1.

PRIMER
Question: I have to give a presentation on HR-legal issues; what topics should I
cover? Please guide me.
Answer: Although this question can be read in several ways, I will assume the nature of
your inquiry is what should be covered in an introductory presentation to individuals who do
not specialize in the fields of human resources or employment law. In other words, what are
the basic issues that every manager should know? 
Although by no means exhaustive, what follows below is my list of the top five:
* Harassment, discrimination and retaliation prevention.
Managers need to understand federal, state and local laws with regard to harassment and
discrimination -- what those terms mean in the legal context; the types of conduct that
should be avoided; the company's policies with regard to harassment and discrimination
prevention; what to do if a manager experiences or witnesses inappropriate conduct; what is
meant by retaliation; and what happens after a complaint is made. 
Some states, most notably California, mandate this training for supervisors every two
years. Even where not expressly mandated, this type of training helps to protect employers
by potentially providing them with an affirmative defense in the event they are sued for
unlawful harassment.
* Principles of performance management.  
Effective performance management can be essential to preventing claims of harassment,
discrimination or retaliation. It can also mean the difference between retaining talent or
losing employees with high potential who are frustrated by lack of feedback.
Performance-management training should stress the importance of regular communication
with staff; timely documentation of performance deficiencies; positive feedback when
appropriate; progressive discipline; and coordination with human resources on performance-
management issues.
* Basics of the Family Medical Leave Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and state
and local laws protecting individuals with disabilities. 
Managers need to be aware of company policies with regard to the FMLA and
accommodation of a disability. They need to recognize when information provided by an
employee could be deemed a request for FMLA leave or for some type of
accommodation. They need to partner with human resources, and potentially legal counsel,
on how to respond to those requests. Finally, confidentiality must be stressed.
* Interviewing basics.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and many of the corollary state
agencies charged with remedying harassment and discrimination have issued guidance on
appropriate phrasing of questions during a job interview. 
Employers are not only precluded from directly asking an applicant about age, children,
citizenship and other protected characteristics, but also from posing less pointed questions
(such as the year someone graduated high school) that have the effect of generating the
same information. 
Managers should be given guidance on what types of questions are appropriate.
* Record-retention obligations. 
Employers have long had an obligation to preserve specific types of documents and
information with regard to employees for defined periods of time and to retain relevant
documents in the event of litigation.
In our current era of electronic data communication and storage, these obligations have
become somewhat more complex. 
Managers need to understand how to respond (e.g., what to delete) when they are notified
that data-storage devices are reaching maximum capacity. They also need to be sensitized
to the importance of complying with "litigation hold" memoranda (notices from in-house or
outside counsel directing individuals to retain particular types of documents for the duration
of an actual or anticipated litigation).
There are a host of other topics, many of which have been addressed in my prior columns
that might also have made this list. 
Human resource professionals need to be cognizant of their own workforces and identify
training opportunities as the need becomes apparent.
Thank you for your inquiries and your readership, and good luck.
2.) Ladies and Gentlemen,
 
I wish to thank the organizers of the policy forum - FLAG anti-death penalty task force - for organizing this
Forum and inviting me to participate in it - I am both grateful and honored!
 
This is an important initiative - a timely initiative - one which I support wholeheartedly.
 
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimate that worldwide some 29 million people
who use drugs suffer from drug use disorders while drug trafficking by trans-national criminal cartels is a
major source of violence and insecurity the world over, affecting every society. Drug trafficking is also a
major source of corruption, undermining both the rule of law and good governance and eroding public
trust.
 
Another, drug trafficking, drug abuse and their consequences constitute major threats to the lives, health,
dignity and hopes of millions of people and their loved ones. In response, almost a year ago to this very
day, Heads of State and Government assembled at the United Nations Headquarters to consider a global
plan of action called: Our joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug
problem. I encourage you to consult it.
 
The document is difficult to summarize given its breadth but allow me to highlight a few of its key aspects
for you:
 
The special session of the UN General Assembly drafted a comprehensive approach that takes into
account a range of human and other factors that drive the drug problem including social development,
public health, justice and human rights. It calls for more effective approaches than the
punishment/punitive model that some governments have adopted.
 
It urges governments to uphold the inherent dignity of all individuals, to respect, protect and promote all
human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law and in the development and implementation of
drug policies.
 
II
 
The joint Commitment also recognizes that dependence is a complex health disorder of a chronic and
relapsing nature, whose social causes and consequences can be prevented and treated through, inter
alia, effective scientific evidence-based drug treatment, care and rehabilitation programs, including
community-based programs.
 
 The world's leaders recognized the important role played by civil society organizations and those entities
involved in drug-related treatment services and committed to intensify their role and cooperation with
them.
 
They denounced repeatedly, drug-related corruption; decrying its role in the obstruction of justice,
including through intimidation of justice officials.
 
They promised to elaborate effective scientific evidence-based prevention strategies that are centered on
and tailored to the needs of individuals, families and communities and they committed to promote
proportionate national sentencing policies, practices and guidelines too for drug-related offenses.
 
Throughout the joint commitment document, governments affirm the importance of systematic data
collection, evidence gathering, scientific research and the sharing of information including the exchange
of best practices related to preventing and countering drug-related crime.
 
What governments did not commit to last year was "the war on drugs" approach.
 
Quite to the contrary. They called for what amounts to a balanced, multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary
approach, and they placed great emphasis on health, rights, and justice.
 
They did not suggest that death penalty was an appropriate or effective response to drugs trafficking, let
alone drug use; Instead, they spoke about proportionate sentencing and alternative punishments.
 
Their document is not perfect. The joint Commitment to Effectively Addressing and Countering the World
Drug Problem is criticized, by activists and a number of politicians from around the world, for not
considering more explicitly the role of harm reduction strategies, for instance, such as needle and syringe
programs and prescription of substitute medications.
 
But in April 2016, the general assembly of the world's government recognized explicitly that the "war on
drugs" - be it community based, national or global - does not work. And further, that many harms
associated with drugs are not caused by drugs, but by the negative impacts of badly thought out drug
policies.
 
The joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem is a call for action,
but not to any action: according to the world's leaders there are other ways, better ways; evidenced-
based, scientific ways, of combating drug abuse and trafficking - ways that do not make matters worse.
 
Badly thought out, ill-conceived drug policies not only fail to address substantively drug dependency,
drug-related criminality, and the drug trade, they add more problems, as has been well documented,
around the world, including by United Nations bodies and Special Rapporteurs.
 
They add, escalate and/or compound problems such as:

 Killings, extra-judicial or by criminal gangs; the break-down of the rule of law;

 vigilante crimes,
 Torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence;
 Prolonged pre-trial detention, mandatory sentencing and disproportionately long sentences for
drug possession, etc.
 Detention in drug and rehabilitation centres without trial or a proper evaluation of drug
dependency;
 Non-consensual experimental treatment;

And further, badly thought out, ill-conceived drug policies can foster a regime of impunity infecting the
whole justice sector and reaching into whole societies, invigorating the rule of violence rather than of law;
eroding public trust in public institutions; breeding fear and leading people to despair.
  
These are the findings from research undertaken around the world. Let me be clear. In none of the
countries where the perverse consequences of ill-thought out drug policies were reported, in none of
these countries did the drug problem disappear. In fact, the opposite happened.
 
III
 
And so we are here today and tomorrow - to take stock - to learn from experts here and from abroad,
those who have long considered, studied and analyzed drug policies, their impact and effectiveness. And
we are here, together, to contribute ourselves to the implementation of the joint commitment by:
 

 Providing evidence and data to support evidence-based policies and strategies;

 Collaborating and cooperating across different countries and diverse areas of expertise -
highlighted as being so important by governments last year;
 Listening to one another, respectfully, politely but engaging too in robust exchange;
 Developing proposals with and for the Government of the Philippines, other stakeholders, and the
people of the Philippines - proposals on drug policies and responses that are effective, and sustainable,
taking into account the country's specific situation, history and contect, as well as its multiple assets and
opportunities.

 
To take par in these exchanges is truly a privilege and I thank you for it.
 
IV
 
Let me end by sharing a few more personal reflections.
 
Those of us who are involved in human rights works know only too well that we are living in a world full of
intense disruption. Its symptoms and its foot print is there for all to see; apparent everywhere. Climate,
people movement, globalized economy and globalized crime...but it is also the case that there is too is a
disruption of norms and values.
 
The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, has often lamented the caustic
consequences of these disruptions: It is not merely that human rights are abused - they frequently have
been.
 
What is exceptional is the fact that the very idea of human rights is being questioned and in many places
rejected. And that constitutes a marked alteration of our environment globally and locally, possibly the
most significant human rights development since the establishment of the modern global and universal
human rights system at the end of world war two.
 
The attacks we are witnessing on universal, indivisible rights; the undermining of equality, dignity, and
accountability - share similarities wherever they take place:

 There is an extensive application - even advocacy - of a doctrine of global war

 A certain conception of security, narrowly defined and in opposition to genuine human security, is
taking hold,
 A blurring if distinctions between combatants and non-combatants; and an ever broadening
understanding if the "enemy," including the enemy within.

More crucially however this rejection of human rights is predicated on a rejection of our common
humanity.
 
 The rejects - those that don't fit in, are not welcome, are to be rejected, criminalized, punished may differ
from country to country, community to community, leader to leader - but res assured they are all human.

 They may be migrants or refugees

 They may be the poor or the very poor, the homeless.
 They are street children
 Indigenous people;
 Political opponents or critics;
 They are the other...and
 They may be drug users or drug pushers.

Any one of these and so many others who, are for one reason or another, denied their humanity and their
human standing - their rights - to justice, to freedom or movement, to protection from force, to freedom of
expression. Denied as right holders, as citizens.
 
These profoundly disturbing developments are occurring at the hands of authorities that should and can
know better. Their demonization - and the unaccountable, empowerment of authority that accompanies it
- pushes open a door onto an abyss - a void into which humanity has thrown itself before with awful
consequences - because, of course, one cannot deny the humanity if some people without losing
humanity for all people.
 
V
 
And so we are here today.
 
I am immensely grateful for this invitation, for giving me the incredible opportunity to spend some time
with you.
 
Over the last 8 months since I have been appointed UN Special Rapporteur I have watched from afar, but
never from too far. I have followed testimonies of the relatives of victims, I have seen the brave work of
civil society actors, lawyers, human rights defenders, academics, senators, I have heard debates
between politicians, explanations by government officials, and indeed I have watched footage too of
police and military men - and all saying there are other ways; better ways; other options, and better
options.
 
This forum, with the commitment and the good will of all parties, from the government to civil society, from
the police to the health sector - is an important benchmark to shine the light of scrutiny, of fact finding, of
knowledge, of evidence - impartial and true - so that we may seek more clearly our way to preventing,
responding, supporting.
 
This light of evidence will help identify and implement the best possible drug/anti drug policies, and
interventions. That light will lead - to right upheld, fulfilled and enjoyed for and by all.
 
An American vice president Hubert Humphrey once observed “the moral test of government is how that
government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the
elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life”. 
 
People living in life’s shadows are not to be abandoned there. 
 
We are not to be abandoned there. 
 
I am deeply honored to have been involved in this journey with you and deeply committed to continue on
that journey with you, beginning with these two days conference.
8.  In re Petition for Habeas Corpus of Jose Ma. Sison, Juliet Sison v. Enrile, et al.,
G.R. No. 65945.
here, on the Motion to relieve petitioner Jose Ma. Sison from what he terms his “’solitary
confinement,’ the [SC] directed the respondents to keep the petitioner in a detention area, not
necessarily the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center, where he may have the opportunity to associate
with other persons under detention, . . . Abad Santos, J., submitted the following; ‘I believe that
Jose Ma. Sison, should be allowed wider contacts than is now permitted. . . . Sison, guilty or not,
is a human being and human beings are social creatures. It is not enough that his wife and son are
allowed to visit him three days each week; he should be able to talk to others, if he wants to,
everyday of the week so as to stimulate his mind and keep it from getting atrophied. Anything
less is not only cruel but also unusual punishment. `[T]here should be no restraint in the market
place of ideas absent any showing of a clear and present danger to public safety.’ “

Our Bill of Rights says in Art. III, Sec. 12 (2) “. . . [S]olitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.”

No matter how one may regard Janet, “[i]t is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards
of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so,
while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context
of what are really the great themes expressed [in the Constitution].” United States v. Rabinowitz,
339 U.S. 56, 59 (1950).

We have to upgrade the quality of all our prisons, instead of democratizing misery and
oppression.

The late Justice Isagani Cruz once moved me in dedicating a free copy of a book of his, “to a
brilliant lawyers of lost causes, from a fellow loser.” Some of the worthiest causes are the lost
ones. So PNoy lost the DAP case and moved to reconsider, SOP for the losing side. But, why did
winner Harry Roque, our esteemed Compañero also so moved? He filed a 25-page Motion to
Partial Reconsideration which our sabong journalists have not mentioned. I am reminded of the
client who, told that “justice has prevailed,” retorted, “move to reconsider at once!” Seriously,
pork is not toxic per se, put to good use in the US, which also invented or popularized the auto. I
lost my ever-loving wife in a vehicular incident but I won’t propose banning vehicles.

5.‘Nandiyan po ba ang mister ko?’

‘Secret’ – Manila police
 0

BY RENE SAGUISAG ON MAY 5, 2017ANALYSIS

  
 RENE SAGUISAG

THE other afternoon, I got this text from San Beda College of Law, Mendiola, on the 2016
Bar exam results: 1st takers 98.08 percent – 154/157; Retakers 91.67 percent – 77/84;
Overall 95.85 percent – 231/241.

The year 2016 has turned out to be the year of Promdis, beginning with Prez Digong,
validating that for a good stude, no such thing as a bad school, or for a bad stude, no such
thing as a good school. UP, Ateneo and San Beda, from Imperial Manila, were shut out of
the Top 10 for the first time. Bokya.

Kudos to the passers, particularly the Top 10. I wonder how many of them will go to human
rights advocacy, which may guarantee only psychic income, a downside if one wants to be
in government, which bids them welcome. Fine, but I wish a few of them would be like some
of the jurassic remnants and relics of FLAG and MABINI, human rights addicts, toiling pro
bono (puro abono). Am I glad that Zamboanguena Athalia Liong (No. 3) “was inspired by
my father, a human rights lawyer” (PDI, May 4, 2017). While Bedan Ruth Casino would just
be a kalabit away from activist Teddy, for consultation. RamilComendador, a Comelec
janitor, was inspired by Rene Sarmiento, his Comelec boss, to go into law. Bedan Rene of
FLAG, also co-founded MABINI.

It is said that the reasonable man adjusts himself to the world while the unreasonable man
adjusts the world to himself; therefore, all progress depends on unreasonable people. A
member of the committed, working rich, Energy Secretary Gina Lopez, went through a test
of fire, and got barbecued. But Gina, keep going, for our children and their children, while
singing Edith Piaf’s “non, je ne regretterien.” You have fought the good fight.

PNP Top Gun Bato de la Rosa, we hope, is reasonable. He has renewed his challenge to
duels (illegal, under Articles 260 and 261 of the Revised Penal Code), but has not,
thankfully, renewed his order to his men to “burn, baby, burn,” where druggies live. Why
indeed jeopardize innocent kin and the neighborhood? Notice how he trivializes the
Constitution whose Bill of Rights outlaws secret detention places, solitary confinement, or
being held incommunicado [Article III, Section 12(2).

These used to be done in “safehouses,” where a detainee was anything but safe, in or out
of a camp, or similar facility. An oxymoron.

The time between one’s arrest up to the time of acknowledgment of that custodial
arrangement is the most dangerous. Anything can happen. On such admission of arrest and
whereabouts, Meralco treatment (electric shock), Nawasa treatment (water cure),
desaparecido, and salvaging (another oxymoron, like “safehouse,” where no one is safe)
disappear as options.

Indignities such as long waits, pix-taking, body search, finger-printing, being made to take
off one’s shoes or given the runaround, etc., we learned to live with, in exchange for seeing
a happy, relieved face of a detainee upon sight of counsel.

Recently, I tried to visit Senator Leila de Lima one morning, when I was in the Crame area. I
was told nyet as I was not listed as among her lawyers then (I had signed her court
petition). The custodians could just have checked with her then, or with Panyero Betong
Sawali, who was with her at the time, I was to learn. Feeling under the weather, I didn’t
press, and indeed I was back in Makati Med shortly thereafter. (In 1972-1973, I tried to see
detainee Flu Ortigas, on the request of the late Raul Roco. No dice. Snake eyes. Flu and I
reconnected recently, if my memory is true. At Bantayog?)

In Laguna long ago, the colonel-in-charge denied that RM was in his custody when in fact
the latter was just behind that wall; RM restrained himself from shouting as with us were his
wife and very young son, for whom the experience could be traumatic. You could tell when
the colonel was lying: his lips moved.

OK, more details thereon: on December 27, 1980, Jojo Binay, Jojo Cueva and I, with our
families (one for each), motored to Laguna. We deposited our families in Pansol. We then
proceeded to Santa Cruz to see Col. Pedro Lumbres, head of the local PC Command, to
ask permission to see RM, who had a P50,000 bounty on his head as an alleged key
personality in the April 6 Liberation Movement. “RM who?” Col. Lumbres asked,
disingenuously, unconvincingly, the wife, TJM, with son (AM, four years old then, now a
strapping young man I met at the Ateneo recently), who were with us. RM was there, just
meters away, it turned out!

We had known from sources in this society without secrets, that RM had been there since
on or about December 3, 1980. We had learned he had been caught, with four others, that
they had been grilled, etc. I reconnected with the wifey at People Power Monument, or
Bantayog, recently, again, if my memory is true. I recalled the unsayable pain we then
shared.

Col. Lumbres, in our view, unreasonably denied RM’s legal/ constitutional right to counsel,
and worse, his Christian, human right to see and reconnect with his wife and son.

On this, the tenth month of Digong’s reign, we continue to wish and pray for his success.
But, he should have a higher regard for human life, liberty and dignity, and not press for the
return of the death penalty (which now seems dead in the water?). It is anti-poor, which
cannot be cured by a clause saying that the first quintet to be hanged daily should be only
the wealthy, to kill the anti-poor issue.

I am amazed certainly at Digong’s pace, travelling abroad even on Holy Week, without
getting under the weather, or confined in bed, as I have been, for much of the last few
weeks, on and off.
The use of my finger, ridden by gout or arthritis(?),for emailing has just returned. I have
been confined at Makati Med thrice in the last few weeks and I can only sigh, to its efficient
and kind staff, “we cannot go on meeting like this.” I can only envy Digong in this respect
whose partner, Honeylet, is a nurse. (My late Dulce was my nurse, indeed, my everything.)

His situation creates protocol problems in official functions. And what do we do with parties
being prosecuted who say they are in the same adulterous-concubinage situation as the
ScoffLawPrez, flaunting his flouting of the laws of God and man? Like cases, like
treatment? Equal before the law? May it be administered with an unequal hand? “Kung ang
Pangulo po may mga kulasisi, . . .”

And look at what the House of Duterte has done to the state policy on dynasties in Article II,
Section 26, of the Constitution. Prez Duterte, Mayor Duterte and Vice Mayor Duterte. In
your face, Movement Against Dynasties (MAD)!

But again, as a fan of Nanay and Lola Soledad, the Duterte matriarch of happy memory, I
wish them well even if on some issues, we are simply fated never to understand one
another. We just have to keep plugging for change, the capacity for which we cannot
underestimate.

Impeachment of Digong is dead in the morgue. What about Leni’s? So should it be, for
merely echoing what many have been saying, here and abroad. A powerless Veep in our
system cannot commit serious mischief that strikes at the very heart of a working
government, if we go by the nature of that extraordinary remedy, a national inquest into the
conduct of public men (a term which embraces women). Lies, we confront with truth. More
speech, not less.

“When they went after her, I did not speak cuz I am not a partisan type. When they went
after the Inquirer, I did not speak, for what did I care? When they went after the oligarchs, I
did not speak as I was not one of them. Then they came for me, and there was no one left
to speak for me.”

Digong asks for more time to deal with drugs and endo. The difficult he may do right away,
the impossible may take longer. Like, how do we lay the economic foundations of honesty
by paying our people above the level of corruption, cum health care and pensions?

Enough of Kill-Kill-Kill or Impeach-Impeach-Impeach! Very few positives. But, it has not

been a year. Patience. And let us see where the new lawyers will go as they spread their
wings and help give our people a better life.

BTW, two Bedan Law alums, Gentleman C Digong and bar topnotcher (1985, No. 8) Leila,
are among Time’s 100 Most Influential People (Time, May 1-8, 2017)

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659

  
AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON
CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR
THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
   
WHEREAS, the Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19 paragraph
(1) thereof, states "Excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty
be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it";
WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for
being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of  their
inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of
decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society;
WHEREAS, due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted
not only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property
but also affected the nation's efforts towards sustainable economic
development and prosperity while at the same time has undermined the
people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability to maintain peace
and order in the country;
WHEREAS, the Congress, in the interest of justice, public order and the
rule of law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions
for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty
for said crimes; chanrobles virtual law library
Now, therefore,
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the
State to foster and ensure not only obedience to its authority, but also to
adopt such measures as would effectively promote the maintenance of
peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the
promotion of the general welfare which are essential for the enjoyment by
all the people of the blessings of democracy in a just and humane society;
Sec. 2. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who levies war against
the Philippines or adheres to her enemies giving them aid or
comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere, shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed
100,000 pesos. 
  
"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony
of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of
the accused in open court. 
  
"Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits acts
of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be
punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not
to exceed 100,000 pesos."
Sec. 3. Section Three, Chapter One, Title One of Book Two of the
same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section Three. - Piracy and mutiny on the high seas
or in the Philippine waters
  
"Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in
the Philippine waters.- The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, or in the
Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a
member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole
or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or passengers.  
  
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high
seas or in the Philippine waters. 
  
"Art. 123. Qualified piracy. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death shall be imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes
referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following
circumstances: 
  
"1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon
the same; 
  
"2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without
means of saving themselves or; 
  
"3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide,
physical injuries or rape."
Sec. 4.  There shall be incorporated after Article 211 of the same Code a
new article to read as follows:
"Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery. - If any public officer is entrusted
with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or
prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable
by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense
which was not prosecuted. 
  
"If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or
present, he shall suffer the penalty of death."
Sec. 5. The penalty of death for parricide under Article 246 of the
same Code is hereby restored, so that it shall read as follows:
"Art. 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father,
mother, or child, whether legitimate of illegitimate, or any of his
ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of
parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death."
Sec. 6. Article 248 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
"1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to  weaken the
defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 
  
"2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.  
  
"3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of
an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any
other means involving great waste and ruin. 
  
"4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 
  
"5. With evident premeditation. 
  
"6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or
corpse."
Sec. 7. Article 255 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in
Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon
any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.  
  
"If any crime penalized in this Article be committed by the
mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor,
she shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and
maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same
purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the
penalty shall bereclusion temporal." chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 8. Article 267  of the same Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private
individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other
manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death:
"1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than
three days. 
  
"2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.  
  
"3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon
the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall
have been made. 
  
"4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except
when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
"The penalty shall be death penalty where the kidnapping or
detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom
from the victim or any other person, even if none of the
circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission
of the offense.
  
"When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing
acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed."
Sec. 9. Article 294 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons;  Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of
violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
"1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or
on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been
committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by
rape or intentional mutilation or arson. 
  
"2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua, when or if by reason or on occasion of such
robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision I of
Article 263 shall have been inflicted. 
  
"3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in
subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding
paragraph, shall have been inflicted. 
  
"4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or
intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall
have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the
commission of the crime, or when in the course of its execution,
the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible
for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by
subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263. 
  
"5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases."
Sec. 10. Article 320 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Art. 320. Destructive Arson. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
"1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single
act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings,
committed on several or different occasions.chanrobles virtual law library 
  
"2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the
public in general or where people usually gather or congregate for
a definite purpose such as, but not limited to, official
governmental function or business, private transaction,
commerce trade workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely
incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels,
motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops or
terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that
there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set
on fire and regardless also of whether the building is actually
inhabited or not. 
  
"3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane,
devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for public use,
entertainment or leisure. 
  
"4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any
appurtances thereto, which are devoted to the service of public
utilities. 
  
"5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of
concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law, or
for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors
or to collect from insurance. 
  
"Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated
qualifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or
committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons,
regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy
the building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the
commission or another violation of law.
"The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed
upon any person who shall burn:
"1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or
fireworks factory, ordnance, storehouse, archives or general
museum of the Government. 
  
"2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of
inflammable or explosive materials.
"If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts
penalized under this Article, death results, the mandatory penalty
of death shall be imposed."
Sec. 11. Article 335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed
by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
"1. By using force or intimidation; 
  
"2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and 
  
"3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
"The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. 
  
"Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a
deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death. 
  
"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
become insane, the penalty shall be death. 
  
"When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua to death. 
  
"The death penalty shall also be imposed it the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
"1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim. 
  
"2. when the victim is under the custody of the police or military
authorities. 
  
"3. when the rape is committed in full view of the husband,
parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third
degree of consanguinity. 
  
"4. when the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years
old. 
  
"5. when the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease. chanrobles virtual law library 
  
"6. when committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law
enforcement agency. 
  
"7. when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
suffered permanent physical mutilation."

Sec. 12. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (An Act Defining and
Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public
officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his
family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires
ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt
criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua to death.  Any person who
participated with the said public officer in the commission of an
offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be
punished for such offense.  In the imposition of penalties, the
degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal
Code, shall be considered by the court.  The court shall declare
any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other
incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks
derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor
of the State."
Sec. 13. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, of Article II of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1972, are hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring into
the Philippines any prohibited drug.
"Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall
act as a broker in any of such transactions.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to
the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should
a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section
be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the
maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed.
"Sec. 5. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort for Prohibited
Drug Users. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and
a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten
million pesos shall be imposed upon any person or group of
persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any
prohibited drug is used in any form or where such prohibited
drugs in quantities specified in Section 20, Paragraph 1 of
this Act are found.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to
the contrary, the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed
in every case where a prohibited drug is administered,
delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same
in such place. 
  
"Should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the
death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort,
the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed on
the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20
of this Act to the contrary.
"Sec. 7. Manufacture of Prohibited Drug. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law,
shall engage in the manufacture of any prohibited drug.
"Sec. 8.  Possession  or Use of Prohibited Drugs. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall
be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law,
shall possess or use any prohibited drug subject to the
provisions of Section 20 hereof.
"Sec. 9.  Cultivation of Plants which are Sources of
Prohibited Drugs.  - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos
to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who
shall plant, cultivate or culture any medium  Indian hemp,
opium poppy (papaver somniferum), or any other plant
which is or may hereafter be classified as dangerous drug or
from which any dangerous drug may be manufactured or
derived. 
  
"The land or portions hereof, and/or greenhouses on which
any of said plants is cultivated or cultured shall be
confiscated and escheated to the State, unless the owner
thereof can prove  that he did not know such cultivation or
culture despite the exercise of due diligence on his part. 
  
"If the land involved in is part of the public domain, the
maximum of the penalties herein provided shall be imposed
upon the offender."
Sec. 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 14. Importation of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring any
regulated drug in the Philippines. 
  
"Sec. 14-A. Manufacture of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the
manufacture of any regulated drug. 
  
"Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall
sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. 
  
"Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the
contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a
regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section be the
proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum
penalty herein provided shall be imposed."chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 15. There shall be incorporated after Section 15 of Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drug Act of
1972, a new section to read as follows:
"Sec. 15-a. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for regulated
drug users. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a
fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million
pesos shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who
shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any regulated drugs is
used in any form, or where such regulated drugs in quantities
specified in Section 20, paragraph 1 of this Act are found. 
  
"Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the
contrary, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed
in every case where a regulated drug is administered, delivered or
sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place.  
  
"Should a regulated drug be the proximate cause of the death of a
person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum
penalty herein provided shall be imposed on the maintainer
notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the
contrary."

Sec. 16. Section 16 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as

amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act No. 6425, is
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the
corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of
Section 20 hereof.
Sec. 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of
the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. -  The penalties for
offenses under Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections
14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the
dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities:  
  
1. 40 grams or more of opium; 
  
2. 40 grams or more of morphine; 
  
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine
hydrochloride; 
  
4. 40 grams or more of heroin; 
  
5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana; 
  
6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil; 
  
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; or  
  
8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is
far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and
promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public
consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose.  
  
"Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to
reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.
"Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale,
administration, delivery, transportation or manufacture of
dangerous drugs, the cultivation of plants which are sources of
dangerous drugs and the possession of any opium pipe and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs shall carry with it the
confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the Government, of all the
proceeds of the crime including but not limited to money and
other obtained thereby and the instruments or tools with which it
was committed, unless they are the property of a third person not
liable for the offense, but those which are not of lawful commerce
shall be ordered destroyed without delay.  Dangerous drugs and
plant sources of such drugs as well as the proceeds or
instruments of the crime so confiscated and forfeited in favor of
the Government shall be turned over to the Board for proper
disposal without delay.
"Any apprehending or arresting officer who misappropriates or
misapplies or fails to account for seized or confiscated dangerous
drugs or plant-sources of dangerous drugs or proceeds or
instruments of the crime as are herein defined shall after
conviction be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten
million pesos."
Sec. 18. There shall be incorporated after Section 20 of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, a new
section to read as follows:
"Sec. 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provisions. -  Any person charged
under any provision of this Act where the imposable penalty
is reclusion perpetua to death shall not be allowed to avail of the
provision on plea bargaining."
Sec. 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 24. Penalties for Government Official and Employees and
Officers and Members of Police Agencies and the Armed Forces,
'Planting' of Evidence. -  The maximum penalties provided for
Section 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of Article II and
Sections 14, 14-A, 15(1), 16 and 19 of Article III shall be imposed,
if those found guilty of any of the said offenses are government
officials, employees or officers, including members of police
agencies and the armed forces. 
  
"Any such above government official, employee or officer who is
found guilty of "planting" any dangerous drugs punished in
Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A,
15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the person or in the
immediate vicinity of another as evidence to implicate the latter,
shall suffer the same penalty as therein provided."
Sec. 20. Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, known as the
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. -  Any person who is found
guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two of
this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken,
be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and
eight months and not more than seventeen years and four
months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or
intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by
imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months
and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any
person, or force upon things; and the penalty ofreclusion
perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or
occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the
course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof."
Sec. 21. Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. -  The penalty of reclusion perpetua
shall be from twenty years and one day to forty years. chanrobles virtual law
library 

  
"Reclusion temporal. -  The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
from twelve years and one day to twenty years.  
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. -  The duration of
the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification
shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when
the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory
penalty, in which case, it shall be that of the principal penalty.  
  
"Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. -  The duration
of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension, and destierro
shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when
the suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case,
its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.  
  
Arresto mayor. -  The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor
shall be from one month and one day to six months.  
  
Arresto menor. -  The duration of the penalty of arresto menor
shall be from one day to thirty days. 
  
Bond to keep the peace. -  The bond to keep the peace shall be
required to cover such period of time as the court may
determine."
Sec. 22. Article 47 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed;
Automatic review of the Death Penalty Cases. -  The death
penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed
under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below
eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime or is more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal
or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the
required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the
death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua. 
  
"In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial
court, the records shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court for
automatic review and judgment by the Courten banc, within
twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after
promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of any motion
for new trial or reconsideration.  The transcript shall also be
forwarded within ten (10) days from the filing thereof by the
stenographic reporter."
Sec. 23. Article 62 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Art. 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and of habitual delinquency. -  Mitigating or
aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be
taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing
the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
"1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a
crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the
law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall
not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty. 
  
"1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was
taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be
imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating
circumstances. chanrobles virtual law library 
  
"The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was
committed by any group who belongs to an organized/syndicated
crime group. 
  
"An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or
more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping
one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime.
"2. The same  rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a
degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission
thereof.
"3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise
from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private
relations with the offended party, of from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability
of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom
such circumstances are attendant.
"4. The circumstances which consist in the material
execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish
it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those
persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
"5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
"(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the
penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found
guilty and to the additional penalty ofprision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods; 
  
"(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to
the penalty provided for the last crime or which he be found
guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods; and 
  
"(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he
be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in
its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the
two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity
herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. 
  
"For purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be a
habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date
of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less
serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is
found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener."
Sec. 24. Article 81 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. - 
The death sentence shall be executed with preference to any
other and shall consist in putting the person under sentence to
death by electrocution.  The death sentence shall be executed
under the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far
as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under the
sentence during electrocution as well as during the proceedings
prior to the execution.chanrobles virtual law library 
  
"If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be
anaesthesized at the moment of the execution. 
  
"As soon as facilities are provided by the Bureau of Prisons, the
method of carrying out the sentence shall be changed to gas
poisoning. 
  
"The death sentence shall be carried out not later than one (1)
year after the judgment has become final."
Sec. 25. Article 83 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. - 
The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she
is pregnant or within one (1) year after delivery, nor upon any
person over seventy years of age.  In this last case, the death
sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion
perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40. 
  
"In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the
records of the case shall be forwarded immediately by the
Supreme Court to the Office of the President for possible exercise
of the pardoning power."
Sec. 26. All laws, presidential decrees and issuances, executive orders,
rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 27. If, for any reason or reasons, any part of the provision of this Act
shall be held to be unconstitutional or invalid, other parts or provisions
hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and
effect.
Sec. 28. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in
two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.  The publication shall
not be later than seven (7) days after the approval hereof.  chanrobles virtual law
library 
  Batch 2016 and the law
 0

BY THE MANILA TIMES ON MAY 6, 2017EDITORIAL

  

LAWYERS in the Philippines are an entitled breed.

They dictate the “acceptance fee” for a case; the more heinous the crime, the higher their
charges go.

“Attorneys,” as these Bar passers are reverently addressed by Filipinos, can exact the
acceptance fee they want because the legal profession in this country is unregulated.

So is the medical profession, where doctors, also deferentially addressed as “Doc,” can
collect the “consultation fee” that they think their astronomically expensive education
deserves.

There was, after all, auditing wisdom in a former revenue official proposing to tax the
professional services of “attorneys” and obstetricians.

Meanwhile, wonder no more if even the notary public holding office in a cubbyhole or the
general practitioner seeing patients in a passably clean clinic rides a flashy car or sends his
children to exclusive schools.

Of course, there are the rare doctors to the barrios and the public lawyers (pro bono) and
some of their private counterparts whose legal services can be had for a song, literally.

But it is a big gamble and sacrifice for them–they could end up dead in the hands of soldiers
or rebels, or could be taken to court by the ubiquitous politician whose ego the small-town
lawyer supposedly slighted.

With the threat of the death penalty hanging over the heads of criminals, expect acceptance
fees to hit the ceiling because, after all, these wrongdoers would probably value their necks
more than the arm and the leg they have to part with to pay their lawyers.

When a few, for example, from the recent batch of lawyers produced by the 2016 Bar
examinations make it to judge in some trial court, don’t be surprised if they parlay their
entitlement into power over life and death of their clients.

In a court of law where you are facing a libel case, for instance, the judge is God, such that
if he does not like your tone of voice in answering his question, you risk being booked for
contempt and thrown in jail.

Believe us, you would not know what hit you until the judge “mercifully” orders his
subalterns to free you.
Many of the those accused before a court of law are not represented by legal counsel,
making the appearance especially of poor litigants before a judge nothing more than a show
that the criminal justice system puts on in the Philippines.

Throw in the fact that the judge appears to determine your guilt or innocence depending on
the kind of shirt you are wearing or the language you speak.

Note that in the Philippines, the courts for the most part conduct their business in English,
compounding the woes of the cargador, already lawyer-less, facing homicide charges, but
not the highly educated big businessman dressed to the nines trying to set aside a slander
indictment.

Malacañang on Thursday, the same day the results of last year’s Bar examinations were
released, invited the new lawyers to join public service.

“We pray that many of the successful examinees would pursue a career in government and
join us in building a progressive nation with a trustworthy government run by young people
full of idealism, integrity and excellence,” President Rodrigo Duterte’s spokesman Ernesto
Abella said in a statement.

We would not blame the new lawyers if they took a raincheck from Abella.

Duterte himself said he was getting P130,000 a month as President of the Philippines.

Why, that could even be lower than the acceptance fee of your ordinary, relatively
experienced lawyer!

Still, we join the Duterte administration in challenging Batch 2016 to give the government,
this government, a try, mainly on the President’s vow that his presidency will be clean.

Anyway, very few of them would need 10 cars to get to their places of work.

Besides, there should be psychic income from the thought that the batch would help unclog
the courts.

There is a reason why Lady Justice chose to be blindfolded: She would not like to see all
the wrong reasons for her existence.

So many lawyers, yet so slow, and sometimes elusive, justice