Noy exempted from election gun ban

MANILA, Philippines - President Aquino is now explicitly included in the long list of people and agencies exempted from the election gun ban that will be implemented by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in connection with the May 2016 polls.

Based on Comelec Resolution No. 10015 promulgated on Nov. 13, President Aquino is authorized to carry firearms during the election period from Jan. 10 to June 8 next year.

In the 2013 midterm elections, the President was not in the list of people exempted from the gun ban. He, however, was able to secure an exemption for the gun that he was using for practical shooting.

Also exempted are Vice President Jejomar Binay; senators and members of the House of Representatives that are not candidates; Cabinet secretaries; justices of the Supreme Court; justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals; judges of trial courts; ombudsman and deputy ombudsmen; chairman and commissioners of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit and Commission on Human Rights; Comelec officials and security personnel of foreign diplomatic corps, missions and establishments under international law.

The others covered by the exemption are regular members, officers and agents of law enforcement or government security agencies like the Philippine National Police, Armed Forces of the Philippines, National Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Corrections, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Intelligence and Investigation Divisions of the Bureau of Customs, Port Police Department, Philippine Economic Zone Authority police forces, government guard units, intelligence division of the Bureau of Immigration and Manila International Airport Authority police force.

The resolution showed that cashiers and disbursing officers or persons who “habitually” carry large sums of money or valuables and members of private security service providers are likewise not covered by the gun restriction.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Meanwhile, the Comelec said that qualified persons may apply for gun ban exemption for their bodyguards at the agency’s committee on the ban on firearms and security personnel.

The Comelec added that unless there is a written authorization from the poll body, a person is not allowed to carry firearms or to employ a bodyguard.

source:  Philippine Star

The woman without a country?

A petition to disqualify Grace Poe has been lodged by my pal, Dean Amado Valdez, with whom I am normally in agreement — and am I surprised when we differ. He contends that the Senator is not qualified in the 2016 presidential elections on the following grounds:

1. Assuming that Grace Poe was a natural-born citizen, she lost her status as natural-born when she

Renounced her Filipino citizenship in 2001 to become an American citizen. She never regained her natural born status. At best, she is a repatriated Filipino citizen under RA 9225.

It seems to me being a natural-born Filipino is a one-time permanent thing. As Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion taught us in senior law, a natural-born Filipino “is one born a Filipino.” One is born only once. That concept, to me, is unchanging. One is a natural-born Pinoy, Martian or Manchurian Candidate. Losing one’s natural-born status seems an impossibility, like losing my birthplace of Mauban, Quezon, my sainted mother, my birth date, etc. Immutable. We cannot square the circle.

2. She has not completed her ten-year residency reckoned, at the earliest, from july, 2006 when she re-acquired her Filipino citizenship, and at the latest on 20 october 2010 when she renounced her American citizenship.

Residence was required to make sure one was aware of what was going on in the community and the country. For a caring Pinoy, that is now the easiest thing to do, without being physically present. We are talking of only a few months and therefore the issue has de minimis significance, if at all. The intent of the law is to exclude a stranger and a newcomer, unacquainted with the conditions and needs of the community and not identified with the latter. That may well be but it represents the best thinking of a jurassic era.

When I was in Rizal High, I would walk two or three kilometers for lunch at home and to catch the one o’clock Sports Parade of Willie Hernandez, to find out how the New York Yankees had fared the day before. Today we can watch sports events world-wide, live. And edifying presidential debates.

I chat with my family at home and then I am told my daughter Lara, with a doctorate in philosophy – children’s studies, now teaching tenure-track in New York, is there, on screen, to chat with her siblings here, live. There is the I-Pod, computer, cellphones, etc.
that make it possible for concerned Pinoys abroad who care to follow daily what goes on here.

Art. 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees against statelessness. Art. 25 says to care for love children. In Makati Elementary, we read about Philip Nolan, The Man Without a Country. Was Grace ever The Woman Without a Country?

I may sound Emotionalized. I prefer Passionate, for all my life I have preferred to be on the side of the one being dumped on and kicked around. Do we kick around a Poe-Lot who comes to this world with two strikes against him/her? Underdogs, weeping alone, my kind of people, for whom I have worked, prayed and fought with that kind of passion that whips the blood.

I don’t want the unelected Commission on Elections and the unelected Supreme Court ruling on the tough issue. Not even the partly elected Senate Electoral Tribunal, whose widely-admired Chair, Justice Tony Carpio, inexplicably and uncharacteristically prejudged Grace’s case on Day One, without waiting for all the arguments to be in, leaving him no wiggle room. He should have waited until after all the evidence and arguments are in.

The choice of who will lead the country is the quintessential political question falling under its second kind.

The concept of “political question” is limited to two: 1) when the matter is exclusively left to a body to decide, like disorderly behavior of a member of Congress for something said say, in a privilege speech; it may be questioned there but not in any other place, such as the courts; or 2) when it is left to the people to decide in their sovereign capacity.

“But where the matter falls under the discretion of another department or especially the people themselves, the decision reached is in the category of a political question and consequently may not be the subject of judicial review.” I. Cruz and C. Cruz, Phil. Political Law 140 (2014).

I may be wrong but I should not have to be blamed for something drilled in me by Chief Justice Concepcion in San Beda and Prof. Albert Sacks in Harvard Law and adopted by Justice Isagani Cruz and his son, Carlo.

Let the sovereign people, the bosses, decide in a society that would be humane under our constitutional preamble.

Am I voting for Grace? Decency I always associate with FPJ and Susan. Osmosis should work and result in Designer Genes.

But, in fact, I have not made up my mind. It’s just that I don’t want any foundling being dumped on and kicked around. Art. 24 of the Civil Code says the system must be vigilant in protecting the handicapped, and ang putok sa buho, which Shakespeare lamented in King Lear, “Why bastard? wherefore base” – merits sympathy, understanding and compassion.

Campaign against her but let her be among the cards to be dealt our people in 2016.

source:  Manila Times Column by RENE SAGUISAG

SC reverses ombudsman suspension of Junjun

Dismissed Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr. has won his case in the Supreme Court (SC) against the Office of the Ombudsman in relation to his earlier preventive suspension over alleged anomaly in the Makati City Hall Building 2 project.

In its decision against the suspension order on Binay, the Supreme Court (SC) allowed the application of the condonation doctrine or Aguinaldo doctrine.

The doctrine has been a common defense invoked by elected officials in evading liabilities for acts committed in their previous terms in office.

It effectively extinguishes a reelected official’s administrative liability from alleged wrongdoing during a previous term.

The SC conceived of the doctrine in an October 1959 decision.

A court insider bared that the justices decided in session to abandon the doctrine, but only for future cases.

Binay could use the latest SC ruling in questioning the Ombudsman’s subsequent dismissal order against him, the source stressed.

The SC insider further revealed that the high court also upheld the power of the Court of Appeals (CA) to review and stop administrative orders of the Office of the Ombudsman on cases against officials.

The abandonment of the doctrine would be prospective in application, as agreed upon by the majority of justices during the voting, the source said.

This means the doctrine will apply in Binay’s case but he will be the last to benefit from it.

The SC rejected the position of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales that the condonation doctrine cannot apply in Binay’s case.

Binay invoked the doctrine in questioning the preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman.

Last month, the Ombudsman ordered the dismissal from service of Mayor Binay over the controversy.

Binay had argued that the alleged anomalies were committed during the first and second phases of the project when he was not yet mayor of the city.

The third and fourth phases, on the other hand, were then undertaken during his previous term from 2010 to 2013.

The SC, the source said, has also rejected the position of Morales that only the high court can review and stop her orders on administrative cases based on Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act).

Such provision in the Ombudsman law was declared ineffective as Congress did not consult the SC in approving it, according to the ruling penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

No other details were available as the high court has not yet released a copy of the ruling as of press time.

The SC issued the ruling in response to a petition filed by the ombudsman questioning the orders of the CA stopping the ombudsman’s first preventive suspension order against Mayor Binay.

In her petition last March, Morales assailed the temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) issued by the CA stopping her suspension order against Binay.

The SC heard the case in oral arguments during summer session in Baguio City last April before four justices – Presbitero Velasco Jr., Diosdado Peralta, Arturo Brion and Francis Jardeleza – decided to inhibit from the case. 

Meanwhile, the Makati City police said the large presence of policemen around the Makati City Hall is part of APEC preparations and not a reaction to the SC decision on Binay case.

“They (police officers) are being billeted at the school. It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision,” Sr. Supt. Ernesto Barlam, chief of the Makati City Police, said, referring to the General Pio Del Pilar National High School. The school is located near the city hall building on F. Zobel street. The Makati City Hall building is not very far from the hotels where some of the APEC delegates would be staying during the summit.

Binay spokesman Joey Salgado said they were not convinced of the city police chief’s explanation.

“That is their version of things.  But the timing is suspicious. APEC is still quite far away,” Salgado toldThe STAR.

He said the mayor will issue a statement only after getting his copy of the SC decision. – With Mike Frialde

source:  Philippine Star

The Fair Election Act: Size isn’t everything or why large posters may have to yield to free speech

In the midst of the 2013 elections, a tarpaulin was posted within the front walls of a cathedral in Bacolod City. The tarpaulin, measuring approximately 6 feet x 10 feet, had the words “Team Patay (Dead)” with an X mark, and “TeamBuhay (Alive)” with a ? mark. Certain electoral candidates were then classified to either Team Patay or Team Buhay, depending on their vote on the Reproductive Health Law.

Citing violations on size limitations prescribed by the implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 9006, otherwise known as the Fair Election Act, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) ordered the removal of the tarpaulin.

The Fair Election Act, it must be noted, was enacted consistent with the Constitutional provision of ensuring equal opportunity for public service, including access to media, time, and space, and ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. It was likewise passed to ensure that bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination. The law accordingly provides, among others, limitations on the use and display of election propaganda. In this case, the lawful size for election propaganda should not exceed 2 feet x 3 feet. Because the tarpaulin did exceed the prescribed size, its removal was ordered. Elsewise, the tarpaulin’s proponents would run the risk of prosecution for an election offense.

Essential to the Comelec’s resolution is its treatment of the tarpaulin as election propaganda, a campaign material, which is within its purview to regulate in the conduct of elections. True, the State through Comelec as one of its arms has the power to limit electoral advertisements in order to achieve what is envisioned by the law. There are some things worth noting in the Comelec’s order, however. The tarpaulin sought to be removed was neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate. It was placed on private property and involved an expression of a private group’s advocacy on the Reproductive Health Law, although given an apparent electoral slant. Lastly, while the tarpaulin may influence the success or failure of the named candidates and political parties, this does not necessarily mean that it is election propaganda. These considerations are worth mentioning because they affect two related fundamental rights of an individual under our Constitution, the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression, which do not only cover vocal speech but also include other symbolic manners of communication.

In this case, the tarpaulin contained speech on a matter of public concern, particularly to express the proponents’ advocacy and view on the votes made in passing the Reproductive Health Law, albeit incidentally promoting or not promoting an electoral candidate. On the other hand, the Comelec’s order is anchored on the fact that the manner by which the opinion is expressed does not conform to the size requirements of the law and that if such will not be regulated, the same may be abused by some electoral candidates who could then solicit the help of private individuals to skirt the constitutional provision on equal opportunities for all candidates.

The Supreme Court, when this matter was brought before it, recognized that the form of expression is just as important as the information conveyed, that it forms part of the expression. It said that size does matter. This is because the size -- a larger tarpaulin, that is -- enhances efficiency in communication, underscores the importance of the message to the reader and allows for more inceptions of ideas, catalyze reactions to advocacies, and contribute to a more educated and reasoned electorate. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that the guarantee of freedom of expression to individuals without any relationship to any political candidate should not be held hostage to the possibility of abuse by those seeking to be elected. It held that no unreasonable restrictions of the fundamental and preferred right to expression of the electorate during a political contest, no matter how seemingly benign, will be tolerated.

Indeed, democracy will never be one without free speech and expression. After all, the sovereign people ought to have a say on matters affecting the State, especially in the context of an election. It is amazing how one oversized tarpaulin can stir the sensibilities of people and start a debate on the entitlement to freedom of speech and expression. But perhaps when the tarpaulin, along with other media by which ideas and advocacies are conveyed, have served their purpose, a more mature and better informed electorate will emerge, one not so much influenced by dimensional presentations but by the substance of the idea that is sought to be conveyed. That, in true essence, is the bedrock upon which free speech and expression rest.

Genie Celini D. Nuevo is an Associate of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices, Davao Branch.

gdnuevo@accralaw.com

[082]224-0996

soure:  Businessworld

Poe’s husband to renounce US citizenship

The presidential aspirant gives the assurance that Filipinos 'will not have an American boy in Malacañang' in the person of her husband Neil Llamanzares

FAMILY. From L-R: Senator Grace Poe's son Brian, husband Neil Llamanzares, and mother Susan Roces.

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Amid questions over her and her family’s citizenship, Senator Grace Poe said her husband would renounce his American citizenship to show “support” for her administration.

Poe’s husband Teodoro "Neil" Misael Llamanzares and their 3 children enjoy dual citizenship – of the United States and the Philippines.

“’Yan ang ginagawang issue sa ngayon at tanggap naman namin sapagkat isa itong political na konsiderasyon. Nag-usap na kami ng aking asawa. Bagama't by birth s'ya naging [US] citizen, para mawala na lahat ng pagdududa, at ipakita ang kumpyansa sa aking administrasyon, s'ya po ay talaga namang magre-renounce,” Poe said in an interview with dzMM on Wednesday, November 4.

(That's one of the issues now because this is a political consideration. My husband and I already talked about this. Although he became a US citizen by birth, he would renounce it to erase all doubts and for him to show his confidence in my administration.)

Llamanzares was born to Filipino parents who were then studying and working in the US. Unlike Philippine citizenship law which requires at least 1 parent to be a Filipino, American laws consider as citizens those people born in their country.

Poe did not give other details of her husband’s planned renunciation of American citizenship. She, however, assured the public that Filipinos would not have an “American boy in Malacañang.”

“Maraming proseso. Kailangan i-report and iyong Statements of Assets and Liabilities for the last 5 years...so pupunta dun (US embassy), kailangan namin kolektahin lahat ng dokumento. Pero huwag kayong mag-alala, hindi kayo magkakaroon ng American boy sa Malacañang,” Poe said.

(There are many processes. You have to report your Statements of Assets and Liabilities for the last 5 years. So he will go to the US embassy, we need to collect all documents. You will not have an American boy in Malacañang.)

Rappler initially reported that Llamanzares would renounce his US citizenship once Poe wins.

After the interview, Rappler tried to clarify the timeline with Poe.

In a clarificatory message, the senator's office said Llamanzares "is currently in the process of renouncing."

"He will file his application once all pertinent documents have been gathered in compliance with the renunciation process. For the record, Mr. Llamanzares's renunciation of his American citizenship is not dependent on whether Grace Poe becomes president, as the article seems to suggest, but is predicated on the fact that the Philippines is their place of domicile and work," the statement said.

Children

As for her kids – Brian, 23; Hanna, 17; and Anika, 11 – Poe said she would not force them to do anything for her. After all, she said, her two daughters are still minors.

Her son Brian was born in 1992 in Washington, DC. Her two daughters, meanwhile, were born in the Philippines in 1998 and 2004. (READ: TIMELINE: Grace Poe's citizenship, residency)

“Si Brian ay 23 years old. Bilang magulang, kinakausap ko na s'ya, 'wag s'ya magdedesisyon para sa 'kin lamang. Bilang magulang, hahayaan mo ang anak mo rin gumawa ng sariling desisyon,” Poe said, even as she claims her son would not treat is as a “sacrifice” to renounce his US citizenship.

(Brian is already 23 years old. As a parent, I already talk to him about this. I told him not to decide solely for me. As a parent, you would let your child make his own decision.)

Poe maintained that having family members who are also US citizens is not a threat to the Philippines. After all, she said, there are Supreme Court justices and a former President who has either a husband or children who are US citizens. –Rappler.com

The Fair Election Act: Size isn’t everything or why large posters may have to yield to free speech

In the midst of the 2013 elections, a tarpaulin was posted within the front walls of a cathedral in Bacolod City. The tarpaulin, measuring approximately 6 feet x 10 feet, had the words “Team Patay (Dead)” with an X mark, and “Team Buhay (Alive)” with a ? mark. Certain electoral candidates were then classified to either Team Patayor Team Buhay, depending on their vote on the Reproductive Health Law.

Citing violations on size limitations prescribed by the implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 9006, otherwise known as the Fair Election Act, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) ordered the removal of the tarpaulin.

The Fair Election Act, it must be noted, was enacted consistent with the Constitutional provision of ensuring equal opportunity for public service, including access to media, time, and space, and ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. It was likewise passed to ensure that bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination. The law accordingly provides, among others, limitations on the use and display of election propaganda. In this case, the lawful size for election propaganda should not exceed 2 feet x 3 feet. Because the tarpaulin did exceed the prescribed size, its removal was ordered. Elsewise, the tarpaulin’s proponents would run the risk of prosecution for an election offense.

Essential to the Comelec’s resolution is its treatment of the tarpaulin as election propaganda, a campaign material, which is within its purview to regulate in the conduct of elections. True, the State through Comelec as one of its arms has the power to limit electoral advertisements in order to achieve what is envisioned by the law. There are some things worth noting in the Comelec’s order, however. The tarpaulin sought to be removed was neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate. It was placed on private property and involved an expression of a private group’s advocacy on the Reproductive Health Law, although given an apparent electoral slant. Lastly, while the tarpaulin may influence the success or failure of the named candidates and political parties, this does not necessarily mean that it is election propaganda. These considerations are worth mentioning because they affect two related fundamental rights of an individual under our Constitution, the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression, which do not only cover vocal speech but also include other symbolic manners of communication.

In this case, the tarpaulin contained speech on a matter of public concern, particularly to express the proponents’ advocacy and view on the votes made in passing the Reproductive Health Law, albeit incidentally promoting or not promoting an electoral candidate. On the other hand, the Comelec’s order is anchored on the fact that the manner by which the opinion is expressed does not conform to the size requirements of the law and that if such will not be regulated, the same may be abused by some electoral candidates who could then solicit the help of private individuals to skirt the constitutional provision on equal opportunities for all candidates.

The Supreme Court, when this matter was brought before it, recognized that the form of expression is just as important as the information conveyed, that it forms part of the expression. It said that size does matter. This is because the size -- a larger tarpaulin, that is -- enhances efficiency in communication, underscores the importance of the message to the reader and allows for more inceptions of ideas, catalyze reactions to advocacies, and contribute to a more educated and reasoned electorate. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that the guarantee of freedom of expression to individuals without any relationship to any political candidate should not be held hostage to the possibility of abuse by those seeking to be elected. It held that no unreasonable restrictions of the fundamental and preferred right to expression of the electorate during a political contest, no matter how seemingly benign, will be tolerated.

Indeed, democracy will never be one without free speech and expression. After all, the sovereign people ought to have a say on matters affecting the State, especially in the context of an election. It is amazing how one oversized tarpaulin can stir the sensibilities of people and start a debate on the entitlement to freedom of speech and expression. But perhaps when the tarpaulin, along with other media by which ideas and advocacies are conveyed, have served their purpose, a more mature and better informed electorate will emerge, one not so much influenced by dimensional presentations but by the substance of the idea that is sought to be conveyed. That, in true essence, is the bedrock upon which free speech and expression rest.

Genie Celini D. Nuevo is an Associate of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices, Davao Branch.

gdnuevo@accralaw.com

[082]224-0996

source:  Businessworld