angelic moo

Obscenities in Court Opinions: Some Thoughts             There is a disturbing trend in recent Supreme Court decisions that needs to be immediately addressed.   In a number of cases involving the crime of rape, the word “fucked” appears many times either as part of the stenographic notes of the direct examination of the complainant or in excerpts of the trial courts’ decisions under review.   The word is used as a translation of the complainant’s testimony describing an alleged rape.             The word first appeared in 1983 in the case of People v. Banasen , and since then has appeared in seventeen other decisions.   In these decisions, the word appeared forty-four different times.   The most recent decision is a May 2011 ruling.   The following are the cases: People of the Philippines v. Domingo Banasen, G.R. No. L-55487, December 21, 1983. 2 People of the Philippines v. Jessie Mayoral , G.R. Nos. 96094-95, November 13, 1991. 1 Peo

Late last year, DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo said that the provincial government of South Cotabato did not have the power to ban open-pit mining and should instead review its Environmental Code that prohibited such mining method . [1]   According to Robredo, “The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 does not prohibit open pit mining.   A local government ordinance cannot undo an act of Congress.” [2]   In a Memorandum Circular dated November 9, 2010, Robredo directed the provincial government of South Cotabato to review its Environmental Code.   According to the Memorandum Circular, "[i] n view thereof , you are hereby enjoined to cause the immediate suspension of the implementation of said ordinance pending its review.” [3] Secretary Robredo’s actions in this case are inconsistent with law. a.       Robredo’s legal analysis is flawed.   There is no law that prevents local governments from imposing additional strictures to safeguard the environment so long as it does not

Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno's call for renewed debate for constitutional amendment was disappointing. Justice Puno made his call during the inaugural lecture of the UP College of Law's Centennial Lecture Series. However, he cited no new reasons for the debate and there was an unsettling JDV-esque ring to his entire lecture. Many of these grounds he cited as reasons for change have already been examined and debunked by scholars . One recycled argument--legislative gridlock is presently being addressed by the Aquino administration by holding a Cabinet workshop to identify priority bills that will be presented to the Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council. These steps are being taken precisely to address potential gridlock. I expected more from the first lecture that starts the UP College of Law's centennial lecture series. I thought it should have been a scholarly forum that examines important legal issues and not a venue for political posturing.