has been the development and adoption of the doctrine of privilege. The doctrine of privileged communications rests upon public policy, 'which looks to the free and unfettered administration of justice, though, as an incidental result, it may in some instances afford an immunity to the evil-disposed and malignant slanderer.' (Abbott vs. National Bank of Commerce, Tacoma [1899], 175 U. S., 409, 411.) Privilege is classified as either absolute or qualified. With the first, we are not concerned. As to qualified privilege, it is as the words suggest a prima facie privilege which may be lost by proof of malice. The rule is thus stated by Lord Campbell, C. J. A communication made bona fide upon any subject-matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which has a duty, is privileged, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, although it contained criminatory matter which without this privilege would be slanderous and actionable. (Harrison vs. Bush, 5 E. and B., 344; 1 Jur.[N. S.], 846; 25 L. J. Q. B., 25; 3 W. R., 474; 85 E. C. L., 344.) A pertinent illustration of the application of qualified privilege is a complaint made in good faith and without malice in regard to the character or conduct of a public official when addressed to an officer or a board having some interest or duty in the matter. Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual. But the statements must be made under an honest sense of duty; a self-seeking motive is destructive. Personal injury is not necessary. All persons have an interest in the pure and efficient administration of justice and of public affairs. The duty under which a party is privileged is sufficient if it is social or moral in its nature and this person in good faith believes he is acting in pursuance thereof although in fact he is mistaken. The privilege is not defeated by the mere fact that the communication is made in intemperate terms. A further element of the law of privilege concerns the person to whom the complaint should be made. The rule is that if a party applies to the wrong person through some natural and honest mistake as to the respective functions of various officials such unintentional error will not take the case out of the privilege. In the usual case malice can be presumed from defamatory words. Privilege destroy that presumption. The onus of proving malice then lies on the plaintiff. The plaintiff must bring home to the defendant the existence of malice as the true motive of his conduct. Falsehood and the absence of probable cause will amount to proof of malice. (See White vs. Nicholls [1845], 3 How., 266.) A privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice or falsity. Such excessive scrutiny would defeat the protection which the law throws over privileged communications. The ultimate test is that of bona fides. (See White vs. Nicholls [1845], 3 How., 266; Bradley vs. Heath [1831], 12 Pick. [Mass.], 163; Kent vs. Bongartz [1885], 15 R. I., 72; Street Foundations of Legal Liability, vol. 1, pp. 308, 309; Newell, Slander and Libel, various citations; 25 Cyc. pages 385 et seq.) Having ascertained the attitude which should be assumed relative to the basic rights of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition, having emphasized the point that our Libel Law as a statute must be construed with reference to the guaranties of our Organic Law, and having sketched the doctrine of privilege, we are in a position to test the facts of this case with these principles. It is true that the particular words set out in the information, if said of a private person, might well be considered libelous per se. The charges might also under certain conceivable conditions convict one of a libel of a government official. As a general rule words imputing to a judge or a justice of the peace dishonesty or corruption or incapacity or misconduct touching him in his office are actionable. But as suggested in the beginning we do not have present a simple case of direct and vicious accusations published in the press, but of charges predicated on affidavits made to the proper official and thus qualifiedly privileged. Express malice has not been proved by the prosecution. Further, although the charges are probably not true as to the justice of the peace, they were believed to be true by the petitioners. Good faith surrounded their action. Probable cause for them to think that malfeasance or misfeasance in office existed is apparent. The ends and the motives of these citizens— to secure the removal from office of a person thought to be venal — were justifiable. In no way did they abuse the privilege. These respectable citizens did not eagerly seize on a frivolous matter but on instances which not only seemed to them of a grave character, but which were sufficient in an investigation by a judge of first instance to convince him of their seriousness. No undue publicity was given to the petition. The manner of commenting on the conduct of the justice of the peace was proper. And finally the charges and the petition were submitted through reputable attorneys to the proper functionary, the Executive Secretary. In this connection it is sufficient to note that justices of the peace are appointed by the Governor-General, that they may be removed by the Governor-General upon the recommendation of a Judge of First Instance, or on the Governor-General's own motion, and that at the time this action took place the Executive Bureau was the office through which the Governor-General acted in such matter. (See Administrative Code of 1917, secs. 203 and 229, in connection with the cases of U. S. vs. Galesa [1915], 31 Phil., 365, and of Harrison vs. Bush, 5 E. and B., 344, holding that where defendant was subject to removal by the sovereign, a communication to the Secretary of State was privileged.) The present facts are further essentially different from those established in other cases in which private individuals have been convicted of libels of public officials. Malice, traduction, falsehood, calumny, against the man and not the officer, have been the causes of the verdict of guilty. (See U. S. vs. Senado [1909], 14 Phil., 338, 339; U. S. vs. Contreras [1912], 23 Phil., 513; U. S. vs. Montalvo [1915], 29 Phil., 595.) The Attorney-General bases his recommendation for confirmation on the case of the United States vs. Julio Bustos ([1909], 13 Phil., 690). The Julio Bustos case, the Attorney-General says, is identical with the Felipe Bustos case, with the exception that there has been more publicity in the present instance and that the person to whom the charge was made had less jurisdiction than had the Secretary of Justice in the Julio Bustos case. Publicity is immaterial if the charge against Punsalan is in fact a privileged communication. Moreover, in the Julio Bustos case we find wild statements, with no basis in fact, made against reputable members of the judiciary, "to persons who could not furnish protection." Malicious and untrue communications are not privileged. A later case and one more directly in point to which we invite especial attention is United States vs. Galeza ([1915], 31 Phil., 365). (Note alsoYancey vs. Commonwealth [1909], 122 So. W., 123.) We find the defendants and appellants entitled to the protection of the rules concerning qualified privilege, growing out of constitutional guaranties in our bill of rights. Instead of punishing citizens for an honest endeavor to improve the public service, we should rather commend them for their good citizenship. The defendants and appellants are acquitted with the costs de officio. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Araullo, Street, and Fisher, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions CARSON, J., concurring: I concur. I think it proper to observe, however, that in my opinion the Attorney-General is entirely correct when he says that this case is substantially identical with the former "Bustos case (The United States vs. Bustos, 13 Phil. Rep., 690). I believe that a careful reading of our decisions in these cases is sufficient to demonstrate that fact. The truth is that the doctrine of the prevailing opinion in the former Bustos case has long since been abandoned by this court; and in my opinion it would make for the more efficient administration of the Libel Law in these Islands to say so, in so many words. (Cf. U. S. vs. Sedano, [1909], 14 Phil. Rep., 338, 339; U. S. vs. Contreras [1912], 23 Phil. Rep., 513; U. S. vs. Montalvo [1915], 29 Phil. Rep., 595; and U. S. vs. Galeza [1915], 31 Phil. Rep., 365.)