NEWS NOTES

1. STATE WITNESS. NAPOLES CASE

WHO:

a) The discharge must be WITH THE CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED sought to be a state witness
b) There is ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
c) There is NO OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE AVAILABLE for the proper prosecution of the offense committed,
except the testimony of said accused;
d) 4. The testimony of said accused can be SUBSTANTIALLY CORROBORATED in its material points;
e) Said accused DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE MOST GUILTY; and
f) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving MORAL TURPITUDE.

WHEN:

As a general rule, the court should resolve any motion to discharge only AFTER the prosecution has presented all of its
evidence since it is at this time when the court shall determine the presence of the requisites above

In some cases, HOWEVER, the SC held that the prosecution is not required to present all of its other evidence before an
accused is discharged. The accused may be discharged at any time before
the defendants have entered upon their defense.

So long as the motion is able to receive evidence for and against the discharge of an accused to become a state witness, its
subsequent order granting or denying the motion for discharge is in order notwithstanding the lack of actual hearing on the
motion

CAN A CO-CONSPIRATOR BE DISCHARGED AS A STATE WITNESS?

RULEa co-conspirator cannot be discharged as a state witness against a co-conspirator

EXCEPTIONif the crime was committed clandestinely and there is no way to prove the crime

IF THE STATE WITNESS REFUSES TO TESTIFY, WILL HIS SWORN STATEMENT BE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST HIM?

No, his sworn statement will not be admissible against him

Otherwise, it violates his right against self-incrimination

2. PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT- GINA LOPEZ

Under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, classes of appointees

First, the heads of the executive departments; ambassadors; other public ministers and consuls; officers of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, from the rank of colonel or naval captain; and other officers whose appointments are vested in the
President in this Constitution;

Second, all other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law;

Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint; and

Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.

3 STRIKE RULE

Under the CA rules, an appointee is deemed bypassed if the commission has not acted on an appointment before Congress
adjourns session. When this happens, the President would have to reappoint the official to continue serving the government
post.

But under the three-strike rule, Pimentel said the CA would have to vote on whether to confirm or reject the concerned
appointee. If rejected, the President should no longer reappoint the affected official.

3. APPOINTMENT OF OICS- appointment of brgy officials

This contravenes the Constitution on so many fronts.

First, under the 1987 Constitution, local government positions, including those in the barangays, are by design to be filled
by election. While there is no such express declaration in the Constitution, such intention is indisputably apparent in many of
its provisions, such as these:

Article IX (C) Section 2.2:

"Exercise exclusive original jurisdictionand appellate jurisdiction over all contests...involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction."

Article X, Section 8:

The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three
years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he
was elected.

Second, this mode of filling in barangay positions cannot be changed from elective to appointive by mere legislative
enactment. It needs a constitutional amendment.

Third, it is clear in Article X (Section 8) of the Constitution that the only discretion of Congress as regards the term of office
of barangay officials is the determination of its length. This means that in the case of elective barangay officials, Congress
can either lengthen or shorten the default 3-year term, but certainly this power does not include the greater discretion to
scrap these term limits altogether.

Fourth, the proposed legislation is a threat to the 1987 Constitution's policy of decentralization. Article II (Section 25) obliges
the state to ensure the autonomy of local governments. In relation to this, Article X (Section 4) states that [t]he President of
the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. The Supreme Court defined the Presidents
power of supervision only to mean the power of a superior officer to see to it that lower officers perform their functions in
accordance with law.

The 5th and the most important objection to House Bill 5359 is that it is not only a threat to, but a direct assault on,
democracy. It is undisputed that the power to choose barangay officials exclusively belongs to the people.

Article II (Section 1) of the Constitution reiterates that [s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them. While, in theory, the people, in approving the Constitution, delegate the exercise of most of its
sovereignty in favor of the government, the power to elect public officials is a portion of that sovereignty it reserved to itself
and withheld from the government.

4. National ID System

-If passed into law, the Filipino Identification System Act would make the following offenses punishable:

Falsifying information in applying for the issuance of a Filipino ID card or procures through fraud

Utilizing the card in an unlawful manner

Any person or establishment refusing to recognize the Filipino ID card of a member

Any public official or employee conniving in the application or issuance of an unauthorized Filipino ID card

-Unconstitutional. SC decision: Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we will find that the right of privacy is recognized and
enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution. 33 It is expressly recognized in section 3 (1) of the Bill of Rights:

Section 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or
when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

It is plain and we hold that A.O. No. 308 falls short of assuring that personal information which will be gathered about our
people will only be processed for unequivocally specified purposes. 60 The lack of proper safeguards in this regard of A.O.
No. 308 may interfere with the individual's liberty of abode and travel by enabling authorities to track down his movement; it
may also enable unscrupulous persons to access confidential information and circumvent the right against self-incrimination;
it may pave the way for "fishing expeditions" by government authorities and evade the right against unreasonable searches
and seizures. 61 The possibilities of abuse and misuse of the PRN, biometrics and computer technology are accentuated
when we consider that the individual lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID, much less verify the
correctness of the data encoded. 62 They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent.

The right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of man living in a mass society. The threats emanate from various
sources governments, journalists, employers, social scientists, etc. 88 In th case at bar, the threat comes from the
executive branch of government which by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the people to surrender their privacy by giving
information about themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate delivery of basic services. Given the record-keeping power of
the computer, only the indifferent fail to perceive the danger that A.O. No. 308 gives the government the power to compile a
devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens. It is timely to take note of the well-worded warning of Kalvin, Jr., "the
disturbing result could be that everyone will live burdened by an unerasable record of his past and his limitations. In a way,
the threat is that because of its record-keeping, the society will have lost its benign capacity to forget." 89 Oblivious to this
counsel, the dissents still say we should not be too quick in labelling the right to privacy as a fundamental right. We close with
the statement that the right to privacy was not engraved in our Constitution for flattery.

5. VFA- China

In its February 2009 decision penned by now retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, the Court upheld the constitutionality
of the VFA as it was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States.

It pointed out that Section 25, Article XVIII, 1987 Constitution provides that foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall
not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires,
ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a
treaty by the other contracting State.

The VFA, which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for the joint RP-US military exercises, is simply an implementing
agreement to the main RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, the SC said.

6. IMPEACHMENT

7. What rules govern impeachment proceedings?

According to the Constitution, Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment. The House and the Senate have
adopted the rules of procedure governing impeachment proceedings in their respective chambers.

In the House, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as far as practicable, are made to apply. In the Senate, the Rules of Court are
made to apply insofar as they are applicable, and the rules of evidence and procedures are liberally construed in the
impeachment proceedings.

9. Who may file a verified impeachment complaint?

The following may file a verified complaint for impeachment:

(1) any member of the House;

(2) any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any member of the House; and

(3) at least one-third of all the members of the House, in which case such complaint or resolution shall constitute the articles
of impeachment and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

12. What is the role of the House in the trial?

The House shall act as the sole prosecutor at the trial in the Senate through a committee of 11 members to be elected by a
majority vote.

13. What is the role of the Senate?

It is the Senate which has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.

15. May impeachment proceedings be initiated against the same official more than once within a year?

No, impeachment proceedings cannot be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

16. Who is the presiding officer in the impeachment trial?

When the Philippine President is on trial, the Chief Justice shall preside.

In all other cases of impeachment, the Senate President shall preside.

17. Does the Chief Justice, as presiding officer in the trial, have the power to vote?
No.

18. What are the powers of the presiding officer?

The presiding officer shall have the power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders,
mandates and writs authorized by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders on the premises
as the Senate may authorize or provide.

19. Does the presiding officer have the power to rule on questions relating to evidence presented during the trial?

Yes. The presiding officer may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of materiality,
relevancy, competency or admissibility of evidence and incidental questions. The ruling shall stand as the judgment of the
Senate unless a senator shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for
decision after one contrary view is expressed; or the presiding officer may, at his option, in the first instance, submit any such
question to a vote.

21. May the senators put a question to the witnesses or any of the counsel?

Yes. If a senator wishes to put a question to a witness, he or she shall do so within two minutes. A senator may likewise put a
question to a prosecutor or to counsel of the prosecutor or the person impeached. The parties or their counsel may interpose
objections to witnesses answering questions propounded by any senator and the merits of any such objection may be argued
by the parties or their counsel.

22. Is the trial required to be conducted in public?

Yes.

24. How shall the Senate render its decision?

On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of
impeachment separately. If the impeachment shall not be sustained, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the
person impeached shall be convicted upon any such article, the Senate may proceed to consider other matters as may be
determined to be appropriate before pronouncing a judgment.

25. Is a motion for reconsideration of the vote on any article

of impeachment allowed?

No.

28. What are the consequences of a decision of conviction?

A conviction results in the removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines.
Likewise, the party convicted shall be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law.

29. Does resignation end the impeachment process?

No. The purpose of impeachment is not merely to remove an officer from office but also to disqualify him or her from holding
any office. The use of the conjunction and in the Constitution signifies that disqualification is not merely an accessory
penalty, as in criminal cases, but a principal penalty apart from that of removal. It can be said that in an impeachment
proceeding, removing the officer impeached is just as important as preventing him or her from holding any office under the
republic.
30. Can the Senate impose a penalty of censure?

Yes. Since judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification, the
Senate can decide to impose a lesser penalty, like censure or reprimand.

31. Can the Senate compel the officer impeached to appear in person and/or answer the charges?

No. If the person impeached shall fail to appear, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer, the trial shall proceed nevertheless
as upon a plea of not guilty.

32. Can the officer impeached assert his right against self-incrimination?

Yes. The officer impeached, like any other citizen, enjoys the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

35. Is the remedy of appeal available against the judgment of the Senate?

Generally, no. The judgment of the Senate is a political decision which may not be reviewed by the courts.

7. International Criminal Court

Jurisdiction

There are three jurisdictional requirements in the Rome Statute that must be met before a case may begin against an
individual. The requirements are (1) subject-matter jurisdiction (what acts constitute crimes), (2) territorial or personal
jurisdiction (where the crimes were committed or who committed them), and (3) temporal jurisdiction (when the crimes were
committed).

Subject-matter jurisdiction

The Court's subject-matter jurisdiction means the crimes for which individuals can be prosecuted. Individuals can only be
prosecuted for crimes that are listed in the Statute. The primary crimes are listed in article 5 of the Statute and defined in later
articles:

1. Genocide- "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
2. Crimes against humanity- acts "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian
population, with knowledge of the attack".
3. War crimes- Article 8 defines war crimes depending on whether an armed conflict is either international (which
generally means it is fought between states) or non-international (which generally means that it is fought between
non-state actors, such as rebel groups, or between a state and such non-state actors).
4. Crimes of aggression- as "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political
independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations
Territorial or personal jurisdiction

-an individual can only be prosecuted if he or she has either (1) committed a crime within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Court or (2) committed a crime while a national of a state that is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

- includes the territory, registered vessels, and registered aircraft of states which have either (1) become party to the Rome
Statute or (2) accepted the Court's jurisdiction by filing a declaration with the Court.[73]

Personal jurisdiction

The personal jurisdiction of the Court extends to all natural persons who commit crimes, regardless of where they are located
or where the crimes were committed, as long as those individuals are nationals of either (1) states that are party to the Rome
Statute or (2) states that have accepted the Court's jurisdiction by filing a declaration with the Court.

Admissibility

To initiate an investigation, the Prosecutor must (1) have a "reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of
the Court has been or is being committed", (2) the investigation would be consistent with the principle of complementarity,
and (3) the investigation serves the interests of justice.[78]

Complementarity

The principle of complementarity means that the Court will only prosecute an individual if states are unwilling or unable to
prosecute. Therefore, if legitimate national investigations or proceedings into crimes have taken place or are ongoing, the
Court will not initiate proceedings.
Gravity

The Court will only initiate proceedings if a crime is of "sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court".[80]