WEAKENING
THE RULE OF LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES
Major avenues by
which the rule of law is being notably weakened in the Philippines:
- Weaponizing the law
- Drawing up unfounded, arbitrary, and politically motivated state manufactured blacklists
- Red-tagging (a type of state manufactured blacklist)
- Extrajudicial killing
- Political assassination
- Drawing up unfounded, arbitrary, and politically motivated state manufactured blacklists
- Red-tagging (a type of state manufactured blacklist)
- Extrajudicial killing
- Political assassination
- Politicizing
the judiciary
- Abusing power
- Abusing power
-
Misinterpreting the law in contradiction to its plain meaning and obvious
intent for suspect or nefarious political purposes
-
Violating the equal protection of the laws clause of the Philippine constitutional
Bill of Rights
WEAPONIZING THE
LAW
By: Randy David
- @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily
Inquirer / 05:10 AM March 31, 2019
A weapon is an
object that is used to inflict harm or injury on a person or a group. To “weaponize” is to transform or convert something into an
instrument of attack. The implication is that something is deployed in a manner not normally expected.
And this, precisely, is what lends “weaponization” its insidious character.
Virtually
everything can be weaponized — law, religion, science, art, love, hatred,
racial or ethnic prejudice, etc. Concealed behind the veneer of normality, the
act of weaponizing rides on the established communication system of the domain
in which a thing originally occurs.
…Let’s take the
situation of Maria Ressa, a respected journalist and CEO of online news agency
Rappler, who has been served a slew of arrest warrants and has had to post bail
seven times in the last two months in connection with cases filed by various
government agencies. Any neutral observer can reasonably conclude that Ressa is
being singled out for prosecution because of her critical views of the current
administration. But to prove that within the legal system is something else.
Equality
before the law is highly valued in all modern legal systems. Indeed, the equal protection
of the laws is the first right listed in the Bill of Rights of the 1987
Constitution. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection
of the laws.”
This limitation
on government’s power seems as clear as day. But, violation of the equal protection clause is not easy to prove. One
has to show that the calling out of something as legal or illegal was done
unfairly. Prosecutors and judges can always argue that they are just allowing
the normal process of the law to take its course. Equal protection is a value
that is upheld only in the course of a system’s self-observation. You can
assert it only from within the legal system.
If
we have strong independent courts that
are not beholden to any powers outside the legal system, then it is possible to stop the political
weaponization of the law. But, where law enforcers, prosecutors and judges
are vulnerable to intimidation or manipulation because of personal ambition or
fear arising from some hidden liability, it is futile to expect the law to
serve as a check on the excesses of government.
So accustomed
are we to regarding the law as the primary instrument of justice that we are
incredulous when we see it deployed to achieve unabashedly political ends. The
idea seems so absurd when first floated that we think somebody is obviously
joking. But incredulity turns to shock as we watch every part of the legal
system conspire to transform the joke into reality. The examples in the last
three years under the Duterte presidency are too numerous to list down here,
but we can name the most glaring.
Who would have
thought that Chief Justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno, after five years of leading the country’s highest court, could be removed from her position by “quo warranto”
— a legal action that questions a person’s authority to exercise or occupy a
public office? But, the Duterte administration, through Solicitor General Jose
Calida, managed to show that certain documentary requirements needed in the
process of qualifying for the position were not submitted. Therefore, her
appointment was null and void ab initio. What makes this devious trick even more shocking is that it was
consummated with the overt cooperation
and participation of the majority of the high court’s members. I would have thought that it was far
easier to question the validity of Rodrigo Duterte’s substitution of Martin
Diño as presidential candidate in the 2016 election.
Diño’s
certificate of candidacy was, on its face, defective, and, arguably, void ab
initio.
And who would
have thought that a sitting senator, Leila
de Lima, Mr. Duterte’s fiercest critic, could be arrested and detained
without bail, for conspiracy to trade in illegal drugs — on the basis of testimonies of convicted drug criminals? The information failed to identify the
allegedly traded drugs. Yet, three courts separately found probable cause
and ordered her arrest.
But, nothing
perhaps can equal the absurdity of reopening the rebellion and coup d’état
charges against Sen. Antonio Trillanes
IV, another outspoken critic of Mr. Duterte, on the ground that the amnesty
he received, which had prompted the dropping of these charges, was void ab
initio. Why was it void? Because, says
the Department of Justice, he never filed for amnesty. Proof? The application papers could not be found.
Never mind that the custodian of these files is supposed to be the government. And
never mind that only Trillanes’ amnesty
is being questioned.
The successful
deployment of legal processes as a weapon in politics undermines the credibility and stability of society’s normative
expectations. As a result, less and
less can we rely on judicial outcomes. When this nightmare is over — for
everything comes to an end — it is difficult to say how long it will take to repair our damaged legal system.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/120466/weaponizing-the-law-2#ixzz68tUPiPaL
YANG, DE LIMA, AND THE DUTERTE RULE OF LAW
YANG, DE LIMA, AND THE DUTERTE RULE OF LAW
By: Solita Collas-Monsod - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 09:10 AM April 06, 2019
This column focuses on the Duterte administration’s handling of two
cases: that of Yang Hong Ming, also known as Michael Yang, a Davao-based Chinese businessman; and that of Leila de Lima, senator of the
Philippines. The common denominators in these two cases: drug-related and
President Duterte.
President Duterte, without any investigation, first implicated Sen.
Leila de Lima as a drug lord, with six others, when he produced a “drug
matrix” less than two months into his
presidency. He then proclaimed that with this matrix, De Lima was finished.
“Tapos ka na. Sunod na eleksyon.” Nothing was said about where he got this
matrix—no mention of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), or the
Philippine National Police (PNP). Interestingly, he subsequently removed four
of those included in the matrix (the Baraan brothers, Rep. Amado Espino Jr. and
an aide).
Only after he pronounced De Lima guilty did he ask for an investigation
of her, which the House of Representatives gladly conducted—which then came to
the same conclusion as the President. How convenient.
President Duterte did the same thing with Michael Yang. Without any
investigation, he proclaimed Yang not guilty of being involved in the drug
trade. Why was he so sure? Because, he said, Yang was a friend of the Chinese
ambassador, who even slept in Yang’s house.
After he pronounced Yang not guilty, he asked for an
investigation—which was made with lightning speed. Barely a week after the request, the PNP and
the PDEA, without the investigation having been concluded, seemed to come to
the same conclusion as the President. How convenient.
There’s another issue. In the case of De Lima, she claimed that the
witnesses against her are polluted sources. Rightly so. Why? Because most of
them are convicted drug lords whose stay in the national penitentiary she had
made extremely uncomfortable with her raids on them (the only justice secretary
that dared a raid). And whose stay in the penitentiary has been made more
pleasant by the present administration—there is a memorandum to that effect.
But the whole case against her, which is continuing, is based on these polluted
sources.
Now for Michael Yang, or Yang Hong Ming. His case was brought to light
because of the revelations of Police Col. Eduardo Acierto (PMA 1989), former
deputy director of the PNP Drug Enforcement Group, and a 20-year veteran of
antinarcotics work. Acierto asserts that in 2017 (note the time, Reader), he
submitted an intelligence report to his superiors in the PNP and the PDEA, and
to the President, detailing the supposed links of Yang and another Chinese
national to the drug trade. PDEA chief Aaron Aquino reportedly confirmed
receiving this report and forwarding it to Malacañang.
The point is, nothing was done about it.
Then, in 2018, Acierto was dismissed from the service for alleged
irregularities in a contract to purchase AK-47 rifles (he had previously faced
charges for the murder of a Korean national, but apparently was cleared of the
charges). He has reportedly gone into hiding since then.
Acierto was then declared by the Palace as a polluted source whose
revelations should be ignored. Police Gen. Oscar Albayalde, I am sorry to say,
because I think he is the best PNP chief we have had in a very long time, also
says that Acierto should have acted on the information while he was in the PNP,
“regardless kung sino ang tao.” Really? Given the closeness of Yang to the
President?
What we have is an Executive who
does not consider convicted felons (with axes to grind, and with the
promise of better treatment in jail) a
polluted source, and is in fact using them still; but considers as polluted source a 20-year antinarcotics veteran
who sent him a report in 2017 on Yang’s links to drugs.
By the way, Yang, a Chinese national, was made a presidential economic
adviser in early 2018. President Duterte
at first denied it, but kept quiet after Rappler obtained documented proof (no
wonder he is out to finish Rappler, just like De Lima). The Palace then said
that he was, after all, a consultant, and then proclaimed that his contract
expired at the end of 2018.
Final result: De Lima has been incarcerated for more than two years,
Yang is scot-free. The rule of law—Duterte-style.
DISGRACEFUL DECISION
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:14 AM June 06, 2019
So
the Commission on Elections (Comelec) has gone ahead and done it. Against the
law, against logic, against all notions of fairness, reason and plain good
sense, it has accepted Ronald Cardema et al.’s petition for last-minute
substitution as nominees of the party list group Duterte Youth.
…It
is a disgraceful decision. What, for
starters, is so difficult to understand
about the wording of the law that says a
youth sector nominee “must at least be 25 but not more than 30 years of age on
the day of the election”?
Cardema
is 34 years old. His three substitute co-nominees are all above 30 as well. As
Comelec Commissioner Rowena Guanzon noted in her dissent from the majority
decision: “By their own admission and declaration, they are more than 30 years
of age on Election Day… Their ineligibilities are beyond dispute.”
What
a crock of bull. …that goes as much for the Comelec’s latest decision, for
which it should hang its head in shame. If the poll body thinks the direction
it’s taking in this case somehow reflects well on it in some way, that it could
be seen as an indication of basic fairness and integrity on its part and not,
in fact, manifest partiality for an administration minion, it is gravely
mistaken.
In
the Philippines, 33 years old is still considered youth, but you are criminally
liable at 9 years old
KowboySantos,
@Kowboy2Legliiit
Philippine
Daily Inquirer (June 7, 2019)
We
cannot rely on the integrity of Comelec this upcoming 2022 election.
DUTERTE’S
UNCONSTITUTIONAL GENEROSITY
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:02 AM June 13, 2019
Any
law student knows it’s unconstitutional
to appropriate public funds for a private or religious purpose. The
millions of such funds doled out by President Duterte, himself a lawyer, for a
monthlong religious pilgrimage of some Muslims to Mecca (for their round-trip
airfare, pocket money, board and lodging) is a textbook illustration of that
prohibition.
He
and his minions have justified such generosity with taxpayer money by saying,
in so many wishy-washy words, that it’s a small price to pay to avoid trouble.
…Even
his spokesperson, lawyer Salvador Panelo, who usually couldn’t tell right from
wrong about what his boss is saying or doing, has raised a red flag on that
gesture and called it “technical
malversation.” But with Mr. Duterte insisting he is willing to go to jail
for it, we expect to see Panelo shove his foot in his own mouth.
But
Mr. Duterte should never have to go to jail for it; P5 million is just peanuts
to him. He himself has said he has millions more in surplus campaign funds. Why
couldn’t he have used some of that personal stash for some nonpublic
expenditure to avoid violating the Constitution?
Panelo,
his “chief legal counsel,” dresses more like a clown and is good only for
public entertainment. Ever wonder why the President ignores his opinions?
JEREMIAS
H. TOBIAS
In the next article, examples of the following:
- Red-tagging
- Political assassination
- Extrajudicial killing
ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:14 AM June 20, 2019
Three days. Four deaths. Zero accountability.
On June 15, senior high school student Ryan Hubilla and Nelly Bagasala, staffers of human rights group Karapatan, were fatally shot by motorcycle-riding men at 8:20 a.m., as they were paying for their tricycle fare in Sorsogon City, Sorsogon.
On June 16, Nonoy Palma, a member of Kasama-Bukidnon, an affiliate of the Kilusang Mambubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), was felled outside his house at Barangay Halapitan, San Fernando town, in Bukidnon.
Then on June 17, activist Neptali Morada, former Bicol regional head of Bayan Muna, was killed in San Isidro village, Naga City, in Camarines Sur at 8 a.m. on his way to work at the provincial capitol.
They are the latest names added to the lengthening list of political activists who have died by assassination, underscoring the alarming escalation in the killings of members of the legal left.
Indeed, the all-out war against drugs that has officially claimed the lives of some 6,600 Filipinos since the start of the Duterte administration in 2016 has, by all indications, morphed into an all-out war against activists and human rights defenders.
Party list group Bayan Muna said the killing of Morada on June 17 was a crystal-clear sign that “rabid attack dogs are now going all out to eliminate activists and progressives.”
In a speech before soldiers at Camp Manuel Y. Tan in Compostela Valley in December last year, President Duterte himself ordered the military to “destroy the Communist Party of the Philippines, including its legal fronts and infrastructure,” and just ignore the human rights groups critical of his administration. “Huwag kayo maniwala ng human rights (Don’t believe in human rights). I assume full responsibility,” declared the President.
TRASHING THE CONSTITUTION
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:07 AM July 02, 2019
…Duterte
pronounced on Monday that he could not bar Chinese fishermen from the West
Philippine Sea, as he didn’t think China would allow it. Moreover, he said, he
would allow China to fish in Philippine waters because “we’re friends.”
Even
against the context of Mr. Duterte’s reflex praise for and defense of China and
its actions in the last three years, the remarks represented a startling new
low — the kind of unabashed, abject surrender to a foreign power that was met
with disbelief by a nation already made wary of China’s intentions and the
President’s unmistakable docility to Beijing.
The
next day, Mr. Duterte went further by revealing that, during his first visit to
Beijing in 2016, he struck a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping to allow
Chinese fishermen to fish in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in
the South China Sea — a deal that had not been previously disclosed. What are
the terms of this deal? Malacañang has released not one official detail of the
supposed agreement.
Allowing China access to the
Philippines’ EEZ is a clear violation of the Constitution, as a broad
cross section of the political class, including respected jurists,
constitutionalists and academic experts, was quick to remind the President.
Senior
Associate Justice Antonio Carpio pointed to Article 12, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution: “The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its
archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone and reserve
its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.”
“The
Philippines has exclusive sovereign right to exploit all the fish, oil, gas and
other mineral resources in its [EEZ],” Carpio said. “This sovereign right
belongs to the Filipino people and no government official can waive this
sovereign right of the Filipino people without their consent.”
Christian
Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, maritime law professor Jay
Batongbacal and former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario — who, together
with Carpio and officials of the Aquino administration, filed a successful
arbitration case against China in 2013 — were also among those who lined up
against any deal that would hand China entry to the Philippines’ EEZ.
…Trashing his own Constitution on
behalf of the Chinese government is a profound disservice to the Filipino
people
who ordained the basic law of the republic under which he was elected, and who
gave him the mandate to serve and protect them under that very Charter.
Mr.
Duterte has no authority outside of the 1987 Constitution to make secret deals
abdicating Philippine territory…
‘STAGGERING
NUMBER’ OF DEATHS
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:14 AM June 13, 2019
On
the afternoon of May 24, barangay tanod or village watchman Boyet Tuando of San
Jose del Monte, Bulacan, died in a seedy motel after an encounter with the
local police.
The cops’ story: Tuando, whom they
tagged as a suspect for attempted rape, tried to fight back during the
entrapment operation — “nanlaban” —
hence the fatal shooting.
But
that claim soon withered when CCTV
footage surfaced showing that the unarmed
Tuando had been handcuffed and shoved into a red SUV by men in civilian clothes
— over an hour before the police operation took place.
Tuando’s
family has rejected the police account and is demanding justice. But that call is
a long shot; more likely, the case will end up the same way thousands of other
similar incidents have fared under the Duterte administration’s war on drugs
and crime — nowhere.
As
United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights Michelle Bachelet reported during the 40th session of the UN
Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in March this year, only one case has been subjected to investigation and prosecution in
the Philippines despite serious allegations of widespread extrajudicial killings.
…The
alarming body count and the climate of unchecked violence have prompted the
rare issuance of a joint call by 11 UN special rapporteurs — “an unusually
large group of experts,” noted The New York Times — for the United Nations to
inquire into the “staggering number of
unlawful deaths and police killings” in the Philippines.
THE KILLING FIELDS OF THE PHILIPPINES
See: https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-killing-fields-of-philippines.html
Earlier
posts on the misrule of law:
Public domain image
ReplyDeleteImage link: https://freesvg.org/peeking-lady-with-justice-scale
Gonzalinho
PROSECUTORIAL BUNGLING
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 04:35 AM October 31, 2019
What a banner year 2019 is turning out so far for the Marcoses.
…The latest blow for government prosecutors, and by extension the people whose stolen tax money is the subject of the raft of ill-gotten wealth cases against the Marcoses, is THE JUNKING LAST WEEK by the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division of the P267.371-MILLION CIVIL FORFEITURE CASE AGAINST THE MARCOS COUPLE AND A NUMBER OF THEIR ASSOCIATES.
In September, the court threw out a P1.052-BILLION CIVIL SUIT AGAINST THE MARCOSES AND RUSTAN’S COMMERCIAL CORP. FOUNDERS BIENVENIDO TANTOCO SR. AND GLICERIA TANTOCO. In August, A P102-BILLION FORFEITURE CASE FILED IN 1987 AGAINST THE MARCOSES AND THEIR ASSOCIATE ROBERTO BENEDICTO was also junked.
What accounts for these series of losses? The antigraft court cited one main reason — the COMMON DENOMINATOR among all three dismissals: “INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.”
Specifically, the work done by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to argue the people’s case was found to be sorely wanting, characterized by sheer incompetence, carelessness, a stark lack of rigor and seriousness.
Aside from the “UNJUSTIFIED NONAPPEARANCE OF GOVERNMENT LAWYERS” during the case trials, the PCGG, for instance, submitted evidence that were rejected for being “MERE PHOTOCOPIES,” A VIOLATION OF THE “BEST EVIDENCE RULE” OF THE RULES OF COURT, which mandates that original documents, not just copies, must be presented as evidence.
“Considering that the Republic is essentially seeking to prove the contents of the photocopied exhibits that it submitted, this Court finds the violation of the best evidence rule in the case at bar to be fatal to the Republic’s cause,” said the court.
It added that STATE LAWYERS DID NOT EVEN OFFER ANY EXPLANATION as to why the original documents could not be presented. “(Without) a clear showing that the original of these exhibits have been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court, the Republic’s photocopied exhibits must be disregarded, being unworthy of any probative value.”
To be continued
PROSECUTORIAL BUNGLING
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 04:35 AM October 31, 2019
Continued
How low could the prosecutorial bungling go? Consider this detail: THE REPRODUCTION OF THE PHOTOCOPIED DOCUMENTS was “SO POOR IN QUALITY that the LETTERS AND NUMBERS stated therein are already UNREADABLE thereby making it impossible for the Court to discern the points being sought to be established by the Republic.”
More: The PCGG AND OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL — UNDER JOSE CALIDA, A STAUNCH MARCOS LOYALIST, it should be noted — FAILED TO PRESENT THEIR KEY WITNESSES to authenticate or testify on the veracity of their submitted affidavits and to undergo cross-examination by the defendants. Thus, the court ruled, the affidavits were nothing but hearsay evidence.
So what is happening here? Are these defeats merely a case of sloppy work? Where are the original documents — the bank statements, tax documents, summary of stock transactions, Central Bank of the Philippines papers, statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, local and foreign bank statements—that were the source of the photocopied exhibits?
To be fair, it wasn’t easy gathering these documents, protested former PCGG commissioner Ruben Carranza. The Marcoses had spirited out the incriminating contracts in tax havens abroad, or hidden them under false identities before they were even ousted out of the country. Witnesses who had initially agreed to testify had vanished, while the shifting loyalties of subsequent PCGG heads meant treading lightly on some cases.
But the serial court wins the Marcoses are enjoying of late, on account of flagrant elementary lapses by the prosecution, raises the question of whether these CASES ARE SOMEHOW BEING DELIBERATELY LOST. …government lawyers representing the people are expected to put up as great a fight, if not more.
According to the court, however, they are showing consistently lousy work, leading to humiliating losses for the State. So — is the BALL BEING PURPOSELY DROPPED? If not, who should be held responsible for such criminal negligence and harmful breach of duty?
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/124936/prosecutorial-bungling#ixzz68ybXFABx
Manifestly, a case of abuse of power by Jose Calida, the Marcos loyalist and Solicitor General under Duterte—Calida, using the power of his office and through obviously intentional and calculated “prosecutorial bungling,” obtains for the Marcoses the dismissal of civil suits involving vast amounts of property and damages.
Gonzalinho
Most Filipinos are happy to obey the law, what they protest isn’t the law itself but the unequal application of the law. They see that ordinary Filipinos are humiliated and hurt for breaking quarantine when government officials who do the same go unpunished. Take that for “disiplina.”
ReplyDelete@anthony_siy
Philippine Daily Inquirer (April 30, 2020)
Gonzalinho
Mass gatherings are not allowed. You can get arrested for it. Unless you are a police chief/director then you can hold a birthday party. The law is the law. Unless you are in power.
ReplyDeleteWanggo, @wanggo_g
Philippine Daily Inquirer (May 14, 2020)
Gonzalinho
MAÑANITA FOR THE GENERAL
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer
05:07 AM May 16, 2020
…the day happened to fall smack dab in the middle of the quarantine to which millions of Filipinos in the National Capital Region and nearby areas have been subjected for nearly two months. The quarantine orders, meant to protect the public from the COVID-19 contagion, have caused untold misery, especially among residents of poor communities confined to their stifling crowded hovels, shriveling not just in the hot weather but also in their hunger, boredom, anxiety, and fear.
It hardly helps that these quarantine orders have been enforced with harsh discipline and a chilling show of force. Communities have been hemmed in by police checkpoints, and just stepping out of one’s residence without a face mask can result in immediate arrest, humiliation, and punishment. Gathering in groups is also punished even if, as in Marikina recently, the “gathering” consisted of NGO workers offering free meals. And yet, just to add to the confusion, some local governments see no problem with summoning recipients of government aid to distribution centers where long queues and crowded interiors await them. So much for social distancing.
This is why Sinas’ birthday celebration has raised hackles. Officers and personnel, more than 50 by some counts, gathered in the early morning hours to serenade Sinas, even gifting him with roses and a birthday cake. True, most everyone was wearing a face mask, but the general took his mask off to blow out the candles on his cake (and thereby spreading the virus, if he was an asymptomatic carrier). In a post on the NCRPO’s Facebook page (taken down later), photos showed Sinas mixing freely with his subordinates, many of whom were shown, mask-less, lining up before a buffet and then sharing a table with the general. In some photos, cans of beer were visible despite the liquor ban. Sinas subsequently apologized, but claimed some photos were “manipulated.” Later, he went back to insisting there was nothing wrong with his birthday soiree (“Wala pong mali doon”).
What sticks in the craw is the sense of impunity: While the police are the main enforcers of the lockdown, they have also been shown to be among the first to violate the guidelines, and to be blithe about it. PNP chief Archie Gamboa, for one, was quick to defend Sinas’ conduct. But as Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen tweeted: “Parties are mass gatherings. It is insensitive to hold one.”
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/129868/mananita-for-the-general#ixzz6OXC0LFS9
Gonzalinho
THE MAN WHO DARED
ReplyDeleteThe man who dared
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:07 AM July 03, 2019
…Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang was dismissed by Ombudsman Samuel Martires on June 17, according to unimpeachable sources. His name has been removed from the website of the Office of the Ombudsman, and Special Prosecutor Edilberto G. Sandoval is now listed as “acting overall deputy ombudsman.”
Carandang’s dismissal is in contravention of a Supreme Court ruling issued in January 2014 that a president has no administrative or disciplinary jurisdiction over a deputy ombudsman.
It raises eyebrows because it swiftly calls to mind the President’s numerous challenges to the public, hurled in the course of speechifying at various occasions, to look into his bank holdings and other assets and thereby upend any impertinent claim that he and his family have amassed more wealth than could be legally explained.
…In 2017, Carandang embarked on an inquiry into the alleged hidden wealth of Mr. Duterte and members of his family on the basis of a complaint filed by then Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV. Carandang had publicly cited bank transaction details in the documents that Trillanes presented during the 2016 campaign for the presidential election, saying these were practically the same as what were in the records that the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) had provided the Office of the Ombudsman for intelligence-sharing purposes.
According to the documents that Trillanes presented to reporters, Mr. Duterte and his daughter Sara had joint accounts in banks in Pasig City (seven), in Edsa Greenhills (nine) and in Davao City (one) during the period 2006-2015. They had as much as P1.74 billion in deposits and transfers in the bank in Pasig alone, per the documents.
Trillanes pointed out that this was not reflected in Mr. Duterte’s 2014 statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, in which he reported a net worth of only P21.97 million, and cash assets of P13.84 million.
Carandang terminated his investigation in November 2017, saying the AMLC had refused to provide the data he needed.
But administrative cases were shortly filed by a group of lawyers against Carandang for claiming that the AMLC was investigating Mr. Duterte and his family. Mr. Duterte eventually ordered Carandang’s suspension for 90 days, but then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales refused to enforce it, citing the Supreme Court ruling on jurisdiction.
The Office of the President ordered Carandang’s dismissal on July 30, 2018, having found him supposedly guilty of graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust in the conduct of his inquiry. His retirement benefits were forfeited; he is now barred from taking civil service examinations, and perpetually disqualified from public office.
Carandang filed a motion for reconsideration, but Malacañang threw it out and affirmed his dismissal with finality early last month.
And that was how it all came down for the man who dared. How he will proceed remains to be seen….
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/122356/the-man-who-dared#ixzz6P96ZMrNB
The Office of the Ombudsman is an independent Constitutional Commission and as a consequence the President does not have jurisdiction over the dismissal of Deputy Ombudsman Carandang, who can be removed only by impeachment, according to the 1987 Constitution.
The enforcement of his dismissal in contravention of the 1987 Constitution and without lawful jurisdiction seriously degrades the rule of law in the Philippines.
Gonzalinho
UPHOLD THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
ReplyDeleteBy: Ed Garcia, Florin T. Hilbay - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:04 AM July 13, 2019
Never in the history of our country has a President disrespected the Philippine Constitution in a manner so shameful and shocking.
Words do matter, and President Duterte’s depiction of the fundamental law of the land as worthless in the face of foreign power betrays a defeatist attitude that accepts the logic of the lawless that might is right. This is both inexcusable and unforgivable.
The President has undermined our citizens’ faith in our Constitution, the bedrock of our democracy and our democratic institutions. He has compromised the rule of law. He has betrayed the public trust.
Take these instances of the President’s abdication of his responsibility to protect the interests of our people:
Failure to advance our 2016 victory in Philippines versus China. …
Inability to implement the Philippine fisheries law. …
Entering into an agreement over the country’s marine wealth with another country without notifying Congress. …
Betrayal of public trust. The President, more pointedly, has betrayed public trust by not protecting the country’s marine wealth for the exclusive use of Filipinos, as mandated by our Constitution. …
Finally, Article XI of the Constitution (Accountability of Public Officers) gives Filipinos and their representatives the right to file a verified complaint for impeachment. The President’s threat, whether real or a bluff, to jail those who attempt to impeach him is an illegal impediment to the exercise of constitutional rights, and sends a chilling effect that compounds the climate of fear already experienced by our citizens.
Ed Garcia is one of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Florin T. Hilbay, former Solicitor General and agent of the Philippine Republic in Philippines v. China, taught Constitutional Law at UP Law.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/122573/uphold-the-1987-constitution#ixzz6RgLsMnrH
Degrading the rule of law, not to mention promoting Philippine vassalage to Communist China…
Gonzalinho
Justice feels impossible in the Philippines.
ReplyDeletePhil Dy,
@philbertdy
Philippine Daily Inquirer (September 9, 2020)
Weak rule of law…under the Duterte administration, intentionally getting weaker…
Gonzalinho