The Judicial and Bar Council, April 23, 1995

by Justice Isagani A. Cruz 

In 1995 on November 2, 2015 at 11:52 pm

THE Judicial and Bar Council is a creation of the 1987 Constitution and did away with the confirmation of judicial appointments by the Commission on Appointments. The purpose was to depoliticize the judiciary by removing as much as possible the influence of politics in the selection of judges and in their subsequent conduct in office.

It was felt that by continuing the old practice, the new charter would be perpetuating one of the most serious threats to the independence of the judiciary. Judges appointed or confirmed with the help of padrinos tended to repay their debt of gratitude with rigged decisions at the behest of patrons cashing in their chips. Others curried favor with senators and congressmen in hopes that these legislators may prove helpful for future promotions and confirmation.

The Judicial and Bar Council is a constitutional body. It is composed of the chief justice as chairman, the secretary of justice and a member of Congress as ex officio members, and a representative of the integrated bar, a professor of law, a retired member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. The regular members are appointed by the president of the Philippines for four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Each of the seven members has one vote. The representation from Congress is shared by a senator and a congressman, each of whom casts one-half vote.

Charges against aspirants for judicial positions are considered in private by the JBC. Complainants may be given a chance to support their objections and the candidate may be allowed to refute them. Hearings are not obligatory, however, and the council may simply act summarily on the charges. There is no right to be nominated after all, and the decisions of the body are highly discretionary.

Among the criteria for the nomination of a candidate are competence, integrity, record in the bar examination, experience in the legal profession, and personality. One perennial aspirant for the Supreme Court has been consistently rejected for lack of delicadeza in openly and personally campaigning for his nomination., Another candidate has been bypassed several times because of a rather servile manner and serious doubts about his integrity and morality.

I sat as a consultant of the JBC for some time and was especially impressed with the diligence of the members, particularly the regular ones, in screening hundreds of applications for the various judicial vacancies. These members even go around the country to interview prospective nominees, many of whom are unable to come to Manila for financial and other reasons. Visits of the JBC members and the schedule of interviews are announced in advance by the local IBP chapters.

But for all the improvement it has effected in the selection of judges and justices, the JBC has not completely succeeded in resisting the influence of politics. The secretary of justice is in that body to express and protect the wishes of Malacañang and there are also the members of the legislature whose principal role is to submit to the council the recommendees of their colleagues in Congress. The fact that the regular members of the JBC are appointed by the president may also emasculate their independence. Where the president’s own preferences are at stake, it is not unlikely that the chief justice may find his only ally in the retired justice of the Supreme Court, but even this is not certain.

The staggering of the terms of the regular members at yearly intervals is good, but perhaps there should also be a prohibition against their reappointment as in the case of the constitutional commissions. The secretary of justice could be retained for his valuable insights in the judicial and prosecutorial systems but only as a consultant without the right to vote. The representation from Congress should be taken out as inimical to the very purpose of the creation of the JBC.

The JBC is supposed to make at least three nominations for each judicial vacancy, but no maximum number is prescribed. The bigger the number of nominations, the wider the discretion given to the president and the weaker the independence of the council becomes. At one selection of the nominee to the Supreme Court, the JBC chose five names but when the Malacañang candidate was not included, his supporters moved to expand the list. This is one way a candidate favored by the president may be accommodated and eventually appointed.

I believe the incumbent justices of the Supreme Court should be consulted on the filling of any vacancy in the body because they will be working with whoever is chosen to sit with them and it is imperative that they have confidence in his ability and integrity. It takes only one member to throw a monkey wrench into their proceedings and make the entire membership ineffective if not suspect, or at least embarrassed by the pariah among them.

Residency issue can proceed – radio man

Radio commentator Rizalito David on Friday said it is only “logical” for the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to wait for the Senate Electoral Tribunal’s ruling on a petition he had filed seeking Sen. Grace Poe’s removal from office.

But the Comelec can already proceed hearing the disqualification cases with respect to Poe’s residency, he added, because the issue before the electoral tribunal pertains to citizenship.

“Comelec can start on that. [There is no] prejudicial question [there],” David told The Manila Times in a phone interview on Thursday.

“But in the end, it’s their discretion [still] if they want to wait for the [Senate Electoral Tribunal],” he said.

The poll body’s law department earlier recommended suspension of legal proceedings in the disqua¬li¬fication cases filed against Poe until after the resolution of her pending case before the electoral tribunal, according to Comelec Commissioner Arthur Lim.

Lim told the House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms on Wednesday that the Comelec commissioners were told that resolution of a quo warranto petition of David with the tribunal would have an effect on the disqualification cases filed against the senator.

Poe is facing complaints before the Comelec filed by the radio commentator, political science professor Antonio Contreras, lawyer Estrella Elamparo and former senator Francisco Tatad that all assailed the senator’s citizenship and residency.

David filed the petition for quo warranto (by what warrant) last August before the electoral tribunal seeking Poe’s removal from office over her citizenship.

On his Facebook account, he posted in connection with the Come¬lec law department’s recommendation to suspend proceedings against Poe, “It is just logical that they do. However, if the [Senate Electoral Tribunal] rules that Grace Poe Llamanza¬res is not a natural-born citizen, then there may be no further need to hear the cases against her in the Comelec. If she is unseated as a senator, then she is not eligible to run for President.”

The Comelec has summoned Poe for a hearing on November 3 so that she could respond to the charges against her.

source:  Manila Times

Lawyer asks SC to sack Binay from BSP

A LAWYER on Friday filed a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) seeking to declare as unconstitutional the holding by Vice President Jejomar C. Binay of the national presidency of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) concurrently.

In a 15-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, lawyer Jesus Nicardo Falcis also sought the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin Binay, who is eyeing the country’s presidency in 2016, for discharging the functions and duties of the BSP president.

Falcis argued that Binay acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding another office during his tenure as vice president. He said Binay is covered by the prohibition under Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution.

The said provision states: “The President, Vice President, the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or -controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.”

Falcis said he is entitled to the issuance of a TRO to restrain Binay from discharging the functions and duties of the president of the BSP, as he has a “clear and unmistakable right to be protected”; “there is material and substantial invasion of such right”; and “there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant.”

“Petitioner submits that the continued holding by Binay of the office of president of the BSP concurrently with the Office of the Vice President constitutes irreparable injury, since the invasion of petitioner’s right cannot be adequately compensated in damages,” Falcis insisted.

source:  Business Mirror

The cases vs Grace Poe are not only constitutional but also criminal

Sen. Francis Escudero, who is running embryonically as Sen. Grace Poe Llamanzares’s running mate in the 2016 elections, was reported to have voiced an appeal to the Jojo Binay and Mar Roxas camps not to support any moves to disqualify Grace from the presidential race for not being a natural-born Filipino and for lacking the 10-year residency required of all presidential candidates. The appeal is rather presumptuous and offensive, based on the specious presumption that the two presidential candidates —Vice President Jejomar Binay and former DILG Secretary Mar Roxas—are involved in the petitions before the Commission on Elections (Comelec). Indeed, both may be praying that the constitutional nuisance called Mrs. Llamanzares should be instantly removed from the race, but to say that they are involved in any of the petitions is certainly derogatory and contemptuous.

Three petitions are now before the Comelec. Two are for the cancellation of Mrs. Llamanzares’s certificate of candidacy on the ground of lack of citizenship and residence; one for her permanent disqualification from public office. The two were filed separately by former Government Service Insurance System chief legal counsel Estrella Elamparo and by political science professor Antonio Contreras from the De La Salle University; the disqualification suit by myself. There may be more coming in the next few days.

Both Binay and Roxas were asked by the press about my petition. Both expressed sympathy for my action, but maintained respectful distance from it. This was but consistent with their position on the issue. Not only was I the first one to publicly raise the issue of Mrs. Llamanzares’s constitutional eligibility to run for President or sit in the Senate; I have also written the most extensive discussion of this issue in this space. For a while I was the only one who seemed to be interested in this constitutional issue, which to me involves a question of sovereignty.

At first, Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco, speaking for Binay and UNA, tried to say something about Mrs. Llamanzares’s lack of the required 10-year residency immediately preceding the election. By our count, she would have resided in the country for only a few years by May 9, 2016, if we computed her stay from the time she lost her American citizenship and theoretically became a Filipino on February 3, 2012. Nowhere near 10 years.

Tiangco’s quote landed on the front page of some newspapers, but the very next day, he apologized to Mrs. Llamanzares and her family for raising doubts about her constitutional eligibility to run for President or to remain in the Senate. This was because Binay, who campaigned for Fernando Poe Jr. in 2004, did not want to be seen as wanting to inflict any personal injury on FPJ’s adopted daughter, Mrs. Llamanzares.

On Roxas’s part, he said he respected my right to pursue a course of action that I thought was right. But Roxas was never known to have publicly inveighed against Mrs. Llamanzares’s constitutional ineligibility to seek the highest office. In fact, until he settled on Rep. Leni Robredo as his running mate, he tried everything to convince Mrs. Llamanzares to run as his vice president. This meant that he did not consider her constitutionally impaired from running for president. Under the Constitution, a candidate for vice president has the same qualifications as a candidate for president.

When I last spoke to Roxas about Mrs. Llamanzares at Mount Carmel church during the wake of the departed Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Neal Cruz, he showed no clear position on her constitutional status. I cited her obvious disability, and he said he would have it studied. But not since has Roxas said anything about it. Escudero therefore was speaking out of turn when he said Binay and Roxas should desist from supporting any of the moves at the Comelec against Mrs. Llamanzares.

Apparently the cases against Mrs. Llamanzares have acquired a life of their own. My petition, and presumably the two other petitions, were reported to have been raffled off to the Second Division of the Comelec; which means the Comelec should be able to rule on them before they begin printing the official ballots on Dec. 10.

But in addition to that, the Comelec has decided to conduct a preliminary investigation on the criminal case filed by petitioner Rizalito David against Mrs. Llamanzares for violation of Sec. 74 in relation to Sec. 262 of the Omnibus Election Code, having to do with misrepresentations in her 2013 COC that she was a natural-born Filipino.

This charge could open a new Pandora’s box. More criminal charges could be forthcoming. Some quarters are reportedly preparing to file graft and corruption charges against Mrs. Llamanzares, for having accepted an obviously illegal appointment and collected a salary and other emoluments as Chairman of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board in 2010, while she was still an American citizen, and therefore prohibited from accepting a position in the Philippine government.

One real problem is the negative impact of all these developments on Mrs. Llamanzares’s financial contributors. A number of business tycoons who had earlier decided to bankroll her campaign were reported to have begged off, leaving just two top executives of a conglomerate to support her campaign until the Comelec decides on her disqualification. This could have a crippling effect on her operations, including her ability to mount a legal defense on her disqualification and other cases.

This could replicate what happened to FPJ’s campaign in 2004. FPJ had accepted the draft to lead the challenge to then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on the basis of strong commitments by a financial group to fund his campaign. After the first few weeks at the hustings, the campaign began to show early signs of failing to sustain itself because of the failure of the standard bearer to adopt an offensive posture. A well-known bloc-voting institution, which had committed to support FPJ, asked for an extended session with the candidate to “help him” develop the necessary speaking lines that would put GMA on the defensive, and his campaign ahead.

This failed to change the situation in our favor. As a leading senatorial candidate, I was delivering the only sharp lines against the administration —all my colleagues on the ticket were either clowning or saying absolutely nothing. But for reasons that became clear to me only after my silent colleagues handily won and I was robbed even of my “historic vote,” I lost live media coverage every time I spoke, despite the fact that such media coverage was legitimately paid for by our party organizers. I then asked FPJ if he could use my lines, so that they could at least reach a wider audience. He cheerfully declined the suggestion saying, “Pare, hindi pa naman puno ang salop” (Friend, the rice container is not full).

Mrs. Llamanzares’s problem is of a different nature altogether. Should a perverse miracle happen, and she is judged to be qualified to run for president, after all, we would be compelled to raise other issues about her moral character. There is no need to talk about these now. But the first basic issue will have to be this: can we afford to have a President and Commander-in-Chief who sleeps with an American husband and would be at the mercy of her American children? We might as well adopt the late Congressman Bartolome Cabangbang’s proposed US Statehood status for the Philippines.

fstatad@gmail.com

source:  Manila Times Column of Sen. Kit Tatad

Serge Osmeña: Poe by a nose at SET

Sen. Serge Osmeña believes Sen. Grace Poe will win a favorable decision in her disqualification case before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) “by a narrow margin.”

“If I look at the composition [of the SET], I’d say the numbers would be in favor of Poe by a narrow margin but (my analysis) is a secret,” Osmeña told reporters on Thursday in reply to a question on whether Poe would get the needed votes with the composition of the nine-member tribunal.

The SET is chaired by Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and has as members Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro and Arturo Brion and six senators—Tito Sotto, Loren Legarda, Cynthia Villar, Pia Cayetano, Bam Aquino and Nancy Binay.

The tribunal is looking into the question of Poe’s citizenship.

Early this week, Carpio said Poe was not a natural-born Filipino unless she could prove blood relations to biological Filipino parents.

On the fact that six senators sit on the SET, Osmeña said: “These six politicians have their beliefs, their interests and so you can’t discount that it might be a political decision.”

He said the composition of the SET was “favorable” to Poe and this would mean a “favorable” decision for her.

But even if Poe wins the case at the SET, Osmeña said the complainant, former senatorial candidate Rizalito David, is expected to appeal in the Supreme Court.

source:  Philippine Daily Inquirer

Supreme Court chooses decency, not expediency

IT is laudable and encouraging that the Supreme Court decided last week to give due course to the citizens’ petition for immediate action against officials behind the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and the misuse of the pork barrel or PDAF by asking the Ombudsman to comment on the petition.

In issuing the order, the Supremes were not hampered by worries about the feelings of the sitting president. Instead of voting for political expediency, it declared that decency in government must come first. For this is as it should be. And this is what our people have long been craving for in this country.

Specifically, the SC ordered Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to comment on the petition that seeks the issuance of a judicial order that will compel the Ombudsman to investigate the authors, proponents and implementers of the disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and pursue the investigation and prosecution of persons involved in the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam.

This is a huge step forward because until the SC decided to accept the case, we the people had been consigned to living with the seeming impunity (exemption from punishment) of high public officials for crimes in their official conduct, as no investigations and no charges were being filed against them despite decisions already made by the High Court on the illegality of the DAP and PDAF.

If anyone should be mad about the inaction, it is the SC because its decisions that are being ignored.

We have watched with frustration as Budget Secretary Florencio Abad has continued his rape of the budget, and sleeps well with his loot intact, while the public suffers from the miseries of misgovernance and government corruption.

With this case going forward, the nation now knows that President Aquino, regardless of his presidential immunity, will be investigated for his critical part in the depredations of the DAP and PDAF.

If the petition for mandamus is granted, the Ombudsman and the justice department must perform their statutory duty to probe Aquino for impeachment purposes, and to investigate Abad, Senate President Franklin Drilon and Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. for their respective roles in facilitating such a massive looting of the public treasury.

There is no question here that the president can be investigated by the Ombudsman for “any serious misconduct in office.” His so-called presidential immunity does not exempt him because no one is above the law.

Within the high court, there is one thorn which the public should worry about. Among the justices, Junior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen showed once again his total subservience to President Aquino, who appointed him to his post after negotiating the infamous Comprehensive Agreementr on the Bangsamoro (CAB).

Leonen pushed for the immediate junking of the petition, but he was totally swamped by his colleagues who believe that Aquino, like all other officials, must be subjected to investigation – even if the investigation will be conducted by officials who owe their positions to him, namely Ombudsman Morales and Justice Secretary De Lima.

Justice Leonen misunderstands the institution that he is fortunate to be a member of. He has not realize yet that temperamentally and judiciously, the Court has decisively moved towards the affirmation of decency in government and the rejection of immorality in public service. It will consistently do the right thing when asked to rule on an issue vital to the public interest.

We pray he, like the Chief Justice, herself an Aquino appointee, learns to value the dignity and vital role of the Supreme Court in keeping our Republic and its institutions alive and well by being a fount of wisdom and civic virtue.

source:  Manila Times

Malacañang invokes Aquino immunity from suit as Ombudsman probes DAP

MALACAÑANG maintained on Tuesday that the Ombudsman has the power to go after grafters, but not a sitting president.

This, as Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales said that President Aquino, Budget Secretary Florencio B. Abad and other government officials are now being investigated in connection with the implementation of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

Communications Secretary Herminio B. Coloma Jr. cited the Constitution, which, he noted, protects President Aquino from being sued while in office.

“We wish to point out the constitutional principle that an incumbent president of the Philippines is immune from suit,” Coloma said.

Coloma issued the statement on Tuesday, even as he acknowledged that the Office of the Ombudsman is empowered by law to investigate allegations of misconduct, as stated by Morales in reply to a question during a hearing on the proposed budget of her office in the House of Representatives.

The Office of the President took the same position in 2013, when Mr. Aquino was first sued by the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) for plunder, along with Abad and Agriculture Secretary Proceso J. Alcala, before the Ombudsman, based on findings of an official audit of the National Agribusiness Corp. (Nabcor), a state-run corporation, indicating alleged misuse of P1.35 billion using “shady nongovernmental organizations [NGOs].”

One of the complainants, Party-list Rep. Fernando Hicap of Anakpawis, earlier protested that the case filed by the KMP “seems to have been gathering dust over at the Office of the Ombudsman since October 2013, while there is apparently no let up on the part of Alcala’s Department of Agriculture in getting itself involved in, yet, other and greater anomalies, as shown by the COA’s [Commission on Audit] April 2015 report involving P14 billion worth of unaccounted funds for 2013, including the P6 billion supposedly earmarked for farm-to-market road projects.”

During the budget deliberations of the Office of the Ombudsman’s P1.775-billion budget for 2016, Morales said that a motu propio investigation is currently ongoing to find if there is liability on the parts of Mr. Aquino and Abad over the implementation of the DAP.

“The investigation report conducted by the Field Investigation Office is under evaluation by the Ombudsman,” Morales said.

The DAP, parts of which having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, came under fire in 2013, after Sen. Jinggoy E. Estrada revealed that the said funds were used as “incentives” for legislators who supported the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2012.

News reports said that Abad allegedly transferred the DAP funds duly appropriated to one government agency to another without legislative authority, and released P50 million each to 19 senators who voted for the impeachment of Corona.

Morales said that her office is eyeing to finish the report within September, “but we will not release the investigation report [to the public]. We either approve or disapprove it. If we approve it and we [will] recommend the conduct of a preliminary investigation, then so be it. Now, if we don’t agree with the recommendation to initiate a preliminary investigation, this means the case is deemed closed and terminated.”

Meanwhile, Hicap,  in a statement, asked the Ombudsman to give him an update regarding the plunder complaint filed by the KMP against Alcala, Abad and Mr. Aquino himself, among others, over the pork-barrel scam.

Also included in the complaint were alleged pork-barrel scam queen Janet Lim-Napoles, Agriculture Undersecretary Antonio Fleta and Budget Undersecretary Mario Relampagos.

In October 2013, during the height of the pork-barrel scam issue, the KMP filed a plunder case before the Office of the Ombudsman against the respondents, citing state audits of the Nabcor, a government corporation under the agriculture department, which point to at least P1.35 billion worth of misused funds allegedly coursed through shady NGOs in the name of farmers’ socioeconomic programs.

source:  Business Mirror

Experts agree: Church-state separation doesn't apply in rap vs INC

MANILA - Three legal luminaries disagreed with the Iglesia ni Cristo's (INC) invocation of separation of church and state in asking government to stay away from the internal affairs of the INC after a former member filed a case of serious illegal detention against 8 members of its highest ruling body.

Former University of the Philippines (UP) Law Dean Pacifico Agabin in a text message said, "No, it does not. Separation does not preclude DOJ (Department of Justice) from investigating complaints of criminal activity."

In another text message, University of the East (UE) College of Law Dean Amado Valdez said separation of church-state was not violated by the DOJ in accepting the filing of a criminal complaint for investigation.

"INC's going to the street must be viewed under the right to assembly. However, the administration must not abandon its duty to investigate and prosecute. The INC leaders are not entitled to immunity and impunity," Valdez said.

(READ: Expelled INC minister unfazed, won't drop charges)

In a phone call, Atty. Rodolfo Palattao told ABS-CBN, "Itong ginawa ng INC, 'di tama ito. Ibig sabihin ng separation of the church and state, 'di tayo pwede gumawa ng batas na kikilalanin ang isang religion na kagaya ng Katoliko, El Shaddai na religion sa Pilipinas.

"Nangyayari kasi sa atin, ang gusto ng Iglesia ni Cristo, yung away ni Mr. [Isaias] Samson at yung mga members ng advisory council sila na lang maresolba, huwag na pakialaman ng gobyerno. 'Di pwede mangyari yan. Ibig sabihin ng separation, kapag meron tayong batas sa crime 'di pwedeng dun na lang sa pamilya, [pero] sa religion resolbahin [nila]."

"That will be a very bad precedent na kikilalanin mo sila na lang... Yun kasing serious illegal detention, labag sa Revised Penal Code. 'Di naman pwede dahil may religion, kahit mag-violate ng criminal case dun mo pare-resolve sa religion na yun. 'Pag ginawa nating ganyan, walang rule of law," he added.

On Monday, INC historian and Minister Brother Adriel Meimban told ABS-CBN the INC has done nothing illegal as it was merely imposing disciplinary measures on erring members.

INC members started their protests on a call for government to respect the separation of church and state following the filing of an illegal detention charge against 8 members of the INC's highest governing body, the Sanggunian.

source:  ABS-CBN

No charter breach in spending public funds for INC century stamps–CA

THE Court of Appeals (CA) has declared that the use of public funds to print more than 1 million postage stamps to commemorate the 100th founding anniverary of Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) last year did not violate any provisions of the Constitution.

In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando, the Court’s Second Division junked the petition filed by  taxpayer Renato Peralta seeking the reversal of the order issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila City on July 25 last year.

The Manila RTC, in the said ruling, junked Peralta’s complaint for injunction seeking to enjoin the Philippine Postal Corp. (PhilPost)  from paying for the printing of the commemorative stamps and to stop their distribution.

In his appeal before the CA, Peralta said that as a taxpayer he is allowed to sue when there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed.

He insisted that the printing and issuance of the INC centennial stamps violated Section 29 (2) Article VI of the Constitution, which bars the use of public funds to support a religious sect.

The commemorative stamps, he pointed out, constitute free advertisement for the INC at the expense of taxpayers’s money.

He noted that PhilPost printed a total of 1.2 million stamps, although the memorandum of agreement between INC and PhilPost covered only 50,000 pieces.

The production of the commemorative stamps was allowed by President Aquino through Presidential Proclamation  81, which declared 2014 as the INC Centennial Year, and directed the postmaster general to “cause the design, printing and issuance of a special stamp for said purpose.”

But the CA did not give weight to Peralta’s arguments in asking to set aside the Manila RTC’s ruling.

The appellate court held that what Section 29 (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution prohibits is the giving of aid to a religious institution and not the mere entering into a transaction or agreement where the State could benefit for itself.

It explained that it is not accurate to say that aid was given to INC, since it is the government  which is expected to earn from the  sale  of the stamps not the INC.

“Defendant-appellee PhilPost merely exercised its proprietary function and entered into a business transaction intended to generate income for the state, rather than bestow any grant or aid to the INC,” the decision read.

“It is not as if the government donated these stamps to the INC…. Ultimately, it is the state which benefited from the issuance of these stamps which could be bought by anyone,” it added.

Furthermore, the CA explained that not every government activity involving use of public funds and which has some religious shade is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of the church and state.

The appellate court pointed out that under the Lemon Test, the American doctrine on the separation of the church and state, public money can be made available to religious persons or institutions if the use will be for a secular purpose; neither primarily advance nor inhibit religion; and will not involve excessive government entanglement with religion.

“In this case…the stamps printed for a secular purpose, and did not primarily advance religion. Likewise, the issuance of these stamps did not result to excessive entanglemennt by the government, such as to require state monitoring, as these stamps were simply printed then sold to the public by defendant-appellee PhilPost,” the CA explained.

The CA added that the purpose for printing the commemorative stamps which is “to enhance awareness of the INC’s contribution in national development”  is a “legitimate secular purpose.”

The CA also did not give weight to Peralta’s argument that the late Felix Manalo’s portrait in the stamp is religious in character since he is not the head of state like the pope.

“There is no question that the late Felix Y. Manalo is a prominent figure in Philippine history who deserves to be commemorated like any other Filipino here, statesman, or national artist which is what defendant-appelle PhilPost has been doing in the design of its commemorative stamps,” the CA stressed.

It added that even the Supreme Court has recognized Manalo’s significance when it declared as valid the use of public funds for the expropriation of his birthplace.

“No amount of bigotry or spite against INC can erode the historial and cultural significance to the nation of Felix Y. Manalo and the institution he founded. To strike down the subject commemorative stamps is to illiterately ignore these contributions recognized by no less than the National Historical Commission and the President of the Philippines,” it declared.

Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and Socorro B. Inting.

source:  Business Mirror

Supreme Court allows Enrile to post bail

MANILA, Philippines — Voting 8-4, the Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the petition of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile to post bail subject to terms and conditions to be specified by the High Court.

The high court's spokesperson Theodore Te confirmed in a press conference that the 91-year-old senator was allowed to post bail for P1 million.

"The court granted the petition for bail of petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile, subject to the terms and conditions to be specified by the Court in its Order which will be forthcoming," the text for the media briefing stated.

Dissenting were Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Marvic Leonen.

Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, meanwhile, inhibited himself from the case as he was the former Solicitor General.

Enrile, a former Senate president, earlier filed a bail petition, citing that the court should consider his advanced age and voluntary surrender.

The senator is facing plunder and graft charges in relation to the controversial pork barrel scam. Enrile, his aides and detained businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles are accused of amassing P172.8 million in kickbacks from the scam of congressional Priority Development Assistance Funds from 2004 to 2010.

Enrile is currently under "hospital arrest" at the Philippine National Police General Hospital at Crame Crame, Quezon City.

Reacting to the tribunal's resolution, Senate President Franklin Drilon said the Senate "will always respect, follow and implement every decision of the courts."

"We will abide by the legal processes as we have always done in the past," Drilon said in a statement.

source:  Philippine Star

Ruling on Team Patay tarps protects church-state separation

'With its decision, the Supreme Court has once again proved that it is indeed the last bastion of democracy,' says a statement from the Bacolod diocese's lawyers

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) ruling that the poll body didn't have the authority of take down tarpaulins campaigning against lawmakers who supported the reproductive health (RH) law was not just a victory for the Diocese of Bacolod, its lawyer said.

It was also a victory for the principle of separation of church and state, and of free speech, Ralph Sarmiento, the Diocese of Bacolod's legal counsel, said in a statement on Thursday, January 22.

"With its decision, the Supreme Court has once again proved that it is indeed the last bastion of democracy in our system," he said.

Voting 9-5 on Wednesday, the SC ruled that that the Commission on Elections violated the church's right to free speech, expression, and property in ordering the removal of the tarpaulins.

During the 2013 campaign period, the San Sebastian Cathedral in Bacolod City installed on its facade "Team Buhay" tarpaulins, listign down names of senatorial candidates who, like the Catholic church, opposed the passage of the then-RH bill.

It also put up "Team Patay" tarpaulin, listing down names of candidates, who pushed for the bill.

The RH bill, which the Catholic church lobbied against for about 15 years, was eventually signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III in December 2012. It requires government health centers to hand out free condoms and birth control pills, and mandates that sex education be taught in schools.

The Comelec ordered the tarpaulins removed, saying they violated the rules on election campaign materials for going over the size limit.

Explaining the SC's decision on Wednesday, spokesman Theodore Te said, "The Comelec has no power to regulate the free expression of private citizens, who are neither candidates nor members of political parties."

In his statement, Sarmiento said the Diocese of Bacolod considered the SC decision a victory not only for them but also for Filipinos in the fight for freedom of speech.

"It is [also] a victory for every Filipino in the fight for the protection of certain values that are fundamental in our system: separation of Church and State, and most importantly, freedom of speech and of expression, especially when the same is exercised within the confines of one's private property, and when it deals with matters of public concern like the election of candidates into public office," Sarmiento said.

Noting that freedom of speech is the keystone of democracy, Sarmiento said that "any regulation or order that restrains speech and expression or destroy its effective exercise should be slaughtered immediately on the altar of constitutionalism."

Symbols

"The Anti-RH Law and Team Patay tarpaulins have become the symbol of the dignity of the Bacolod Diocese," the statement read. (READ: Diocese defies Comelec on Team Patay posters)

After being informed of SC's decision on Wednesday, Bacolod Bishop Vicente Navarra "was in high heavens," Sarmiento recounted.

In a text message, Navarra told Sarmiento, "From the very beginning of the issue, I was convinced that the Church was on the winning side, because it was only for the formation of conscience."

The tarpaulins, Navarra said, were installed "for the purpose of catechizing the Catholic voters of the Bacolod Diocese, as well as the voters in general, regarding their moral and correct decision in exercising their right of suffrage as to who are the candidates they have to vote vis-a-vis the then RH bill." – Michael Bueza/Rappler.com