Happy Anniversary!!!!!

Happy 2nd Anniversary PI SIGMA DELTA SORORITY PUP Chapter. Am really proud to be a Deltan and am glad i’ve met wonderful, smart, pretty girls…KEEP THE FIRE BURNING…LUV YOU SISSES!!!!

SC probers berate CA justices over lapses in Meralco case

First posted 17:28:44 (Mla time) August 12, 2008

Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net

 

MANILA, Philippine — Justices of the Court of Appeals were berated Tuesday by a Supreme Court investigating body for lapses in handling a case that has been tainted with alleged bribery.

The investigation stemmed from allegations that appellate court Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. had sought a multimillion-peso bribe to inhibit himself from the case filed by the Manila Electric Co. against the Government Service Insurance System.

In its petition, Meralco had asked the Court of Appeals to lift the Securities and Exchange Commission cease and desist order on the election of board members, which if stopped would pave the way for the takeover of GSIS.

Sabio, who was acting chairman of the 9th division when it issued the TRO, claimed that he had been offered a P10 million bribe by a Meralco “emissary”, who denied the allegation and countered that it was Sabio who sought P50 million.

And then there was also a dispute over the chairmanship between Sabio and Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes, the original chairman of the 9th division whom Sabio had replaced in an acting capacity.

The decision to lift the TRO was later issued by the 8th division, headed by Associate Justice Vicente Roxas, which Sabio had questioned, following a reorganization by the appellate court.

The bribery exposé and the disputes among the appellate court justices prompted an investigation by the Supreme Court that formed a three-man panel composed of retired justices.

At the resumption of the hearing Tuesday, Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado Vazquez admitted that there were lapses on his part in resolving the dispute between Sabio and Reyes.

At that time, Sabio was acting chairman while Reyes was on leave when the 9th division issued the TRO.

When Reyes came back, Sabio refused to vacate the chairmanship, insisting under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), the same group that issued the TRO should also act on the petition for reconsideration filed by Meralco.

Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Romeo Callejo asked Vazquez why he did not convene the committee on internal rules to resolve the chairmanship dispute.

“No because there are only two members,” Vazquez said, referring to Sabio and Reyes and noting that one other member had died.

“Had you completed the members of the committee, reset the oral argument [on the Meralco case on June 23] and resolved the impasse, it would have been much easier,” Callejo said.

“It did not cross my mind,” Vazquez said.

Callejo also berated Vazquez for forgetting the other justices involved in the case.

“We [in the Court of Appeals] act as divisions. Why did you not call the other justices involved [Associate Justices Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Vicente Roxas] to get their opinion,” Callejo asked.

“I am sorry your honor,” Vazquez said.

Meanwhile, Roxas was lectured by Callejo for misreading the appellate court’s internal rules which the associate justice cited in defending his decision to issue his ruling on the SEC TRO without waiting for the action of Vazquez on the chairmanship dispute.

Roxas said they were panicking because the TRO that was issued would lapse on July 29 that was why a ruling had to be issued.

“Panicking? I have never seen a member of the Court of Appeals panicking,” said Callejo, a former Court of Appeals justice, prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court.

“Once the decision has been signed by the justices, I regarded it as a duty to promulgate it,” Roxas said.

But Callejo pointed out that Roxas should have waited for Vazquez.

“Why did you not wait for the decision of the Presiding Justice? You are not children,” Callejo said.

Roxas said that under Rule VI Section 9, “…After such deliberation, if the other members agreed with the report, the ponente shall write the decision for signature and immediate promulgation.”

He said he strictly abided by the rules because it was his “bible,” “his lifeblood” that “if it will tell me to jump into the river, I will.”

But Callejo said Section 9 should be read together with
Section 13 which provided that “promulgation of decisions and resolutions shall be the direct responsibility of the Division of the Clerk of Court.”

Callejo explained that once the decision has been signed by the three justices of a division, the ponente (author) could still change his mind because it did not require the immediate promulgation of the case.

But Callejo said that once the ruling has been filed with the Clerk of Court, only then, should the decision be immediately promulgated not by the Justice but the clerk of court.

Roxas insisted that Section 9 allowed a justice to promulgate a decision.

“There is no provision which allows a justice to promulgate, no sir,” Callejo said.

“Now what is our basis in saying that there is a provision, I know that the IRCA is our bible,” he said.

“Mr. Presiding Justice, what is your opinion on that?” Callejo asked.

“It is the clerk of court,” Vazquez said.

Callejo then proceeded to asking Justices Martin Villarama, Edgardo Cruz and Sabio who all gave the same answers.

“The IRCA is patterned under the Rules of Court…I don’t know, I must have been teaching the wrong civil procedure,” Callejo said.

The panel advised Roxas to read Section 9 and Section 13 together so that he would not be confused.

It said that Roxas should have shown courtesy to the Presiding Justice by informing him that a decision had been reached on the case.

“You should have given him due courtesy,” Romero said.

View story as posted on Inquirer.net

yeheeey!!!

Wow…midterm examination is finally over. I am just so relieved and so happy. I can go back to my normal life again…I can finally update my blog but of course after I catch up on my sleep…i still feel kinda tired and sleepy…

CA justice’s ‘unethical conduct’ questioned

By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 10:57:00 08/08/2008

MANILA, Philippines — Two justices of the Court of Appeals have complained about the “questionable” and “unethical conduct” of a colleague concerning his decision on a case involving the Manila Electric Co.

Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal said she had written Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez about the “unethical conduct” of Vicente Roxas when he asked her to sign the ruling on Meralco without telling her that the same case had been presented to the eighth division.

“My only purpose is that justice be done in this case. I informed the Court of the unethical conduct of Justice Roxas, having me the case without telling me that it was also presented to the eighth division,” Vidal said.

Earlier in the hearing Friday, Jose Sabio Jr. said Roxas’ habit of “carrying folders and rolls of cases” was “questionable” because it was something that justices did not do.

Vidal, Roxas, and Sabio Jr. all belonged to the ninth division to which Meralco’s petition to void an order by the Securities and Exchange Commission stopping the board of elections had been assigned. An enforcement of the SEC order would have paved the way for a takeover by the Government Service Insurance System.

Roxas was the “ponente” or writer of the ruling and following his transfer to the eighth division as a result of reorganization at the appellate court, he brought with him the “ponencia” or decision.

Other members of the eighth division at that time were Reyes and Bruselas while Sabio and Vidal were moved to the sixth division.

Vidal admitted that she signed the draft decision because Roxas told her about the urgency by which they should act on the case. She also admitted that Roxas did not resolve the motion for inhibition filed by the GSIS against him nor called for a conference before they were asked to sign the draft decision.

But former Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., a member of the three-man panel formed by the high tribunal to investigate the scandal, asked Vidal as to why she signed the decision based on a claim of urgency by Roxas and without waiting for the parties concerned — Meralco, SEC, and the GSIS — to submit their memoranda in response to oral arguments.

“What is the urgency?” Callejo said.

“I don’t know about him [Roxas],” Vidal said, adding that when the draft decision was presented to her, Roxas was carrying an “expensive traveling bag” where the decisions had been placed.

Vidal argued that Roxas had made her believe that there was “urgency in the case” to which Callejo countered, “So you swallowed [Roxas’ statement] hook, line, and sinker?”

After Vidal answered in the affirmative and apologized for her lapse, Callejo berated her, asking whether “a justice should act this way?”

Callejo said that in his eight years as justice of the Court of Appeals, he did not do what Roxas had done.

Vidal also admitted that she did not wait for the memorandum of all the parties involved when she signed the draft decision.

“So you mean the memorandum of the parties is an exercise in futility? Imagine the Solicitor-General submitting a memorandum of so many pages, how many years have you been in the Court of Appeals,” Callejo asked Vidal who said, “Three.”

Callejo also questioned why Vidal signed the decision when Roxas made a ruling recommending that GSIS lawyers be reprimanded even if it was not raised in the memorandum of the parties. Callejo said the decision should only focus on what was raised by the parties.

“Was that raised in the memorandum? Oh, you did not read the memorandum,” Callejo said. Vidal said Roxas should answer that question.

“But you did sign the decision for goodness sake,” Callejo said.

Callejo then asked Vidal if she had informed Sabio, who was then the acting chairman of the 9th division, whether Roxas had talked to him.

“Yes, I called his attention. I asked him if Justice Roxas already consulted him about the ponencia and he said ‘deadma [no reaction],’” Vidal said.

“Deadma? I was part of the Court of Appeals for 8 years and I never heard of the word deadma,” Callejo said.

Callejo said he hoped that Vidal had “learned a lesson” in which she should just “not rely on the urgency” of something as told by a colleague. “Act on your own,” he said.

Sabio, who is at the center of the scandal, was the first to take the witness stand Friday and was questioned by Roxas over allegations by Sabio in his affidavit that Roxas had several pending administrative cases.

“In your affidavit, you said, ‘Justice Roxas flashed through your mind on several administrative cases pending against him,’ is that based on your mind or on fact?” Roxas asked Sabio.

Sabio told Roxas that he was basing his statement from several justices who said that Roxas was “questionable.”

“Your name has been mentioned by several justices as questionable because you have that habit of carrying folders and rollos of cases,” Sabio said, pointing out that such action is prohibited because cases for decision, especially if a copy would be given to a colleague and a member of the same division, should be contained in a sealed envelope that only the justices should open.

Sabio added that there was even an instance that Roxas was in a rush, carrying with him the draft of the temporary restraining order on the Meralco case as well as minutes of their deliberations.

“I have never encountered anything like that in my nine years of stay in the court of appeals,” said Sabio, who has been accused of seeking a multimillion peso bribe in exchange for inhibiting himself from the Meralco case.

“In my nine years in the CA, I have never encountered anything like that. Even without Justice Vidal, dala-dala ang records ng case [he had the records of the case],” said Sabio.

“I learned it. Even Justice [Myrna Dimaranan] Vidal’s staff tells me you are carrying a folder. Laging bago attaché case mo dahil ang daming lamang folder [Your attaché case is always new because there are lots of folders],” Sabio said.

On Sabio’s claim that he had several pending administrative cases, Roxas asked, “Did you know that the Supreme Court en bank dismissed the administrative case against me?”

Sabio countered that there were two other pending cases. Roxas asked how Sabio learned about this and from whom. But Sabio refused to divulge his source of information.

It was at this time that Callejo reminded both justices to observe proper decorum.

Sabio and Vidal also argued about the procedures stated under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.

Roxas pointed out that pursuant to the rules, “the case should follow the ponente” and the 9th division that originally issued the TRO against the SEC has been disbanded after Sabio and Vidal were assigned to the 6th division.

“Why would you insist to stay in the 9th division when it was already disbanded,” Roxas asked Sabio.

“I did not insist, I only asserted the procedure,” Sabio said and then noted that he made Vidal sign the draft decision but which was promulgated by a different division.

“So you mean Justice Roxas has the power to amend the IRCA?” Roxas asked.

“Your question is irrelevant,” Sabio told Roxas.

Sabio said that while he was not contradicting the rules, what he was questioning was the manner by which the court had arrived at the decision on Meralco and how Vidal was “unceremoniously removed from the case.”

The arguments prompted the panel to suspend the cross examination of Sabio.

Only Vidal and Sabio took the stand. Justice Sabio will return to the witness stand on Monday for further cross examination.

Roxas, meanwhile, said he found the provision in the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals but that he lost it again when he got excited over the exchanges between Vidal and Callejo.

View story as posted on Inquirer.net

Supreme Court halts Moroland deal

 

 

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court, ignoring a new plea for executive privilege to keep diplomatic negotiations secret, stopped the signing on Tuesday in Malaysia of an agreement that critics feared could lead to an independent Bangsamoro state.

Jose Midas Marquez, the high court’s spokesperson, announced that the tribunal by a unanimous decision Monday issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to preserve the status quo after an en banc session called to act on petitions filed by local officials in Zamboanga City and North Cotabato.

The petitioners from North Cotabato are Governor Jesus Sacdalan and Vice-Governor Emmanuel Piñol. Those from Zamboanga City are Mayor Celso Lobregat, and Representatives Isabelle Climaco and Erico Basilio Fabian.

The local officials questioned the memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing an expanded Bangsamoro homeland hammered out during negotiations between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and scheduled to be signed in Kuala Lumpur Tuesday. The local officials also demanded a copy of the agreement.

Marquez said the court ordered the solicitor general to furnish the officials a copy of the final draft of the MOA not later than Aug. 8 and scheduled oral arguments on Aug. 15 on the officials’ plea to be excluded from the deal. The parties were asked to submit comments within five days.

“When the signing has taken place … rights might be violated. So to prevent violation of certain rights of the people, the court decided to issue the TRO,” Marquez said.

“We submit to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court,” Press Secretary Jesus Dureza told reporters. “It is the ultimate arbiter of issues and so the signing will have to be canceled.”

Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said the court action should not be seen as a “setback” to the Arroyo administration. “It’s just a resetting [of the signing]. This is one of the dynamics of democracy,” he said.

MILF calls move a ‘setback’

“It’s a setback, but we will let the panels decide on whatever measures they want to take to address this recent development,” MILF spokesperson Eid Kabalu told reporters. He said the 12,000 MILF fighters remained committed to ending the separatist rebellion that has claimed more than 120,000 lives in Mindanao over the past four decades.

The government peace panel, in a 26-page comment filed earlier Monday by Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera, opposed the petition for a TRO, invoking executive privilege in an attempt to keep negotiations and the draft MOA secret.

Executive privilege

“These negotiations include definite military, national security and diplomatic concerns, and have involved the presence of a foreign mediator. This being so, the entire process—the negotiations involving the said MOA and the draft documents thereof resulting from said negotiations—is covered by the doctrine of executive privilege which prevents the disclosure of information that could subvert military or diplomatic objectives,” the panel said.

The government lawyers said while it recognizes the right of the petitioners to information, “they do not have an unfettered access to everything as these rights are subject to certain limitations.”

“Notably, there are matters which, despite their being of public interest and concern, are considered privileged in nature,” Devanadera said.

It was the third time in one year that the Arroyo administration had invoked executive privilege.

The court earlier upheld the President’s right to keep diplomatic negotiations secret when it supported former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri’s decision not to answer questions during a Senate hearing on an alleged bribery attempt surrounding the scuttled $329-million broadband network project with China’s ZTE Corp. and rejected demands to release negotiation documents on the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement.

Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo departed for Kuala Lumpur hours before the court handed down the TRO to witness Tuesday’s scheduled signing along with his Malaysian counterpart Rais Yatim. Malaysia brokered the peace negotiations.

Presidential Peace Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. and chief government negotiator Rodolfo Garcia also left for Malaysia without waiting for the outcome of the court hearing on the complaint by the Zamboanga City and North Cotabato officials that they were not consulted on the inclusion of their areas that would form part of the territory of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE).

Copies of the MOA were circulated during a meeting of retired generals and leaked to reporters at the weekend, but the document itself has not been officially released.

Emotions get in the way

In contesting the TRO, the peace panel said North Cotabato would not be included in the expanded Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) without the consent of its residents in a plebiscite.

“Petitioners do not stand to suffer any irreparable or material injury as the final decision on whether they shall be part of the expanded ARMM or not belongs to the people of North Cotabato,” the peace panel said.

The panel said that consulting the people did not mean they should be involved in every step because if this was followed, then “nothing would get done as numerous interests and heightened emotions would get in the way of compromise.”

It said the plebiscite that would be held after the signing of the MOA was sufficient consultation.

North Cotabato officials filed the first petition questioning the MOA two weeks ago. Monday, Zamboanga City officials joined the petition.

Zamboanga City Representatives Fabian and Climaco and Mayor Lobregat said the government’s peace panel should be compelled to give them copies of the draft MOA.

The officials asked that Zamboanga City be excluded from the Bangsamoro homeland or that the MOA be declared null and void if it would be signed.

According to them, the draft of the MOA was a matter of public concern. They said that the ancestral domain issue referred to the claiming of ownership of certain areas, and possibly even private property, which was why Zamboanga residents should be informed about the deal.

Travesty of justice

“The nondisclosure of the provisions of the MOA has deprived the people of its right to information and to participate in the decision-making process. This is a blatant violation of the constitutional rights of the people,” the Zamboanga officials said.

The officials also said national security could not be used as an excuse to withhold the MOA from them.

“To hide behind the mantle of national security so that the people would remain in the dark on matters affecting their lives and properties is a travesty of justice and of the constitutional rights of the people,” they said.

The MOA calls for an expanded ARMM and grants the BJE its own internal security force, a system of banking and finance, civil service, education and legislative institutions, full authority to develop and dispose of minerals and natural resources, according to a draft of the document secured by the Philippine Daily Inquirer (parent company of INQUIRER.net).

The BJE also will be able to send trade missions abroad and enter into international agreements.

Administration officials have rejected criticism that the MOA amounted to ceding a portion of its territory to the MILF and granted the expanded Moro homeland the status of a state.

Dureza welcomed the TRO.

“We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the position of the panel in crafting this momentous and historical agreement that will address the longstanding problems of Mindanao and the country as a whole,” he said.

TRO a relief

Dureza, who had served as peace panel chair in previous talks with the MILF, even said that the TRO was a “relief.”

“This will allow a dispassionate, objective discussion of the merits of the issues that surround the said ancestral domain agreement. So it might be good that at this early stage, the Supreme Court will be part of that due diligence effort in taking a look at this agreement in its totality and also take a look at its provision,” he said.

Dureza also said he had told the President about the court action and she welcomed it as an opportunity to ventilate the issues.

Rep. Fabian, who filed the petition against the deal, said the ruling was “very good news for our people down south” who opposed the draft accord.

“We have won the first step,” said North Cotabato Vice Gov. Piñol. “This is an important lesson for government peace panels, that on matters that affect people’s rights, they must be consulted first.”

Former President Joseph Estrada also welcomed the TRO. “We all desire peace in Mindanao but it must not be obtained at the expense of our territorial integrity, and certainly not by methods that desire transparency and are in apparent haste,” he said.

Gen. Alexander Yano, chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, said the AFP was ready to respond to any security threat that might result from the court’s TRO. He said the military was closely monitoring developments.

View story as posted on Inquirer.net

If a Dog Were Your Teacher

If a Dog Were Your Teacher

 

If a dog were your teacher, these are some of the lessons you might learn…

• Love unconditionally.
• When loved ones come home, always run to greet them.
• Never pass up the opportunity to go for a joyride.
• When it’s in your best interest, practise obedience.
• Let others know when they’ve invaded your territory.
• Take naps and stretch before rising.
• Run, romp, and play daily.
• Thrive on attention and let people touch you.
• Avoid biting, when a simple growl will do.
• On warm days stop to lie on your back on the grass.
• On hot days, drink lots of water and lie under a shady tree.
• When you’re happy, dance around and wag your entire body.
• No matter how often you’re scolded, don’t hold grudges.
• Delight in the simple joy of a long walk.
• Eat with gusto and enthusiasm.
• Stop when you have had enough.
• Be loyal.
• Never pretend to be something you’re not.
• If what you want lies buried, dig until you find it.
• When someone is having a bad day, be still and just lie at his or her feet.

(i’ve found this on PAWS yahoo groups)

This is very good.