Category: supreme court

fear & loathing in/for hacienda luisita

so hacienda luisita inc. has started buying off, i mean, paying off, i mean, distributing initial financial aid to farmers ranging, acc to anc, from 500 to a few thousand bucks.   grabe.   can’t blame the farmers (for caving in) but can’t say the same for the cojuangcos who are clearly defying the law.   mr. president?   hello?

from The Politics of Fear in Hacienda Luisita by Lisandro “Leloy” Claudio:

“Takot ang mga tao dito kaya hindi namin sila ma-organize. Mahirap na pag presidente ang kalaban mo (The people here are afraid, so we can’t organize them. It’s difficult when you’re up against a president),” says Kuya Bembol (pseudonym). Earlier that month, Kuya Bembol tried to take fellow farmers to an apolitical seminar on farming techniques hosted by the Katarungan NGO of Ricardo Reyes, who ran as the LP’s mayoral candidate in Pasig. Nobody took up the offer. They were afraid of any action that could be considered “political.”

This fear is not unwarranted. As I mentioned in my previous piece “Prinsipyo o Caldero: Why Noynoy won in Luisita,” the Liberal Party has the allegiance of the hacienda’s barangay captains. Since formalwork stopped in 2005, farmer-residents have been dependent on the captains to allot them plots of land to independently farm. Residents are afraid to do anything that might antagonize their respective captains.

But the fear in Luisita is more deep-seated; it has its roots in a historical trauma. The last time a Cojuangco became president, the family was able to eliminate calls for land distribution through implementing a broken and illegal Stock Distribution Option (SDO). Luisita management (and even Cory) claimed this was a valid move because the farmers voted for it in a referendum. However, according to Danny Carranza, a community organizer in the hacienda during the late 80s, farmers voted for the SDO under duress. Management told them that their jobs would be at risk if they voted against it.

According to FARM leaders, Luisita residents are afraid that the SDO or something similar to it will be implemented now that Noynoy is president. Should this happen, the Cojuangcos will once again completely control who works and who doesn’t. Put yourself in the position of a farmer. Based on what happened in the past, you believe that a Cojuangco as president will likely enable the family to have control over your livelihood once more. Should this happen, you will want a job from that family because life is hard. In a situation like this, would you risk antagonizing your landlords?

. . . Of course, P-Noy should put pressure on his family to withdraw the temporary restraining order that prevents the distribution of Luisita. He should also investigate the atrocities of the Hacienda Luisita massacre and the current trend towards the hacienda’s remilitarization.

Unfortunately, however, agrarian reform does not seem to be a priority for our new president. It also isn’t likely that he will investigate crimes associated with his family. And with the residents of Luisita scared to death, I doubt there will be significant pressure from below.

Ironically, the beacon of hope for the Luisita workers is the heavily criticized Renato Corona who will lead the Supreme Court as it decides on the legality of the SDO. If the SC scraps the SDO, it will pave the way for the distribution of the hacienda’s land to those who till it. God save the Chief Justice. The fate of farmers living in a perpetual state of fear is in his hands.

from Farmers got short end of the stick by Solita Collas-Monsod:

Let’s face it: The Luisita farm workers — the 6,296 men and women who should have been the beneficiaries of the CARP that was passed during President Cory Aquino’s term — have been getting the short end of the stick since 1989. The so-called “Compromise Agreement” the last nail in that coffin of exploitation (pardon the mixed metaphors).

The first nail in that coffin of exploitation was when, in 1989, they were either encouraged or enticed or intimidated or manipulated — remember, most of them had worked there for all of their lives in a patriarchal setting — to opt to own shares of stock in the Hacienda Luisita corporation — the so-called Stock Distribution Option (SDO), rather than to get a share of the land. The argument that they bought, or was shoved down their throat at the time, was that if the land were divided, each farm worker would be getting at most 0.78 hectares (of the 6,443 hectares of Luisita at that time, only 4,916 hectares were classified as CARP-able); while if they were own shares in the corporation, the workers would not only be getting wages, but also a share of the profits. It sounds like a good deal, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, since then, the corporation never showed any profits, and claims it has become burdened with enormous debt (which then required selling land to help pay off some of it).

The second nail in the farmers’ coffin of exploitation was pounded in almost simultaneously: The farmers got only 33% of the corporation, while the Cojuangcos, through the Tarlac Development Corporation or TDC got 67%. Why only 33% for the farmers, when their contribution to this agricultural corporation was its principal resource, mainly the land? Three reasons: the amount of land included in the CARP was only 76% of Hacienda Luisita; that “CARPable” land was undervalued; and third, the TDC contribution was overvalued. . . .

from Portent of things to come? by Rene Azurin:

. . . Actually, all this ado about a “compromise” just continues to obscure the main issue about the whole Hacienda Luisita case. The main issue — lest we forget — is that Jose Cojuangco Sr. was provided a government loan of P5.9 million and given a government guarantee (for a foreign exchange loan of US$2.1 million) to allow him to acquire the sugar estate and the sugar mill in 1957, with the express condition that the agricultural land “would be distributed to the agricultural workers” after 10 years. Well, it wasn’t.

Ten years after the hacienda was acquired, the Cojuangcos — probably not wanting to give up the enormous wealth and power that the sugar business had given them (because of the preferential prices then enjoyed by Philippine sugar in the US market) — argued that they could not comply with the distribution condition because “the place did not have a single tenant.” They then cited a law, the Land Reform Code (R.A. 3844), that exempted from expropriation agricultural lands like the sugar hacienda “where large scale operations would result in greater production and more efficient use of the land.” The scamming, not just of the farmer-beneficiaries but also of the Filipino public, began then. Clearly, it continues to this day and the fact that the land distribution was a straightforward loan condition has now been all but forgotten.

Beyond the legalities, a great injustice has been perpetuated for almost half a century against the poor farmers who’ve worked for the Cojuangcos. Many have passed away without realizing their dream of owning the tiny parcels of land that should have been divided and distributed to them in 1967. Those who survive find themselves today “already too old to till the land.” What options are realistically left to them except to take whatever is offered?

Mr. Lacierda says that Mr. Aquino “welcomes the agreement because… ang mahalaga ay ang ninanais ng farmers [what’s important is what thefarmers want].” This shows incredible insensitivity to the actual aspirations of the poor who are, once again, being taken for a ride by members of a ruling class who seem bereft of any sort of social conscience. If this is a portent of things to come, the poor might just have to abandon their hopes for social justice in a Cojuangco-Aquino administration.

supreme court should let trillanes go

… to the inaugural session of the senate of which he is a member, elected into office by more than 11 mllion voters in 2007.   i mean, you know, if he was not going to be allowedpala to BE a senator and take part in the legislative process, why was he allowed to run in the first place?   and kung hindi pala siya pauupuin, when he won, why was he proclaimed at all?   i don’t get it.

and i don’t buy the argument that he’s a security risk.   if in the past he was able to walk out of a court hearing unimpeded, that must have been because his guards allowed him to, perhaps they were sympathizers, perhaps they thought his anti-corruption-in-the-military anti-gma cause a valid one.   and even if it will cost to secure him more tightly should he be allowed to attend senate sessions, i say, hey, sa ibang bagay kaya magtipid.   o kaya kunin sa pork barrel ni trillanes mismo ang panggastos, whatever.   but let him go.

as for the supreme court ruling that has already denied trillanes permission to attend senate sessions, well, the supremes have been known to reverse their own decisions, even, to break their own rules, even, to defy the constitution.    and anyway this particular appeal is just for the inaugural session na nga lang, ano ba.   if it means kiko pangilinan gets to bag the senate presidency, why not.   if he can swing it, he deserves it, maiba naman.

besides why is it taking so long to resolve his case?   seven years na siya in jail, susmaryosep.   are the powers behind-the-supremes, i mean, behind-the-scenes, waiting till his term as senator is up so he never gets to sit?   in my book that’s a crime against the more than 11 million citizens who voted for him.

noynoy vs. the supremes

CONSTITUTIONALIST Joaquin Bernas on Wednesday urged president-apparent Benigno Aquino III to set aside his opposition to the appointment of Chief Justice Renato Corona as a way of avoiding a constitutional crisis.

but a constitutional crisis is already upon us, thanks to the supreme court decision exempting the judiciary from the ban on midnight appointments by outgoing prez gma.   in effect the supremes practically, unilaterally, amended the consitution to accommodate the padrina to whom they owe their appointments.   associate justice conchita carpio morales stands tall as the lone supreme dissenter, mabuhay siya!   excerpts from her dissenting opinion, including transcripts of concom deliberations, via elmot @ pinoysoundingboard.com:

The clear intent of the framers is …  for the ban on midnight appointments to apply to the judiciary.

Taking into account how the framers painstakingly rummaged through various sections of the Constitution and came up with only one exception with the need to specify the executive department, it insults the collective intelligence and diligence of the ConCom to postulate that it intended to exclude the judiciary but missed out on that one.

To hold that the ban on midnight appointments applies only to executive positions, and not to vacancies in the judiciary and independent constitutional bodies, is to make the prohibition practically useless. It bears noting that Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution already allows the President, by way of exception, to make temporary appointments in the Executive Department during the prohibited period. Under this view, there is virtually no restriction on the President’s power of appointment during the prohibited period.

The general rule is clear since the prohibition applies to ALL kinds of midnight appointments. The Constitution made no distinction. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos.

What complicates the ponencia is its great preoccupation with Section 15 of Article VII, particularly its fixation with sentences or phrases that are neither written nor referred to therein. Verba legis non est recedendum, index animi sermo est. There should be no departure from the words of the statute, for speech is the index of intention.

It is ironic for the ponencia to state on the one hand that the President would be deprived of ample time to reflect on the qualifications of the nominees, and to show on the other hand that the President has, in recent history, filled the vacancy in the position of Chief Justice in one or two days.

It is ironic for the ponencia to recognize that the President may need as much as 90 days of reflection in appointing a member of the Court, and yet abhor the idea of an acting Chief Justice in the interregnum as provided for by law,[21][21] confirmed by tradition,[22][22] and settled by jurisprudence[23][23] to be an internal matter.

The express allowance of a 90-day period of vacancy rebuts any policy argument on the necessity to avoid a vacuum of even a single day in the position of an appointed Chief Justice.

As a member of the Court, I strongly take exception to the ponencia’s implication that the Court cannot function without a sitting Chief Justice.

To begin with, judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court[24][24] and not in its individual members, much less in the Chief Justice alone. Notably, after Chief Justice Puno retires, the Court will have 14 members left, which is more than sufficient to constitute a quorum.

The fundamental principle in the system of laws recognizes that there is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts are required to take their bearings. While most of the Court’s work is performed by its three divisions, the Court remains one court — single, unitary, complete and supreme. Flowing from this is the fact that, while individual justices may dissent or only partially concur, when the Court states what the law is, it speaks with only one voice.[25][25]

The Court, as a collegial body, operates on a “one member, one vote” basis, whether it sits en banc or in divisions. The competence, probity and independence of the Court en banc, or those of the Court’s Division to which the Chief Justice belongs, have never depended on whether the member voting as Chief Justice is merely an acting Chief Justice or a duly appointed one.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, I vote to hold, for the guidance of the Judicial and Bar Coucil, that the incumbent President is constitutionally proscribed from appointing the successor of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno upon his retirement on May 17, 2010 until the ban ends at 12:00 noon of June 30, 2010.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice

read too legal maverick alan paguia‘s take on the corona appointment (INVALID) and abe n. margallo‘s take on the supremes (FALLIBLE).

and here’s rene saguisag, who never fails to enlighten:

I decided to resist Martial Law from Day One. Not many others did because the Good Filipinos, like the Good Germans, would salute anything calling itself as law printed at public expense. Today we again hear from Good Filipinos: follow whatever government says even if the Supreme Court (SC) rules that the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) may be ignored altogether.

Chief Justice (CJ) Davide and CJ Puno were both told by GMA that she did not like the JBC lists and asked them to submit another. Neither remonstrated to protect the body’s independence. Pray tell, how could an economist and a general as Little Prez know better than the JBC whose members are all lawyers?

We hear today, be prudent, just continue multiplying like rabbits. This was probably what our leaders were telling our people in the face of Spanish, British, American, Japanese, and native oppressors. The poor protested in 2001. Rene Corona, as GMA adviser, reportedly called them “mga walang ngipin, walang salawal, atbp.” May they rely on him for justice in a society where the system reflects the biases of the ruling class? If he must stage a presscon, he should not do so in political combat but tell us what he intends to do, if he must speak at all other than in writing in an actual case. I was privileged to know his father, a very good man who lost his life the same my wife did, in a vehicular incident. I cannot believe his father would look down at the poor the way Rene reportedly did in 2001.

Today leaders in the community tell us to obey a CJ who even stages presscons, behaving like a taunting politician and doing what the unelected SC members do, issue circulars without any public hearings as is done by elected lawmakers. It used to be that law grew by precedents set in actual cases and we were told that future cases must be examined as to their facts because general propositions do not decide concrete cases. Now we drown in circulars such as one disrespecting an accused’s right not to speak by compelling him to appear in criminal pre-trials and stipulate.

Holmes said that even a dog would know the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.We got kicked by the Spaniards, the British, Americans, and Japanese and when our own started to oppress us, we could not tell the difference anymore. Follow the rule of law, the natives were told, by the arrogant in power.

Seniority was one reason I said no to a signed SC appointment in 1986. I was 47 and so many qualified career people in their 50’s and 60’s were ahead in line, which did not stop modern and forward-looking lawyers Rene and Tony Carpio from bypassing so many others. They should have been taught by Ma’m Baby and Fr. BB of an earlier time to stand in line. We are watching whether Rene knows his right foot from his left given his very sad start in 2001. And Tony does not stage presscons to insult a political foe of GMA. At 62, Rene remains immature, from where I sit.
opinion@manilatimes.net

and so i agree with manolo quezon:

In the end what every administration has the right to expect, is to set the tone for its turn at the helm. This is why there have been so many innovations and departures from tradition in inaugurations. Thus putting in place a chief justice who soiled his own robes not only justifies, but almost makes mandatory, some sort of deviation from tradition. Whether a barangay captain or associate justice administers the presidential oath matters less than the next president’s right to demonstrate that ethics will be part of his core approach to the responsibilities of his office.

nothing wrong with breaking from tradition when tradition only serves to validate the illegal.   if i were the president-elect, i would ask associate justice conchita carpio-morales to swear me in.   she deserves the honor and place in history.

hearsay not good enough

Court should allow live coverage of Ampatuan trial
Neal Cruz

Why is live coverage by the media of the Ampatuan trial being prohibited? Isn’t that a denial of the public’s right to information? I understand that the judge wants to avoid the circus atmosphere that sometimes descends on an event when competing television networks jockey for vantage points. But that can easily be avoided by assigning one or two pool cameras and limiting them to a small part of the courtroom and then sharing the footage with the other networks. The same goes for print reporters. For the public, closed-circuit cameras can broadcast the trial to TV sets outside.

The alternative is to deny the people the right to view a very important trial. What is being tried here is not a sex crime or a family quarrel where intimate details are dredged up by the lawyers. It is a heinous crime. The accused will not be denied their right to a fair trial. The people have the right to be informed how justice is done, so that they will learn, once more, that crime does not pay.

If the trial is closed to live coverage, people will start suspecting that some hanky-panky is going on, especially because the Ampatuan family is a close ally of the President. So whatever the decision will be, people will suspect that some horsetrading went on.

i so agree.   besides, the accounts of the media personnel privileged to witness the proceedings are just not good enough.   siyempre kulang-kulang sa details.   and you wonder how accurate the quickie summaries are.   nothing beats watching and hearing the proceedings, questions and testimonies, first-hand, in real time, via audio-video recordings.   anything else is hearsay.

Open Ampatuan trial to live coverage,
media and lawyers urge
John Alliage Tinio Morales

MANILA, Philippines – Media and lawyers’ groups on Monday appealed to Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes to allow live coverage of the trial of the Ampatuan massacre case.

… At the launching of the People’s Task Force on Maguindanao, Rowena Paraan of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) said they are writing a formal letter to Reyes Tuesday, a day before the second hearing into the petition for bail filed by Ampatuan.

She said Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez had advised the NUJP to write a letter to Solis instead of filing a formal motion.

…Roan Libarios, governor of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, said: “We are in support of the request of the NUJP and other media organizations to be allowed access to the court proceedings, subject to some safety nets.”

…At the press conference sponsored by the task force, a reporter from ABS-CBN said the news network had already sent a formal letter to Solis asking for her permission to grant the taking of video footage during the hearing for the petition for bail. But the reporter said Solis denied the request in just a matter of “five minutes.”

Should the judge deny the request made by the NUJP, Paraan said that the group would definitely file a formal motion for the scheduled third hearing on January 20.

Thomas Prado, national secretary of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, advised the NUJP that its formal letter should be “attached to a formal motion.”

Should Judge Solis again deny the motion for live coverage, Prado said, “I think there is a way to bring it up to the Supreme Court.”

Even the Supreme Court has long settled in its jurisprudence that fears over trial by publicity would not influence the decision of the court of justice, private prosecutor Harry Roque said.

He cited a Supreme Court ruling on the request of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines for the live radio-TV coverage of the plunder trial against deposed president Joseph Estrada in 2001.

In that decision, the Supreme Court laid three reasons for the televised recording of public events: First, the hearings are of historic significance; second, cases involve matters of vital concern to the people who have a fundamental right to know how their government is conducted; and third, the audio-visual presentation is essential for the education and civic training of the people.

The high tribunalsaid that the live recording of public events is, above all, for “documentary purposes.”

The high court said the recording could be useful in preserving the essence of the proceeding in a way print cannot quite do. It added that the recording could be used by appellate courts in the event of a review.

In the ruling, the magistrates clearly laid out conditions for live media coverage, including the recording of the trial in its entirety, installation of cameras in inconspicuous places, reason of documentary purposes, and the court supervision of the recording.

JV Bautista, former party-list representative and IBP member, said that in theory, trials must always be made public, as long as the media “do not turn the hearing into a circus.”

Quoting US court decisions and academic studies, Roquesaid that the live coverage of public events would compel “everyone included in the hearing to be at their best.”

Prado added that the public could scrutinize the competence of the public prosecutors in the performance of their duties, especially so that “we have rusty public prosecutors.” On the part of the defense, the public can see judge whether the accused is lying or not.