Makabayan bloc hopes SC will

eventually junk power rate hike

MANILA, Philippines The Makabayan bloc in the House of Representatives lauded the
Supreme Court for indefinitely extending the temporary restraining order (TRO) on
Manila Electric Companys (Meralco) power rate increase.
But the militant group said it hoped the high court would eventually rule against the
planned power rate adjustment.
This is indeed a welcome development so that electricity consumers would not have to
bear the unjust power rate hike of Meralco, Bayan Muna Representative Neri
Colmenares, one of the petitioners against the hike, said in a statement on Tuesday.
We just hope that the SC will eventually declare the P4.15 rate hike void as well as the
subsequent proposed increases connected to the market manipulation and collusion of
power industry players, he added.
The senior deputy minority leader also hoped the court would strike down the Electric
Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) as unconstitutional. The lawmaker said the 13-
year -old law failed its purpose of bringing down the prices of electricity.
ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio added that the TRO will ensure that millions of
consumers will not be burdened by onerous charges while the Court continues to
deliberate on the case.
Tinio also said he hoped the high court would hold liable for grave abuse of discretion
the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), which earlier approved Meralcos hike
before eventually declaring it as void and asking for a recalculation due to market
failure.
We hope it will side with the people in declaring grave abuse of discretion on the part of
ERC in failing to prevent the unprecedented price hike and, more importantly, declare
the privatization of power generation as unconstitutional, Tinio added.
Meralco was accused of colluding with power players to jack up prices amid a power
shortfall. The proposed hike has been repeatedly stalled by the Supreme Court due to
public outcry.

http://business.inquirer.net/168800/makabayan-bloc-hopes-sc-will-eventually-junk-
power-rate-hike

Bangsamoro Basic Law is
unconstitutional
Public office in the Philippines may be created only by law, that is, either by the
Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land, or by a law duly enacted
by the Congress. Examples of public offices created by the Constitution include
the Judicial and Bar Council, the constitutional commissions, the Sandiganbayan,
and the Ombudsman. Public offices created by law include the executive
departments enumerated in the Administrative Code of 1987, the Court of
Appeals and the trial courts, the University of the Philippines, and the Securities
and Exchange Commission. This restriction on the power to create public office
is an adjunct to the principles of separation of powers and checks and
balances which characterize the 1987 Constitution.
The term law includes enactments made by the now-defunct legislatures of the
country including the Philippine Legislature, the Philippine Assembly, and the
short-lived Batasang Pambansa. It also includes presidential decrees issued by
President Ferdinand Marcos under the 1973 Constitution, and executive orders
issued by President Corazon Aquino prior to the opening of the first Congress
under the 1987 Constitution.
Public office may also be created by authority of law, that is, when the
Constitution or a law authorizes the President of the Philippines to create a public
office. Without such authorization, the President is powerless to create a public
office. Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution mandates the President to
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. To this very limited extent,
therefore, the President can create a public office solely for that purpose.
On December 17, 2012, President Benigno Aquino III issued Executive Order
No. 120 which created the Transition Commission made up of fifteen (15)
individuals. Under this EO, the Commission is tasked with drafting a
Bangsamoro Basic Law to replace the organic act currently governing the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). A majority of the
commissioners, the chairman included, are Muslims.
Under the E.O. No. 120 and the Framework Agreement signed by the
government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the draft of the Bangsamoro
Basic Law shall be submitted to the Congress for its enactment into law. Once
the measure is enacted by the Congress, the Transition Commission will cease
to exist. Thereafter, a plebiscite on the basic law, which shall be limited to the
qualified voters in the territory specified in the framework agreement, shall be
held. Once the basic law is ratified, the ARMM shall be abolished, and a
Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) shall replace the Transition
Commission. BTA officials shall be appointed by the President, and they will
serve in the interim until 2016 when a Bangsamoro Government shall have been
elected and installed.
Pursuant to the Framework Agreement, the Bangsamoro Government shall keep
75 per cent of the taxes in the Bangsamoro region, and shall get the lions share
of revenues from natural resources. Everything earned from the exploitation of
fossil fuels will be shared equally with the national government.
As of this writing, the draft of the Bangsamoro Basic Law is ready for submission
to the Congress. If the Congress enacts the Bangsamoro Basic Law, the same
shall be in violation of the 1987 Constitution.
The Bangsamoro Basic Law is unconstitutional for two principal reasons.
First, the Transition Commission which drafted it is void because President
Aquino III has no power to create a public office. No constitutional provision or
law allows its creation. In no way can it be considered an existing agency prior to
its creation. It cannot be justified as a means by which the President ensures
that the laws are faithfully executed precisely because its creation is for the
purpose of abrogating the existing organic act of the ARMM an existing law the
execution of which must be ensured by the President in the first place. Legally
speaking, therefore, the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law does not exist, and
because it does not exist, the President cannot certify it as urgent, and the
Congress cannot act on the same.
Second, allowing the Bangsamoro Government to keep 75% of the taxes in the
autonomous region, to get the lions share of revenues from natural resources in
the region, and to get 50% of the revenues from fossil fuel exploitation there,
inevitably reduces the corresponding shares of the Philippine provinces,
municipalities and cities which are not included within the Bangsamoro region.
That reduction in their shares of revenues will translate to a substantial reduction
in government services and will trigger more taxes if basic state services are to
continue to be delivered. In other words, the Bangsamoro Basic Law affords
extra-ordinarily special treatment to the Bangsamoro Government, to the
prejudice of and damage to other local government units in the Philippines.
Fairness dictates that if the people in Luzon, the Visayas, and the bulk of
Mindanao will end up with a substantial reduction in their shares of the national
revenues pursuant to the Bangsamoro Basic Law, then the plebiscite to be held
on the Bangsamoro Basic Law should not be limited to the Bangsamoro territory.
Every qualified voter all over the country must be allowed to vote in that
plebiscite. To deny the people their right to vote in that plebiscite is to
countenance class legislation. The equal protection clause of the 1987
Constitution forbids class legislation.
For the record, the legal victories of the administration of President Aquino III
have been anywhere from dismal to lackluster.
Executive Order No. 1, the very first issuance of the Aquino III dispensation,
created the ill-fated Philippine Truth Commission. That EO was voided by the
Supreme Court (Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission). Just recently, the
Supreme Court declared unconstitutional key provisions of the anti-cybercrime
law. The Priority Development Assistance Fund defended by Aquino loyalists in
the Congress was also disallowed by the High Tribunal. Even the new gun
registration law is facing a tough judicial challenge by gun enthusiasts. This
should prove ironic to President Aquino III, who is a gun enthusiast himself
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/04/01/bangsamoro-basic-law-is-unconstitutional/
Social and legal status of the third gender
Provisions of the much-debated and dreaded Section 377 are
couched in the most neutral language, without making specific
reference to a category of persons. That a certain category of people
are criminalised under the section, despite its gender-free use of
terminology, is due to its interpretation that does not follow the
golden rule of literal construction
Virendra Kumar
GENDER issue has finally been released from the clutches of majority; of the limitation of
male and female sex. Society has finally acknowledged the existence of a third gender,
through the legal route. The Supreme Court judgment of April 15, 2014, in National Legal
Services Authority vs Union of India and others (per K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri, JJ.)
has been hailed as historic. It recognises the transgender community (Hijras, eunuchs,
apart from binary gender) as third gender and securing them the constitutional protection
of fundamental rights as guaranteed to all other socially and educationally backward classes
of citizens. It also entitles them to decide their self-identified gender by specifically
directing the Centre and state governments to grant legal recognition of their gender
identity such as male, female or as third gender. In order to make them feel that they are
also part and parcel of the social life and be not treated as untouchables, the Government
is duty bound to address the problems being faced by them such as fear, shame, gender
dysphoria, social pressure, depression,
suicidal tendencies and social stigma.
Impact of the courts verdict
There is yet another significant consequential
impact of the Supreme Court judgment. It
takes out the transgender out of the class of
persons of the same genus, who are
conventionally classified as LGBT (Lesbians,
gays, bisexual, transgender), and colloquially
called homosexuals. This simple quirk of the
Supreme Court judgment has given rise to a
legitimate expectation that the left-out others
should also be entitled to the same
constitutional fundamental protection and
privileges as has been granted to the
transgender. In fact, it is this sentiment that finds an echo in the observation of the United
Nations when it is said: The historic ruling by Indias Supreme Court to legally uphold
rights of transgender people raises hopes that the court will now review its earlier decision
upholding a 160-year-old provision of the penal code criminalising consensual, same-sex
relationships.
Here, the reference is to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar
Koushal and another vs. NAZ Foundation and others (delivered on December 11, 2013),
that upheld the constitutionality of Section 377 by reversing the decision of the Delhi High
Court, inasmuch as it proscribes homosexuality.
Reversal of judgment
The Supreme Court in its reversal judgment disapproved the stance of the Delhi High Court
by taking the plea that the percentage of the affected community is very minuscule. The
judgment observes, While reading down Section 377 IPC, the Division Bench of the High
Court overlooked that a miniscule fraction of the countrys population constitute lesbians,
gays, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) and in the last more than 150 years, less than 200
persons have been prosecuted (as per the reported orders) for committing offence under
Section 377 and this cannot be made sound basis for declaring that Section ultra vires
(unconstitutional), provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
In order to examine the rationale of this decision, especially in the light of the latest
judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of the transgender, we need to revisit the
provision of Section 377 of the IPC afresh,

After the Supreme Court recognised the third gender,
the long-marginalised transgender community has
gained an identity. Photo Reuters
What is Section 377?
Section 377 provides: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of
nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall
also be liable to fine. In the appended explanation, it is clarified that penetration is
sufficient to constitute carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
On the basis of literal construction, which, indeed, is the golden rule of interpretation, this
provision is couched in the most neutral language without making any reference to any
specific category of persons, who are criminalised. The neutralising impact is vivid and clear
by the use of the opening term, whoever, which is gender-free. This provision simply
defines which of the acts of the doer bear criminal consequences, with least reference to
any specific category of persons or group of persons to be indicted or arraigned. If so, then
where is the occasion for holding that Section 377 of the IPC criminalises lesbians, gays,
bisexual or transgender!
Obscenity and unnatural offence
Section 377 of IPC, which deals with unnatural offences (the offences against the order of
nature), is located in Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code that carefully clusters Sections
(Sections 299-377) directed to deal with Offences affecting human body. This Section, as
such, has nothing to do with offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience,
decency or morals, which are clearly and categorically covered under Chapter XIV (Sections
268-294), of course, with lesser degree of criminality. Obscene act in any public place, for
instance, entails punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, or with fine or with both (Section 294).
By clear implication, therefore, the issues of violation of culture and tradition, laying down
the norms of decency or morality, are outside the pale of Section 377. The singular
objective of this arraigned provision is to deal sternly with cases in which unnatural
offences result in affecting human body although the carnal intercourse intended to be in
privacy of the home and with mutual consent remain outside the purview of Section 377.
Ambiguity of the Section
The pivotal expression, against the order of nature, in the provision of Section 377 has
nowhere been defined under the Indian Penal Code. How come Lord Macaulay could make
such a glaring omission, who is otherwise credited to have crafted a Penal Code for Indians,
which is so complete in itself that we could not venture to replace it till date, after more
than 150 years of its existence!
A peep into the history of offences against the body, including the unnatural offences
under Section 377, reveals the reason for persistent ambiguity. In Note M of the
Introductory Report of Lord Macaulay to the Draft Code on Offences Against the Body
betrays that such offences as offences against the body relate to an odious (repulsive)
class of offences respecting which it is desirable that as little as possible be said. We are
unwilling to insert, either in the text, or in the notes, anything which could have given rise
to public discussion on this revolting subject; as we are decidedly of the opinion that the
injury which would be done to the morals of the community by such discussion would far
more than compensate for any benefits which might be derived from legislative measures
framed with the greatest precision.
It is this absence of legislative exposition of unnatural offences that has led the courts, we
may venture to suggest, to treat lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgender as criminals,
falling in the category of persons who voluntarily have sexual intercourse against the order
of nature. This, indeed, is not right. Such an interpretation of Section 377, in our view, is
fallacious, at least for two separate and distinct reasons. One, sexual orientation of LGBT
community is not against the order of nature. According to mental health professionals,
who have been practicing as psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and behavioural
psychologists in reputed medical institutions the world over, and who claim to have
considerable expertise in addressing the mental health concerns of LGBT, hold the view that
their sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic and is present at birth, and,
therefore, fall outside the ambit of Section 377. Two, the provision of criminality would be
attracted only if the unnatural offence has resulted in affecting human body and not
otherwise.
Violating fundamental rights
The issue of constitutionality of Section 377 of the IPC came to the fore before the Delhi
High Court in 2009 when the sex orientation of LGBT, implying penile-non-vaginal sex
relations, was perceived to be unnatural by the dominant members of society and the law
enforcement agencies of the State, who labelled them as criminals under Section 377. In
precipitant form, the question to be answered was whether Section 377 was in violation of
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The High Court of Delhi declared that Section 377 of the IPC, insofar as it criminalises
consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is in violation of fundamental rights under Article
21 read with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. In special leave to appeal, the Supreme
Court reversed the decision. It is the rationale of this decision that requires a review.
Rights of the minority
The criminalisation of LGBT under Section 377 of the IPC deeply affects their right to
dignity, identity, privacy and equality, which is otherwise guaranteed to them under the
Constitution like any other citizen of India. However, their being in minority, constituting
miniscule fraction of the countrys population, is no ground of denial of fundamental rights
to them. In fact, in a democratic constitutional system of government, minority rights need
to be protected with added special care and concern.
Moreover, once the Supreme Court has recognised in National Legal Services Authority
(2014) that any denial of fundamental rights to the transgender is a clear violation of the
basic norms of the Constitution, there remains no rationale for not extending the same
constitutional protection to other homosexuals, namely, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.
Reconsidering law
Section 377 of the IPC, so far as it criminalises homosexuals requires reconsideration. It
needs reinterpretation so that it becomes constitutionally consistent and in conformity with
the emerging human rights jurisprudence. There is no constitutional morality which permits
the majority to impose their own notions of right and wrong on the community of minorities,
howsoever feeble in number they might be.
Once we are willing to ratify and adopt various international conventions, such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and European Convention on Human Rights, and make them the basis for
evolving new human rights perspectives in the interpretation of our own Constitution, why
should there be any reluctance when the most recent judgment of the Supreme Court and
also the decisions of the courts in other jurisdictions persuade us to annul the obsolete
provision of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860? Its continued criminalisation of
homosexuals is an open invitation to perpetuate discrimination and reinforce societal
prejudices held for long.
Looking back
* When IPC was framed, it was a cutting edge expression of modern law. That was in
1860.
* In July 2009, a judgment by the Delhi High Court held Section 377 constitutionally invalid
thereby legalising gay-sex.
* The culmination of 12-year-long gay rights activism stressed that Section 377 violated
article 14 of the Indian Constitution which recognises every citizen as equal in the eyes of
law.
* In December 2013, a Supreme Court verdict upheld Section 377. The judgment was
termed as outrageous, insensitive and disappointing by a large community
of people.
The writer is former Professor and Chairman, Department of Laws, Panjab
University Chandigarh, and UGC Emeritus Fellow in Law.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140424/edit.htm#6
The vagrancy law: Unconstitutional and
often prone to abuse
Conclusion)

The brouhaha caused by the case of four women booked by operatives of the
Central Police District (CPD) for alleged prostitution has moved some
legislators from the House of Representatives to resurrect a bill
decriminalizing vagrancy.

That is a bit of good news. For in the din of angry words exchanged in the last
two weeks between Quezon City Rep. Michael Defensor and National Capital
Regional Police Office director Chief Superintendent Edgar Aglipay over the
case, the real issue might have been lost on most people, who, in this day and
age of multi-media, may not see beyond the clash of personalities what,
ultimately, is at stake.

Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code defines a vagrant as:

A) Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical
ability to work and who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful
calling;
B) Any person found loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places
or tramping or wandering about the country or the streets without visible means
of support;

C) Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill-fame; ruffians or
pimps and those who habitually associate with prostitutes;

D) Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of
this Code, shall be found loitering in an inhabited or uninhabited place
belonging to another without any lawful or justifiable purpose;

E) Prostitutes;

The last paragraph defines "prostitutes" as "women who, for money or profit,
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct." First time
offense is punishable by imprisonment of between one to 30 days or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos. Repeated offenses are punishable by imprisonment of
between two months to two years or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos or
both, according to the discretion of the court.

In 1978, then President Marcos augmented the anti-vagrancy law with
Presidential Decree 1563, the Mendicancy Law. It defined mendicants as persons
with no visible and legal means of support or lawful employment and who are
physically able to work but fail to apply themselves to some lawful calling and
instead, use begging as a means of making a living.

The same law penalizes anyone who abets mendicancy by giving alms.

Vagrancy laws are tools of abuse

As early as 1924, Associate Justice Villamor, in his book, Crime and Moral
Education, noted that "such simple crimes as theft, swindling, and forgery, are
committed in the majority of cases by vagrants. And whenever the evidence in a
case would not warrant the conviction of the accused for theft, he is generally
charged for vagrancy."

Vagrancy laws are often called "dead letter" laws because they are hardly
enforced. When the police do enforce them, it is often because of less than
legal motivations. Women's groups complain that prostitutes are arrested for
vagrancy but pimps or proprietors of prostitution houses are not.

Law enforcers who "fish for evidence" against people suspected of crime find it
a useful "fallback" when they fail to gather enough evidence to prosecute
bigger crimes.

Observers note that vagrancy laws are an "improper exercise of the State's
police power" because police officers, always presumed to act in good faith,
have wide latitude in interpreting these laws. How does one, for example,
interpret "without visible means of support"? Philippine jurisprudence on this
matter is silent.

This problem leads to another constitutional issue: it is an axiom in criminal
law that clear and precise language in penal statutes is an essential
requirement for due process of law -- that "sporting idea of fair play," in the
words of a noted American jurist.

This simply means that a person accused of a crime has the right to know
exactly what he is being charged with.

The Philippine Law Journal notes that Art. 202 "is replete with phrases worded
in very general terms making the import of the law itself vague and
ambiguous."

Under recognized principles of statutory construction, our vagrancy laws should
be declared void for being vague. Another objection to vagrancy laws is the
limitation they impose on personal liberty, in the banning of "loitering" in
public places. Art. III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees "liberty
of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not
be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to
travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety,
or public health, as may be provided by law."

Our vagrancy laws punish a person because he or she belongs to a certain class
or indulges in what is only seen as a socially contemptible habit, raising a
host of constitutional issues.

Felonies or crimes are "acts or omissions punishable by law," according to The
Revised Penal Code, yet in the same breath, it treats vagrancy as a sui generis
crime, because it is based on one's status, condition, mode of life or
reputation, not his acts.

In simpler terms, the law punishes the poor simply because they are poor.

What is most surprising is that until now, the constitutionality of these laws
has not been raised in the Supreme Court, even if they go against
constitutional provisions that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of laws."

Perhaps, with the controversy attending the case of the four women booked by
police for vagrancy, it is time to re-examine the country's vagrancy laws and
see if they are still relevant to the times.

And, perhaps, greatly reduce opportunities for police abuse or mulcting.
http://www.philstar.com:8080/headlines/87005/vagrancy-law-unconstitutional-and-often-prone-abuse
News Analysis: Snags seen in proposed
Phl-US military access pact
MANILA, Philippines (Xinhua) - Even before the proposed military access agreement
between the Philippines and the United States is signed, there are already indications
that its legitimacy will be challenged both in the country's highest court and legislature.
On Sunday, the Bayan Muna (Country First) Party announced that it will question the
constitutionality of the agreement in the Supreme Court (SC) once it is signed.
Both Manila and Washington have expressed the hope that the new access agreement,
officially called Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation (AEDC), would be
signed during the April 28-29 visit by US President Barack Obama to Manila.
Bayan Muna Representative Neri Colmenares criticized the administration of Philippine
President Benigno Aquino for being in a "mad rush" to finish the AEDC in time for
Obama's visit, saying the pact is "worse than the bases treaty rejected by the Philippine
Senate in September 1991."
"Simply put, it is like a dog's welcome gift to his master. They are trying to move heaven
and hell so that Obama would be here for the signing of the AEDC," Colmenares said in
a statement.
According to Colmenares, the AEDC will practically bring back U. S. military bases to
the Philippines but this time "without a treaty, without rent and without limits as the
Americans may use all the Philippine military facilities."
Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1
Colmenares said his party is preparing to question the AEDC in the Supreme Court for
violations of the Philippine Constitution, particularly on sections about civilian
supremacy over the military, the state's pursuit of an independent foreign policy, and the
ban on nuclear weapons in the country.
Earlier, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, chairman of the Senate foreign affairs
committee, said that the US access to Philippine bases under a new regime of
expanded US military presence will have to be covered by a treaty that is subject to
scrutiny and concurrence by the Senate.
Santiago, an international law expert, said that the deployment of US military hardware
in Philippine territory is not a minor case of details in the implementation of the
Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) signed 62 years ago.
"It is a major subject in itself so it (the new agreement) cannot be classified as an
executive agreement but as a treaty to which the Philippine Senate must give its
concurrence," Santiago said.
The Constitution prohibits foreign bases on Philippine territory unless provided for by a
treaty approved by the Senate.
But Malacanang, the seat of the Philippine government, has maintained that the new
security arrangement with the United States is an executive agreement and would not
need Senate concurrence.
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Benjamin Caguioa said that the Philippine panel's
position is that the AEDC merely implements the general provisions of the MDT and
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the two treaties that have been concurred in by the
Senate in separate instances.
"Thus there is no need for the Senate ratification for this implementing agreement,"
Caguioa said.
The VFA, which allows presence of American military assets in the Philippines during
joint military exercises, was crafted after the Senate's rejection of the extension of the
bases military agreement in 1991.
Representative Carlos Zarate, also of Bayan Muna, questioned how Filipinos could be
sure that US forces would not bring nuclear weapons into the country when the US
government maintains a neither-confirm-nor-deny policy as to whether their ships or
planes carry nuclear weapons.
Zarate warned the presence of nuclear weapons in the country " will make us a prime
target of US enemies."
"They already found a way to circumvent the constitutional ban on the presence of
foreign troops in the country through the VFA but now they will further maximize this
and increase US troops' presence in the country. So, in truth, the AEDC is a very
deceptive deal," said Zarate.
Defense Undersecretary Pio Lorenzo Batino, the chief of Philippine negotiators, said the
AEDC is meant to provide " critical and timely support to the modernization of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines and the achievement of the country's minimum credible
defense posture."
"After 15 years of the VFA and given current realities, challenges and opportunities, the
Philippines is ready for a heightened level of defense cooperation. This agreement,
which should stand on mutual trust, is an idea whose time has come," Batino said.
In a statement, the Philippine panel said that the United States will not establish a
permanent military presence or base in the Philippines and that the US military
equipment and assets to be stationed in Philippine military facilities will not include
nuclear weapons.
Washington, which has earlier announced plans to "rebalance" its forces in the Asia-
Pacific region, has similar arrangements with Australia and Singapore.
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/04/19/1313949/news-analysis-snags-seen-proposed-phl-us-
military-access-pact
Lawyers wont be forced to disclose fees, clients yet


THE Supreme Court (SC) blocked on Tuesday the implementation of a government circular
requiring professionals, particularly lawyers, to publicly disclose their service fees and the
identities of their clients.
However, only lawyers will benefit from the temporary restraining order (TRO) on Revenue
Regulation 4-2014 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) since the petitioner in this case is
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The IBP said the circular titled "Guidelines and Policies for the Monitoring of Service Fees of
Professionals" is unconstitutional for violating the separation of powers, as it "encroaches upon"
the SC's exclusive authority "to regulate and prescribe rules for the protection and enforcement
of constitutional rights, legal practice and the legal profession."
The group feared of illegal restriction on the practice of law, saying the regulation "unduly limits
a lawyer's liberty to ascertain the fair and reasonable value of his services according to
standards defined by the Supreme Court."
Section 2 of R.R. 4-2014 requires all self-employed professionals to submit an affidavit
indicating the rates, manner of billings and the factors they consider in determining their service
fees upon registration on or before January 31 of each year and register the books of accounts
and official appointment books which shall contain the names of the client and date or time of
the meeting.
They must also issue a BIR-registered receipt showing a 100 percent discount in cases when
no professional fees are charged.
"I have not seen the decision. I cannot comment on it," BIR Commissioner Kim Henares said in
a text message to Sun.Star.
The BIR has been training its sights on lawyers, doctors and other self-employed individuals
who allegedly failed to pay the correct taxes.
In a recent print advertisement, the agency revealed that only 451 out of 840 Makati-based
lawyers filed their income tax returns (ITR) in 2012. A certain lawyer even paid just P329, the
BIR said.
Makati is home to some of the country's biggest law firms such as Accra Law and SyCip,
Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan (Sunnex)
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2014/04/22/lawyers-won-t-be-forced-disclose-fees-clients-
yet-339259
Court voids cell tower law
The Court of Appeals (CA) has voided an ordinance passed by the municipal
council of General Trias, Cavite imposing an annual fee of P55,000 on
companies using poles, antennae and cell towers within its boundaries.
Associate Justice Stephen Cruz said the court granted the petition of Smart
Communications that the amount and objective of the ordinance has no legal
basis.
The ordinance is vague because it fails to state its intended purpose and the
nature of its imposition, Cruz said.
A trial court in Trece Martires City had denied the companys petition in 2012 on
grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The court said Smart Communication should have
questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance at the Department of Justice
(DOJ).
But the CA upheld Smart Communications appeal because the opportunity to
challenge the ordinance at the DOJ had lapsed.
Cruz said the courts must not shirk away from its sacred duty of resolving a
controversy that involves the constitutionality of a legislative act.
By the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the challenged
action, the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial controversy even without
any other overt act, he said.
Cruz said the court declared the ordinance unjust, excessive and confiscatory
and the imposition was not permissible under the Local Government Code and
the Constitution.
Evidently, for having lacked any reasonable justification, the annual tax of
P55,000 is deemed factually or legally infirm, Cruz said.
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/04/16/court-voids-cell-tower-law/
No real need for FOI Law
The proposed Freedom of Information Act being deliberated upon by the
Congress is unnecessary and, ironically, limits freedom of information. Why?
Section 7, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution says it all
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data
used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law.
The foregoing provision is self-executing, meaning, there is no need for a law for
the provision to operate. So far, the jurisprudence on this constitutional right
says just that (Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission [1987] and Guingona, Jr. v.
Comelec [2010]). In fact, government agencies may be compelled by court order
to release public documents involving matters of public interest. The phrase
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law does not mean that prior
legislation is required for the enjoyment of the right. It simply means that if the
Congress finds it necessary to impose certain limitations to the enjoyment of the
right, then the Congress must enact the necessary law. Therefore, with or
without such law, the right under Section 7 is immediately enforceable.
So far, the constitutional right appears plenary enough, save for current
restrictions imposed by the laws on national security and personal privacy. It is
fine as it is.
Proponents of the Freedom of Information Act may not know it but they are
actually encouraging the Congress to enact a law to limit the enjoyment of the
constitutional right under Section 7. By demanding such legislation, they are
urging the Congress to limit the enjoyment by the people of this important
constitutional right.
For instance, enacting this law will only give the government an opportunity to
add to the list of information and documentation which the public may be denied
access to. The law may even require compliance with a complicated
administrative procedure before a document may be obtained from a government
office. It may even go to the extent of requiring the payment of excessive fees
for such information and documentation. All that should not happen.
Some supporters of the bill are apparently unaware of the consequences of such
a law if it gets enacted. We certainly cannot blame them because the title of the
act is very attractive. After all, its a motherhood statementwho does not want
freedom of information?
That is precisely the problem. Because the Freedom of Information Act sounds
nice, it attracts a big following. That is where the danger lies. Not all
government-imposed restrictions assume the stereotype form of do not do this
and this is prohibited, etc. More often than not, they assume very attractive, but
misleading titles.
In 2010, President Benigno Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 1 creating the
so-called Philippine Truth Commission. The name of the agency actually
sounded good. Who does not want truth in government? It turned out, however,
that its creation was attended with legal infirmities. In the end, the Supreme
Court declared Executive Order No. 1 unconstitutional (Biraogo v. Philippine
Truth Commission).
Take the defunct Right to Reply bill once upon a time deliberated in the
Congress. Under this bill, everybody who may be affected by news coverage
done by the media will have a right to reply. It sounded nice because it seemed
to level the playing field in the relation between newsmakers and the news
media. Proponents of the bill seemed unaware that in 1974, the United States
Supreme Court declared the right to reply law unconstitutional (Miami Herald v.
Tornillo). The Court pointed out that to require a newspaper to publish a reply is
to tell the newspaper what to put in its pages.
Decades ago, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) came out
with the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a broadcast version of right to reply
regulations. While the word fairness as used in the rule sounded nice, and was
meant to encourage the wider dissemination of political commentaries and
coverage, the opposite was realized. Stations which refused to afford publicity to
political figures they disapproved of, chose to avoid broadcasting political
commentaries and coverage completely altogether. That way, they were not
covered by the fairness rule. In the end, the lofty objectives of the rule were not
realized. The FCC ended up repealing the Fairness Doctrine.
Champions of free speech in the United States lauded the demise of the
Fairness Doctrine. Attempts on the part of the US Congress to convert this FCC
rule to a federal law met tough opposition. Then US President Ronald Reagan
also threatened to veto any such law. So far, the defunct Fairness Doctrine
remains dead.
Before we cheer the anticipated passage of the Freedom of Information Act, let
us take time to study its consequences. If this law is actually enacted and it
ended up limiting fundamental freedoms, then its imposition on the people will be
an embarrassing case of self-inflicted injury
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/04/08/no-real-need-for-foi-law/
Live in Quezon City
The local government of Quezon City has been controversial lately.
First, some of its councilors are facing criminal charges for using public funds to
pay ghost employees. Next, the Quezon City council enacted an ordinance
requiring residents to pay for garbage collection services, which is a function of
the local government in the first place. Third, Quezon City Mayor Herbert
Bautista found himself interfering with the truck ban in Manila imposed by Manila
Mayor Joseph Estrada. After that, the Quezon City government forcibly evicted
the seedling bank located at the corner of EDSA and Quezon Avenue, despite
protestations that the rights of the seedling bank over the premises have been
upheld by the courts. Lastly, real estate taxes in Quezon City are among highest
in the country.
Recently, several Quezon City local politicians came out with a draft ordinance
which will require organizers of concerts and similar events which will be held in
Quezon City to indicate in their promotional materials the phrase LIVE IN QC or
words of similar import. According to the proponents of this measure, the
Quezon City government has lost its patience with concerts and events which
bear the promotional tag LIVE IN MANILA when these concerts are, in fact,
held in Quezon City, often at the Araneta Coliseum in Cubao. Beware, because
the proposed ordinance has a penal provision violators of the proposed
ordinance will be penalized with a P5000 fine.
The proposed requirement is unconstitutional because it violates freedom of
speech and expression. What concert producers want to indicate in their
promotional posters is their own affair. The local government cannot tell them
what to put in their posters. That is like telling newspapers and magazines what
to put on their pages. Dictating on the people what to put in their publications is
not acceptable in a free society.
Silly is another appropriate adjective to describe the proposed ordinance. Why
cant the phrase LIVE IN MANILA be used for an activity held in Quezon City?
What possible harm will an advertisement bearing the phrase LIVE IN MANILA,
for an event to be held in Quezon City, do to Quezon City? Will it spell a
reduction in amusement taxes? Certainly not. Will it be misleading for the
citizens of Quezon City? Of course not, unless the Quezon City council truly
believes that its citizens are stupid enough to think that the Araneta Coliseum,
the iconic Quezon City landmark for the past 50 years, is located in the City of
Manila. Good grief!
Perhaps the Quezon City government has not noticed that the word Manila, as
used in the entertainment and tourism industries in the country, has come to refer
to any place in Metropolitan Manila. For example, in October 1975, the historic
third match between world heavyweight boxing champions Muhammad Ali and
Joe Frazier was dubbed the Thrilla in Manila when it was actually held at the
Araneta Coliseum in Quezon City. The 1974 and 1994 Miss Universe pageants
were promoted to the world as events held in Manila, when they really took place
in Pasay City. Manila also hosted the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development in the 1970s but it was also held in Pasay City. Nobody protested.
By far, Manila is as generic as the national capital region (NCR) itself. People in
the rural communities still refer to their visitors from the NCR as mga taga-
Maynila even if the guests actually came from Caloocan City, Pasig or Malabon.
International flights into and out of the country use the name Manila, even if the
international airport is located at Pasay City. Realistically speaking, many
foreigners have heard of Manila, but not too many are acquainted with Quezon
City or Pasay City.
Whats in a name anyway? The City of Makati is home to the Manila Golf Club,
Manila Polo Club, Hotel Intercontinental-Manila, Manila Peninsula Hotel, Hotel
Dusit Manila Garden, Ateneo de Manila law school, the Manila South
Cemetery, etc.
Some names, even though they are ostensibly misleading, have come to be
accepted by the public, there being no harm in doing so. Thus, people hardly
notice that there are no hills in Green Hills in San Juan City, that
White Plains Subdivision in Quezon City is built on a sloping terrain, and that
there is nothing blue in Blue Ridge Subdivision, also in Quezon City.
Ateneo de Manila University has no campus in the City of Manila; its campuses
are in Quezon City and in Makati. The Manila Water Company and its
counterpart Maynilad also provide water service to areas outside of the City of
Manila.
Places labeled as new hardly deserve the description. New Manila is in Quezon
City, and that place has been there since the 1940s. There is New Panaderos
Street in the Santa Ana district of Manila, and its been in use for the past 50
years or more. The Bagong Ilog area in Pasig City has been around for the
longest time. In the United States, they have New York, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New Orleans, etc., all of which are older than the oldest person alive
today. Nobody seems to mind the use of the word new to describe these places.
Instead of fussing about names, the Quezon City council should concentrate its
legislative efforts towards cleansing city hall of ghost employees, making
garbage collection in the city free of charge, solving its own traffic problems, and,
in the name of environmental protection, saving the seedling bank at the corner
of EDSA and Quezon Avenue. Since the local government has more than
enough savings, the Quezon City council ought to consider lowering real estate
taxes in the city as well.
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/03/29/-live-in-quezon-city-/