Quantcast
Channel: Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
Viewing all 4572 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES

September 30, 2015, 6:06 pm
$
0
0




"x x x.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES 

By:

DULAY PAGUNSAN and TY LAW OFFICES
Strata 100 Building, Suite 1300, F. Ortigas Jr. Road,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1605


1. How does the Philippines define foreign corporations? 

Foreign corporations has been defined as one, which owes its existence to the laws of another state, and generally, has no legal existence within another state. Section 123 of the Corporation Code defines a foreign corporation as one formed, organized, and existing under any laws other than those of the Philippines and whose laws allow Filipino citizens and corporations to do business in the Philippines. 

2. What is the general policy of the government for foreign investments? 

The Philippine government is encouraging foreign investors to invest in the country with businesses that will provide opportunities in employment, develop the productivity of resources, heighten the volume as well as the value of exports and provide the future development of the economy’s foundation. 

3. Can a foreign company invest in the Philippines? 

Yes. The Foreign Investment Act (R.A. 7042, 1991, amended by R.A. 8179, 1996) liberalized the entry of foreign investment into the Philippines. Under the FIA, foreign investors are generally treated like their domestic counterparts and must register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (in the case of a corporation or partnership) or with the Department of Trade and Industry’s Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection (in the case of a sole proprietorship). 

4. What is the percentage of foreign equity allowed under the FIA? 

With the liberalization of the foreign investment law, 100% foreign equity may be allowed in all areas of investment except those reserved for Filipinos under the Philippine Constitution and existing laws. 

5. What are those businesses with foreign investment restrictions? 

Within the 1991 Foreign Investment Act (FIA) there are two negative lists, also known as the “Foreign Investment Negative List”, which defines the foreign investments, Page | 2 which are limited or restricted by the Constitution and specific laws. Negative List A and Negative List B. 

6. What is the coverage of Negative List A? 

In Negative List A, foreign ownership in certain businesses is limited by mandate of the Constitution and specific laws. 

These are: 

No Foreign Equity 

1. Mass Media except recording 
2. Practice of professions 
3. Retail trade enterprises with paid-up capital of not less than US$2,500,000.00 4. Cooperatives 
5. Private Security Agencies 
6. Small-scale Mining 
7. Utilization of Marine Resources in archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone 
8. Ownership, operation and management of cockpits 
9. Manufacture, repair, stockpiling and/or distribution of nuclear weapons 
10. Manufacture, repair, stockpiling and/or distribution of biological, chemical and radiological weapons and anti-personal mines 
11. Manufacture of firecrackers and other pyrotechnic devices 

Up to Twenty Percent (20%) Foreign Equity 

12. Private radio communication network 

Up to Twenty-Five Percent (25%) Foreign Equity 

13. Private recruitment, whether for local or overseas employment 
14. Contracts for the construction and repair of locally-funded public works, except: 

a. infrastructure/development projects covered in RA 7718; and 
b. projects which are foreign funded or assisted and required to undergo international competitive bidding (Sec. 2(a) of RA 7718) 

15. Contracts for construction of defense-related structure. 

Up to Thirty Percent (30%) Foreign Equity 

16. Advertising 

Up to Forty Percent (40%) Foreign Equity 

17. Exploration, development and utilization of natural resources 
18. Ownership of Private Lands 
19. Operation and management of public utilities 
20. Ownership/establishment and administration of educational institutions 
21. Culture, production, milling, processing, trading excepting retailing, of rice and corn and acquiring, by barter, purchase or otherwise, rice and corn and the byproducts thereof 
22. Contracts for the supply of materials, goods and commodities to governmentowned or controlled corporation, company, agency or Municipal Corporation 
23. Project Proponent and facility Operator of a BOT project requiring a public utilities franchise 
24. Operation of deep-sea commercial fishing vessels 
25. Adjustment Companies 
26. Ownership of condominium units where the common areas in the condominium projects are co-owned by the owners of the separate units or owned by a corporation. 

Up to Sixty Percent (60%) Foreign Equity 

27. Financing companies regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission 28. Investment houses regulated by the SEC 7. 

What is the coverage of Negative List B? 

In Negative List B, foreign ownership in certain business is limited for reason of security, defense, risk to health and morals and protection of small-and-mediumscale enterprises. 

These are: 

Up to Forty Percent (40 %) Foreign Equity 

1. Manufacture, repair, storage and/or distribution of products and/or ingredients requiring Philippine National Police (PNP) clearance: 

a. Firearms (handguns to shotguns), parts of firearms and ammunition therefore, instruments or implements used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms 
b. Gunpowder 
c. Dynamite 
d. Blasting supplies e. Ingredients used in making explosives f. Telescopic sight, sniper scope and other similar devices 

2. Manufacture, repair, storage and/or distribution of products requiring Department of National Defense (DND) clearance; 

a. Guns and ammunition for warfare 
b. Military ordnance and parts thereof (e.g., torpedoes, depth charges,  bombs, grenades, missiles) 
c. Gunnery, bombing and fire control systems and components 
d. Guided missiles/missile systems and components 
e. Tactical aircraft (fixed and rotary -winged), parts and components thereof 
f. Space vehicles and component systems 
g. Combat vessels (air. land and naval) and auxiliaries 
h. Weapons repair and maintenance equipment 
i. Military communications equipment 
j. Night vision equipment 
k. Stimulated coherent radiation devices, components and accessories 
l. Armament training devices m. Others as may be determined by the Secretary of the DND. 

3. Manufacture and distribution of dangerous drugs 
4. Sauna and steam bathhouses, massage clinics and other like activities regulated by law because of risks posed to public health and morals 
5. All forms of gambling, e.g. race track operation 
6. Domestic market enterprises with paid-in equity capital of less than the equivalent of US$200,000. 
7. Domestic market enterprises, which involve advanced technology or employ at least fifty (50) direct employees with paid-in-equity capital of less than the equivalent of US$100,000. 

8. What requirements must be complied with before a foreign corporation can do business in the Philippines? 

If the foreign corporation itself intends to do business in the Philippines under its foreign charter, the foreign corporation must first secure a “License to do Business in the Philippines” from the Philippine Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). If the foreign corporation intends to do business in the Philippines by incorporating a Philippine company, the foreign corporation must first secure the approval of the SEC by filing its incorporation papers, together with authenticated copies of its foreign charter and by-laws. 

9. Is there a need for the foreign corporation to appoint its local agent in the Philippines? 

Yes, if the foreign corporation intends to do business in the Philippines under its foreign charter. Among the things to be stated in the verified application are the name and address of the foreign corporation’s resident agent authorized to accept summons and process in all legal proceedings and, pending the establishment of a local office, all notices affecting the corporation. Page | 5 

10. How will the foreign corporation appoint its Philippine local agent? 

A written power of attorney must be filed by the foreign corporation with the SEC designating some person who must be a resident of the Philippines, on whom service of summons and other legal processes may be served in all actions or other legal proceedings against such corporation, and consenting that service upon such resident agent shall be admitted and held as valid as if served upon the duly authorized officers of the foreign corporation at its home office. 

11. Is there a need for the foreign corporation to execute an agreement with the SEC regarding service of summons? 

Yes. In consideration of its being granted a “License to Do Business in the Philippines”, the foreign corporation shall execute and file with the SEC an agreement or stipulation agreeing that if at any time said corporation shall cease to transact business in the Philippines or shall be without any resident agent in the Philippines on whom any summons or other legal processes may be served, then in any action or proceeding arising out of any transaction or business which occurred in the Philippines, service of any summons or other legal processes may be made upon the SEC and that such service shall have the same force and effect as if its is made upon the duly authorized officers of the foreign corporation at its home office. 

12. What is the effect of failure to appoint or maintain a local agent? The failure to appoint or maintain a resident agent in the Philippines, or after change of its resident agent or his address, failure to submit to the SEC a statement of such change, are grounds for revocation of a license granted to a foreign corporation to do business in the Philippines. 

13. Is there any Reciprocity Compliance? 

Yes. Attached to the application shall also be a duly executed certificate under oath by the authorized official or officials of the jurisdiction of incorporation of the foreign corporation, attesting to the fact that the laws of the country or state of the applicant allow Filipino citizens and corporation to do business therein.  

14. Is there a need to deposit Securities? 

Yes. Within sixty (60) days from issuance of the license to do business, such foreign corporation shall deposit with the SEC, for the benefit of its present and future creditors, Philippine securities in the actual market value of at least Php100,000.00, subject to further deposit of additional securities every six months after each fiscal year equivalent in actual market value to two percent (2%) of the amount by which the foreign corporation’s gross income for that fiscal year exceeds Php5,000,000.00. 

15. What is the effect of being issued a “License to Do Business in the Philippines”? 

When a foreign corporation is issued the license to do business in the Philippines, it may commence to transact its business in the Philippines and continue to do so for as long as it retain its authority to act as a corporation under the laws of the country or state of its incorporation, unless such license is sooner surrendered, revoked, suspended, or annulled. 

16. What are the consequences of not obtaining a license to do business? 

A foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without first obtaining the license to do business 

(a) shall not be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative agency of the Philippines; 

(b) but such foreign corporation may be sued or proceeded against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws. 

17. Are there any tax incentives for foreign corporations investing in the Philippines? Yes. There are several tax incentives available to foreign corporations depending on the government office or export zone under which such foreign corporation intends to undertake or register its investment. Please refer to “The Investor’s Guide to Doing Business in the Philippines” for a more comprehensive list of the investment options available to foreign corporations. 

18. Can foreign corporations acquire or own land in the Philippines? Yes, provided the following requirements are met: (a) it must be a private land, which means any land of private ownership; and (b) the foreign equity in the corporation must not exceed forty percent (40%). Page | 7 

19. What will happen if foreign ownership exceeds forty percent (40%)? The effect would be that the foreign corporation would lose its capacity to hold the private land. They may, however, be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not prohibited by the Constitution. 

20. What are the other exceptions to the ownership of land by foreign investors and corporations? 

a. Acquisition through hereditary succession; b. Purchase by a former natural-born Filipino citizen pursuant to the Dual Citizenship Law which states that a former Filipino re-acquiring his Filipino Citizenship shall be deemed not to have lost his Philippine citizenship, thus enabling them to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a Filipino; c. If a former natural-born Filipino who has become a naturalized citizen of another state opts not to re-acquire Filipino citizenship according to the Dual Citizenship Act, he may nonetheless own land but limited to the following according to BP 185 and RA 8179): 

i. For residential use: 1. Up to 1,000 square meters of residential land 2. Up to 1 hectare of agricultural land ii. 

For business or commercial use 1. Up to 5,000 square meters of urban land 2. Up to 3 hectares of rural land 

d. Purchase of not more than 40% interest in a condominium project; and 
e. Ownership through Filipinos who are married to aliens who retain their Filipino citizenship 

21. Can foreign corporations own real properties in the Philippines other than land? Yes. Foreign corporations can acquire other immovable or real properties such as buildings and other improvements on the land, including condominium units. Page | 8 

22. Are foreigners and foreign corporations allowed to lease lands in the Philippines? 

Yes. Foreign investors investing in the Philippines can now lease private lands up to 75 years. Based on R.A. No. 7652, entitled “Investor’s Lease Act”, lease agreements may be entered into with Filipino landowners. Lease period is 50 years, renewable once for another 25 years. For tourism projects, the lease shall be limited to projects with an investment of not less than US$5M, 70% of which shall be infused in said project within 3 years from signing of the lease contract. 

23. Are arbitration clauses accepted in the Philippines? Yes. Consistent with UNCITRAL Model Law, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act of 2004 was recently enacted. The Law promotes the use of different modes of ADR for the speedy and impartial dispensation of justice. The ADR Act expressly adopted under Section 19 thereof the UNCITRAL Model Law as the law governing international commercial arbitration in the Philippines. /in short, the ADR Act has now opened the window for the Philippines to be a venue for international commercial arbitration and mediation. 

24. Can foreign corporations participate in bidding for projects by the Philippine Government? Yes. Under the “Government Procurement Reform Act of 2003”, all procurement shall be done through competitive bidding, a method of procurement which is open to participation by any interested party.

x x x."
↧
Search

Aquino takes swipe at SC | Inquirer News

October 2, 2015, 1:33 pm
$
0
0




"x x x.

Not for the first time when he had the country’s highest magistrates as his captive audience, President Benigno Aquino III on Friday took the occasion to take the justices to task for taking on cases that he said delayed critical infrastructure projects and promulgating rulings that he described as “judicial legislation.”

While stressing that his administration supports the judiciary and its reform programs with increased funding, the President firmly asserted his authority, pointing out the cost to the country of slow litigation, citing in particular an expressway project that has apparently stalled because of court proceedings.

“What our bosses expect from us public servants is simple: Instead of “just tiis (being patient), let’s promote genuine justice. That’s why I will take this opportunity to raise some issues with you,” he said in remarks that were a mixture of English and Filipino at the groundbreaking ceremonies for the new Supreme Court complex in Taguig City.

Mr. Aquino even quoted the Constitution to drive home his point. He said Article VIII, Section 15 (1) mandates that the high court resolve “all cases or matters” within 24 months, or two years from the day of filing.

A new chapter

He challenged the magistrates to complement the modernity and quality of the new Supreme Court facility—funded by Malacañang—that will rise on the site where he was speaking.

“The complex that will be built will be modern and of high quality, with new equipment. But for me, the most important part of it is the people who will work there,” Mr. Aquino said.

He said the facility was proof that “a new chapter” has begun in the relations among the three branches of government, noting the expected doubling of the budget allocation for the judiciary, from P12.66 billion in 2010 to P25.89 billion in 2016.

“All the new equipment in your new building will help you fulfill your mandate, but it’s still up to you if you will uphold what is right and just,” he told the high court magistrates.

The President, who has had tense brushes with the Supreme Court justices in the past, said government infrastructure projects should be spared from the delaying effect of a temporary restraining order.

“Just look at the situation of one of our expressways, where the project was delayed because the court did not immediately issue a writ of possession. When I think about it, because court hearings delay a project, it’s just like being under a TRO,” Mr. Aquino said.


Expressway project

The President was apparently referring to the expressway project at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, which has been delayed by right-of-way issues.


“To you who know the law better, isn’t there a law that says when it comes to a project involving government infrastructure, there should be a deposit for the amortization of land to be expropriated? And when that has been done, the court has to issue a writ of possession saying government has the right to use that land and proceed with its project,” Mr. Aquino said.

He said Public Works Secretary Rogelio Singson had reported that despite compliance with the deposit requirement, the court hearing the case has yet to issue the writ, thus delaying the project.


Mr. Aquino also mentioned instances where “projects are delayed because of the need (for the court) to determine just compensation.” He did not cite the specific project.

“I hope you give due attention to coming up with decisions on issues like these. The law is clear on the right of the government to proceed with a project even when the court has yet to resolve the matter of just compensation,” he said.

He cited how such obstacles derail the delivery of services and benefits for the public, and multiply costs for the government.

“Because of such delays, costs also increase. And the additional funds could have been used for other services. We are all serving our bosses. We should focus on nothing else but those that will be for the good of the nation,” he said.

Confounding positions

The President also cited cases where he felt certain magistrates took “confounding” positions or made a sudden turnaround.

“You are the experts in law, and my appeal is this: Go back to the major and controversial issues that the judiciary faced, such as the times when one or several justices took confounding positions (on a case), when the court suddenly changed its view on important issues, or when it seemed there was judicial legislation,” he said.

Mr. Aquino did not cite a specific case or issue, but his statement brought to mind the recent Supreme Court ruling granting the bail petition of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, who was released from detention on humanitarian grounds despite being on trial on the nonbailable charge of plunder.


The Aug. 18 ruling has been criticized as a rewriting of the restrictions on granting bail for an accused facing nonbailable charges, which does not include humanitarian considerations as a ground for granting an exemption.

“As among those expected to uphold the interest of the Filipino, let us ask ourselves: Am I able to do right by the people or am I just doing something to say I am fulfilling my duties? Will this be good for my bosses, and will it truly deliver justice?” Mr. Aquino said.

Lawyers’ joke

In the audience were the same justices who last year invalidated the President’s Disbursement Acceleration Program, a spending reform mechanism to speed up public expenditure and boost economic growth. The high court declared the DAP unconstitutional because in carrying out its high-impact programs and projects, it used funds that were not programmed in the budget passed by Congress or that were obtained from illegally declared savings.


The DAP ruling angered the President who twice went on television to defend the program, issuing a not-so-subtle threat against a coequal branch of government. Not since he instigated the removal of Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2011 and 2012 did Mr. Aquino speak so strongly against the Supreme Court.

But attempting to introduce a note of levity on Friday, the President quoted a joke that his lawyers apparently like to tell. He said his lawyers were told in their introduction to law class that there are only two kinds of lawyers: “those who know the law” and “those who know the judge.”

CJ for a national discussion

In an interview after walking the President out of the venue, Sereno said she would look into the expressway case that Mr. Aquino had raised.


“I didn’t know there was an issue on infrastructure… especially about the Naia Expressway, and I will have to look into these matters,” she told reporters.

In response to the President’s call for speedy judicial proceedings on cases involving government expropriation, Sereno said there should be a national discussion on “what kind of periods are allowable for due process.”

“Ultimately, you have to make sure that property owners are not unduly deprived. So we are going actually in that direction and we are already convening several small committees to discuss these problems,” she said.

She said the current legal framework “is no longer capable of addressing all these issues.”

On the matter of judicial legislation, Sereno said the court has also been careful to avoid overstepping its powers.

“In every en banc session, we continue to debate on whether what we’re doing is already legislation or if it is still within the bounds of what we can do. But, ultimately, it will redound to a question of what the final vote will be. So it’s an evolving thing, but we are mindful of that need to maintain that line,” she said. 
↧
↧

DAP and technical malversation

October 4, 2015, 1:43 pm
$
0
0




"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines - President Aquino has been cleared of criminal liability by the Office of the Ombudsman in his administration’s implementation of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), parts of which were declared unconstitutional in 2014 by the Supreme Court.

But the ombudsman said yesterday it found sufficient basis for a preliminary investigation of Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and Undersecretary Mario Relampagos.

President Aquino was “absolved” after fact-finding by the ombudsman determined that the charges against him do not amount to an impeachable offense and should thus be dismissed.

The ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office (FIO) said only Abad and Relampagos should be held liable for technical malversation of public funds.

Fact-finding investigators also said both officials should be held liable for administrative offenses in relation to their role in the utilization of DAP funds amounting to P31.9 billion from 2011 to 2012.

A preliminary investigation would give Abad and Relampagos a chance to answer accusations before charges are filed against them with the Sandiganbayan.

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales has created a special panel of lawyers to conduct the probe.

Under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, technical malversation is committed by a public officer when he or she disburses public funds or property for a purpose other than what is dictated by law or ordinance.

FIO investigators said Abad and Relampagos authorized the DAP sourced from pooled savings as “a plan to boost disbursements” and “to jumpstart the implementation” of the government’s expenditure program.

As authorized, projects were identified based on their “multiplier impact on the economy and infrastructure benefit, beneficial effect on the poor and translation into disbursements.”

But the ombudsman said documents noted irregularities in the cross border DAP transfer transactions to the Commission on Audit (COA) and the House of Representatives.

From the total P31.9-billion DAP funds, records show that P250 million was released to the House for the construction of legislative library and archive building/congressional e-library which was “not among those approved by the President.”

In addition, P143.7 million was released to the COA to augment the latter’s Information Technology infrastructure program and the hiring of additional litigation experts as per approved Special Allotment Release Order (SARO).

Investigation showed that Abad prepared and signed all memoranda and issuances concerning DAP implementation, while Relampagos signed the corresponding SAROs to COA and the House.

The ombudsman’s investigation was based on separate complaints filed by former Iloilo congressman Augusto Syjuco Jr., Greco Belgica and Kabataan party-list Rep. Terry Ridon.

Fund misuse

Morales said her office is also studying another report on the alleged misuse of P900 million in Malampaya funds that were diverted to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) during the Arroyo administration and which ended up with bogus non-government organizations linked to alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.

The officials accused in the Malampaya case include Arroyo and former DAR secretary Nasser Pangandaman and other officials of the department.

The ombudsman revealed to lawmakers the DAP probe on Aquino and Abad last Sept. 1 during a hearing on her agency’s 2016 budget by the House committee on appropriations chaired by Davao City Rep. Isidro Ungab.

Sought for comment then, Abad said, “It’s the process of the ombudsman and we respect it. We will cooperate. We do want to put a closure to this issue.”

He said the Supreme Court has upheld in the DAP cases the “doctrine of operative fact, meaning that what we did was constitutional, legal and regular, and we implemented the economic stimulus program in good faith.”

“In fact, the Supreme Court declared that DAP benefited the country. We stand by our position that DAP was an urgent and appropriate response to the then under-spending problem that was slowing down the economy,” Abad said.

“The resulting uptick in spending and growth validated our position,” he said.

“We also commit to align, as we have already done, our savings, augmentation and realignment policies along with SC decision,” he added.

The budget chief noted that “there was no insinuation of graft” in the tribunal’s ruling.

He pointed out that the ombudsman has not yet sought any comment from them.

“This is just the fact-finding stage. If they go to preliminary investigation, that’s when they will require us to comment,” Abad, who is a lawyer, said.

The SC stopped the DAP economic stimulus program in 2014 after declaring at least four practices under it as unconstitutional. The tribunal did not declare DAP itself as unconstitutional.

Probe welcomed

Meanwhile, the DBM said in a statement it welcomes the ombudsman’s investigation into the DAP issue.

“Not only will the inquiry enable the parties to present their views on all remaining issues involving DAP, we likewise trust that the ombudsman will conduct the investigation with the soundest judgment,” the DBM said in a statement.

“The Supreme Court itself observed that DAP was instrumental in accelerating public spending, and in such a manner that allowed the country to achieve significant economic progress,” the DBM said.

“It is also worth noting that DAP is not a novel program. Its implementation only followed precedents set by previous presidents and their respective budget secretaries,” it added.

The DBM also said it wished to “clarify certain terms relevant to the investigation” like “technical malversation.” It said the term does not suggest that the individuals in question committed acts of graft or corruption or used public funds for their personal gain or benefit.

“Certainly, the inquiry is not a matter of whether individuals had stolen from public coffers,” the DBM stated.

“The inquiry involves the application of excess or unutilized public funds to existing priority government projects and programs that require additional funding,” it pointed out.

“The investigation seeks to determine whether these uses of public funds constitute technical malversation, where public funds are used for a public purpose that differed – in a very technical sense – from the original plan,” it said.

Allowed under GAA

The DBM also said the use of the funds to augment deficient items of appropriations were authorized under the General Appropriations Act and other laws.

“We must also remind our people that despite several news reports, the final Supreme Court decision on DAP did not declare the program unconstitutional.”

The DBM also stressed that the Supreme Court ruling emphasized that “the doctrine of operative fact holds sway over the implementation of DAP.” This means “the program’s authors, sponsors and implementers must be presumed to have acted in good faith and with regularity in the performance of their official duties.”

The DBM also noted that DAP is “not a novel program” and that its implementation only followed precedents set by previous administrations.

“Finally, the positive impact of DAP on the Philippine economy – in line with the program’s purpose –must not be overlooked,” it said.

“The Supreme Court itself observed that DAP was instrumental in accelerating public spending, and in such a manner that allowed the country to achieve significant economic progress,” the DBM statement read.

“The DBM will of course cooperate with the Office of the Ombudsman in the course of their investigation. We look forward as well to the inquiry’s swift and fair conclusion.” With Delon Porcalla, Prinz Magtulis

x x x."
↧

Suspect arrested; re 2007 killing of Atty. Demetrio Hilberto, past pres., IBP Laguna Ch.

October 5, 2015, 11:32 am
$
0
0


See - Village chair held for slay of IBP exec | Inquirer News


"x x x.

A barangay chairperson in Calamba City, Laguna province was arrested on Saturday afternoon for allegedly killing a lawyer and official of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) eight years ago.

Florencio Morales Jr. was apprehended inside his office in the barangay hall of Real, along with his bodyguard Bernard Palacio.

Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CDG) members served on Morales an arrest warrant issued by Calamba judge Antonio Manzano for the murder in June 2007 of Demetrio Hilbero, IBP Laguna president.

Morales “is among the top 20 most wanted persons in the Calabarzon region,” said CIDG director Chief Supt. Victor Deona.

In 2011, two other suspects were arrested while another cohort remains at large.

Also arrested with Morales was Palacio, his alleged bodyguard, for his illegal possession of an unlicensed .357 revolver with ammunition.

Hilbero was shot dead near his law office in Calamba City after he attended Mass at St. John the Baptist Church. Hilbero was the political adviser of then-mayoral candidate Joaquin Chipeco, who was running against Calamba City councilor Moises Morales in the 2007 elections.

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/727878/village-chair-held-for-slay-of-ibp-exec#ixzz3niftCEgE
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
↧

Judicial reforms in the Philippines

October 11, 2015, 1:31 am
$
0
0





"x x x.

However, the President, speaking in his characteristic mixture of English and Filipino, did not mince words in reminding the justices: “What our bosses expect from us public servants is simple: Instead of just tiis (being patient), let’s promote genuine justice. That’s why I will take this opportunity to raise some issues with you.”

Some serious issues he did raise, zeroing on delays and on the constitutional command that “[a]ll cases or matters filed… must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the date of submission for the Supreme Court… twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.”

He was particularly distressed at the unusually long litigations involving infrastructure projects, pointing to the refusal of trial courts to immediately issue writs of possession, even after the government had filed the appropriate expropriation proceedings, resulting in delays in the construction of many toll ways, the Naia expressway in particular.

“The complex that will be built will be modern and of high quality, with new equipment. But for me the most important part of it is the people who will work there… It’s still up to you if you will uphold what is right and just,” the President emphasized. He also attacked some decisions for allegedly being “judicial legislation.”

Judicial reform program. In her speech preceding the President’s, Chief Justice Sereno highlighted five new “innovative” projects to address delays: 

(1) the e-Subpoena system which uses e-mail to compel policemen to attend hearings especially in drug-related cases, citing the cooperation of Secretary De Lima and former interior secretary Mar Roxas; 

(2) the “Enterprise Information System… which will allow the judiciary to use technology and automation to make its processes not only faster but also more efficient, transparent and predictable;” 

(3) the “decongestion project called Hustisyeah… which was able to reduce dockets in 119 target courts as of [Oct. 1] by 31.44 percent;” 

(4) “another project called Assisting Court System… with a result of 47.32 percent reduction of dockets [in target courts] in just five months;” and 

(5) “the establishment of… 48 Family Courts,” apart from the Regional Trial Courts that have been designated as family courts.

Hearing her address, I thought that these five projects are really parts of the more extensive “Four Pillars of Judicial Reform” that the Supreme Court is currently undertaking.

The “Four Pillars” are not known by the public. I will write about them in the future but quickly, the first is on instituting integrity, public trust and credibility; the second is on ensuring predictability, rationality, speed and responsiveness of judicial actions; the third is on improving systems infrastructure; and the fourth is on efficient and effective human resources.

Only 55, Chief Justice Sereno has 15 more years to steer the judiciary and to finish the Supreme Court complex. In fact, she will have more time than the next two presidents to permanently reform our judicial system.

x x x."
↧
↧

Supreme Court upholds Ginebra’s P14 million tax refund - CNN Philippines

October 11, 2015, 1:39 am
↧

Civil servants are not allowed to participate in any partisan political activity.

October 11, 2015, 2:19 am
$
0
0


See - http://www.mb.com.ph/civil-servants-not-allowed-in-any-political-activity-comelec/


"x x x.

Civil servants are not allowed to participate in any partisan political activity, including the filing of Certificates of Candidacy (COCs), the Commission on Elections (Comelec) said.

In an interview, Comelec Spokesman James Jimenez said that existing laws and the Constitution, prohibit any participation of civil servants in any political activity, including campaigning.

“Civil servants are not allowed to participate in partisan politics, cannot engage in partisan political activities, which means that they cannot come out to support a particular candidate,” he said.

However, Jimenez said appointed government employees and officials are not covered by the said prohibition.

The Legal Network for Truthful Elections (LENTE) agreed with Jimenez as it urged civil servants to refrain from joining the filing of COCs which is from October 12 to 16.

“They are not allowed to join filing of COCs because that’s a partisan activity. They cannot engage in partisan activities,” Atty. Rona Ann Caritos, LENTE Executive Director, said.


Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political activity”.


The Omnibus Election Code (OEC) furthers that any officer or employee in the civil service, except those holding political offices, engaged in any partisan political activity, except to vote, is committing an election offense.


An election offense carries a penalty of one to six years imprisonment, removal of right to suffrage, and disqualification from holding public office.

x x x."





Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/civil-servants-not-allowed-in-any-political-activity-comelec/#zoPX0pOVTGo7OOBB.99

↧

FAST FACTS: What benefits are senior citizens entitled to?

October 11, 2015, 7:04 pm
$
0
0




"x x x.


Based on the 2010 census, about 7 million – aged 60 years old and over –comprise our population. They are provided with benefits and privileges through the following legislation:

Republic Act No. 7432, or the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003

RA 9994, an amendment to RA 7432 to include additional services

RA 10645, an amendment to RA 9994 to provide mandatory PhilHealth coverage for all senior citizens.

Through years of upgrading and expanding services, here’s a list of benefits and privileges our elderly are entitled to:

DISCOUNTS*

20% discount on:

Medical-related privileges
Medicine and drug purchases
Medical supplies, accessories and equipment
Medical and dental services
Professional fees of attending physician
Professional fees of licensed health workers providing home health care services

Transportation
Air and Sea
Land: LRT, MRT, PNR, buses, jeepneys, taxi and shuttle services

Hotels, restaurants, recreational facilities, places of leisure
Hotels, restaurants, theaters, cinemas, concert halls, circuses, leisure and amusement

Recreation centers
Fees, charges and rental for sports facilities and equipment

Funeral services
Funeral and burial expenses include casket or urn, embalming, cremation cost, and other services.

Utility discount
Grant of a minimum of 5% discount relative to the monthly use of water and electricity, provided that the meter is registered under the name of the senior citizen residing therein and does not exceed 100 kWh and 30 m³.

EXEMPTIONS

Tax exemption
Exemption from payment of individual income tax of those who are considered to be minimum wage earners

Training fee exemption
Training fees for socio-economic programs conducted by private and government agencies subject to the guidelines issued by DTI, DOLE, DA, TESDA and DOST-TRC.

FREEBIES

Free medical and dental services
Free vaccinations

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE

Social Pension
Indigent senior citizens shall be entitled to a monthly stipend amounting to P500 to augment daily subsistence and other medical needs.

Mandatory PhilHealth coverage
All senior citizens are covered by the national health insurance program of PhilHealth.

Social safety nets
The social safety assistance shall include, but not be limited to, food, medicines, and financial assistance for house repair to cushion effects of economic, disaster and calamity shocks.

Death benefit assistance
Assistance of a minimum of P2,000 shall be given to the nearest surviving relative who took care of the deceased senior citizen.

OTHERS

Express lanes
Express lanes shall be provided in all private, banking, commercial and government establishments; priority shall be given in their absence.

Educational privileges
Assistance shall be granted to senior citizens to pursue education through provision of scholarships, grants, financial aids, subsidies and other incentives.

Benefits and privileges for retirees
Continuance of the same benefits and privileges by GSIS, SSS and PAG-IBIG as enjoyed by those in active service.

Privileges on special discounts in special programs

In order to avail of these benefits, the senior citizen or his/her authorized representative shall present a valid and original Senior Citizens’ Identification Card. Details for ID application may be foundhere.

*Here are some things to take note on purchases:

Credit Card Payments
20% discount and VAT exemption shall also apply to purchase of goods and services paying through credit cards.

No double discounts
In cases where the senior citizen is also a person with disability (PWD), the senior citizen can only use either his/her senior citizen ID or PWD ID to avail of a 20% discount.

Tax deduction
Establishments may claim the discounts as tax deductions based on the cost of goods sold or services rendered. — Rappler.com.

x x x."

↧
Search

Republic Act No. 10557 - “Philippine Design Competitiveness Act of 2013”.

October 12, 2015, 1:35 am
$
0
0
See - Republic Act No. 10557 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines





[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10557]
AN ACT PROMOTING AND STRENGTHENING FILIPINO DESIGN, PROVIDING FOR THE PURPOSE A NATIONAL DESIGN POLICY AND RENAMING THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES INTO THE DESIGN CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Philippine Design Competitiveness Act of 2013”.
SEC. 2. Statement of Policy. – It is the declared policy of the State to enhance the competitiveness and innovation of Philippine products, create market-responsive design services, while advocating for economic and environmental sustainability. The State shall also endeavor to promote an economy and society driven by design and creativity responsive to our fast-changing times and reflective of the Filipino culture and identity, while concurrently advocating the protection of intellectual property rights to these ideas and innovations.
SEC. 3. Objectives. – The State shall promote and strengthen the Philippine design industry to achieve the following objectives:
(a) Create integrated, forward-thinking and long-range direction and strategy for the design industry;
(b) Provide long-term guidance to promote national awareness on the use of design as a strategic tool for economic competitiveness and social innovation;
(c) Integrate design into other industries and aspects of society in order to create a demand for good design, and to extend its impact economically, socially and environmentally;
(d) Incorporate design as a priority component in national planning and development; and
(e) Ultimately, encourage and drive innovation so that the Philippines may use as leverage our raw materials, natural resources and creativity to stay ahead of the curve.
SEC. 4. Reengineering the Product Development and Design Center of the Philippines and Strengthening its Mandate. – The Product Development and Design Center of the Philippines (PDDCP) is hereby reengineered and renamed into the Design Center of the Philippines, herein referred to as the Design Center. It shall be attached to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). It is mandated to promote design as a creative tool for improving the quality and competitiveness and branding of Filipino products in the global market; as a strategic tool of value creation for sustainable economic growth and development; and as an innovative tool for enhancing the quality of human life.
The Design Center is further mandated to:
(a) Develop and maintain a creative research and development program on product design, development and improvement of Philippine products and services, including those created by the small and medium enterprises (SMEs);
(b) Conduct continuing research on product and product packaging design trends, materials and processing technologies;
(c) Create, develop, promote and upgrade the design of all Philippine products and services, including those created by the SMEs;
(d) Conduct seminars and workshops on product design and development;
(e) Set up design exhibitions;
(f) Publish design-related materials;
(g) Ensure protection of Filipino design ideas, products and other outputs of creative talents;
(h) Promote design education throughout the country to meet the needs of Philippine industries; and
(i) Promote Philippine design here and all over the world.
To effectively carry out this mandate, the Design Center shall exercise the following powers and functions:
National Design Policy
(1) Formulate the National Design Policy, herein referred to as the NDP, aligning it with the government’s economic agenda;
(2) Continuously formulate five (5)-year plans that are in line with the general NDP, but reflective of the changing conditions in both the domestic and international environments;
(3) Coordinate, monitor and assess the implementation of the NDP, and, when necessary, update the NDP in the light of changing market conditions in both the domestic and international environments;
(4) Establish an evaluation system through which the results of the NDP (as well as singular projects and programs) could be assessed and improved;
(5) Collaborate internationally with similar design policy advisory bodies of other countries and gain insights and investigate on how successful design practices in other countries can be transferred and adapted in the context of Filipino creative and knowledge-based industries as well as transition to the conceptual-based economy;
(6) Establish dialogue with designers to encourage them to actively engage in the implementation of design policy;
(7) Provide a forum for design stakeholders on current and emerging issues in the design profession;
Design Awareness
(8) Promote the design profession and the value of design;
(9) Build awareness of the importance of design to the public, through local and international exhibitions, conferences, competitions, community and school activities and other design-related events;
(10) Promote awareness on the protection of intellectual property rights;
(11) Establish more public creative zones and environments in Metro Manila and other central hubs in different regions across the country;
Design Integration
(12) Create networks and establish venues where all industries could interact in design dialogues and workshops, thereby promoting knowledge exchange, capability development and collaborative content creation;
(13) Identify and encourage public and private collaborations regarding design, competitiveness, governance and innovation to promote networking, business and partnership opportunities;
Design for Development
(14) Conduct design-led approaches and competitions for the design industry to help government solve socioeconomic and environmental challenges;
(15) Actively push for the use of design and innovation in government offices and departments, with the objective of coming up with programs and processes that will enable the government to simplify and streamline systems, so it can deliver its services more effectively and efficiently;
(16) Maintain a standard of sustainable design in all projects that are undertaken by the Design Center;
(17) Employ design as a fundamental tool for communicating a strong, singular identity of the country;
Design and Innovation
(18) Create a skill development, mentoring and support system for individuals, corporations, partnerships or associations, particularly SMEs, who want to benefit from the strategic use of good design in business administration, commerce, trade and other enterprises; and
(19) Undertake research and development on the different design strengths and assets of the Philippines (i.e. manipulation and development of raw materials that are indigenous to the country) so we can be able to come up with globally relevant yet uniquely Filipino innovations.
SEC. 5. Creation of the Design Advisory Council. – There shall be created a Design Advisory Council, herein referred to as the DAC, which shall be a public-private partnership that will serve as an Advisory Council to the Design Center. The DAC shall advise the Design Center in the formulation and implementation of policies that will enhance the quality of competitiveness of Philippine products and services and shall support the Philippine government in its efforts to enhance the level of innovation and creativity in Philippine industries.
SEC. 6. Powers and Functions of the Design Advisory Council. – The DAC shall advocate and promote the strategic role of design in strengthening sustainability of Philippine socioeconomic growth and competitiveness. It shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(a) Provide advice and insights imperative in pursuing the mandate of the Design Center by effectively representing the collective views of both the public and the private sectors;
(b) Advocate for full consideration of design’s contribution to program effectiveness and innovation in government policy decisions;
(c) Review and promote policies where design is a key component;
(d) Act as a liaison among the professional design, design education and government design stakeholders; and
(e) Provide advice and guidance to design education institutions on the development and standardization of course syllabus, ensuring the propagation of high quality education in design in all regions across the country.
SEC. 7. Composition of the Design Advisory Council. – The DAC shall be composed of fifteen (15) members from the following government departments or offices:
(a) Department of Trade and Industry (DTI):
(1) Secretary of the DTI;
(2) Center for International Trade Expositions and Missions (CITEM); and
(3) Intellectual Property Office (IPO);
(b) National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA);
(c) Department of Tourism (DOT);
(d) Department of Education (DepED);
(e) Commission on Higher Education (CHED); and
(f) Department of Science and Technology (DOST).
The Executive Director of the Design Center shall be an ex officio member of the Council to be appointed by the President.
The other six (6) remaining members of the DAC shall come from the organized associations involved in the sector, academic community engaged in design courses and representatives of the private sector including, but not limited to, visual communications, architecture, industrial design, interior design, information design, new media and technology, fashion design, environmental design and similar areas.
The representatives of the private sector shall be appointed by the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the DTI from the nominees to be submitted by the organizations of the various design sectors.
The Council shall be co-chaired by the Secretary of the DTI and the representative from the private sector, to be appointed by the President from among the private sector appointees.
The presence of eight (8) members shall constitute a quorum, and all decisions of the Council shall require the concurrence of the majority of such quorum. The members of the DAC shall receive per diems for every meeting attended at rates allowed under existing rules and regulations. The DAC may meet not more than twice a month. However, the Chairman may call a special meeting when the need arises.
The Design Center shall act as the Secretariat of the Council.
SEC. 8. Powers and Functions of the Executive Director of the Design Center. – The Design Center shall have an Executive Director, who shall execute, administer and implement the policies, plans and measures approved by the DAC and perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out specific responsibilities in connection with said plans and measures.
A quarterly report of the accomplishments of the Design Center shall be submitted by the Executive Director to the DAC. The DAC shall submit an annual report to the President of the Philippines not later than one (1) month after the end of each year.
SEC. 9. The National Design Policy. – The NDP shall serve as the State’s strategy in promoting design as a driving force towards a sustainable economic growth and development and a catalyst for increasing the competitiveness of the country in the global market. The NDP shall be created to meet the following goals:
(a) Global Competitiveness:
(1) Elevate Philippine designs and innovation toward global standards through collaboration with international design organizations;
(2) Enhance the competitiveness and innovation of Philippine products and services, making it more responsive to social needs while advocating for economic and environmental sustainability;
(3) Create a distinctive and recognizable identity for Philippine products through global positioning and branding of Philippine designs;
(4) Build the competitiveness and capabilities of Filipino designers through continuous trainings, seminars and workshops, and collaborations with Philippine manufacturers; and
(5) Provide opportunities for Filipino designers to showcase their talent locally and internationally.
(b) Institutionalization and Promotion of Design Culture Nationwide:
(1) Encourage the creation of original designs in Philippine-made products and services by blending native and heritage-based aesthetics indigenous arts, crafts and materials and current global design trends;
(2) Promote the understanding of diverse Philippine cultures so that it can be translated into modern design concepts that enable an innovation process that is uniquely Filipino;
(3) Enhance the quality of the Philippine products and services and productivity of the Philippine manufacturers through design;
(4) Create design awareness among manufacturers and service providers, particularly the SMEs, on the competitiveness brought about by original designs;
(5) Conduct programs that will challenge designers, design students and ordinary citizens to actively engage in solving and mitigating socioeconomic and environmental problems through design-led approaches;
(6) Establish networks and resources for knowledge exchange and capability development leveraging on automation, computerized and web-based services; and
(7) Encourage the collaboration and partnerships among local stakeholders of the design industry such as industry associations, management of the SMEs, Filipino designers, the academe, government agencies and other private organizations.
(c) Creation of an Environment to Cultivate a Constant Demand for Good Design:
(1) Ensure the balance of supply (designers) and demand (private and public organizations, whether local or international) of the design industry;
(2) Promote an appreciation for good design not only among citizens, but also within business organizations and government institutions; and
(3) Create linkages with the business sector, the educational sector, government institutions and the public in general to encourage them to employ and invest in good design.
(d) Design Protection:
(1) Promote Philippine designs through registration of Intellectual Property Rights and through Technology Licensing Offices; and
(2) Encourage and facilitate a culture of creating and protecting intellectual property in the area of design.
(e) Design Education and Professional Development:
(1) Elevate design education and design research in the Philippines to global standards of excellence;
(2) Invest on appropriate infrastructure and technology to support design;
(3) Establish an active collaboration among industry, professional designers and the academe towards the development of the design profession; and
(4) Inculcate among the youth the value of good design in enhancing the quality of human life by including design appreciation in the curriculum.
(f) Institutionalization of Design as an Effective Problem-Solving Tool:
(1) Conceptualize effective and sustainable design-related approaches to drive economic growth and development;
(2) Seek design solutions for issues related to social innovation and environmental sustainability and protection;
(3) Expand awareness on the benefits of the strategic use of good design in business and government administration, trade and commerce, as well as in the SMEs; and
(4) Encourage the government to invest on activities geared towards increasing the competitiveness of Philippine design and creative industries.
SEC. 10. Design Industries Linkages with the Educational System. – To ensure a continuous supply of creative talents and to stimulate design creativity and innovation among students at all levels of education, the DepED, the CHED and the TESDA, in consultation with and assistance of the Design Center, shall formulate measures to establish a stronger connection between arts, culture, education and training, and to harness the potentials of the youth.
SEC. 11. Appropriations. – The amount necessary to carry out the initial implementation of this Act shall be charged against the current year’s appropriations of the PDDCP. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the continued implementation of this Act shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.
SEC. 12. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The DTI shall issue the implementing rules and regulations within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act.
SEC. 13. Repealing Clause. – Executive Order No. 133, s. 1987 is hereby amended accordingly. All other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof as are inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
SEC. 14. Separability Clause. – The provisions of this Act are hereby declared separable, and in the event any of its provisions is declared unconstitutional, the other provisions which are not affected thereby shall remain in force and effect.
SEC. 15. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation in the country.
↧
↧

Due process of Law - By Atty. Romulo P. Atencia, Catanduanes Tribune

October 12, 2015, 11:37 pm
$
0
0




"x x x.

The very first section of the Bill of Rights (Sec. 1, Art. III of the Philippine Constitution) states: “Sec.1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” The due process clauses in the American and Philippine Constitutions are not only worded in exactly identical language and terminology, but more importantly, they are alike in what their respective Supreme Courts have expounded as the spirit with which the provisions are informed and impressed, the elasticity in their interpretation, their dynamic and resilient character which make them capable of meeting every modern problem, and their having been designed from earliest time to the present to meet the exigencies of an undefined and expanding future.

********

As early as 1884, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age or custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law". The Philippine Supreme Court, in turn, as far back as 1908, affixed the imprimatur of its approval on Webster's definition of procedural due process, thus: 'By the law of the land is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.'. Also, in a 1924 decision, after quoting the above, the Philippine Supreme Court added that due process “contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one's person or property.”. The number of cases subsequent to this reiterating the importance of what was referred to by Justice Laurel as the "cardinal concept of due process" is legion. The Philippine Supreme Court also held that, capsulized, due process refers to "the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play".

********

Although the courts have in many instances defined what due process of law really means, they have also allowed the meaning of the phrase to evolve with time. A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order to avoid the confines of a legal straitjacket, the courts instead prefer to have the meaning of the due process clause "gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion and exclusion in the course of the decisions of cases as they arise". Thus, due process are interpreted in both the United States and the Philippines as not denying to the law the capacity for progress and improvement.

********

Due process is comprised of two components – substantive due process which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property, and procedural due process which consists of the two basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal (Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1993 Ed., pp. 102-106). In essence, procedural due process refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced. The Philippine Supreme Court once forcefully said that it will not tolerate the least disregard of constitutional guarantees in the enforcement of a law.

********

True to the mandate of the due process clause, the basic rights of notice and hearing pervade not only in criminal and civil proceedings, but in administrative proceedings as well. Non-observance of these rights will invalidate the proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting their interests, and upon notice, they may claim the right to appear therein and present their side and to refute the position of the opposing parties. The basic principles of administrative law instruct us that "the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the actions or ruling complained of.

********

These twin rights may, however, be considered dispensable in certain instances. Some examples are:: In proceedings where there is an urgent need for immediate action, like the summary abatement of a nuisance per se (Article 704, Civil Code); the preventive suspension of a public servant facing administrative charges (Section 63, Local Government Code, B. P. Blg. 337), the padlocking of filthy restaurants or theaters showing obscene movies or like establishments which are immediate threats to public health and decency, and the cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution; where there is tentativeness of administrative action, that is, where the respondent is not precluded from enjoying the right to notice and hearing at a later time without prejudice to the person affected, such as the summary distraint and levy of the property of a delinquent taxpayer, and the replacement of a temporary appointee; and where the twin rights have previously been offered but the right to exercise them had not been claimed.

********

Of analogous application are the rulings in a 1991 and a 1997 cases where the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that in summary proceedings under Presidential Decree No. 807 (regarding the organization of the Civil Service Commission), and Presidential Decree No. 971, which provides legal assistance to members of the Integrated National Police who may be charged for service-connected offenses, it was held that although summary dismissals may be effected without the necessity of a formal investigation, the minimum requirements of due process still operate. Said summary dismissal proceedings are also non-litigious in nature, yet the Supreme Court upheld the due process rights of the respondent.

x x x."


- See more at: http://www.catanduanestribune.com/article/3X0T#sthash.jsqNZoAv.dpuf
↧

Natural-born by legal fiction?

October 13, 2015, 1:30 am
$
0
0





"x x x.

THE SOLE controversy pending at the Senate Electoral Tribunal has opened an interesting public debate on Philippine constitutional theory. The debate is not about the persona, integrity, or competence of Sen. Grace Poe to lead the country. It is about the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land to which all statutes, doctrines and principles of law, rules and regulations, ordinances, and acts of the state or government, including international conventions or treaties, yield in subservience. From the proposition that Poe possesses natural-born status as a citizen of the Philippines—of which she is legally presumed considering her repatriation under the Dual Citizenship Law and her election to the Senate—despite unknown Filipino ascendancy, emerges a new constitutional theory: the theory of natural-born citizenship by legal fiction.

Under the 1935 Constitution, the prevailing legal regime when Poe was born, the status of natural-born citizenship could be acquired only by descent from a known Filipino father or mother. The citizen’s bloodline tie of allegiance to his/her country is the determinative factor to consider him/her natural-born. In case the bloodline ascends to a Filipino mother, the acquisition of natural-born status is subject to a positive act by the progeny—that is, the election of Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, which must be annotated on his/her birth certificate. Prior to election of Filipino citizenship, the child of a Filipino mother merely acquires an inchoate right to Filipino citizenship. In the 2012 case of Republic v. Sagun, the Supreme Court held that the 1973 and 1987 Constitutionsdo not provide curative effect on the imperfect citizenship of one born of a Filipino mother who failed to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. The later constitutions neither apply implicitly nor retroactively to favorably resolve a challenge to the imperfect citizenship of one born under the 1935 Constitution.

Poe does not know her biological parents, being a foundling. She could not, therefore, categorically claim natural-born Filipino citizenship by descent for the sheer lack of known Filipino bloodline ascendancy. In other words, Poe’s natural-born Filipino citizenship is not manifest from a bare reading of the 1935 Constitution.

Proponents of her natural-born Filipino citizenship look to the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws. The relevant principles of international law under this convention, however, do not apply in a state that does not adhere to the jus soli principle or the right of territoriality (i.e., nationality by mere birth in the territory). The proponents have to resort to the 1961 Hague Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which came into force only in 1975, or seven years after Poe was born.

Article 2 of this Convention stipulates: “A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within that territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.” Since the Philippines is not a signatory to this Convention, the provision is sought to be applied retroactively as a generally-accepted principle of international law in order to establish Poe’s Filipino parentage.

If the theory is tenable, Poe, by legal fiction, is born of Filipino parents.

In a paper published in the International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 10 No. ½, titled “Statelessness and the Problem of Resolving Nationality,” Carol A. Batchelor, legal adviser on statelessness and related nationality issues of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, made this observation on the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness: “[It] does not require a contracting State unconditionally to grant nationality to any stateless person but seeks, rather, to balance factors of birth and descent in an effort to avoid the creation of statelessness by reflecting an individual’s genuine and effective existing connection with the State.”

From this expert perspective, it appears that the Convention per se cannot be a source of nationality or citizenship. To confer the citizenship would still require an enabling act from the contracting State. Hence, the 1961 Hague Convention is not a self-executing treaty law. In the 2008 case of Medellin v. Texas, the US Supreme Court held the principle that a treaty or convention cannot have an automatic and directly-enforceable effect in domestic jurisdiction unless by the nature of the treaty or convention it is self-executing. Poe’s unknown biological parents, therefore, cannot be considered Filipino citizens by mere presumption of law or legal fiction.

The proposed theory on natural-born citizenship by legal fiction is tenuous simply because it is hinged on the retroactive application of Article 2 of the 1961 Hague Convention that came into force only in 1975 as a curative measure in an otherwise imperfect citizenship claimed under the 1935 Constitution. Such retroactive application of Article 2 is explicitly barred under Article 12 of the 1961 Hague Convention, which provides: “The provisions of Article 2 of this Convention shall apply only to foundlings found in the territory of a Contracting State after the entry into force of the Convention for that State.”The Philippines is yet to adhere to this Convention.

If the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions cannot be resorted to as curative remedy to a constitutional challenge to citizenship under the 1935 Constitution, there would be no plausible justification why a descendant of a known Filipino mother should be treated less under the law over one with unknown Filipino bloodline. The 1961 Convention is not a self-executing treaty law, which bars an automatic absorption of its provisions into domestic jurisdiction.The 1935 Constitution always has primacy over international conventions or treaties even as such primacy is recognized by Article 1 of the 1930 Hague Convention, which stipulates:

“It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals.”

x x x."

Author:

Frank E. Lobrigo practiced law for 20 years. He was the regional legal coordinator for Bicol of the FPJ-Legarda campaign in 2004, and is now enrolled in the Graduate School of Law of San Beda College, Manila.



↧

RA 10364 used against IP delegates | Inquirer Opinion

October 13, 2015, 1:40 am
$
0
0




"x x x.

IN THE Philippines, only the “tip of the iceberg” of human trafficking has begun to be addressed. As a nation we have laws (e.g., Republic Act No. 10364) that address the curse of human trafficking and the pain and suffering that this form of slavery bring upon its victims.

However, it greatly disturbs us, members at the Philippine Movement Against Human Trafficking (Pimaht), when these laws are used for political ends to bring false and trumped-up charges against groups that are working for the rights of disadvantaged sectors in our society—as has recently been the case in Davao.

In July, government security forces accused 70 people, including Catholic religious and protestant pastors, of forcing lumad evacuees to stay at the Haran House of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Davao; the charges filed by the police and the Army against them included human trafficking.

The use of laws on human trafficking to harass and intimidate those working for the welfare of the lumad of Mindanao is not only criminal, it detracts from the important fight (against human trafficking) for which the laws were enacted.

In the recent report on Trafficking in Persons, issued by the State Department of the United States, a key criticism of the Philippine government was that not enough has been done to “to hold government officials administratively and criminally accountable for trafficking and trafficking-related offenses through criminal prosecutions, convictions, and stringent sentences.” The situation is made worse by the fact that while people in government, complicit in human trafficking, are able to act with impunity, the military and police are turning anti-trafficking laws against human rights defenders and advocates of indigenous peoples (IP).

The issue of human trafficking is far too important and urgent to be messed with in this way, by turning the laws intended to address it into a means of “legal” harassment of community organizations advocating for justice. The Pimaht calls for an immediate end to this misuse of antihuman trafficking laws, which trivializes and belittles the urgent fight to end human trafficking.

—REV. JOSE C. UMALI JR., coordinator, SNAP MABANTA, Philippine Interfaith Movement Against Human Trafficking

x x x."

↧

Recent Supreme Court decisions, Aug. 3, 2015 to Sept. 22, 2015.

October 13, 2015, 2:59 am
$
0
0


RECENT DECISIONS

↧
↧

Manuel J. Laserna Jr; profile. - Wikipilipinas

October 14, 2015, 7:34 am
$
0
0
See - Manuel J. Laserna Jr - Wikipilipinas: The Hip 'n Free Philippine Encyclopedia





Manuel J. Laserna Jr



See:

https://attylaserna.blogspot.com;
https://lcmlaw1.blogspot.com;
ttps://www.twitter.com/lcmlaw_ph;
https://www.facebook.com/lcmlaw.ph.


Partner, Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices (LCM law), Las Pinas City, Phils. (established 1994).

Founder, Past Chairman, Past President, and Board Consultant - Las Pinas City Bar Association (LPBA), 2001 - .

Director, Secretary, and Vice Pres., Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) - Pasay Paranaque Las Pinas Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter, 1995-2007.

Retired Professor of Law - civil law, remedial law, commercial law, and public international law at the Far Eastern Univ. (FEU), Manila (1985-2006).

Third placer, 1984 Bar Exams, 90.95%.(22% passed).

AB Journalism, 1975, Univ. of the Phils., Diliman, Quezon City.

Bachelor of Laws, FEU, Manila, cum laude (Cocofed law scholar), 1980-84.

Master of Laws (cand.), Univ. of Santo Tomas, Manila, FEU graduate studies fellow, 1998-2000.

Born in Manila in 1954.


Contact:

+63 2 8462539 and 8725443. 

Email - lcmlaw@gmail.com.



Law Office address:

Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Ave.
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 
MM, Philippines 1740.


↧

Philippine court orders owner of capsized ferry to pay $5.5M - The Washington Post

October 14, 2015, 8:08 am
$
0
0




"x x x.

By Associated Press October 14 at 10:44 AM

MANILA, Philippines — A Philippine court has ordered the owners of a passenger ferry that capsized as it sailed into a typhoon seven years ago to pay about $5.47 million to the families of dozens of passengers who perished.

The Manila Regional Trial Court ruling made public Wednesday found Sulpicio Lines Inc., which operated the MV Princess of the Stars, negligent for sailing the vessel through the path of the storm.

The ferry capsized as it was battered by huge waves and fierce winds on June 21, 2008, off the central Philippine island of Sibuyan. Only 56 of around 900 passengers and crew survived.

Sulpicio also owned the Dona Paz, which sank in December 1987, killing 4,340 people, after colliding with a fuel tanker in the world’s worst peacetime maritime disaster.


Copyright 2015 The Associated Press.

x x x."
↧
Search

When is a litigant estopped by laches from assailing the jurisdiction of a tribunal? - G.R. No. 147406

October 16, 2015, 11:08 am
$
0
0
See - G.R. No. 147406





"x x x.



Applied uniformly is the familiar rule that the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof.[10] In this case, at the time the criminal information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide with violation of the Automobile Law (now Land Transportation and Traffic Code) was filed, Section 32(2) of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg.129[11] had already been amended by Republic Act No. 7691.[12] The said provision thus reads:

Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases.Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

x x x x

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.


As the imposable penalty for the crime charged herein is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods or imprisonment for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years,[13] jurisdiction to hear and try the same is conferred on the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs). Clearly, therefore, the RTC of Bulacan does not have jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 2235-M-94.

While both the appellate court and the Solicitor General acknowledge this fact, they nevertheless are of the position that the principle of estoppel by laches has already precluded the petitioner from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTCthe trial went on for 4 years with the petitioner actively participating therein and without him ever raising the jurisdictional infirmity. The petitioner, for his part, counters that the lack of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter may be raised at any time even for the first time on appeal. As undue delay is further absent herein, the principle of laches will not be applicable.

To settle once and for all this problem of jurisdiction vis--vis estoppel by laches, which continuously confounds the bench and the bar, we shall analyze the various Court decisions on the matter.

As early as 1901, this Court has declared that unless jurisdiction has been conferred by some legislative act, no court or tribunal can act on a matter submitted to it.[14] We went on to state in U.S. v. De La Santa[15] that:

It has been frequently held that a lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter is fatal, and subject to objection at any stage of the proceedings, either in the court below or on appeal (Ency. of Pl. & Pr., vol. 12, p. 189, and large array of cases there cited), and indeed, where the subject-matter is not within the jurisdiction, the court may dismiss the proceeding ex mero motu. (4Ill., 133; 190 Ind., 79; Chipman vs. Waterbury, 59 Conn., 496.)

Jurisdiction over the subject-matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court; it is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law and an objection based on the lack of such jurisdiction can not be waived by the parties. x x x[16]


Later, in People v. Casiano,[17] the Court explained:

4. The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same must existas a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel (5 C.J.S., 861-863). However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court hadno jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent positionthat the lower court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies. The rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon. Thus, Corpus Juris Secundum says:

Where accused has secured a decision that the indictment is void, or has been granted an instruction based on its defective character directing the jury to acquit, he is estopped, when subsequently indicted, to assert that the former indictment was valid. In such case, there may be a new prosecution whether the indictment in the former prosecution was good or bad. Similarly, where, after the jury was impaneled and sworn, the court on accused's motion quashed the information on the erroneous assumption that the court had no jurisdiction, accused cannot successfully plead former jeopardy to a new information. x x x (22 C.J.S., sec. 252, pp. 388-389; italics ours.)

Where accused procured a prior conviction to be set aside on the ground that the court was withoutjurisdiction, he is estopped subsequently to assert, in support of a defense of previous jeopardy, that such court had jurisdiction. (22 C.J.S. p. 378.)[18]


But in Pindagan Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Dans,[19] the Court, in not sustaining the plea of lack of jurisdiction by the plaintiff-appellee therein, made the following observations:

It is surprising why it is only now, after the decision has been rendered, that the plaintiff-appellee presents the question of this Courts jurisdiction over the case. Republic Act No. 2613 was enacted on August 1, 1959. This case was argued onJanuary 29, 1960. Notwithstanding this fact, the jurisdiction of this Court was never impugned until the adverse decision of this Court was handed down. The conduct of counsel leads us to believe that they must have always been of the belief that notwithstanding said enactment of Republic Act 2613 this Court has jurisdiction of the case, such conduct being born out of a conviction that the actual real value of the properties in question actually exceeds the jurisdictional amount of this Court (overP200,000). Our minute resolution in G.R. No. L-10096, Hyson Tan, et al. vs. Filipinas Compaa de Seguros, et al., of March 23, 1956, a parallel case, is applicable to the conduct of plaintiff-appellee in this case, thus:

x x x that an appellant who files his brief and submits his case to the Court of Appeals for decision, without questioning the latters jurisdiction until decision is rendered therein, should be considered as having voluntarily waived so much of his claim as would exceed the jurisdiction of said Appellate Court; for the reason that a contrary rule would encourage the undesirable practice of appellants submitting their cases for decision to the Court of Appeals in expectation of favorable judgment, but with intent of attacking its jurisdiction should the decision be unfavorable: x x x[20]


Then came our ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy[21] that a party may be barred by laches from invoking lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea. We expounded, thus:

A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus, we speak of estoppel in pais, of estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches.
Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
The doctrine of laches or of stale demands is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.

It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction (Dean vs. Dean, 136 Or. 694, 86 A.L.R. 79). In the case just cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was further said that the question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice cannot be toleratedobviously for reasons of public policy.

Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court (Pease vs. Rathbun-Jones etc., 243 U.S. 273, 61 L. Ed. 715, 37 S.Ct. 283; St. Louis etc. vs. McBride, 141 U.S. 127, 35 L. Ed. 659). And in Littleton vs. Burgess, 16 Wyo. 58, the Court said that it is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.

Upon this same principle is what We said in the three cases mentioned in the resolution of the Court of Appeals of May 20, 1963 (supra)to the effect that we frown upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverseas well as in Pindagan etc. vs. Dans et al., G.R. L-14591, September 26, 1962; Montelibano et al. vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., G.R. L-15092; Young Men Labor Union etc. vs. The Court of Industrial Relations et al., G.R. L-20307, Feb. 26, 1965, and Mejia vs. Lucas, 100 Phil. p. 277.

The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo, as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such conduct on its part, We would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only patent but revolting.[22]

For quite a time since we made this pronouncement in Sibonghanoy, courts and tribunals, in resolving issues that involve the belated invocation of lack of jurisdiction, have applied the principle of estoppel by laches. Thus, in Calimlim v. Ramirez,[23] we pointed out that Sibonghanoy was developing into a general rule rather than the exception:

A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject-matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case ofSibonghanoy. It is to be regretted, however, that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The exceptional circumstance involved in Sibonghanoy which justified the departure from the accepted concept of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling in Sibonghanoy not as the exception, but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.

In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the questioned ruling was held to be barred by estoppel by laches. It was ruled that the lack of jurisdiction having been raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered, such a plea may no longer be raised for being barred by laches. As defined in said case, laches is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[24]

In Calimlim, despite the fact that the one who benefited from the plea of lack of jurisdiction was the one who invoked the courts jurisdiction, and who later obtained an adverse judgment therein, we refused to apply the ruling in Sibonghanoy.The Court accorded supremacy to the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.

Yet, in subsequent cases decided after Calimlim, which by sheer volume are too plentiful to mention, the Sibonghanoydoctrine, as foretold in Calimlim, became the rule rather than the exception. As such, in Soliven v. Fastforms Philippines, Inc.,[25] the Court ruled:

While it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, this rule presupposes that estoppel has not supervened. In the instant case, respondent actively participated in all stages of the proceedings before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Clearly, respondent is estopped from challenging the trial courts jurisdiction, especially when an adverse judgment has been rendered. In PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, we held:

Moreover, we note that petitioner did not question at all the jurisdiction of the lower court x x x in its answers to both the amended complaint and the second amended complaint. It did so only in its motion for reconsideration of the decision of the lower court after it had received an adverse decision. As this Court held in Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 105180, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 477, 491), participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred petitioner by estoppel from challenging the courts jurisdiction. Notably, from the time it filed its answer to the second amended complaint on April 16, 1985, petitioner did not question the lower courts jurisdiction. It was only on December 29, 1989 when it filed its motion for reconsideration of the lower courts decision that petitioner raised the question of the lower courts lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner thus foreclosed its right to raise the issue of jurisdiction by its own inaction. (italics ours)

Similarly, in the subsequent case of Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. vs. Cabrigas, we ruled:

In the case at bar, it was found by the trial court in its 30 September 1996 decision in LCR Case No. Q-60161(93) that private respondents (who filed the petition for reconstitution of titles) failed to comply with both sections 12 and 13 of RA 26 and therefore, it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. However, private respondents never questioned the trial courts jurisdiction over its petition for reconstitution throughout the duration of LCR Case No. Q-60161(93). On the contrary, private respondents actively participated in the reconstitution proceedings by filing pleadings and presenting its evidence. They invoked the trial courts jurisdiction in order to obtain affirmative relief the reconstitution of their titles. Private respondents have thus foreclosed their right to raise the issue of jurisdiction by their own actions.

The Court has constantly upheld the doctrine that while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a litigants participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, including the invocation of its authority in asking for affirmative relief, bars such party from challenging the courts jurisdiction (PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 402 [1998]). A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction (Asset Privatization Trust vs. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 579 [1998]; Province of Bulacan vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 442 [1998]). The Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party participating in the proceedings and submitting his case for decision and then accepting judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse (Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. NLRC, 298 SCRA 517 [1998], citing Ilocos Sur Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, 241 SCRA 36 [1995]). (italics ours)[26]



Noteworthy, however, is that, in the 2005 case of Metromedia Times Corporation v. Pastorin,[27] where the issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised only in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on appeal, we stated, after examining the doctrines of jurisdiction vis--vis estoppel, that the ruling in Sibonghanoy stands as an exception, rather than the general rule. Metromedia, thus, was not estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter before the NLRC on appeal.[28]

Later, in Francel Realty Corporation v. Sycip,[29] the Court clarified that:

Petitioner argues that the CAs affirmation of the trial courts dismissal of its case was erroneous, considering that a full-blown trial had already been conducted.  In effect, it contends that lack of jurisdiction could no longer be used as a ground for dismissal after trial had ensued and ended.
The above argument is anchored on estoppel by laches, which has been used quite successfully in a number of cases to thwart dismissals based on lack of jurisdiction. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, in which this doctrine was espoused, held that a party may be barred from questioning a courts jurisdiction after being invoked to secure affirmative relief against its opponent.   In fine, laches prevents the issue of lack of jurisdiction from being raised for the first time on appeal by a litigant whose purpose is to annul everything done in a trial in which it has actively participated.

Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

The ruling in Sibonghanoy on the matter of jurisdiction is, however, the exception rather than the rule. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual milieu is analogous to that in the cited case.  In such controversies, laches should be clearly present; that is, lack of jurisdiction must have been raised so belatedly as to warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert it. That Sibonghanoy applies only to exceptional circumstances is clarified in Calimlim v. Ramirez, which we quote:

A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject-matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties.  The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case of Sibonghanoy.  It is to be regretted, however, that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated therein.  The exceptional circumstance involved in Sibonghanoy which justified the departure from the accepted concept of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling in Sibonghanoy not as the exception, but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.

Indeed, the general rule remains: a courts lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.  The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action. Moreover, jurisdiction is determined by the averments of the complaint, not by the defenses contained in the answer.[30]


Also, in Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral,[31] even if the pleader of lack of jurisdiction actively took part in the trial proceedings by presenting a witness to seek exoneration, the Court, reiterating the doctrine in Calimlim, said:

Private respondent argues that the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be waived by estoppel through active participation in the trial.  Such, however, is not the general rule but an exception, best characterized by the peculiar circumstances in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy.  In Sibonghanoy, the party invoking lack of jurisdiction did so only after fifteen years and at a stage when the proceedings had already been elevated to the CA.  Sibonghanoy is an exceptional case because of the presence of laches, which was defined therein as failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[32]

And in the more recent Regalado v. Go,[33] the Court again emphasized that laches should be clearly present for the Sibonghanoy doctrine to be applicable, thus:

Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
The ruling in People v. Regalario that was based on the landmark doctrine enunciated in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy on the matter of jurisdiction by estoppel is the exception rather than the rule. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual milieu is analogous to that in the cited case. In such controversies, lachesshould have been clearly present; that is, lack of jurisdiction must have been raised so belatedly as to warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert it.

In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed by the Surety almost 15 years after the questioned ruling had been rendered. At several stages of the proceedings, in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, the Surety invoked the jurisdiction of the said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for final adjudication on the merits. It was only when the adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction.

Clearly, the factual settings attendant in Sibonghanoy are not present in the case at bar. Petitioner Atty. Regalado, after the receipt of the Court of Appeals resolution finding her guilty of contempt, promptly filed a Motion for Reconsideration assailing the said courts jurisdiction based on procedural infirmity in initiating the action. Her compliance with the appellate courts directive to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt and filing a single piece of pleading to that effect could not be considered as an active participation in the judicial proceedings so as to take the case within the milieu of Sibonghanoy.Rather, it is the natural fear to disobey the mandate of the court that could lead to dire consequences that impelled her to comply.[34]

The Court, thus, wavered on when to apply the exceptional circumstance in Sibonghanoy and on when to apply the general rule enunciated as early as in De La Santa and expounded at length in Calimlim. The general rule should, however, be, as it has always been, that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the courts absence or lack of jurisdiction, only supervenes in exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. Indeed, the fact that a person attempts to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of a court does not estop him from thereafter challenging its jurisdiction over the subject matter, since such jurisdiction must arise by law and not by mere consent of the parties. This is especially true where the person seeking to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of the court does not thereby secure any advantage or the adverse party does not suffer any harm.[35]

Applying the said doctrine to the instant case, the petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal before the appellate court. At that time, no considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach. True, delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the defense of estoppel by laches unless it further appears that the party, knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition of the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that he cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights be then enforced, due to loss of evidence, change of title, intervention of equities, and other causes.[36] In applying the principle of estoppel by laches in the exceptional case of Sibonghanoy, the Court therein considered the patent and revolting inequity and unfairness of having the judgment creditors go up their Calvary once more after more or less 15 years.[37] The same, however, does not obtain in the instant case.

We note at this point that estoppel, being in the nature of a forfeiture, is not favored by law. It is to be applied rarelyonly from necessity, and only in extraordinary circumstances. The doctrine must be applied with great care and the equity must be strong in its favor.[38] When misapplied, the doctrine of estoppel may be a most effective weapon for the accomplishment of injustice.[39] Moreover, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void.[40]Hence, the Revised Rules of Court provides for remedies in attacking judgments rendered by courts or tribunals that have no jurisdiction over the concerned cases. No laches will even attach when the judgment is null and void for want ofjurisdiction.[41] As we have stated in Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz and Leonora Talaro v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz,[42]

It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs.  Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution and the law, and not by the consent or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the nature or subject matter of the action. Nor can it be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties.  Moreover, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over the cause of action.  x x x

Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal is not affected by the defenses or theories set up by the defendant or respondent in his answer or motion to dismiss.  Jurisdiction should be determined by considering not only the status or the relationship of the parties but also the nature of the issues or questions that is the subject of the controversy. x x x x Theproceedings before a court or tribunal without jurisdiction, including its decision, are null and void, hence, susceptible to direct and collateral attacks.[43]

x x x."
↧

Supreme Court: funds for new site, 2016 budget.

October 19, 2015, 8:20 am
$
0
0




"x x x.

The Supreme Court has been given P1.2 billion for the transfer of its office to The Fort in Taguig City, a House leader said yesterday.

Pasig City Rep. Roman Romulo said the amount was included in the proposed 2016 P3.002-trillion General Appropriations Bill, which was approved on third and final by the House of Representatives before it adjourned on October 9.


“The Supreme Court deserves its own grounds and its own building. We understand the funding will be used to acquire the new land at The Fort,” Romulo said in a statement, adding that the transfer would help decongest Manila.

With more than 3,000 employees, the SC currently holds offices in a building and lot owned by the University of the Philippines at the corner of Padre Faura St. and Taft Ave. in Ermita, Manila.

“The money for the construction of the new Supreme Court building is also already there. It is covered by a P3.29-billion multi-year obligational authority,” Romulo said.


He explained that since the SC transfer is covered by an obligational authority,” the funding requirements of the transfer from 2016 to 2019 are assured.”

An obligational authority is the necessary approval that precedes budget spending by a government agency or department, granted by Congress through appropriations.

Romulo said the initial P122.7 million needed for the project management as well as the detailed architectural and engineering design of the new building is included in the House-approved spending bill.

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno earlier expressed hope that they could transfer to their new office by 2019.

Romulo noted that an aggregate new funding of P26.7 billion has been earmarked to the entire Judiciary next year or 22 percent greater than its allocation this year.

This includes P2.3 billion to pay for the operations of lower courts, some of which have become dependent on local governments for facilities, he said.




x x x."





Read more at http://www.tempo.com.ph/2015/10/18/sc-receives-p1-2b-for-move-to-the-fort/#OJumGXWtAfzSQzfg.99
↧
↧

Income tax reform; status.

October 20, 2015, 8:55 am
$
0
0





"x x x.

On Monday, Belmonte said they may consider lowering income taxes when Congress comes back from its break. Previously, Belmonte said the matter is best left to the next administration.

Quimbo on Tuesday said their proposal involves first the indexation of income taxes to inflation, meaning they will bring tax rates at par with current costs of living.

"Kung ikaw ordinary teacher, noon binabayaran ng 5 percent ngayon 20 percent with indexation to inflation, kahit 'di pa galawin ang tax rates, babalik sa 1997-1998 tax rate mo. We're adjusting it to inflation, babalik ka sa tax rate ng 1997 effectively, mag-uuwi ng mas mataas na take home pay. That's a substantial reduction," said Quimbo.

The second phase calls for both the actual lowering of tax rates from the current structure which has the highest tax rate at 32 percent to simpler brackets like 5, 7.5, 15 and 30 percent at the highest and the simplification of the tax system for businessmen, entrepreneurs and professionals.

Quimbo explained that the current system has so many loopholes that force only 30-35 percent of professionals to pay taxes.

On the other hand, salaried workers whose taxes are withheld automatically have 100 percent compliance. With their proposal, Quimbo hopes the tax effort of professionals can go up to 72 percent to allow government to generate P92 billion in revenues that will offset any revenue losses.

The other phases include aligning corporate income taxes with the rest of the ASEAN, simplification of the deduction system,revisions to fiscal incentives, evaluation of the surcharge excise tax on fuel and adjustments to the value added tax. Quimbo explains, right now government gives up P148 billion in income as perks to businesses.

Initially, the revisions will cost government a P30 billion hole in its revenues with the indexation to inflation, leaving a net loss of P18 billion but this figure can easily be recovered in the succeeding phases. Once the entire program is completed, government would have P82 billion in additional revenues.

"Once we're able to implement all phases, bawing-bawi na gobyerno, sobra-sobra pa," said Quimbo.

Quimbo qualified that there is no need to increase the value-added tax (VAT). Rather, they will just review which products should be imposed the VAT and which shouldn't be charged with VAT.

x x x."
↧

Deportation of undesirable alien

October 20, 2015, 9:15 am
$
0
0





"x x x.

MANILA - The Bureau of Immigration (BI) has ordered the deportation of US Marine Lance Corporal Joseph Scott Pemberton, the suspect in the killing of Filipino transgender Jennifer Laude, for being an undesirable alien.

In a five-page resolution issued September 16, the bureau said Pemberton is deemed undesirable and unfit to stay in the country.

The BI also ordered Pemberton's name be put in the bureau's blacklist so that he will never be allowed to re-enter the Philippines.

The resolution came after Pemberton filed a petition for self-deportation and after the prosecution witnesses alias Barbie and the cashier of Celzone Lodge testified before the Senate.

The BI said their testimonies, as well as Pemberton's own admission that he was with Laude and subjected Laude to physical harm, were enough basis for his deportation.

The BI said the deportation is subject to the clearance of the Olongapo Regional Trial Court (RTC), which is handling the Laude murder case. The RTC is set to hand down its decision on the Laude case next month.

"The deportation case is not the same as the criminal case. However, Pemberton will not be deported until the criminal case is resolved or when the court clears him for deportation," BI spokesperson Atty. Elaine Tan said.

Atty. Harry Roque, counsel of the Laude family, welcomed the BI's order, saying it was at the instance of the Laude family that Pemberton be subjected to deportation proceedings.

"It proves that he is indeed an undesirable alien arising from the killing of Jennifer. This notwithstanding, his deportation should be after he serves his sentence, if found guilty. Any contrary ruling will accord him with impunity," Roque said.

x x x."
↧

Corruption and Business in the Philippines | Chris Moriarty | LinkedIn

October 20, 2015, 9:34 am
$
0
0


"x x x.

I really do believe that most Filipino officials are straight and most are incredibly sincere about building a better culture within Government and thereby building a better future for their people. However, there is also no shortage of corrupt or at least opportunistic officials in every government department. If the word spreads that you or your organisation is up for making cash payments, then you will be inundated with officials swarming like flies looking to get their share.
This is why reputation is EVERYTHING in the Philippines. And this is why it is really vital that all Australian businesses take the same hard line approach to these issues. For the sake of all Australians doing business in the Philippines, it is vital that each one of us takes a very hard line against this stuff and presents a very difficult and tough target for corrupt officials.
Right now I am focussed on trying to crack open a new Australian player who I know is playing fast and loose. I am not sure they are corrupt, but I do know they are highly vulnerable. What they are doing is paying their staff one figure and officially declaring a much lower salary to the local tax office – effectively giving their staff a ‘tax shield’ so as to enable them to avoid tax.
There are four things they are missing:
  1. Under Filipino tax law the company is responsible for making good any such shortfalls on behalf of the employee, so if the whole thing unravels it is them who will cop it not the employee.
  2. When any member of staff leaves them and joins another firm, they have to present their 2316 certificate to their new employer. This details their salary and tax information. This means if you are doing something dodgy then every time an employee leaves your employment for another company, probably a company in the same industry as you, that company receives documentary proof of your dealings.
  3. Each employer in the Philippines is responsible for doing the end-of-year tax reconciliation for each employee – kind of like an in-house H&R Block service. This means that if you are dodgy and the new employer is straight, then the straight employer is going to have to suffer some pain sorting out the mess plus make various reports to the tax office. You don’t want your competitors experiencing pain due to your behaviour just at the exact time they are preparing reports to the Tax Office.
  4. The fines for this kind of thing are HUGE. And this is where it all unravels. Once the Tax Office figures out that they have a foreign company operating here who is playing fast and loose, then they go after them as hard as they possibly can. And why shouldn’t they? Foreigners are only ever guests here and nobody wants a guest who doesn’t respect the furniture – even if they themselves don’t.
And here is the big problem. Once you get caught playing fast and lose you leave yourself open to corrupt claims by officials.
Let me go back to my story about the traffic officer. I had two choices; pay some cash through the window or pay the fine. And remember how much work was involved in paying something as simple as a traffic fine. Think about how much more work is involved in paying a large and very complex fine around a failure in business compliance?
Now, think about how much pain you are going to be in if, due to your reputation, you have attracted the wrong kind of official to your case – and that official is by their nature highly motivated to do everything they can to keep you in pain? After all, why would they want you to resolve your difficulties? What is their motivation?
What are you going to do? Threaten a lawyer? Who are you going to go after, the tax office or the official? Either one will go well for you. Not.
Maybe try to go to the industry association? Why would the industry association help someone who has played fast and loose and thereby muddied the waters for everyone else?
Meanwhile are you going to go to the pub and moan to other Australian business people about how hard done by you have been? They are only going to be upset that you have made a big dent in the reputation of all of us.
x x x."
↧
Viewing all 4572 articles
Browse latest View live
Search