angelic moo

Emotions are still running high after the botched hostage rescue attempt in Manila that involved the death of 8 Hong Kong nationals . In yet another sign of insensitivity to the grieving families, Mayor Alfredo Lim declared the Manila police as " heroes ." This statement comes after denying that he had ordered the arrest of Rolando Mendoza's brother Senior Police Officer Gregorio Mendoza. The arrest allegedly infuriated the hostage-taker and drove him into a killing spree. Lim contradicted Congressional testimony offered by Chief Superintendent Rodolfo Magtibay. To date, no one is claiming responsibility for ordering the arrest. Of course the police did their best under the circumstances. There is no denying the fact, however, that the police exercise was botched. The world witnessed it how our ill-prepared police officers ended the crisis with the death of eight tourists. I will not presume to know how the people of Hong Kong feel about the situation. I can imagine what

I just finished an article by Nobue Suzuki entitled Outlawed Children: Japanese Filipino Children, Legal Defiance and Ambivalent Citizenships (Pacific Affairs, Volume 83, Number 1, March 2010, pp. 31-50) which chronicled the legal battle waged by children born of Japanese men and Filipino women to acquire Japanese citizenship. Japanese law restricted citizenship in these cases only if the father acknowledged paternity before the child is born or if the parents were to marry . In 2008, the Supreme Court of Japan declared this law unconstitutional for being discriminatory. Suzuki writes that this is only the 7th time in its history that the Court had declared a law unconstitutional. I am amazed that the Court demonstrated a willingness to strike down a decades-old law to right what they perceived to be a wrong foisted upon innocents. It stands in contrast to the plight of comfort women in the Philippines who were recently told by the Supreme Court of the Philippines that they " appe

Selecting a Supreme Court Justice is an important and delicate task. Many lawyers are undoubtedly up to the task. Of late they have come with impeccable academic credentials, advanced degrees, prior judicial experience, teaching experience (especially abroad), or a list of scholarly publications. With an increasingly homogeneous pool of nominees, the trick for the President is to determine who should be appointed. Is there something different about a candidate that stands out? Is there something in this mass of data that suggests how a potential Justice will conduct herself if appointed? There was perhaps one bit of information that could have caught the President Aquino's attention when he was examining the latest list submitted by the JBC. When Chief Justice Renato Corona was appointed Chief Justice towards the end of President Gloria Arroyo's term, there was a genuine issue as to whether the President was then covered by a constitutional ban against "midnight appointmen

The Philippine Supreme Court, which is presently examining the charges of plagiarism in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary , cannot resolve the issue without demanding the resignation of its ponente, Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo. With the international legal community looking on the Court cannot sweep this issue aside and say there was no plagiarism--there clearly was--and that the US sources used in the decision were incorrectly applied--because they were. The authors have protested the misuse of their scholarship to further ends that they do not support: the absence of recourse to international law remedies for victims of sexual abuse during the Second World War. If the Court sanctions these shortcomings, it informs the world that the victims of Japanese occupation during World War II have no legal recourse according to plagiarized and misinterpreted sources. Nothing could be so appalling and dishonorable. Justice del Castillo's resignation is necessary to sav

The faculty of the UP College of Law will come out with a statement on the allegations of plagiarism against the Supreme Court in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010). The statement will carry my sentiments so there is no need for me to elaborate on my position here. I add only a few thoughts: I cringe at the thought that at some point in the future, the works of the judiciaries of the world will be compiled and examined to see what States do to vindicate the rights of their citizens. In that collection, the Philippines will offer a Supreme Court decision saying that comfort women who were raped by invading Japanese soldiers during the Second World War "appear to be without a remedy to challenge those that have offended them before appropriate fora." That decision will be founded on plagiarized works, that in fact argued the exact opposite: that these victims do have remedies under international law. The Supreme Court should take

President-elect Benigno Aquino III responded coldly to suggestions that he stop smoking now that he will assume the Presidency. Aquino basically said that he cannot stop smoking because his job as a President will be too stressful. Aquino's response was a wasted opportunity, not only to set an example to others, but to sound like a President. His response shows that he does not yet understand his role as the country's leader. As the President, Aquino should inspire Filipinos to overcome the challenges they face, as individuals and as a nation. Smoking is both an individual challenge and an international health issue. Instead of projecting the ability to overcome an unhealthy habit, Aquino disappoints the public by acknowledging defeat without the faintest effort. This is not the way to inspire a nation. He is obviously unprepared for the press' questions. As a result, he reveals traits that are uncharacteristic of good leaders. Here is a suggested response to the press: I

It has been suggested that the public prosecutors' public disagreement with Justice Secretary Alberto Agra's decision not to indict two members of the Ampatuan clan with the November 2009 massacre serves as an indictment of the Secretary's position. The prosecutors may have been right. Unfortunately, the Secretary acted within his powers when he disagreed with them. The prosecutors should have hoped that the President would reverse the Secretary. Instead, by publicly objecting to the exclusion of certain members of the Ampatuan clan from the case, they weakened our institutions. Lower courts too, incidentally, may disagree with the Supreme Court. Lower court judges, however, do not make public statements about how the Supreme Court erred. Under the system, their decisions can be subjected to review and reversed by higher courts. Whether the higher courts are right is irrelevant. Lower courts fall in line because that is the way the system keeps itself together. Lit

Like everyone else, I want to see those responsible for the Ampatuan massacre (carried out last November 23) pay for their crimes. I was a little confused about the public's reaction to Secretary Alberto Agra's decision to dismiss the charges against two members of the Ampatuan clan. Agra has a privileged perch--one that allows him to assess the evidence against every potential defendant in the case. How then can we object to his decision? Have we all prejudged the case and determined that the entire clan is responsible for the massacre? There were insinuations that Agra's decision was part of a compromise to secure clan support for the administration during the May 10 elections. If true, then popular uproar would have been justified. But I saw no proof of this alleged deal. Agra has since reversed his decision. I wonder, however, if the public will be more tolerant when courts get their turn to determine the guilt of those who are ultimately charged with the crime. Wi

Lawyers should be surprised that Supreme Court spokesperson Midas Marquez recently issued a statement regarding President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's slew of executive appointments. Marquez stated that Mrs. Arroyo cannot use the Supreme Court's decision in De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council to justify her midnight appointments. He explained that De Castro only recognized the President's power to fill an impending vacancy in the Supreme Court, but that there is still a constitutional ban against appointments to the executive branch. This is unusual because Marquez's statements appears to be an interpretation of the Constitution, not by the Supreme Court, but by himself. This is not the function of a spokesperson. I doubt very much that Marquez would have made the statement without the consent of the Supreme Court. Spokespersons clear their statements with their superiors; especially on controversial matters. So why did Marquez issue the statement? I think that this s

Supreme Court Midas Marquez issued a statement saying that the President cannot use the recent Court decision ( De Castro v. JBC ) to justify her recent appointments . He explained that De Castro is not yet final and only exempts appointments to the Supreme Court from the ban on midnight appointments (which started on March 10 and ends on June 30). Marquez issued the statement following reports that the President appointed two Justices of the Court of Appeals, an ambassador, and board members to cultural bodies where no vacancy existed. That these new appointments are so blatantly unconstitutional can mean that the President has absolutely no respect for the Constitution and constitutional restraints. Or it can be another display of presidential craftiness. It is entirely possible that these appointments are part of a script designed to stave off criticisms about her control over the judiciary. These appointments will no doubt be challenged before the courts. They will be struck down

Commission on Elections Chair Jose Melo recently gave comments that contradict a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 ( Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Go! Go! Philippines, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001 ). He opined that the President's son Juan Miguel Arroyo could be a valid nominee of Ang Galing Pinoy, a party-list group that allegedly represents security guards. He added that limiting nominees to members of the marginalized groups is not wise. Tricycles drivers cannot be represented by one who did not finish high school; "they should have somebody to speak for them," he said. This is not the tenor of the Supreme Court decision in Ang Bagong Bayani . In the 2001 Supreme Court decision, a majority of the Supreme Court, including then Justice Melo , provided guidelines for the COMELEC in screening party-list nominees. Among others, the Court said that: ...not only the the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented