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.)

Roque Files Bill Protecting Spratlys and establishing Spratlys Development Authority

CREDIT:en.wikipedia.org Roque Files Bill Protecting Spratlys and establishing Spratlys Development Authority OFFICE OF REP. HARRY L. ROQUE     PRESS RELEASE 07 AUGUST 2016 REFERENCE: REP. HARRY L. ROQUE     HARRY ROQUE FILES BILLS DECLARING SPRATLYS AS PROTECTED AREA, CREATING SPRATLYS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY   Kabayan Party-list Representative Harry L. Roque has filed two bills seeking to declare the Spratly Group of Islands a protected area under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992 and creating the Spratlys Development Authority.   In his explanatory notes, Roque said the bills were “filed in order to strengthen the Philippines’ claim of sovereignty and sovereign rights over the Spratly group of islands and its maritime areas, a region that contains vast amounts of natural resources – including oil and gas and fisheries – vital to the growth and development of the Philippines.”   “To prevent the further denigration of the marine and environmental resources within the island group, the State must establish the Spratlys as a protected area, granting it both the mantle of protection under Philippine laws and the Constitution, to allow the government to properly assess and administer the area, consistent with the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling in the South China Sea Arbitration case,” he said.   “To maximize the use and conservation of such resources, a development authority should be tasked to administer the area, following the success of the various conversion authorities under Republic Act 7227,” he added.   The Spratly NIPAS bill seeks to declare the Spratlys as Spratly Islands Resource reserve, with the islands classified as a national park, and its peripheral areas as buffer zone.   The Spratly Islands Conversion Authority (SICA), meanwhile, will have jurisdiction over the Spratlys and will be tasked to “adopt, prepare and implement a comprehensive and detailed development plan embodying a list of projects for a sound and balanced development consistent with ecological and environmental standards.”   The SICA will also have the power to plan, program and undertake the readjustment, relocation, or resettlement of population within the Spratly group of islands as may be deemed necessary, in coordination with the appropriate government agencies and local government units.   Roque filed the bills after the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling in favor of the Philippines the status of many features in the contested Spratly islands and Scarborough Shoal with both scientific and legal criteria, in relation to a resource-rich Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf.

32ND PERSUASIVE APPEAL_PETITION THAT AN ORDER BE ISSUED STRIKING OUT OF THE RANKING RECORD

PETITION THAT AN ORDER BE ISSUED REQUIRING SHELL TO STRIKE OUT ANTONIO BUENSUCESO’S RANKING RECORD FOR BEING RIGGED, WRONGFUL AND WHIMSICAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE, DISCIPLINARY, CRIMINAL AND/OR CIVIL CASE WHEN APPLICABLE

COUP D' ETAT AGAINST DUTERTE NOT POSSIBLE :HERE'S THE REASON WHY

CREDIT: PHILSTAR.COM VIDEO CREDIT: CNN PHILIPPINES

31ST_PERSUASIVE APPEAL_WHEN WRONGS PREVAIL OVER RIGHTS, CORRUPTION EXISTS

JUSTICE IS ILLUSORY "We cannot move forward, if we allow the past to pull us back. Finger pointing is not the way that is why I will not waste precious time dwelling on the scenes of the past or blaming those who are perceived to be responsible to the mess that we are in and suffering from except, maybe extract a lesson or two from its errors. We will not tarry because it is the present that we are concerned with and the future that we should be prepared for. Let it not be misunderstood that, is to say clearly that those who betrayed the peoples' trust shall not go unpunished and they will have their day in court and if the evidence warrant they will have a day of reckoning too. When I decided to seek the presidency of this republic, I knew, what the ills of the country were. I knew their causes and I was briefed on those caused the causes. I heard the people on the streets complained that justice has become illusory; that equity and fairness and speedy disposition of cases had deteriorated into hallow concepts fit only for masteral dissertation. It was and is very sad indeed.  As a former prosecutor I know there will always be ways of knowing how fast or how slow cases go. What I did was to look into the number of postponements and the time difference between each postponement and the next setting. It was as simple as that. I will appreciate deeply if we all in government attend to this urgent need. I was determined then and better positioned to wage war against those who make a mockery of our laws including those who make life for us all miserable. I wish to assure everyone though, that vindictiveness is not in my system just... just like you and I we all want equal treat and equal protection are what I asked for all our people. But we must have the courage to fight for what we believe in and deterred by the fear of failing or losing. Indeed, courage knows no limits..cowardice does." _PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE FIRST STATE OF THE NATION ADDRESS 25JULY 2016 JULY 25, 2016  SALUTATION Dear Chief Justice Sereno, et al:                                        MESSAGE CORRUPTION Corruption is to the human society and toxin is to the human body. Human interactions like blood being pumped through the heart then to the brain and to vital  organs of the human body through the largest and smallest arteries and veins and had to be  constantly cleaned by the kidney out of toxins in normal healthy functioning body vis-a-vis vibrant human society.   Today, the human body is sick. His blood is seriously contaminated with toxins but his kidney had failed and the human body is dying.  So with  the Philippine society.  Good that  the Philippines  found a kidney and a surgeon rolled into one in the person of President Duterte.  As a kidney, he has  processed fresh blood which liven up hope and fulfillment of peoples' aspirations for an honest and responsive government, where in the past had just been a pile of continuing years of toxic  frustration and angst and disillusionment. and hopelessness and despair. As a surgeon,  he is trained  to determine when the wound could still be treated by antiseptics or antibiotics or has to be managed by amputation or castration. Your honors, the choice is yours to make. Corruption has to be stopped, said the surgeon, clear and straightforward.  The president, with his several years as prosecutor and fiscal and a professor in criminal law is not brainless or ignorant to whom you can hide your corruption and crimes from. The president as a surgeon has the capacity of extricating gangrenes, shallow and deep alike and with all due respect, you may want to reform yourselves to revitalize the judicial institution which had been in the rotten state of decay and decomposition then do it  or  you might as well stay put and keep the your malignant disease gangrenes of corruption and be extricated yourselves in due time.  As the president in a number of speeches had warned the Abu Sayaff, "There will days of reckoning..."  the same is aptly I believe he may have wanted be addressed to you. Corruption, your honors, as I experienced dealing with you and the rest of your employees had been part of the normal daily chores of doing judicial business in the Supreme Court. Corruption is rampant.  Everyone else is corrupt.  Corruption in the Supreme Court like trash,  is noticeable when there is one in a clean environment.  Even one as minute as a cigarette butt is easy to pinpoint when it, as I reiterate, is in a clean environment .  But when trash and garbage and filth abounds everywhere, no one could ever know though tons more are added to them.  That is the reality in the Philippine Supreme Court, perception of uprightness are mere cosmetics and products of their own self adulation, in contrast with their malignant crookedness and corruption. Filth abounds everywhere, as corruption is.  The Philippine Supreme Court as the emperor of filth propagation  occupies the throne from which power to the grandiose rubbish machinery emanates.  A machinery,  though reprehensible to the morally upright man,  has been allowed to operate, licensed under the doctrine of presumption of regularity.  This doctrine cloaked magistrates with enormous discretionary power to uphold or disregard the constitution or the law at will or bend the rules depending in who the client they would want to serve.  So sometimes, their decisions seemed to look constitutionally or lawfully right or in some cases but not few, often they ridiculously and stealthily did incorporate a new provision in the constitution to comply with the needs of their client and the same is equally true with the same evil motive when these justices spitefully legislated a new law  from the bench entirely contrary to the existing  law through the skillful manipulation of meticulously applied rhetorics in jurisprudence coupled with voluminous citations from various books in law and courts in the United States and all over the globe, where not one in a million people would not have the interest or patience even bother to read or least look at it and just accept it.  Or, and if ever there would be one who would see truth on the contrary nobody would ever listen to him,  no difference with the child who asserted that the emperor is wearing nothing or naked inconsistent with the elders' credit:TES.COM pretentious acceptance of the lie that the emperor is wearing a majestic new clothing which wont be visible to men unfit for their position or stupid. The emperor and the elders naturally wanted to appear fit for their position or not lacking intelligence, though they really are but wanted to continue receiving perks and benefits meant for the fit and intelligent, they blindly accepted the myth espoused by the emperor's new clothes. That is corruption told through tale during the ancient times being reenacted, true to life here, in the Philippine Supreme Court.  The Justices as the emperor exceedingly fond of vanity and insatiable greed had swindled themselves into believing that the robes they are wearing, the robes of the presumption of regularity are no less than the emperor's new clothes where corruption hidden underneath though in reality are visible but justices  and other guardians of law pretended they see not for they are wearing the same robes and benefiting therefrom,  thereby creating a community founded on deceit and corruption..... from top to bottom ...everywhere. Shell,  based on  the verified documents I presented here is an expert in the field of deception and corruption.  I have no doubts that Shell shrewd as it actually is have anchored its roots within the community of corrupt arbiters, commissioners and justices thriving in the judiciary.  I have strong reasons  to believe, that Labor Arbiter (Lontoc) had decided the case the manner she did, on account of her being under the influence of Shell. CORRUPTION is discernible in the manner which L.A. Lontoc decided issues in the controversy with manifested partiality in favor of Shell. [A] PERILOUS ATEMPT BY LABOR ARBITER LONTOC (Lontoc) TO THRASH OUT JURISDICTION FROM HER TO THE PANEL OF VOLUNTARY  ARBITRATORS DEPICTED HER QUESTIONABLE PARTIALITY TO SHELL'S INTEREST Perplexing was the effort exerted by Lontoc in alleging that this case was one not within her but within the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator. This bias appreciation of the issues by Lontoc  was vehemently objected to by the complainant. When she had been not been questioned and Lontoc when had been allowed to pursue her argument that this case should have coursed through voluntary arbitration then she had effectively denied justice from me and ultimately tilted the balance in favor of her covert client SHELL and successfully deliver victory to SHELL.  The fact that she fully knew that in voluntary arbitration there is a need for the participation of the union in the proceedings where she likewise could infer through the information submitted to her that I was conducting an inquiry against them on the possible culpability of the officers of the the union, hence in truth, the union as expected the union never lend me even a bit of help in pursuing this case.  What more can I expect from them.  They have opted to stay away from my predicament, no one knew what force could deliver them to my side. Besides, Lontoc could no longer deny the fact that this case had passed preliminary discussions under the labor arbiter's  jurisdiction and we had been ordered  to submit our position papers and related documents; hence, Lontoc could not later negate that this case is not within her jurisdiction. Moreover, Lontoc needed to revisit   GR No. 138938 :CELESTINO VIVIERO, petioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HAMMONIA MARINE SERVICES and HANSEATIC SHIPPING LTD. respondents  dated October 24, 2000 xxxUnder their CBA both union and respondent companies are responsible for selecting an impartial arbitrator or for convening an arbitration committee, yet it is apparent that neither made a move toward this end. Consequently, petitioner should not be deprived of his legitimate recourse because of the refusal of both union and respondent companies to follow the grievance procedure. Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the case is remanded to the labor arbiter to dispose of the case with dispatch until terminated considering the undue delay already incurred. SO ORDERED. Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., concur. XXX [B] RETIREMENT PAY LAW CIRCUMVENTION IS AN UNLAWFUL ACT BY SHELL AND DESPITE HAVING BEEN OBJECTED TO BY THE COMPLAINANT AND YET LONTOC DID NOT OBJECT THERETO AND ERRONEOUSLY PROMOTED THE SAME IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISION OF THE LAW. Lontoc's outright disregard of the Retirement Pay Law when she saw no irregularity for having not objected to to the disbursement of my retirement pay as payment for separation pay. This is circumvention of the Retirement Pay Law. Republic Act No. 7641, " Violation of this provision is hereby declared unlawful and subject to penal provisions provided under Article 288 of this code."  This unlawful act, exceedingly reprehensible from being a manifestation of grave ignorance of the law, is a brazen display of subservience of the labor arbiter as shown by her acquiescence to Shell's whim to violate the law.  FIGURE B.1  DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF DISBURSEMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY as PAYMENT FOR SEPARATION PAY FIGURE B.2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF LABOR ARBITER LONTOC'S APPROVAL  OF THE DISBURSEMENT OF THE RETIREMENT PAY AS PAYMENT FOR THE SEPARATION PAY AS PROOF OF THE COLLUSION BETWEEN SHELL AND THE LABOR ARBITER TO CIRCUMVENT THE RETIREMENT PAY LAW [C] DECEPTIVE PRESENTATION OF QUITCLAIM OR RELEASE DOCUMENT BY SHELL _ WITH QUESTIONABLE APPROVAL BY LONTOC Lontoc accepted and approved the document Figure C.1(Annex "5") as a bonafide quitclaim document though the document was not verified and despite the fact of the existence of document Figure C.2 (Annex "J") payment of performance related bonus(PRB). If it were true that Annex"5" is a bonafide quitclaim document then Shell should have not paid me my PRB by virtue of Annex"5" as quitclaim document. But,  Shell paid me my PRB 8 months after execution of Annex"5".  Hence,  obviously Annex "5" is not regarded by Shell and myself during the execution of that Annex "5", as a quitclaim document as I had reiterated in my pleading,  but  those are just attestations on the money or mere receipts of the amounts I received from Shell and consequently,  not being having an effect of a  valid release or quit claim document. FIGURE C.1 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SHELL SHOWING ANNEX "5" AS QUITCLAIM DOCUMENT FIGURE C.2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SHELL SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT PERFORMANCE  RELATED BONUS DATED OCTOBER 23, 2003 PROVING THAT DOCUMENT ANNEX "5" IS NOT A QUITCLAIM OR RELEASE DOCUMENT FIGURE C.3 PART OF THE NLRC RESOLUTION SHOWING NO OBJECTION TO THE DEED OF THE QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE DOCUMENT IN FAVOR OF SHELL WHERE IN FACT IT HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATIONS CONTAINED THERIN SAYING I AM WAIVING MY RIGHTS AGAINST OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST SHELL. SINCE IN FACT, FIGURE D.1 ANNEX 5 IS NOT A VERIFIED DOCUMENT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THAT SHELL AND I HAD NO INTENTION TO KEEP FIGURE D.2 ANNEX 5 AS A QUITCLAIM DOCUMENT AS CAN BE DEDUCED FROM THE EXISTENCE OF ANNEX "J" FIGURE C.2 PAYMENT OF MY PERFORMANCE RELATED BONUS ON OCTOBER 23, 2003 EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE EXISTENCE OF ANNEX 5, A FACT THAT CLEARLY DETERMINED THAT ANNEX 5 FUNCTIONED NOT AS A QUITCLAIM DOCUMENT BUT MERE RECEIPTS OF AMOUNTS I RECEIVED FROM SHELL. FIGURE D.1  FULL PAGE VIEW WHERE THE JOB SECURITY PROVISION OF THE CBA IS SHOWN                                   [E] THE  FACT SHELL CLOSED AN OLD PLANT THEN OPENED A NEW ONE IS UNDISPUTED AND IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT SHELL TERMINATED EMPLOYEES THEN HIRED NEW ONES, LIKEWISE IS TRUE, INCONSISTENT WITH ALLEGATIONS OF REDUNDANCY WHICH LONTOC ON ACCOUNT OF HER PARTIALITY TO SHELL INTERESTS POSED NO OBJECTION THERETO. FIGURE E.1 FIGURE F.1 Notice " Minutes of LMC  Meeting 05 April 2002" on the footnote FIGURE F.2  LABOR MANAGEMENT COOPERATION MEETING. PLEASE NOTICE THE  DATE APRIL 5, 2002.  MY PETITION FOR SALARY  ADJUSTMENT WAS NOT EXISTING YET. F.3 ANNEX "D" PETITION FOR SALARY RATE ADJUSTMENT WRITTEN ON JULY 15, 2002.  THIS PETITION EXISTED MONTHS AFTER THE LMC MEETING DATED APRIL 15, 2002 [G] LONTOC DELIBERATELY DISTORTED FACTS IN FAVOR OF SHELL  BY WRONGLY CITING THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS RESIGNING IN CONTRARY TO THE TRUE FACT THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS "RETIRING" AT THE SOLE OPTION OF THE COMPANY. BY CITING THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS RESIGNING. THE ARBITER BIASED AS SHE WAS TO SHELL'S  INTEREST, HAD DECEITFULLY SHOWN  THATSHELL HAD GENEROUS INTENTIONS TOWARD THE COMPLAINANT  BY SHOWING Pesos 2,075,893.27 in favor of reorganization compared to Pesos 312,214.77 of indebtedness per column under resignation. WHERE IN FACT,  the complainant would be not be drawn to indebtedness as he would be receiving the same amount Pesos 2,075,893.27 since the complainant is retiring and not resigning. THE ARBITER HERSELF BECAME A WILLING ACCOMPLICE OF SHELL  IN THE CRIME OF ROBBING THE COMPLAINANT OF HIS RETIREMENT PAY.  HENCE,  LONTOC SHOULD HAVE BEEN WARNED REPRIMANDED AND DISCIPLINED. [H] The OIL DEREGULATION LAW which Shell laments that giving financial o economic difficulties to the company which caused them to close an old plant and terminate employees is a huge lie. Instead, the mentioned law is a big help to them ..  We can see that for every increase in costs of doing business like the increase in the crude oil price in the world market they can adjust the price of their petroleum products. They were given the prerogative to set their prices to a level enough to recover loses and ensure business viability.  In other words, the oil deregulation law is their protection against  losses and never it could cause any financial difficulty on them [I] FIGURE I.1 DEMOLITION SERVICE PURCHASE ORDER FIGURE I.2 DEMOLITION CONTRACT FIGURE I.3 DEMOLITION PICTURES [J] PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SCAM NOTE : DIRECT EXCERPT FROM MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED 30 OCTOBER 2008 9.1 Yun pong usapin sa PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SCHEME na tinawag ko pong PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SCAM isa pong nakabalatkayong extortion racket ng SHELL na ang biktima ay ang kaawa-awang kawani na binigyan ng AWARD mismo. Sa simula po ng bawat taon, kaming mga kawani ay sinasabihan ng mga boss namin na magperfect attendance. Ibig sabihin po ay vacation leave lang ang aming gagamitin kung kailangan namin ng leave. Huwag ang sick leave kahit na kami ay may sakit , at huwag din ang emergency o personal leave kahit pa dinala mo ang anak mo sa hospital. Kung ang empleado ay sumunod sa tagubilin siya ay bibigyan ng PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD (isang bondpaper) at isang G.E. flat iron (PLANTSA) at isang pamBOBOlang pangako na promotion sa trabaho. Kung hindi naman sinunod ng kawani ang tagubilin, ang kawani ay kakausapin, pagsasabihan at tatakutin na ibibitin ang promotion o ililipat sa ibang job assignment na mahihirapan ang kawani. Walang magawa ang mga kawani kundi sumunod na mag-perfect attendance kahit labag sa loob. Baka po nais ninyong malaman kung gaano kalaki ang nakukuhang kotong ng SHELL sa scam na ito ?Natalakay ko na po ito sa mga dokumento na nai-submit ko sa mga nakaraang hukuman sa wikang Ingles po lamang, ngayon po sa wika po natin. Kaming mga kawani po ay mayroong personal/emergency leave na 5 araw at 15 araw na sick leave. Nakuha po namin yun sa aming CBA. Eto po ang rule nila : HINDI po naming maaring gamitin ang mga naturang leaves upang maging perfect attendance awardee. Ang bawat awardee ay hindi gumamit ng 5 araw na personal/emergency leave at 15 araw na sick leave. Ang mga leaves na ito ay ipo-forfeit ng SHELL. Opo, pino-forfeit po ng SHELL. Ibig sabihin po, ay 20 araw na trabaho ang kinokotong sa kanya ng SHELL. Sa dahilan pong hindi siya lumiban sa trabaho hindi po nangailangan ng kanyang kahalili na sana ay babayaran ng SHELL ng 20 araw at karagdagan pong 10 araw para sa overtime. Sa madaling salita, ang bawat awardee ay nagbibigay sa SHELL ng may halagang 50 araw na kapakinabangan. Bakit naman po tinumbasan lang ng isang papel, isang plantsa at pamBOBOla ? Kung hindi po sinunod bakit kailangan pang ang kawani ay kausapin, pagsabihan at takuting hindi ipo-promote o dili kaya ay ililipat sa ibang mas mahirap na job assignment ? Ang hiling ko po at ng iba pa naming mga kawani, ay commensurate award, at least mga 20 araw rin lang po. Ngunit naging manhid po ang SHELL sa aming hiling at nananatili ang extortion racket na ito hanggang ngayon. Ang katinuan po ng sistemang ito ang mahaba ko nang panahong ipinaglalaban hanggang sa taong 2000, nasabi ko sa kanila at sa aking mga kasama sa SHELL na hindi ko puputulin ang aking buhok para lagi ng maala-ala ng lahat na may mga kawaning patuloy na nagnanais ng katinuan sa PERFECT ATTENDANCE SCHEME. Bago pa po lubusang humaba ang buhok ko, Year 2003, sinibak na po ako. FIGURE J.1 PETITION FOR SANITY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SYSTEM [K] MISSING CBA NEGOTIATION MEETINGS INQUIRY DIRECT EXCERPT FROM THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED 30 OCTOBER 2008,  WHERE,  FROM THE LABOR ARBITER THROUGH THE NLRC, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE SUPREME COURT,   THIS TELL TALE SIGNS OF BREWING CORRUPTION HAD BEEN DELIBERATELY IGNORED UP TO THE PRESENT TIMES. 9.2 Ang aking pong INQUIRY sa nawawalang minutes of CBA negotiations meetings na kung saan pinag-usapan ang paksang pang - economic o pasuweldo ay hindi rin po nabigyang halaga at lubusang pag-aararal ng mga pinagdaanang hukuman. Na, kung ito po ay nabigyan daan na busisiin, matutunghayan po nila, na itong natapos na CBA ay punong-puno ng hinihinalang anomalya at controversiya, dahil sa bukod sa itinago nila ang minutes tungkol dito ay, inalisan pa nila nang dalawang NON-OFFICER union member na tumatayong bantay o witness sa negotiation. Ang TRANSPARENCY sa gaganaping negotiation ay alam naming mga kasapi sa unyon na KAILANGAN kaya po ninais naming makapag-formulate ngGROUND RULES for the CONDUCT OF NEGOTIATIONS silang mga opisyales ng unyon at management panel. Kasama po rito ang requirement ng MINUTES at dalawang NON-OFFICER union member bilang witness . Ang GROUND RULES pong ito ay hiniling naming mga kasapi sa unyon, naisulat at napagkasunduan at sinunod ng buong husay noong pag-usapan ay non-economic benefits, ngunit noong pag-usapan ang pasueldo, ay nabalutan ito ng hinihinalang kabuktutan at misteryo. Ang kaganapang ito ay nagbunsod ng matinding pagdududa sa kadalisayan, kalinisan ng ginanap na negotiation. Lalo pa nga po, noong makalipas ang isa O dalawang linggo na matapos ang CBA ay pinagkalooban ng SHELL ng isang marangyang piging ang mga opisyal ng unyon sa isang kilalang Hotel sa Makati. Ganoon din po, makalipas ang isa O dalawang buwan, ang dalawa pong mataas na lider ng unyon ay pumunta sa SINGAPORE at sa THAILAND na company sponsored trip, sinabi po nilang seminar o training. Marami pong lalo ang naghihinala sa mga misteryong nakapaloob dito at sila ay nagsimulang magsiyasat at magtanong-tanong at ang pormal na INQUIRY ay sinimulan ko. Dapat sana ay natuklasan ang dahilan kung bakit na kung kailan na mayroong INQUIRY o pagsisiyasat sa maaring pandaraya o kabuktutan naganap sa nakatapos na CBA negotiations, kung kailan naman ako tinanggal sa trabaho. Hindi kaya nais lamang ng kumpanya na matigil na itong pagsisiyasat sa dahilang baka matuklasan ang kanilang mga pagkakasala at natakot sa kanilang pananagutan kapag ang mga iyon ay napatunayan. At upang mahinto ang INQUIRY ay naisip nilang tangalin ako. Sinibak nga nila ako. 9.3 Lubos rin po, ang aming pagtataka nang ang mga suliraning pang-unyon ay kinaligtaan nang harapin ng mga lider ng unyon, tulad ng suliranin ng ilang kawani na pinagkaitang pagkalooban ng PRB(performance related bonus) at ang napapabalitang tanggalan sa trabaho. Wala silang ginawa para tulungan ang mga kawawang kasapi upang ipagtanggol ang mga karapatan ng mga ito. 9.4 Manapay, magkahalong pagtataka at pagdududa ang nabubuo sa aming mga damdamin nang may isang kasapi na naglakas loob na simulan o gawin ang mga hakbang upang ang mga suliraning iyon ay lutasin, ay siya pa nila itong ginipit, sinikil at pinabayaan, pinagkaitan ng kanyang karapatan sa "due process", (his petition for maximum salary rate adjustment was deliberately ignored, no hearing about his petition was ever conducted inspite of his persistent follow-ups) at nang ang kawaning ito ay tanggalin, ang mga lider na iyon ay hindi kumilos upang ang karapatang iyon at ang "job security of tenure" ng pobreng kasapi ay ipagtanggol. 9.5 Bago po maganap ang KONTOBERSYAL CBA NEGOTIATION MEETING tungkol sa pasueldo ay nakikita namin ang lubos na katapatan sa tungkulin ang mga sinasabing punong opisyales ng unyon. Ngunit, nang muli silang humarap sa amin matapos ang pagpupulong na naganap sa kung saang yungib ng kadiliman, ay ang mga kasapi na ngayon ang mistulang kanilang kalaban. Hindi po naming mapaniwalaan na kayang tanggapin ng kanilang mga konsyensa na gamitin nila ang kanilang kapangyarihan sa pansarili nilang kapakinabanagan, tulad ng pagkakaloob sa kanilang mga sarili ng taas sa sueldong 10% ng kanilang mas malalaking basic pay, habang may mga kasaping maliit na nga ang basic pay, ay nabigyan lang ng 3% . Ang panglalamang o panggugulang na ito ay labis ang naging pasakit sa mga kasaping nasa mas mabababang posisyon na lubhang naapi sa pagkakataong iyon. Dahil roon ako ay gumawa ng isang tula, alay ko sa mga kaawa-awang inapi ng mga pinunong inaakala nila na mangangalaga ng kanilang karapatan. Heto po ang tula: KATIPUNAN SA BAGONG PANAHON 1 Naalaala mo pa ga, si Andres Bonifacio ? Pilipino taga Tondo, sa Katipunan siya ang Supremo Matatawa ka kung isang tulad nito Ang wikain niya sa mga tao: 2 May tig-isang cedula tayo Ang akin pupunitin ko Punitin rin ninyo ang sa inyo Sa labanang sasabanahin natin Kontra sa mga Kastilang mapang-alipin Eh, maagaw natin ang kaldero ng kanin, Tandaan ninyo ang aking bilin: Sa inyo ang bahaw, sa akin ang bagong saing. Sigawan ang mga katipunero, mabuhay ang Supremo! Sa palakat na usbaw at sirang ulo. 3 Eh, paano naman Supremo ang pang-ulam Siempre pag may kanin dapat may pang-ulam Halimbawa po ay isda, tulad ng galunggong Ang sagot niya ay "Tinatanong pa ba iyan ? Natural akin ang katawan, sa inyo ang ulo, buntot at tiyan." Sigawan ang mga katipunero, mabuhay ang Supremo! Sa tonong sinto-sinto at mukhang naloko. 4 Bakit naman po galunggong, cheap naman po noon. May Kastila ga namang kumakain ng galunggong? Siempre wala kundi makolesterol na litson. Ani ng Supremo, "Aba, eh, madali iyan". Sabay ang kayat ang laway. "Sa akin ang kalamnan at sipsipin ninyo, Ang mga buto-buto at ang pantuhog na kawayan." Sigawan ang mga katipunero, mabuhay ang Supremo! Sa tunog na uto, at parang nagoyo. Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr. 21September2001. FIGURE K.1 FIGURE K.2 CBA NEGOTIATIONS MINUTES OF MEETING SHOULD BE DULY RECORDED FIGURE K.3 Moreover, I reiterated these manifestations and complaint  on Atty. Quiroz disbarment[10] AC-10084, administrative case. As in my previous persuasive appeal, the president, in case you deny the veracity of his observations and continued to preserve the status quo for your own client and personal benefit and interest and relentlessly resumed your corrupt and wicked ways and farther fanned the flames engulfing the remaining pillars of faith the people have in you, then, he may,  as expected resort to the political options of impeachment as  means to catapult reforms in the judicial system as maybe necessary.   In this regard,  you may want to re-evaluate your position regarding the manner you are treating me.  Your Honors, I am showing you four (4) pages documents  3 of which refers to your decision on GR-183273, and 1 page on your decision on AC No. 10084. May I most respectfully offer you this chance to redeem yourselves and show the Filipino people that you are not acting in collusion with Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, Rico Bersamin, Edward Geus, Atty. Raul Quiroz, Atty. Emiterio Manibog, and Atty. Joy Anne Leong-Pambid to perpetuate the pain and suffering and injustice that you altogether prevailed and casted upon me and my family.   GR-183273 DECISION AC-10084 DECISION Time is on my side. Every ticks file up to my benefit as it amounts to prolonged and sustained pain and injury and suffering, that you deliberately,  with evil motive,  meant and intended against me and my family and convincingly serve as evidence of collusion between you and Shell being having unity of purpose,  through your grave abuse of discretion and deliberate gross inexcusable negligence, to perpetuate the injustice,  pain and suffering to my family and myself which we are are experiencing since 2003 up to the present time. May you be guided by the following: "SEC 200_  Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will impower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable, that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father's estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brothers portions? or that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbour? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason, for rapine and oppression, which the endamaging another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation of it: for the exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great, than in a petty officer; no more justifiable in a king than a constable; but is so much the worse in him, in that he has more trust put in him, has already a much greater share than the rest of his brethren, and is supposed, from the advantages of his education, employment, and counsellors, to be more knowing in the measures of right and wrong."         _ John Locke : Second Treatise of Civil Government,           Chapter xviii : Of  Tyranny May this message serves as the 31ST PERSUASIVE APPEAL for you to reconsider your position with respect to your appreciation of cases GR-183273 and AC-10084 and institute through your own volition disciplinary actions against erring guardians of law in relation to the cases mentioned as preliminary to showing convincing evidences proving that the court is not acting in collusion with Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation,  its officers and managers its legal counsels, jointly and severally,  to perpetuate pain and suffering and  injustice against me and my family. Otherwise, you all, are in admission of the act of collusion between Shell, her officers and managers, her lawyers and you, having unity of purpose,  to perpetuate injustice, pain and suffering against me and my family, and betrayed the public trust through grave abuse of discretion, evident bad faith and partiality, and guilty as charged. Sincerely, Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.