FOUR NATIONAL Artist awards granted by then
president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo have been struck down by the Supreme
Court (SC) which found grave abuse of discretion in the conferment of
the titles, a decision welcomed by past awardees who have waged a
four-year legal battle on the issue.
The high court declared as invalid the
National Artist titles of Cecile Guidote-Alvarez (theater), Carlo Magno
Jose Caparas (visual arts), Francisco “Bobby” Mañosa (architecture) and
Jose “Pitoy” Moreno (fashion design) for violation of the Constitution’s
equal protection clause, particularly on the preferential treatment
accorded to them by Mrs. Arroyo.
“The manifest disregard of the rules, guidelines and processes of the
[National Commission for Culture and the Arts] and the [Cultural Center
of the Philippines] was an arbitrary act that unduly favored respondents
Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Mañosa and Moreno,” a Supreme Court press
statement yesterday quoted the decision as saying.
On the other hand, the high court did not find grave abuse of discretion
in the exclusion of Dr. Ramon P. Santos in the final list of conferees
announced by Malacañang in 2009 as the recommendations of the National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) and Board of Trustees of the
Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) were “not binding but only
discretionary.”
Except for three justices -- Arturo D. Brion is on leave while Mariano
C. del Castillo and Mario Victor F. Leonen inhibited themselves from the
case -- the rest of the high court voted to strip the conferment on the
four awardees.
A group of artists led by National Artist for Literature Virgilio S.
Almario filed a petition for prohibition in August 2009 following the
insertion by the Palace of the four individuals among the seven new
National Artists despite not being recommended by the NCCA and the CCP.
The court shortly issued a stay order.
The other three awardees were Manuel “Manuel Conde” P. Urbano for film
and broadcast arts (posthumous), Lazaro A. Francisco for literature
(posthumous), and Federico Aguilar Alcuaz for visual arts, paintings,
sculpture and mixed media.
The CCP and NCCA submitted four names to the Palace, but only three
individuals were retained. Mr. Santos was removed from the list, while
four were added to include Ms. Alvarez who was then executive director
of the NCCA.
Sought for comment, Mr. Almario said in a text message yesterday: “Ano pa sasabihin ko? [What else can I say?] Hail SC!”
National Artist for Visual Arts Benedicto “BenCab” Cabrera said in a
separate text: “Well. I’m glad that our petition was favorably answered.
SC realized it’s an abuse of discretion and made the award to them
invalid.”
Messrs. Almario and Cabrera were among the National Artist petitioners
that included Arturo Luz (Visual Arts), Bienvenido Lumbera (Literature),
Napoleon Abueva (Sculpture), F. Sionil Jose (Literature) and the late
Eddie Romero (Film and Broadcast Arts).
National Artists receive 100,000 net of taxes for living awardees,
75,000 net of taxes for posthumous awardees payable to legal heirs; a
monthly life pension, medical and hospitalization benefits; life
insurance coverage for those who are still insurable, arrangements and
expenses for a state funeral, and a place of honor at national state
functions and recognition at cultural events.
A creation of President Ferdinand E. Marcos through a proclamation
issued in 1972, the Order of National Artists is the highest national
recognition for Filipinos who have made significant contributions to the
arts. The process has a nomination and vetting system, even as awardees
to the final list have been added by presidents after Corazon C.
Aquino.
A new category called “Historical Literature was created by President
Fidel V. Ramos in 1997 for biographer Carlos Quirino, President Joseph
E. Estrada in 2000 conferred the title to his friend Ernani Cuenco, Sr.,
while Mrs. Arroyo in 2003 included in the list Alejandro “Ding” Roces,
former Education secretary under the administration of her father,
President Diosdado P. Macapagal, and added another awardee, sculptor
Abdulmari Imao, in 2006.
In a previous interview, Mr. Almario called the presidential prerogative “DNA” or Dagdag (additional) National Artist.
source: Businessworld
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Justice Brion’s dissent (On SC DQ Decision re Rep. Reyes Case)
Regina Reyes beat the son of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco,
Jr. by almost 4,000 votes in the last concluded elections for the post
of representative for the lone district of Marinduque.
Pursuant to established jurisprudence, all controversy concerning her qualification to sit as a member of the House of Representatives should be resolved exclusively by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. For still unknown reasons, the Supreme Court departed from jurisprudence and ruled that the Certificate of Candidacy of Rep. Reyes was null and void allegedly because she is an American citizen.
I yield my space today to print portions of the dissenting opinion of Justice Arturo D. Brion. He was joined by Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.
No basis exists to dismiss the petition
Section 6 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court merely requires that the petition be sufficient in form and substance to justify an order from the Court to act on the petition and to require the respondents to file their comments. The same rule also provides that the Court may dismiss the petition outright (as the majority did in the present case) if it was filed manifestly for delay or if the questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.
In the present case, the petition is indisputably sufficient in form and substance… Thus, the question before the Court… is whether the issues raised by Reyes were too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.
…the issues raised cannot be unsubstantial as they involve crucial issues of jurisdiction and due process. …the Court cannot simply go through the motions of evaluation and then simply strike out the petitioner’s positions. The Court’s role as adjudicator and the demands of basic fairness require that we should fully hear the parties and rule based on our appreciation of the merits of their positions in light of what the law and established jurisprudence require.
HRET has jurisdiction
…the matter of jurisdiction between the Comelec and the HRET has always constituted a dichotomy; the relationship between the Comelec and the HRET in terms of jurisdiction is not an appellate one but is mutually exclusive.
This mutually exclusive jurisdictional relationship is, as a rule, sequential. …the Comelec’s jurisdiction ends when the HRET’s jurisdiction begins. …there is no point in time, when a vacuum in jurisdiction would exist… This jurisdiction …refers to jurisdiction over the subject matter …Under Section 17, Article VI, the subject matter of HRET’s jurisdiction is the “election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives.”
I submit … that the proclamation of the winning candidate is the operative fact that triggers the jurisdiction of the HRET…the proclamation of a winning candidate divests the Comelec of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation and the party questioning the qualifications of the winning candidate should now present his or her case in a proper proceeding (i.e. quo warranto) before the HRET who, by constitutional mandate, has the sole jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving the election, returns and qualification of members of the House of Representatives. …as far as the HRET is concerned, the proclamation of the winner in the congressional elections serves as the reckoning point as well as the trigger that brings any contests relating to his or her election, return and qualifications within its sole and exclusive jurisdiction.
…by holding that the Comelec retained jurisdiction … the majority effectively emasculates the HRET of its jurisdiction as it allows the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto only after the assumption to office by the candidate (i.e, on June 30 in the usual case).
Comelec gravely abused its discretion
… common sense and the minimum sense of fairness dictate that an article in the internet cannot simply be taken to be evidence of the truth of what it says, nor can photocopies of documents not shown to be genuine be taken as proof of the “truth.” To accept these materials as statements of “truth” is to be partisan and to deny the petitioner her right to both procedural and substantive due process.
It is also basic in the law of evidence that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. …Reyes’ view is not without its merits and should not simply be dismissively set aside.
First, Tan submitted an article published online … stated that the author had obtained records from the BID stating that Reyes is an American citizen; that she is the holder of a US passport and that she has been using the same since 2005.
How the law on evidence would characterize Obligacion’s blog article …is not hard for a law student answering the Bar exam to tackle: the article is double hearsay or hearsay evidence that is twice removed from being admissible as it was offered to prove its contents (that Reyes is an American citizen) without any other competent and credible evidence to corroborate them.
Second, Tan also submitted a photocopy of a “certification” issued by … the BID showing the travel records of Reyes …and that she is a holder of US Passport No. 306278853.
Contributory to the possible answer is the ruling of this Court that a “certification” is not a certified copy and is not a document that proves that a party is not a Filipino citizen.
…in the absence of sufficient proof (i.e, other than a photocopy of a “certification”) that she is not a natural born Filipino citizen, no burden of evidence shifts to her to prove anything, particularly the fact that she is not an American citizen. Considering that Tan might have also failed to prove by substantial evidence his allegation that Reyes is an American citizen, the burden of evidence also cannot be shifted to the latter to prove that she had availed of the privileges of RA 9225 in order to re-acquire her status as a natural born Filipino citizen.
…in the absence of sufficient proof that Reyes lost her Filipino citizenship, the twin requirements under RA 9225 for re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship should not apply to her.
Conclusion
All told, the Comelec does not appear to have an airtight case based on substantial evidence on the citizenship and residence issues and much less a similar case on the jurisdictional issue, to justify A VERY PROMPT OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL ACTION from this Court.
If this Court is indeed SERIOUS IN ADMINISTERING JUSTICE or at least to BE SEEN TO BE ADMINISTERING JUSTICE in the way described in the speeches of many Justice of this Court, it should not deliver the kind of hasty and imprudent action it did in this case.
source: Manila Standard Column of Atty. Harry Roque
Pursuant to established jurisprudence, all controversy concerning her qualification to sit as a member of the House of Representatives should be resolved exclusively by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. For still unknown reasons, the Supreme Court departed from jurisprudence and ruled that the Certificate of Candidacy of Rep. Reyes was null and void allegedly because she is an American citizen.
I yield my space today to print portions of the dissenting opinion of Justice Arturo D. Brion. He was joined by Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.
No basis exists to dismiss the petition
Section 6 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court merely requires that the petition be sufficient in form and substance to justify an order from the Court to act on the petition and to require the respondents to file their comments. The same rule also provides that the Court may dismiss the petition outright (as the majority did in the present case) if it was filed manifestly for delay or if the questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.
In the present case, the petition is indisputably sufficient in form and substance… Thus, the question before the Court… is whether the issues raised by Reyes were too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.
…the issues raised cannot be unsubstantial as they involve crucial issues of jurisdiction and due process. …the Court cannot simply go through the motions of evaluation and then simply strike out the petitioner’s positions. The Court’s role as adjudicator and the demands of basic fairness require that we should fully hear the parties and rule based on our appreciation of the merits of their positions in light of what the law and established jurisprudence require.
HRET has jurisdiction
…the matter of jurisdiction between the Comelec and the HRET has always constituted a dichotomy; the relationship between the Comelec and the HRET in terms of jurisdiction is not an appellate one but is mutually exclusive.
This mutually exclusive jurisdictional relationship is, as a rule, sequential. …the Comelec’s jurisdiction ends when the HRET’s jurisdiction begins. …there is no point in time, when a vacuum in jurisdiction would exist… This jurisdiction …refers to jurisdiction over the subject matter …Under Section 17, Article VI, the subject matter of HRET’s jurisdiction is the “election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives.”
I submit … that the proclamation of the winning candidate is the operative fact that triggers the jurisdiction of the HRET…the proclamation of a winning candidate divests the Comelec of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation and the party questioning the qualifications of the winning candidate should now present his or her case in a proper proceeding (i.e. quo warranto) before the HRET who, by constitutional mandate, has the sole jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving the election, returns and qualification of members of the House of Representatives. …as far as the HRET is concerned, the proclamation of the winner in the congressional elections serves as the reckoning point as well as the trigger that brings any contests relating to his or her election, return and qualifications within its sole and exclusive jurisdiction.
…by holding that the Comelec retained jurisdiction … the majority effectively emasculates the HRET of its jurisdiction as it allows the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto only after the assumption to office by the candidate (i.e, on June 30 in the usual case).
Comelec gravely abused its discretion
… common sense and the minimum sense of fairness dictate that an article in the internet cannot simply be taken to be evidence of the truth of what it says, nor can photocopies of documents not shown to be genuine be taken as proof of the “truth.” To accept these materials as statements of “truth” is to be partisan and to deny the petitioner her right to both procedural and substantive due process.
It is also basic in the law of evidence that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. …Reyes’ view is not without its merits and should not simply be dismissively set aside.
First, Tan submitted an article published online … stated that the author had obtained records from the BID stating that Reyes is an American citizen; that she is the holder of a US passport and that she has been using the same since 2005.
How the law on evidence would characterize Obligacion’s blog article …is not hard for a law student answering the Bar exam to tackle: the article is double hearsay or hearsay evidence that is twice removed from being admissible as it was offered to prove its contents (that Reyes is an American citizen) without any other competent and credible evidence to corroborate them.
Second, Tan also submitted a photocopy of a “certification” issued by … the BID showing the travel records of Reyes …and that she is a holder of US Passport No. 306278853.
Contributory to the possible answer is the ruling of this Court that a “certification” is not a certified copy and is not a document that proves that a party is not a Filipino citizen.
…in the absence of sufficient proof (i.e, other than a photocopy of a “certification”) that she is not a natural born Filipino citizen, no burden of evidence shifts to her to prove anything, particularly the fact that she is not an American citizen. Considering that Tan might have also failed to prove by substantial evidence his allegation that Reyes is an American citizen, the burden of evidence also cannot be shifted to the latter to prove that she had availed of the privileges of RA 9225 in order to re-acquire her status as a natural born Filipino citizen.
…in the absence of sufficient proof that Reyes lost her Filipino citizenship, the twin requirements under RA 9225 for re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship should not apply to her.
Conclusion
All told, the Comelec does not appear to have an airtight case based on substantial evidence on the citizenship and residence issues and much less a similar case on the jurisdictional issue, to justify A VERY PROMPT OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL ACTION from this Court.
If this Court is indeed SERIOUS IN ADMINISTERING JUSTICE or at least to BE SEEN TO BE ADMINISTERING JUSTICE in the way described in the speeches of many Justice of this Court, it should not deliver the kind of hasty and imprudent action it did in this case.
source: Manila Standard Column of Atty. Harry Roque
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Writ of Habeas Data
Death threat and resort to the Writ of Habeas Data
I was one of those who filed yesterday a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against Commission on Elections Chairman Sixto Brilliantes and Deputy Presidential Mouth Abigal Valte. I decided to join the petition because last Monday, my law office received a registered mail which contained a letter threatening my life. The letter asked me not to “allow myself to be used ” and to” refrain from wasting my intelligence”. It was signed by the “Rodante Untal Command” which purportedly is part of the New People’s Army.
I do not know who sent the letter. I can think of no less than four sensitive cases that I am involved with that could have occasioned the treat. There’s the Ampatuan massacre case, the Gerry Ortega murder case, the Evangelista torture case, and the murder case of Manolo Daza, brother of former Deputy Speaker Raul Daza. And yet, despite the fact that the threat may have come from anyone connected with any of these cases, I opted to join the Habeas Data petition against the Comelec, if only to eliminate the poll body as being the source of this latest threat to my life and security.
The writ of habeas data was enacted by the Supreme Court under then Chief Justice Reynato Puno as a means of utilizing the Court’s rule-making powers to protect and promote the right to life. It was promulgated by the Supreme Court after it declared “all branches of government to be in breach of the duty to protect and promote the right to life”. This right is undoubtedly the most important of all rights since without it, no exercise of any other human right could be possible. It was intended “for people whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, x x x engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party”. The relief that may be ordered when the writ is issued includes: “updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the act complained of”.
I suspect both Brilliantes and Valte as among those behind the threat because both have made statements to the media acknowledging the use of no less than P30 million in intelligence funds to “surveil election saboteurs” such as the AES Watch. I am a founding convenor of this group. Said Brillantes to the media : “Bakit sila matatakot kung wala silang ginawang masama? Talaga namang ginagamit ang intel fund sa mga nagsasabotahe ng election” or only to those out to sabotage the polls. “Kapag natatakot sila, ibig sabihin meron sila sigurong ginagawang masama”. Later Brilliantes added: “They made our life difficult. Now, they should watch out how I get payback“.
Valte for her part, confirmed that it was the President that gave Comelec the P30 million in intelligence fund: “The justification is supposed to be utilized for intelligence, counter-intelligence activities and gathering of information relative to the activities of certain groups, individuals and technology experts suspected of conducting overt and covert operations to sabotage the results of the elections.”
I repeat, I do not have evidence on who was responsible for the latest threat on my life. But because I consider this as serious, lest I end up as part of the growing statistics of victims of extra-legal killings, I filed the petition to narrow down the possibilities.
Under the writ, I hope to obtain the information gathered by the COMELEC, which prompted Brilliantes to label us in AES watch as a group of “saboteurs”. Note that Brilliantes has also said that he will expose the groups behind us. He has never made that disclosure. Meanwhile, I am entitled to know exactly what information the Comelec has to rule out the possibility that the COMELEC or Valte is responsible for the latest threat against me.
In any case, I would like to assure everyone that since the time we filed our petition impugning the constitutionality of the use of the precinct count optical scan machines in 2009, we have been guided solely by the concern that the chosen automated election system, the PCOS, violates the constitutional right to secret voting and public counting. Our concern currently is unless the safeguards provided by law are complied with, to wit: examination of the source code, use of digital signatures, and enabling vote verification, are implemented by the Comelec; the right of the people to a clean elections would be the subject of continuing violation. For what it is worth, the contractor, Smartmatic, had already earned its profit. Presumably, all those who made money from the use of the PCOS have also already cashed in. Isn’t it time now that the voters are accorded their right to public counting of their ballots?
I do not know how the Supreme Court will resolve the petition. All that I can do as one whose life and security is under threat is to avail of all legal remedies to protect my rights.
I leave the rest to God.
source: Manila Standard's Column of Atty Harry Roque, Jr.
I was one of those who filed yesterday a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against Commission on Elections Chairman Sixto Brilliantes and Deputy Presidential Mouth Abigal Valte. I decided to join the petition because last Monday, my law office received a registered mail which contained a letter threatening my life. The letter asked me not to “allow myself to be used ” and to” refrain from wasting my intelligence”. It was signed by the “Rodante Untal Command” which purportedly is part of the New People’s Army.
I do not know who sent the letter. I can think of no less than four sensitive cases that I am involved with that could have occasioned the treat. There’s the Ampatuan massacre case, the Gerry Ortega murder case, the Evangelista torture case, and the murder case of Manolo Daza, brother of former Deputy Speaker Raul Daza. And yet, despite the fact that the threat may have come from anyone connected with any of these cases, I opted to join the Habeas Data petition against the Comelec, if only to eliminate the poll body as being the source of this latest threat to my life and security.
The writ of habeas data was enacted by the Supreme Court under then Chief Justice Reynato Puno as a means of utilizing the Court’s rule-making powers to protect and promote the right to life. It was promulgated by the Supreme Court after it declared “all branches of government to be in breach of the duty to protect and promote the right to life”. This right is undoubtedly the most important of all rights since without it, no exercise of any other human right could be possible. It was intended “for people whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, x x x engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party”. The relief that may be ordered when the writ is issued includes: “updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the act complained of”.
I suspect both Brilliantes and Valte as among those behind the threat because both have made statements to the media acknowledging the use of no less than P30 million in intelligence funds to “surveil election saboteurs” such as the AES Watch. I am a founding convenor of this group. Said Brillantes to the media : “Bakit sila matatakot kung wala silang ginawang masama? Talaga namang ginagamit ang intel fund sa mga nagsasabotahe ng election” or only to those out to sabotage the polls. “Kapag natatakot sila, ibig sabihin meron sila sigurong ginagawang masama”. Later Brilliantes added: “They made our life difficult. Now, they should watch out how I get payback“.
Valte for her part, confirmed that it was the President that gave Comelec the P30 million in intelligence fund: “The justification is supposed to be utilized for intelligence, counter-intelligence activities and gathering of information relative to the activities of certain groups, individuals and technology experts suspected of conducting overt and covert operations to sabotage the results of the elections.”
I repeat, I do not have evidence on who was responsible for the latest threat on my life. But because I consider this as serious, lest I end up as part of the growing statistics of victims of extra-legal killings, I filed the petition to narrow down the possibilities.
Under the writ, I hope to obtain the information gathered by the COMELEC, which prompted Brilliantes to label us in AES watch as a group of “saboteurs”. Note that Brilliantes has also said that he will expose the groups behind us. He has never made that disclosure. Meanwhile, I am entitled to know exactly what information the Comelec has to rule out the possibility that the COMELEC or Valte is responsible for the latest threat against me.
In any case, I would like to assure everyone that since the time we filed our petition impugning the constitutionality of the use of the precinct count optical scan machines in 2009, we have been guided solely by the concern that the chosen automated election system, the PCOS, violates the constitutional right to secret voting and public counting. Our concern currently is unless the safeguards provided by law are complied with, to wit: examination of the source code, use of digital signatures, and enabling vote verification, are implemented by the Comelec; the right of the people to a clean elections would be the subject of continuing violation. For what it is worth, the contractor, Smartmatic, had already earned its profit. Presumably, all those who made money from the use of the PCOS have also already cashed in. Isn’t it time now that the voters are accorded their right to public counting of their ballots?
I do not know how the Supreme Court will resolve the petition. All that I can do as one whose life and security is under threat is to avail of all legal remedies to protect my rights.
I leave the rest to God.
source: Manila Standard's Column of Atty Harry Roque, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)