Thursday

I am here in England!

I am here! And it is so damn cold!

I left our Cavite City house yesterday, at around 1230 HRS. I went to Mamang Mariet's house for my lunch. We packed my box and made some last additions to my luggage. We left Mamang's house by 1430 HRS, maaga kasi ang daming stopovers akong dinaanan bago umalis. We went to the cemetery (Himlayan) to pass by my grandparents. Since wala ako sa November 1, so I decided to go there to pray and pay my respects. After, I passed by sa bahay namin for some last minute checks. Afterwards, we passed by San Roque Church, since wala rin ako sa piesta, kaya nagdasal na ako doon. Then, we proceeded to my inaanak Ezra, the daughter of my cousin Paola in Bacao. Ang cute-cute. Wala rin ako sa binyag nun. Tapos, our final stop is at Pascor, para kunin yung siopao ni Dad. Kaya lang walang nabili eh. Tapos may naatrasan pa kami na motor. Well, dinaan ko na lang sa astigan, ayaw magpakausap ng maayos eh!

I checked in at Ninoy Aquino International Airport at around 1700 HRS. I checked in the baggage at the Business Class counter of Cathay Pacific. It was thanks to my angel, Roche. Pati yung box ko na super overweight, naipasok. It was around 27 kilos na pala. So thanks a lot to Roche and Rojie (the Cathay employee at the check-in counter). I then proceeded to pay the terminal fee of PhP 750. Afterwards, I passed the immigration counter. So far, okay naman lahat. I stayed at the lounge, waiting for flight boarding announcement. Nakatulog ako doon, sobrang pagod siguro. Nagising ako mga 1830 HRS. Kumain na muna ako, kakagutom e. Nung makakain na ako, nakipag kuwentuhan ako doon sa mga Pinoy na kasabay ko sa Hong Kong leg of my trip. Nakilala ko si Kuya Rolly and si Kuya Danny, mga seaman on their way to Greece. Pagdating sa Hong Kong, change plane sila to Frankfurt. We boarded the plane at around 1930 HRS through Gate 7. Cathay Pacific CX 902, taxied at 2000 HRS and took off was at exactly 2021 HRS (Manila Standard Time or MST).

Ang lakas ng turbulence sa Manila pa lang, kasi may bagyo daw ata. According dun sa on-board flight map, we passed by Angeles City, then Laoag City, before crossing the South China Sea to Hong Kong International Airport (HKG). We arrived at HKG at 2155 HRS (MST). The plane docked at Gate 47. My next flight required me to walk the entire length of the Hong Kong Airport as my British Airways Flight is at Gate 15. Muntik pa akong maligaw, kasi I am on the arrival level, departure level is on the upper floor. When I reached Gate 15, I waited for only 10 minutes before boarding at 2245 HRS. BA026 left the dock by 2330 HRS and the plane wheels left Hong Kong soil at exactly 2342 HRS (MST).

Nung tinignan ko yung Journey Map, we are over Chinese airspace. Eh its already midnight, so after eating my snacks, I decided to sleep. Sayang lang at hindi ako nakakain ng dinner. Hehe! Nalampasan ako. Pero I am really sleepy. So natulog na ako. I tuned in to some easy listening music. I played 2 Kenny G. albums, masarap pakinggan yun kapag inaantok ka, makakatulog ka talaga. When I woke up at around 0600 HRS (MST) on my watch, we were already in Russian airspace. I think nasa may western Siberia. Over the Ural Mountains. Ang lamig lamig. But the sky is very clear. I can see the stars. I slept again seeing that we are still halfway through our flight. I woke up at around 0645 HRS, I looked over the window and I saw a lot of lights. I presume that it is an important city so I looked over the map. We flew over St. Petersburg. Tapos I watched The Last Samurai. After the movie, the map said that we were over the Baltic Sea. We passed by Copenhagen, Denmark. Then I watched a television show, the World's Finest Cars. After the program, the flight stewardess Wendy served breakfast. I asked for an English breakfast. After breakfast, I looked over the map display, it showed that we are less that 2 hours to our destination. I saw that we are over the North Sea. Yonder the sea, I say another city. I checked it on the map, and it showed that it was Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

I decided to enjoy myself by watching the news channel. After the news, we were already across the English Channel. At about 45 minutes to London Heathrow, I stood up to go to the comfort room. It is the only time during my almost 13 hour flight that I stood up. As I look over the window, nakita ko it's already land. When I looked at my watch, I saw that its almost 1200 HRS (MST). I am very ecstatic to see that we are already over London airspace. In about 20 minutes, the plane started to descend to about 4000 feet, and I can already see the roof tops of London houses and buildings. With less than 10 minutes, the captain ordered all flight crew to go to their seats and prepare for landing. And at exactly 1231 HRS (MST), BA026 landed at London Heathrow International Airport (LHR) Terminal 5. Paglabas ko ng airplane, nakaw, naramdaman ko na, ang lamig lamig. The captain said that it is -3 degrees and we could expect some frost.

Everything was somehow okay. I even managed to help a fellow Filipino who is lost. He is Hector Acerba of Cagayan. He is going to London Gatwick Airport (LGW) for another flight to Bermuda & Antigua, to go to British Antilles. Malayo layo pa ang biyahe niya. Welder siya from Saudi, and he shall also be a welder in the Antilles.

There was however, a minor glitch as the Indian Immigration Officer stopped me and detained me. He questioned some details so I answered him, British accent and all. Ayun, sa kayabangan ko, at sa kapapakinig kay Mr. Bean, na-detain ako... Hehehe! Hari talaga ng Sablay. Wahehehe! Pero, pinadaan din naman ako. Parang niyabangan lang din siguro ako. Well, tiempo tiempo lang, kasi yung Nigerian na napunta doon sa babaeng immigration officer na British, wala pang 20 seconds, tinatakan na agad eh. Pana-panahon lang talaga!

We then proceeded to baggage claim. Nakuha ko na yung baggage ko, so I passed by custom check. Eh wala naman din ginawa doon. Paglabas ko, nakita ko na si Daddy, Mommy at si MJ. Andoon din si Kuya Jay. Sila na ang nag-assist kay Kuya Hector.

Ang lamig talaga! Pagdating dito sa Boston, medyo mainit init na ng kaunti. Mga 6 degrees na. Nagpahinga ako ng saglit. Then we had a late breakfast. Kumain ako ng adobo na luto ni Mommy. Na-miss ko ang luto ng nanay ko! I slept after breakfast. Medyo may jet lag pa e. Hehe!

After that, ginising ako ni Mommy ng 1600 HRS (UK Time). Darating daw yung mga Filipino dito. May welcome daw sa akin ang Tropang Sunog Baga ng Boston (Sina Arnold, Ver, Glenn, Bryan, Engr. Art, Daboy, Jay), ang kanilang mga asawa, at yung mga binibini ng 90% of Filipinos. Hanggang dito sa ibang bansa, uso pa rin ang faction. Nag-barbecue sila sa likod bahay namin. Ang lamig lamig! Tapos nag-inom kami. Napoleon French Brandy. Naka-4 na bote ata kami. Mga lasing narin silang lahat umuwi. Pero ang pagkakaiba, iniwan dito sa amin yung mga kotse nila. Bawal magmaneho ng naka-inom. Mga law-abiding citizen. Hehehe!

Well, so far for my first day here in UK! I'll update this often. Photos to come.

Monday

Ecstatic Augustine 2003 - Hello again, darling!

Five (5) years since graduating from high school, much of it remains the same! Same faces, same innocent smiles, smile silly jokes and same brand of friendship. Although some may say that being same meant nothing has changed, this time around, I cherish the "sameness" if there is such a word (hehe)! Truly, high school life is the high school life, is the high school life, is the high school life.

I have not been happier this past few days. Although what happened last Saturday night cannot be changed, and I cannot help but be sorry for the accident, being with my Augustine friends helped me drown some of the mixed emotions that pervades my thoughts these days. I now understand the meaning of leaving the Philippines. Hehehe! parang hindi na babalik ah! So the Augustine eat out at SM MOA last night, truly is heart warming!

So dahil ang reunion ay kay Bebang, siya na muna. Kahit alam kong asar na asar ka sa pang-aalaska ko sa "ka-sexyhan" mo, I know that you really enjoyed my pang-ngungulit... Presumptuousness! Hehehe! But seeing you grow and mature and be the usual Bebang, ayos na. 

Mga matagal na nawala, Jody at Colleen, ang valedictorian at salutatorian namin, repectively; and our News Editor and Editor-in-Chief of The Bugle, respectively ulit! naks, I missed you. Good luck in all your endeavors. Si teacher Daisy, pwede ba ako mag-apply as teacher, I'm sure ang daming kalokohan akong ituturo sa mga students mo..hehehe! Kapag parada, kumaway ka lagi ah! Cathy, as usual, maganda ka pa rin... At ang dami dami talagang ulam! Hehehe! Na save ko na number mo, hndi na ulit ako magtatanong ng "Hu u?" Hehehe! Irish, pahingi ng Diamond Card. Hehehe! Ikaw na lang ang contact ko kapag ako na ang head sa fraternity namin, gusto ko sa Diamond kami, para may libre ako na room, hehehe! Myk, seatmate kamusta na? Matagal tagal din tayong hindi nagkita kita! Good luck sayo pare. 

Sa mga kumpare natin, Mon, maghanda handa ka na, may 8 taon pa yata ang City Engineer dito sa Cavite City. Hehehe! Baka Mayor na ko pagdating ng panahon na iyon. Hershel, ang discount card ko jan sa San Mig By the Bay, ikaw na ang bahala boss! Hehehe! Mario, ayos lang lagi dre. Text text, matagal tagal narin tayong walang napupuntahan. May papakilala ako sayo. Tapos, kaw na ang bahala dun. Tapos, alam mo na! Ayusan mo dre ang pagtingin mo sa mga patiente mo ah, sabagay, napag-aralan ko na naman ang medical malpractice. Hehehe! Basta ninong ka sa una kong anak! Leandro, topnotcher dre. Kita kits na lang sa Baste simbahan sa April 2009 na ulit. Hehehe! Bhen, ayos lang, tuloy pa rin ang text ah, piso lang naman sa inyo eh, i-roaming ko sim card ko.

O sa mga ladies in the house, say Oh! say Ei! Carlo muna, oh wag ka na magalit. Alam ko na bakit masyado malaki ang naibayad mo sa bill doon sa kainan, nalimutan ko isama ang E-VAT sa computation ng bill! Kaya ikaw tuloy nagbayad ng taxes ng kinain ng Augustine...hehehe!!! Ok lang yun, at least tax paying ka na! Hehehe! Renz, ayos talaga ang mama mo, mahal na mahal ka pa rin! Masaya ka naman dahil andoon si Pareng Mario. Hehehe! Till next Tagaytay trip!

O sa mga special ladies in the house! Kai, hopefully next time na magsabay tayo sa bus, mas mahaba habang kwentuhan ah! Yung lakad natin pag-uwi, sabi mo maganda Bohol sa April ah! We'll see! Take care always! Gel!!! Kaw na bahala sa flight plans ko... hehehe! I surely and truly missed you! Sweet ka parin! Don't change ah! See you pag-uwi ko.

Sino pa ba??? Hehehe! Res ipsa loquitor, it speaks for itself. I'll miss you so much Pan!

Sa mga wala, namimiss na kayo ng tropa guys and gals. We'll all see each other as always. Hopefully in the near future.

Despidida

I have invited yung tropa ko for a short, meaningful and private despidida dito sa bahay before I leave for the UK last Saturday, October 25, 2008.

Aris, Byron, Emman, GJ, Joshua. (Absent: Aran, Flynn, Jamer, Jaypee, Rayjohn)

Absent ang Shagidy, okay lang pag-uwi ko na lang! I'll miss you guys!

Please pray for the safety of Rap Muncal. He met a motorcycle accident. Pare, yung pangako ko sayong pasalubong, hintayin mo.

Wednesday

British Visa Approved!

My British Visa  
21 October 2008 - 21 April 2009
Multiple Entry Clearance

God is truly amazing, and He works in mysterious and wondrous ways!

Today, Wednesday, on the day of Baclaran Novena Days to Our Mother of Perpetual Help, He decided to grant me this gift. Tapos, my 16 + year old dog named Blackie also passed away this morning, probably God's way of saying that Blackie shall look after me in heaven and Blackie's farewell gift (alam niyo yun, di ba, yung Filipino notion that our pets, kapag may aalis na amo, namamatay para isagip yung amo nila). 

Well, I'll be going to UK to visit my family there, who I have not seen for a very long time. 

Thank you Lord! And Dad, Mom, Pipoy and MJ, konting hintayan na lang, I'll be there soon!

Blackie (Son of Aso ni Kap and Brownie) 
? 1993 - 22 October 2008 
Eternal rest grant unto him, Oh Lord! 
And Let Perpetual Life shine upon him.
Thanks for everything Blackie, you are a wonderful dog.
May you Rest in Peace!

Friday

Background of the Bangsamoro Struggle

I found this Discussion Board from the website of the University of the East. I find it necessary to repost this, in order that we may have a working knowledge, and more critical understanding of the raison d'etre of the continuing Bangsamoro secessionist movement. Click the title for the permalink!

Re: GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain

by nassefadiong on Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:58 am

Bases of Bangsamoro Struggle for Self-determination

• Their historical right as free and independent nation before the formation of the Philippine state 
• Their unpleasant experiences under the Philippine republic

Historical Experiences
• Before the arrival of the Spanish colonialists the Bangsamoro were already in the process of state formation, while Luzon and the Visayas were still in the barangay stage of political development.
• They had developed well-organized administrative and political systems; and
• Organized strong maritime and infantry forces that defended the Bangsamoro territories from Western colonial intrusion, thus preserving the continuity of their independence
• Resistance continued even during the American occupation. Although the sultanate-sponsored resistance were not as fierce as during the Spanish-Moro wars, but group-organized and individual resistance (prang sabil – martyrdom seeking operations) continued. 
• These compelled the U.S. to govern the Moro territories separate from the Philippine Islands. 

When the U.S. planned to grant independence to the Philippines, Bangsamoro leaders petitioned the U.S. government that the Bangsamoro territories should not be included in the would-be Philippine Republic.
– June 9, 1921 - petition of the people of Sulu 
– February 1, 1924 - Declaration of Rights and Purposes (Zamboanga declaration)
– March 18, 1935 - Dansalan Declaration

When their territories were made part of the Philippine Republic in 1946, the Bangsamoro people continue to assert their right to independence
– Amilbangsa Bill (H.B. 5682)
– Mindanao Independence Movement Manifesto
– Organization of the MNLF and MILF 

Why negotiate with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) when there is already the 1996 GRP-MNLF Final Peace Agreement?

1. From the start of that negotiation, the MILF had adopted a supportive stance, but halfway in the progress of the talks, things had not turned perfectly well in addressing the centuries-old conflicts in Mindanao. So the MILF had to downgrade its policy to “wait and see”. When finally the GRP-MNLF finally wrapped up their talks and signed the September 2, 1996 Final Agreement, having examined fully its content, we concluded that it would not address this problem:

 We put into question the preambular premise that has abandoned the right of the Bangsamoro people to determine freely their political status and to pursue freely their religious, social, economic and cultural development.

 Instead of giving genuine self-rule or autonomy to the Bangsamoro people, the Final Agreement has worked for the MNLF elements into total integration including its armed component into the Philippine body politic in the guise of giving autonomy yet paving the way towards their eventual political defeat.

 The agreement also failed to give to our people the control over natural resources, which are all practically classified as “strategic minerals”. The MNLF agreed to define these later.

 Therefore, we reject the “totality clause” providing that any conflict in the interpretation of this Agreement is to be resolved in the light of the Philippine Constitution and existing laws. This, in effect, gives one Party (the GRP) almost blanket authority to interpret this Agreement to the exclusion of the other Party (the MNLF) and the participation of the OIC. 

“Any conflict in the interpretation of this Agreement shall be resolved in the light of the Philippine Constitution and existing laws.”

2. The MILF believes that the present “constitutional process” is a narrow framework for the negotiated political settlement of the Mindanao conflict as well as to resolve the “permanent status” of the Bangsamoro people.

3. Current trends in the resolution of sovereignty-based conflicts in many parts of the world such as those in South Sudan, Aceh, Bougainville, and Kosovo have proffered a new modality that has advanced the conduct of permanent status referendum for nation-states as the viable options to armed conflicts between divided societies in Ireland, Montenegro, Catalan, and the Basque. It is in this context that the GRP-MILF framework documents have formulated the sequence, time periods and transitory process the defined function, ending with the referendum results.

Start of GRP-MILF Peace Process 
(January 7, 1997 - Domestic Stage, Without a Third Party Facilitator)
 MILF Deputy Chairman for Political Affairs Ghazali Jaafar and Executive Secretary Ruben Torres met twice, one in Davao City and second in Cagayan de Oro City on August 3 and September 10, respectively. They agreed to form the peace panels and technical committees of both GRP and the MILF.

Creation of Peace Panels and Technical Committees (October 25, 1996)
• GRP and MILF Peace Panels headed by former CEMCOM commander and former Lt. Gen. and then Ambassador Fortunato Abat and Ghazali Jaafar, respectively.
• Committee on Agenda Setting headed for the GRP by ASEC. Jovenal Lazaga and for the MILF by Moner Bajunaid
• Committee on Cessation of Hostilities headed for the GRP by AFP Chief of Staff Jocelyn Nazareno, and for the MILF by Atty. Lanang Ali.

Technical Committee on Cessation of Hostilities
• After the GRP and MILF Peace Panels formed their Technical Committees, they directed their Technical Committee on Cessation of Hostilities to meet, which agreed, among other things, for the declaration of an Interim Cessation of Hostilities in Buldon on January 27, 1997.

– To return the municipal mayor of Buldon who was forced to go to safer places as a result of the fighting in his town.
– GRP and MILF forces to maintain “as is where is”.
– All AFP troops deployed in Buldon, Maguindanao from January 1, 1997 up to 27 will be withdrawn.
– AFP and MILF will refrain from provocative action against the other.
– The MILF to remove and shall not establish checkpoints, roadblocks along the road networks from Parang to Buldon.

To prevent further escalation of the fighting in many parts of Mindanao, the Parties forged the Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities on July 18, 1997 wherein both committed their respective “Armed Forces” to the Cessation of Hostilities in Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan.

• To direct their respective sub-committee on cessation of hostilities to meet on June 30, 1997 to draw and finalize the Guidelines and Ground Rules for the Implementation of this Agreement.

• To resume and proceed with the formal talks in a venue to be mutually agreed upon by the GRP and MILF Peace Panels.

• In a secret document, the GRP agreed to sign to withdraw from Rajamuda on condition that MILF sign this Agreement.

Supplementary agreements to strengthen the Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities:
• Implementing Administrative Guidelines on the GRP-MILF Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities of September 12, 1997
• Implementing Operational Guidelines on the GRP-MILF Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities of November 14, 1997
• Internal Procedure in the Conduct of the GRP-MILF Meetings (February 17, 1999)
• Rules and Procedures in the Administration of the Joint Secretariat of the GRP-MILF CCCHs (May 18, 1999)
• Agreement on Safety and Security Guarantees for MILF Members Directly and Personally Involved in the Peace Process (March 9, 2000)
• The Parties also created the Quick Response Team (QRT), Interim Ceasefire Monitoring Committee (ICMC), and the Independent Fact-Finding Committee (IFFC).

The Committee on Agenda Setting
The MILF proposed a single talking point agenda– and the GRP agreed:
“How to solve the Bangsamoro Problem”

The MILF explained that “How to solve the Bangsamoro Problem” involves a variety of social, cultural, economic and political issues and concerns that include, but not limited to the following: 
1. Ancestral Domain
2. Displaced and landless Bangsamoro
3. Destruction of properties and war victims
4. Human rights issues
5. Social and cultural discrimination
6. Corruption of the mind and the moral fiber
7. Economic inequities and widespread poverty
8. Exploitation of natural resources
9. Agrarian related issues

• The above issues and concerns are what we perceived to be the Bangsamoro problem, which will be addressed through a negotiated political settlement in the form of a comprehensive compact.
• The late MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim said: “The most civilized and practical way of solving the BM problem is through a negotiated political settlement.”

The nine (9) talking points are later reduced to six (6) points:
1. Ancestral Domain/ Agrarian Related Issues.
2. Destruction of Properties and Victims of War/ Displaced and Landless Bangsamoro.
3. Human Rights Issues.
4. Social and Cultural Discrimination/ Corruption of the Mind and Moral Fiber.
5. Economic Inequities and Widespread Poverty.
6. Exploitation of Natural Resources 

Signing of the general framework of agreement of intent between GRP and MILF on August 27, 1998 under the Estrada Administration.
• GRP and MILF Panels have renewed their commitment to pursue peace negotiations on the substantive issues until a political settlement is reached.
• They committed for the protection and respect of human rights in accordance with the principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• The Parties pledge to refrain from the use or threat of force to attain undue advantage while the peace negotiations on the substantive issues are ongoing.
• The Parties recognize that there will be lasting peace in Mindanao when there is mutual trust, justice, freedom, and tolerance for the identity, culture, way of life and aspirations of all peoples of Mindanao.

Note: The use of the word “freedom,” the most contentious issue.

Acknowledgement of seven (7) MILF Camps out of the 46 camps covered by the cessation of hostilities
• The acknowledgment of MILF camps is a confidence-building measure in furtherance of the peace process.
• To effectively implement the general cessation of hostilities and thus to avoid armed encounters or confrontations between MILF and GRP forces.
 Camp Abubak’r As-Siddique in Maguindanao
 Camp Bushra in Lanao Del Sur
 Camp Rajamuda in Maguindanao and North Cotabato
 Camp Darapanan in Maguindanao
 Camp Omar in Maguindanao
 Camp Bad’r in Maguindanao
 Camp Bilal in Lanao Del Norte

First acknowledgment on February 10, 1999; Second acknowledgment was on October 6, 1999.

October 25, 1999 Formal Opening of the Peace Talks in 
Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao

• Three years in preparation
• Ambassador Manuel Yan, GRP chief peace negotiator with MNLF
• Embassy officials from Manila
• WAMY assistant Secretary General

Agreement on the Rules and Procedures on the Conduct of the Formal Peace Talks between the GRP and MILF Panels (December 17, 1999)
The Parties agreed on the ff:
• Agenda for Peace Talks, to be prepared by GRP and MILF Technical Committees
• Venue and Schedule of the Peace Talks, GRP and MILF Peace Panels shall hold their talks in a venue to be previously by the Parties.
• Attendance/Quorum, Official members of each panel shall attend regularly.
• In case of permanent disability or for any reason, a substitute is allowed provided there is prior notice to the other Party.
• A majority of each panel shall be present to have a quorum.
• Presiding Officer, the two panel chairmen shall act as co-presiding officer.
• Permanent Secretariat
• To document proceedings.
• To prepare and submit agenda of meeting.
• To prepare highlights of consensus points/agreements
• To handle administrative requirements.

– Meeting Flow
• Invocation
• Opening Remarks
• Approval of Agenda for Meeting
• Adoption of Reports of Previous Meeting
• Discussion of Unfinished Agenda
• Discussion of Agenda Items
• Adoption of Consensus Points/Agreements
• Adoption of Proposed Agenda, Schedule and Venue of Next Meeting
• Adoption of Joint Statement/Press Release 
– Media Coverage
• Mutually agreed upon by the Parties
– Confidentiality
– Amendments
– Safety and Security Matters
– Effectively
• Usually after signing

First Round of Formal Peace Talks (February 15, 2000)
• Acknowledged all agreements entered into by the parties
• Tasked the Technical Committees to cluster the approved nine (9) talking points (Already stated earlier)

Second Round of Formal Peace Talks (March 2, 2000)
• Adopted the nine (9) Agenda items submitted by the MILF which was later clustered to six (6) aggregations.

Third Round of Formal Peace Talks (March 9, 2000)
• Adoption of the highlights of the Technical Committee Meeting.
• Signing of the Agreement on Safety and Security Guarantees.

Aide Memoiré (April 27, 2000) 
• Both Panels agreed that the GRP shall prepare a paper on the proposed political package to be presented to the MILF within 72 hours from date of the meeting. The MILF, on the other hand, shall be given enough time for consultation and thereafter respond to the package.
• The Parties agreed to normalize the situation in Mindanao for the sake of the people and the peace process.
• They also agreed that there is a need to pursue the ongoing peace process between the GRP and MILF in order to achieve stability and development in Mindanao.
• To normalize the situation along the Narciso Ramos Highway, both Chairmen agreed to study the following proposals:
– PNP to takeover in ensuring security and law and order at the highway. (If possible show a map of the highway and Camp Abubakar).
– For GRP and MILF units to remain in their current positions.

Note: Barely six hours after signing, AFP attacked Camp Abubakar from almost all sides, a very clear example of GRP double talk and the use of outright lies in deceiving the MILF.

ALL-OUT WAR OF ESTRADA (April 27, 2000) 
• All-out war was first declared by President in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte on March 16, 2000 after his grandson, 1st Lt. Don Alfonso Javier, was slain in battle against MILF forces on March 15, 2000 in Inudaran, Kauswagan, Lanao Del Norte. 
• About one million people were displaced.
• Hundreds of houses were burned by AFP troops and paramilitary forces.
• Billions worth of government and private properties were destroyed including power lines, bridges, etc.
• At the height of the war, the government was spending P100 million a day in its offensive in Mindanao.
• Two-third of the entire firepower of the AFP were deployed in Mindanao.
• Peace Talks collapsed completely on June 15, 2000 after the MILF disbanded its peace panel and declared an all-out jihad against the government.
• On July 19, when AFP captured the lower portion of Camp Abubakar (the upper or forested portion still effectively under MILF control), President Estrada personally and together with his Cabinet came to Camp Abubakar to celebrate the “victory”.
– They raised the Philippine flag in a Muslim school.
– Roasted pigs and drank liquor, totally unmindful of the religious sensibilities of the Muslims.

GRP-MILF Peace Talks: Diplomatic Stage with a Foreign 3rd Party Facilitation
(March 24, 2001 – Present)
• In February 2001, Estrada was ousted from powers by People Power EDSA II and Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was sworn in as the new president of the Philippines.
– Immediately reversed the all-out war policy of Estrada and started to establish contact with the MILF for the possible resumption of the peace talks.
– At first, the MILF was very reluctant and seriously doubted the sincerity of the government. But after sometime and serious considerations, the MILF replied affirmatively but with the following conditions:
• All past agreements must be respected and to be implemented.
• Talks must be held outside of the Philippines.
• To be facilitated by OIC or any member state. 
• President Arroyo also contacted the former Malaysian Prime Minster Dr. Mahathir Mohammad for Malaysia’s possible facilitation of the talks. To do this, she paid an official visit to Kuala Lumpur, which so far was her first foreign visit since she became president.
• The Malaysian Government, after consulting the MILF, facilitated the talks. 

Agreement on the general framework for the resumption of the peace talks between the GRP and the MILF (March 24, 2001)
• The parties agreed to resume the stalled peace talks immediately after signing of this agreement and shall continue until they shall have reached a negotiated political settlement of the Bangsamoro Problem.
• Organize the Peace Panels
• MILF shall reciprocate to GRP’s SOMO
• Respect and implement past agreements
• Relief and rehabilitation of evacuees
• Commitment to negotiate with sincerity and mutual trust, justice and freedom, and respect for the identity, culture and aspirations of all peoples of Mindanao
• Both Parties expressed gratitude for the gracious hospitality of the Malaysian Government.

Tripoli Agreement on Peace (June 22, 2001)
• Security Aspect
• Rehabilitation Aspect
• Ancestral Domain Aspect

After the Agreement on Intent, this is the most important agreement signed by the Parties; it is considered a mother agreement which all succeeding agenda or agreements are based.

Finding New Formula

The negotiation and peaceful resolution of the conflict must involve consultations with the Bangsamoro people free of any imposition in order to provide chances of success and open new formulas that permanently respond to the aspirations of the Bangsamoro people for freedom.

What does “new formula” mean?
• It means, the framework of talks is no longer the shallow constitutional processes as in the GRP-MNLF peace process but refers to International Humanitarian Laws and Human Rights Laws, and also the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights.
• New formula may also mean the exclusion of autonomy as envisaged in the ARMM but for some higher form of self-governance.
• It can also mean an invitation for the Parties to examine current trends in conflict resolutions in the world today, as in South Sudan, Kosovo, Bougainville, Ireland, and even Aceh.
• It is a process by which the Parties, after they diagnosed the Moro Problem thoroughly, will assemble all the negotiated parts to form a new political entity of its kind.

Security Aspect
• International Monitoring Team (IMT)
Note: Japan joined the IMT socio-economic monitors on July 23, 2006. Sweden has already joined; Canada has also applied. 
• Coordinating Committees on the Cessation of Hostilities (CCCH)
• Local Monitoring Team (LMT)
• Ad-hoc Joint Action Group (AHJAG)

The Security Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is basically about human security and ceasefire.

THE Coordinating Committees on the Cessation of Hostilities:
• Monitors and supervises the ceasefire.
• Conducts inquiry on alleged violation by either side.
• Visitations and inspections of conflict-affected areas (CAAs).

THE International Monitoring Team:
• 60-man: 42 Malaysian, 10 Bruneians, and 7 Libyans, Japan, 1; has five team sites: TS-1 in Cotabato City, TS-2 in Iligan City, TS-3 in Zamboanga City, TS-4 in Davao City, and TS-5 in General Santos City. IMT GHQ is also situated in Cotabato City.
• On July 23, 2006, Japan joined the IMT in its socio-economic monitoring functions.
• IMT has practically reduced the fighting into zero-level since it arrived on October 10, 2004.

THE Local Monitoring Team:
• Serves as the principal ceasefire monitors at the local level.
• Composed of Representatives from LGUs, MILF, NGO-GRP, NGO-MILF, and Religious Sectors.

THE Ad-hoc Joint Action Group:
• To interdict and isolate criminal syndicates and other similar criminals in or near MILF communities or areas.
• MILF signed to show that it is not a terrorist organization but a truly revolutionary organization with a clear and legitimate political agenda.

Rehabilitation Aspect
• Affirms the Parties’ observance of International Humanitarian Law and respect for internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedom for all persons in Mindanao.
• Cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of serious violations of international humanitarian laws and human rights as well as violations of this Agreement.

Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA)
Development agency of the MILF tasked “to determine, lead and manage rehabilitation and development projects in conflict affected areas.”

Ancestral Domain Aspect
• What is ancestral domain or ancestral land? 
“They are those held under claim of ownership, occupied or possessed, by themselves or through their ancestors of the Bangsamoro people, communally or individually since time immemorial continuously to the present, except when prevented by war, civil disturbances, force majeure, or other forms of possible usurpations or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, as a consequence of the government project or any other voluntary dealing entered into by the government and private individuals, corporate entities o institutions.”

• Divided into four (4) Strands:
– Strand on Concept
– Strand on Territory
– Strand on Resources
– Strand on Governance

• All in all the Parties have signed 29 consensus points

Remaining agenda for the GRP-MILF Peace Talks

MOA on Ancestral Domain
• Finding a political settlement of the Bangsamoro problem, this will be in the form of comprehensive compact. 

Summary of the Peace Process
• Ten (10) years in the making: January 7, 1997 to Present (2008).
• GRP, MILF Signed 72 Documents:
– 45 documents in Mindanao w/o a 3rd Party Facilitator (January 7, 2000 to June 15, 2000) 4 Formal Talks; 10 Informal Talks; 31Technical Committee Meetings
– 27 documents signed outside of the Philippines w/ 3rd Party Facilitator, mainly by Malaysia and only once by Libya (March 24, 2001 to July 2006) 4 Formal Talks; 13 Exploratory Talks; 1 Backchannel talks; 1 Indirect Talks (Signing of IMT TOR on September 28, 2004).
Thousands of armed confrontations, two major, scores of medium, and countless minor.
• GRP chief peace negotiators: Lt. General Fortunato Abat, Major General Orlando Soriano, Major Gen. Edgardo Batenga, Col. and Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Atty. Jesus Dureza, and Secretary Silvestre Afable, Jr.; MILF chief peace negotiators: Vice Chairman Ghazali Jaafar, Vice Chairman Abdulazis Mimbantas, Vice Chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, and Mohagher Iqbal, MILF chief information officer.

Present Status of the Peace Talks
 The 13th GRP-MILF Exploratory Talks, September 6-7, 2006
 Talks bogged down on the issue of territory and constitutional processes
 GRP peace panel has no mandate
 GRP asked for more time to present new proposal
 September 30; October 31; November 15.
 On Nov. 9 the GRP has submitted a new proposal with right to self-determination as the main sweetener.
 War almost ensued
 Peace talks in December 2007 (14th Exploratory Talks) has been stalled when MILF aborted the panel in Kuala Lumpur due to inconsistencies part of the GRP by presenting different drafts of proposals incongruent to what was agreed in the previous meetings.
 On July 16, 2008, peace talks were revived when both parties agreed on the contention about Ancestral Domain and will continue formally by July 24.
 MILF will now adhere to the Philippine Constitution by expanding ARMM by instituting 735 barangays through plebiscite.
 Signing of a MOA on Ancestral Domain is in grasp now after their meeting last July 16.
 MILF requested to postpone the ARMM’s August elections to pave the way for the peace process in creating a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity, an expanded ARMM territory with much greater power of self-rule.
 The signing was stopped by a TRO issued by the Supreme Court due to petitions filed by the people of N. Cotabato, Zamboanga, and Iligan led by Gov. Piňol et al.
 Oral arguments are going-on in the Supreme Court for examining the constitutionality of the MOA-AD.
 Armed conflicts erupted in N. Cotabato, Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur between AFP and some MILF renegades due to the dismayed and disappointments resulted by the aborted signing of MOA-AD.

A.M.Nassef

How to determine China-made goods - A REPOST

A repost from an email sent to me by my fraternity brother, Fiscal Willy C. Andres of Quezon City.

Dear Family and Friends,

The whole world is scared of China-made 'black hearted goods'. Can you differentiate which ones are made in the USA , Philippines , Taiwan or China ? Let me tell you how... the first 3 digits of the barcode is the country code wherein the product was made.

Sample: all barcodes that start with 690.691.692 until 695 are all MADE IN CHINA.
471 is Made in Taiwan



This is our human right to know, but the government and related department never educate the public, therefore we have to RESCUE ourselves.

Nowadays, Chinese businessmen know that consumers do not prefer products 'made in china', so they don't show from which country it is made.

However, you may now refer to the barcode, remember if the first 3 digits is 690-695 then it is Made in China .

00 ~ 13 USA & CANADA
30 ~ 37 FRANCE
40 ~ 44 GERMANY
49 ~ JAPAN
50 ~ UK
57 ~ Denmark
64 ~ Finland
76 ~ Switzerland and Lienchtenstein
628 ~ Saudi-Arabien
629 ~ United Arab Emirates
740 ~ 745 - Central America

All 480 Codes are Made in the Philippines.

Please inform your family and friends for them to be aware.


Wednesday

SC Denies MR of CA Justices

I have merely reposted the news from the Supreme Court website. I shall make a case law analysis later.

Reposted from : Court News Flash October 2008

Posted: October 15, 2008
By Jay B. Rempillo


The Supreme Court today denied with finality the motions for reconsideration of all but one of the Court of Appeals (CA) justices found to have committed irregularities and improprieties in the handling of the case between the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). 

In a 33-page per curiam resolution, the Court also denied with finality the motion for reconsideration of businessman Mr. Francis de Borja. It held that apart from the separate concurring and dissenting opinion of one Justice, the Justices’ votes and inhibitions in its assailed September 9, 2008 decision remained unchanged. 

The Court explained that the said decision was fully supported by the facts on record and is in accordance with the law and prevailing jurisprudence. It found that there are no substantial grounds to reverse its previous judgment.

“Wherefore, the Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas; Motion for Reconsideration dated September 15, 2008 filed by Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.; Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.; A Plea for Compassion and Clemency dated September 22, 2008 filed by Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal; and Motion for Reconsideration dated September 26, 2008 filed by Mr. Francis de Borja are denied with finality,” the dispositive portion of the resolution stated.

The Court, in its September 9, 2008 decision: 

1. Dismissed from the service Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas for “violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits if any, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or service of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations”; 

2. Suspended for two months without pay Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. who “is found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming a justice of the CA, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty”; 

3. Severely reprimanded Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez Jr. “for his failure to act promptly and decisively in order to avert the incidents that damaged the image of the CA, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty”; 

4. Reprimanded Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes Jr. who “is found guilty of simple misconduct with mitigating circumstance, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar 7acts will warrant a more severe penalty”; and 

5. Admonished Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal who "is found guilty of conduct unbecoming a justice of the CA" and who is enjoined "to be more circumspect in the discharge of her judicial duties." 

The SC referred to the Bar Confidant for appropriate action Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chair Camilo L. Sabio’s "act to influence the judgment of a member of the judiciary in a pending case." Likewise, it also acted on the complaint filed by Justice Sabio against businessman Francis R. de Borja by referring it to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.

The Court dismissed Roxas’ explanation that the “haste” in which his decision in the Meralco-GSIS case was promulgated was because of his intention to “efficiently” dispose of such, among others. It held that “the haste in which the decision was promulgated was taken in context with other suspicious circumstances and improprieties on (Roxas’) part which led the (Investigating) Panel and this Court to believe that he was unduly interested in the Meralco-GSIS case.” 

The Court said that it was not insensitive to the situation of Roxas, who had pleaded for suspension instead in lieu of dismissal, and his staff but stressed that it is the Court’s duty to protect and preserve the integrity and independence of the CA and the whole Judiciary. “We must emphasize that where the finding of administrative guilt is well supported by the evidence on record, as in this case, this Court must impose the penalty warranted under the law and prevailing jurisprudence,” it said.

On Justice Sabio, the Court agreed with the Panel “that Justice Sabio, by his own action, or more accurately inaction, failed to maintain the high standard of independence and propriety that is required of him” referring to the former’s telephone conversation with his brother Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chair Camilo Sabio who had discussed the merits of GSIS’s position. With regard the alleged bribery attempt, the Court said that “Justice Sabio merely set himself up for another insult or assault on his integrity” when he still called de Borja even after he was offered the bribe. “Taking his conversation with his brother and his encounters with Mr. de Borja together, Justice Sabio gives the impression that he is accessible to lobbyists who would unfairly try to manipulate court proceedings,” the Court said.

On CA Presiding Justice Vasquez, the Court said that the former failed “to timely and effectively act in the chairmanship dispute between Justices Sabio and Bienvenido L. Reyes Jr. It stressed that the Presiding Justice should have stepped in to prevent the dispute and enmity between the two from escalating.

On Justice Vidal, the Court clarified that her admonition was not in the nature of a penalty. It held that an admonition “is a warning or reminder, counseling on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or warning.” “We see no need to be even more compassionate than we already have when Justice Vidal herself admits to being ‘remiss’ in this instance,” the Court said.

On de Borja, the Court stressed that the former is neither a complainant nor a respondent in the present administrative matter. It found unnecessary to pass on most of de Borja’s arguments and reliefs prayed for by him for lack of standing.
(AM No. 08-8-11-CA, Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA-GR SP No. 103692, October 15, 2008)

Unconstitutionality of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain

The decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the aborted Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domains hinges the ponencia on the extent of the discretionary power of the President, in pursuing peace negotiations with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, whether it was done within the bounds prescribed by the Constitution, or with grave abuse of discretion which amounted to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

This is also another battle ground regarding the claim of executive privilege by the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, although corollarily, but in relation to my research on the development of the doctrine of executive privilege in the country.

This case law post is also my contribution for Blog Action Day 2008.

The case at bar is as follows:

FACTS:

On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF, through the Chairpersons of their respective peace negotiating panels, were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.  However,   the signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF was not to materialize,  for upon motion of petitioners, specifically those who filed their cases before the scheduled signing of the MOA-AD, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the GRP from signing the same.  

The MILF is a rebel group which was established in March 1984 when, under the leadership of the late Salamat Hashim, it splintered from the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) then headed by Nur Misuari, on the ground, among others, of what Salamat perceived to be the manipulation of the MNLF away from an Islamic basis towards Marxist-Maoist orientations. Late in the administration of President Fidel Ramos, the GRP and the MILF peace negotiations began. On July 18, 1997, the GRP and MILF Peace Panels signed the Agreement on General Cessation of Hostilities. The following year, they signed the General Framework of Agreement of Intent on August 27, 1998.  

However, talks broke down in 2000 which led to the "all-out war" of President Joseph Estrada against the MILF forces in Central and Southern Mindanao. When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office, she sought for the resumption of the peace talks with the help of then Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad. The parties met in Kuala Lumpur on March 24, 2001, with the talks being facilitated by the Malaysian government, the parties signing on the same date the Agreement on the General Framework for the Resumption of Peace Talks Between the GRP and the MILF. The MILF thereafter suspended all its military actions.

Formal peace talks between the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya from June 20-22, 2001, the outcome of which was the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001) containing the basic principles and agenda on the following aspects of the negotiation: Security Aspect, Rehabilitation Aspect, and Ancestral Domain Aspect. With regard to the Ancestral Domain Aspect, the parties in Tripoli Agreement 2001 simply agreed “that the same be discussed further by the Parties in their next meeting.”

A second round of peace talks was held in Cyberjaya, Malaysia on August 5-7, 2001 which ended with the signing of the Implementing Guidelines on the Security Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement 2001 leading to a ceasefire status between the parties. This was followed by the Implementing Guidelines on the Humanitarian Rehabilitation and Development Aspects of the Tripoli Agreement 2001, which was signed on May 7, 2002 at Putrajaya, Malaysia.  Meanwhile, then MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim passed away on July 13, 2003 and he was replaced by Al Haj Murad, who was then the chief peace negotiator of the MILF. Murad’s position as chief peace negotiator was taken over by Mohagher Iqbal.

In 2005, several exploratory talks were held between the parties in Kuala Lumpur, eventually leading to the crafting of the draft MOA-AD in its final form, which, as mentioned, was set to be signed last August 5, 2008.

ISSUE/S:

The parties were asked by the COurt to submit their respective position papers and memoranda on the issues at hand. Hence, the following issues were raised:

(1) Whether the petitions have become moot and academic?

(2) Whether the constitutionality and the legality of the MOA is ripe for adjudication?

(3) Whether respondent GRP Peace Panel committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it negotiated and initiated the MOA vis-à-vis ISSUES Nos. 4 and 5?

(4) Whether there is a violation of the people’s right to information on matters of public concern under a state policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest including public consultation under Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code)?

(5) Whether by signing the MOA, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines would be BINDING itself:

  1. to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a separate state, or a juridical, territorial or political subdivision not recognized by law;
  2. to revise or amend the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the MOA; and
  3. concede to or recognize the claim of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front for ancestral domain in violation of Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous People's Rights Act)

(6) Whether the inclusion/exclusion of the Province of North Cotabato, Cities of Zamboanga, Iligan and Isabela, and the Municipality of Linamon, Lanao del Norte in/from the areas covered by the projected Bangsamoro Homeland is a justiciable question?

(7) Whether desistance from signing the MOA derogates any prior valid commitments of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines?

But for the purposes of this article, I shall tackle only the substantive aspect of the case, namely items 3, 4 and 5.

RULING:

The people's right to information was violated by
non-disclosure of the Respondents of the salient points
of the MOA-AD

That the subject of the information sought in the present cases is a matter of public concern faces no serious challenge. In fact, respondents admit that the MOA-AD is indeed of public concern, involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, which directly affects the lives of the public at large. Matters of public concern covered by the right to information include steps and negotiations leading to the consummation of the contract.  

Intended as a “splendid symmetry” to the right to information under the Bill of Rights is the policy of public disclosure under Section 28, Article II of the Constitution reading:

Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

The right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand information, while Section 28 recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody demands. The policy of public disclosure establishes a concrete ethical principle for the conduct of public affairs in a genuinely open democracy, with the people’s right to know as the centerpiece. It is a mandate of the State to be accountable by following such policy. These provisions are vital to the exercise of the freedom of expression and essential to hold public officials at all times accountable to the people.

The imperative of a public consultation, as a species of the right to information, is evident in the “marching orders” to respondents. The mechanics for the duty to disclose information and to conduct public consultation regarding the peace agenda and process is manifestly provided by E.O. No. 3. The preambulatory clause of E.O. No. 3 declares that there is a need to further enhance the contribution of civil society to the comprehensive peace process by institutionalizing the people’s participation.

Clearly, E.O. No. 3 contemplates not just the conduct of a plebiscite to effectuate “continuing” consultations, contrary to respondents’ position that plebiscite is “more than sufficient consultation.” In fine, E.O. No. 3 establishes petitioners’ right to be consulted on the peace agenda, as a corollary to the constitutional right to information and disclosure. 

The MOA-AD is inconsistent with the 
Constitution and laws as presently worded

In general, the objections against the MOA-AD center on the extent of the powers conceded therein to the BJE. Petitioners assert that the powers granted to the BJE exceed those granted to any local government under present laws, and even go beyond those of the present ARMM. Before assessing some of the specific powers that would have been vested in the BJE, however, it would be useful to turn first to a general idea that serves as a unifying link to the different provisions of the MOA-AD, namely, the international law concept of association. Significantly, the MOA-AD explicitly alludes to this concept, indicating that the Parties actually framed its provisions with it in mind.

Notable authors in international law describes that "association" is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic model, one state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, the principal, while maintaining its international status as a state. Free associations represent a middle ground between integration and independence.  The MOA-AD contains many provisions which are consistent with the international legal concept of association, specifically the following: the BJE’s capacity to enter into economic and trade relations with foreign countries, the commitment of the Central Government to ensure the BJE’s participation in meetings and events in the ASEAN and the specialized UN agencies, and the continuing responsibility of the Central Government over external defense. Moreover, the BJE’s right to participate in Philippine official missions bearing on negotiation of border agreements, environmental protection, and sharing of revenues pertaining to the bodies of water adjacent to or between the islands forming part of the ancestral domain, on any foreign affairs matter affecting them.

No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having an “associative” relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government. It also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state. The Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory for independence. Even the mere concept animating many of the MOA-AD’s provisions, therefore, already requires for its validity the amendment of constitutional provisions.

The BJE is a far more powerful entity than the autonomous region recognized in the Constitution.  It is not merely an expanded version of the ARMM, the status of its relationship with the national government being fundamentally different from that of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo Convention, namely, a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states.  

Even assuming arguendo that the MOA-AD would not necessarily sever any portion of Philippine territory, the spirit animating it – which has betrayed itself by its use of the concept of association – runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic.  

The defining concept underlying the relationship between the national government and the BJE being itself contrary to the present Constitution, it is not surprising that many of the specific provisions of the MOA-AD on the formation and powers of the BJE are in conflict with the Constitution and the laws.  

The Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process 
acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
 
entered into with the MOA-AD without regard 

to the public's right to information


An essential element of these twin freedoms is to keep a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government and the people. Corollary to these twin rights is the design for feedback mechanisms. The right to public consultation was envisioned to be a species of these public rights.

At least three pertinent laws animate these constitutional imperatives and justify the exercise of the people’s right to be consulted on relevant matters relating to the peace agenda. 

One, E.O. No. 3 itself is replete with mechanics for continuing consultations on both national and local levels and for a principal forum for consensus-building. In fact, it is the duty of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process to conduct regular dialogues to seek relevant information, comments, advice, and recommendations from peace partners and concerned sectors of society.  

Two, Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 requires all national offices to conduct consultations before any project or program critical to the environment and human ecology including those that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in such locality, is implemented therein. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro people, which could pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of inhabitants from their total environment.

Three, Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 provides for clear-cut procedure for the recognition and delineation of ancestral domain, which entails, among other things, the observance of the free and prior informed consent of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples. Notably, the statute does not grant the Executive Department or any government agency the power to delineate and recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement or compromise.  

The invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege as a defense to the general right to information or the specific right to consultation is untenable. The various explicit legal provisions fly in the face of executive secrecy. In any event, respondents effectively waived such defense after it unconditionally disclosed the official copies of the final draft of the MOA-AD, for judicial compliance and public scrutiny. 

In sum, the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation process, as mandated by E.O. No. 3, Republic Act No. 7160, and Republic Act No. 8371. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted runs contrary to and in excess of the legal authority, and amounts to a whimsical, capricious, oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise thereof. It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined.

DECRETAL PORTION:

WHEREFORE, respondents’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. The main and intervening petitions are GIVEN DUE COURSE and hereby GRANTED.  

The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is declared contrary to law and the Constitution.  

SO ORDERED.


Puno, CJ., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Azcuna, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Corona, J., joined the Dissent of the  J. Tinga.
Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ., pls. see Separate Opinions
Velasco and Nachura, JJ., please see Dissenting Opinions
Leonardo-de Castro and Brion, JJ., please see Dissenting and Concurring Opinions

POLITICAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATION OF THIS DECISION

With the declaration that the MOA-AD is unconstitutional, any future agreements, of the same nature or shall include any or all of the provisions of the MOA-AD, would be meeting the same fate as this agreement. It also shattered the desire of the Bangsamoros, to negotiate an arrangement with the Philippine government, that would come nearest to their goal of independence. Hence, the only means they could secure such dream would either be: 

  1. to negotiate for an enlarged ARMM and a greatly empowered autonomous region, within the framework of the current Constitution and the Local Government Code;
  2. to advocate for a Charter Change and push for the shift from a Unitary to a Federal form of government, thus paving the way, for a Bangsamoro Federal State;
  3. although it is not legally feasible, to secede from the Republic via revolution.

The far-reaching consequences of this case would test not only the creativity of the government in coming up with an alternative agreement in lieu of the junked MOA-AD to lure the MILF back to the negotiating table. The MILF would not agree to any drafts incompatible with this MOA. They shall clearly push for this or any similar agreement, or would likely use it as basis for any future concessions with the government.

Though it would be late in the day to blame anyone, the government peace panel should take the fall for this blunderbuss. Had they negotiated within the framework of the Constitution and the laws, we would not have been in this dilemna right now. The MILF has clearly been hungered by the concession the government is ready to give for the sake of a lasting peace in the South, and they shall not rest until an agreement within the context of the MOA-AD is concluded. Let me state that I fully respect the right of the Bangsamoro for self-determination, moreso their right to derive benefit from their ancestral lands. But I maintain that it must be an agreement that shall neither dismember any province nor sever any areas from the Republic of the Philippines.

Our development as a country is anchored on the advancement of our people. Poverty is not solved by segregating people and grouping them together according to race and creed. Neither shall it uplift the impoverished citizens among us. Proof of this is the predominantly Christian Manila and Luzon, and yet there are some Christians that are living a sub-standard existence. It is therefore not the solution to the long standing problem of poverty. The key is equalizing opportunities for all - in education, health, employment, social services and natural resources. We have made large leaps in the integration of our population. Though regionalism still tends to downplay miscellany, cultural diversity is one of our strongest points as a nation. Thus, the only thing remaining would be to redistribute the country's economic resources and invest in the welfare of the Filipino people.

Tolerance is a common characteristic that allowed us to live with one another for the last hundred years. We must not reverse the gains we have made as a nation, but we should also remember that the resolve of the people, particularly those in war-torn Mindanao, is still in hoping for peace - a long and lasting peace.


SC Declares MOA-AD Unconstitutional

I have merely reposted the news from the Supreme Court website. I shall make a case law analysis once the full text of the decision is available.

Reposted from Court News Flash October 2008
Posted: October 14, 2008
By Jay B. Rempillo


The Supreme Court, voting 8-7, today declared “contrary to law and the Constitution” the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect (MOA-AD) of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)-Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001.

In a 89-page decision penned by Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, the Court, granting the main and intervening petitions, enjoined the respondents and their agents from signing and executing the MOA-AD or similar agreements. Likewise, they were directed to conduct public consultations in accordance with the right to information, with respect to any further peace negotiations with the MILF.

“In sum, the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation process, as mandated by EO No. 3, RA 7160, and RA 8371. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted runs contrary to and in excess of the legal authority, and amounts to a whimsical, capricious, oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise thereof. It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined,” the Court said.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, and Justice Ruben T. Reyes, joining the majority vote, all wrote separate opinions. Also joining the majority are Senior Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing and Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez.

Those who voted for the dismissal of the petition and wrote dissenting opinions are Justice Dante O. Tinga, Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, and Justice Arturo D. Brion. Justice Renato C. Corona joined Justice Tinga’s dissent.

The Court held that respondents’ failure to consult the local government units or communities constitutes a departure by respondents from their mandate under EO No. 3. Moreover, respondents exceeded their authority by the mere act of guaranteeing amendments to the Constitution. EO No. 3 defines the authority of the GRP Negotiating panel.

The contents of the MOA-AD are matters of paramount public concern involving public interest in the highest order, the Court stressed.

The Court stressed that the MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws. Not only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying them, namely, the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE (Bangsamoro Juridical Entity), are unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence, it said.

The Court noted that inclusion of provisions in the MOA-AD establishing an associative relationship between the BJE and the Central Government is, itself, a violation of the Memorandum of Instructions from the President dated March 1, 2001, addressed to the government peace panel. Moreover, it virtually guarantees that the necessary amendments to the Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. Neither the GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make such a guarantee. Upholding such an act would amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people themselves through the process of initiative, for the only way that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is through an undue influence or interference with that process

The Court added that while the MOA-AD would not amount to an international agreement or unilateral declaration binding on the Philippines under international law, the respondents’ act of guaranteeing amendments is, by itself, already a constitutional violation that renders the MOA-AD fatally defective. 

The Court denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the non-signing of the MOA-AD and the eventual dissolution of the GRP Peace Panel mooted the present petitions. It ruled that the present petitions provide an exception to the “moot and academic” principle in view of (1) the grave violation of the Constitution involved; (b) the exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest; (c) the need to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and (d) the fact that the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

The Court noted that the MOA-AD is a significant part of a series of agreements necessary to carry out the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace signed by the government and the MILF back in June 2001. Hence, the present MOA-AD can be renegotiated or another one drawn up that could contain similar of significantly dissimilar provisions compared to the original.

The Court, however, found that the prayers for mandamus have been rendered moot in view of the respondents’ action in providing the Court and the petitioners with the official copy of the final draft of the MOA-AD and its annexes.

The Court said that the people’s right to information on matters of public concern under sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution “is in splendid symmetry with the state policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest under sec. 28, Art. II of the Constitution.” The complete and effective exercise of the right to information necessitates that its complementary provision on public disclosure derive the same self-executory nature, subject only to reasonable safeguards or limitations as may be provided by law.

The Court explained that at least three pertinent laws justify the exercise of the people’s right to be consulted on relevant matters relating to the peace agenda:

One, EO No. 3 itself is replete with mechanics for continuing consultations on both national and local levels and for a principal forum for consensus-building;

Two, RA 7160 (the Local Government Code of 1991) requires all national offices to conduct consultations before any project or program critical to the environment and human ecology including those that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in such locality, is implemented therein. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro people, which could pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of inhabitants from their total environment; and 

Three, RA 8371 (the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) provides for clear-cut procedure for the recognition and delineation of ancestral domain, which entails, among other things, the observance of the free and prior informed consent of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples.

The Court also held that invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege as a defense to the general right to information or the specific right to consultation is untenable. 

In his separate opinion, Chief Justice Puno wrote that “the President as Chief Executive can negotiate peace with the MILF but it is peace that will insure that our laws are faithfully executed. The President can seek peace with the MILF but without crossing the parameters of powers marked in the Constitution to separate the other branches of government to preserve our democracy. For even in times of war, our system of checks and balances cannot be infringed. More so in times where the only danger that faces the State is the lesser danger of rebellion…Needless to stress, the power of the President to negotiate with the MILF is not plenary. While a considerable degree of flexibility and breadth is accorded to the peace negotiating panel, the latitude has its limits – the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained by the sovereign people and its postulates may not be employed as bargaining chips without their prior consent.” He observed that “during the whole process, the government peace negotiators conducted themselves free from the strictures of the Constitution.” He added that “respondents’ thesis of violate now, validate later makes a burlesque of the Constitution.” 

Justice Santiago said, among others, that the MOA-AD “contains provisions which are repugnant to the Constitution and which will result in the virtual surrender of part of the Philippines’ territorial sovereignty.” She further said that had the MOA-AD been signed by parties, “would have bound the government to the creation of a separate Bangsamoro state having its own territory, government, civil institutions, and armed forces…The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines would have been compromised.” 

Justice Carpio said that “any peace agreement that calls for amendments to the Constitution, – whatever the amendments may be, including the creation of the BJE – must be subject to the constitutional and legal processes of the Philippines. The constitutional power of Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution, and the constitutional power of the people to approve or disapprove such amendments, can never be disregarded. The Executive branch cannot usurp such discretionary sovereign powers of Congress and the people, as the Executive branch did when it committed to amend the Constitution to conform to the MOA-AD.”

Justice Azcuna agreed with the ponencia but held that had the MOA-AD been signed it would have provided a basis for a claim in an international court that the Philippines was bound by its terms at the very least as a unilateral declaration made before representatives of the international community with the vital interests in the region. Citing Martin Dixon and Robert McCorquodale, Justice Azcuna stated that unilateral acts, concerning legal or factual situations, may have the effect of creating legal obligations. Declarations of this kind may be very specific. When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers on the declaration the character of a legal undertaking. Such undertaking, if given publicly, and with an intent to be bound is binding upon the parties. 

Justice Reyes said that the MOA-AD was unconstitutional stressing that the negotiating panel of the Philippine Government (GRP) “went beyond their marching orders from the President” as the commitment of the GRP to the MILF to change the Constitution in order to conform to the MOA-AD violated the doctrine of separation of powers. Justice Reyes, citing the defects of the MOA-AD, stated that respondents appear to have committed grave abuse of discretion in negotiating and initialing the MOA-AD.

Justice Tinga, who voted to dismiss the petitions on the ground of mootness, said that the fact that the Philippine government has not yet consented to be bound by the MOA-AD, as asserted by the MILF because its draft agreement had been “initialed” by the representatives of the Philippine and Malaysian governments and the MILF, is indubitable, as “the successful outcome of negotiation of international agreements is the adoption and authentication of the agreed text… The initialing of the agreement reflects only the affirmation by the negotiating agents that the text of the prospective agreement is authentic.” 

Justice Tinga nonetheless went into a discussion as to the intrinsic validity of the MOA-AD. He opined that the MOA-AD was incongruous to the Philippine Constitution. “Nothing prevents Congress from amending or reenacting an Organic Act providing for an autonomous region for Muslim Mindanao…Nonetheless, the paramount requirement remains that any organic act providing for autonomy in Mindanao must be in alignment with the Constitution.” He cited provisions of the MOA-AD which were extra-constitutional and diminish national sovereignty as they allocate to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity powers and prerogatives reserved under the Constitution to the State.

Justice Nazario deemed it beyond the power of the Court to stop the Executive Department from entering into agreements similar to the MOA in the future. “Upon the Executive Department falls the indisputably difficult responsibility of diffusing the highly volatile situation in Mindanao resulting from the continued clashes between the Philippine military and Muslim rebel groups. In negotiating for peace, the Executive Department should be given enough leeway and should not be prevented from offering solutions which may be beyond what the present Constitution allows, as long as such solutions are agreed upon subject to the amendment of the Constitution by completely legal means.”

Justice Velasco said that “favorably accommodating the petitioners under the premises cannot but be viewed as an indirect attempt on the part of the Court to control and dictate on the peace prerogatives of the executive branch, and in the process unduly impairing that branch in the performance of its constitutional duties. It will distort the delicate balance of governance which the separation of powers seeks to safeguard.”

Justice Nachura said that “with an abandoned and unsigned MOA-AD and a dissolved peace Panel, any purported controversy has virtually disappeared. Judicial review cannot be exercised where the incipient actual controversy does not remain extant until the termination of the case; this Court cannot provide reliefs for controversies that are no longer there.” He added that “the Court cannot review an inexistent agreement, an unborn contract that does not purport to create rights or impose duties that are legally demandable. Neither will the remedy of prohibition lie against a GRP Peace Panel that no longer exists. To do so would be to flog a dead horse.”

Justice Leonardo-De Castro opined that the detailed analysis of each the stipulations contained in the MOA-AD was rendered unnecessary due to the Memorandum filed by the Office of the Solicitor General repeatedly and categorically stating that the agreement “will not be signed in its present form or in any form.” Such development has rendered the case moot and academic. 

Justice Brion stated that the application of the exceptions to the mootness principle should be subjected to “a strict test because it is a deviation from the general rule.” He stressed that after the respondents declared that the MOA-AD would not be signed there was nothing left to prohibit and no rights on the part of the petitioners continued to be at risk of violation by the agreement. He concluded that the circumstances negated the existence of grave abuse of discretion that justifies the grant of a writ of prohibition, and voted to dismiss the consolidated petitions. (GR Nos. 183591, 183572, 183893, and 183951, The Province of North Cotabato v. Republic, October 14, 2008)

Tuesday

Republic Act No. 7662 - Legal Education Reform Act of 1993


AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION, CREATING FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of 1993."


Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to uplift the standards of legal education in order to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving, and decision-making, to infuse in them the ethics of the legal profession; to impress on them the importance, nobility and dignity of the legal profession as an equal and indispensable partner of the Bench in the administration of justice and to develop social competence.

Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal education system, require proper selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools, and require legal apprenticeship and continuing legal education.

Section 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) Legal education in the Philippines is geared to attain the following objectives:

(1) to prepare students for the practice of law;

(2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society;

(3) to train persons for leadership;

(4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in the light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the Philippines and in other countries.


(b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific objectives:

(1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its various fields and of legal institutions;

(2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze, articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allowthem to have a holistic approach to legal problems and issues;

(3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal problems of the present and the future;

(4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and capacity for continuing study and self-improvement;

(5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal profession; and

(6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms.


Section 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the purpose of this Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes and administrative support to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.

The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be a former justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the following as regular members: a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a representative of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); a representative from the ranks of active law practitioners; and, a representative from the law students' sector. The Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, or his representative, shall be an ex officio member of the Board.

With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector, the Chairman and regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines and members of the Philippine Bar, who have been engaged for at least ten (10) years in the practice of law, as well as in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or recognized law school.

Section 5. Term of Office; Compensation. - The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall be appointed by the President for a term of five (5) years without reappointment from a list of at least three (3) nominees prepared, with prior authorization from the Supreme Court, by the Judicial and Bar Council, for every position or vacancy, and no such appointment shall need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Of those first appointed, the Chairman and the representative of the IBP shall hold office for five (5) years, the representatives of the PALS and the PALP, for three (3) years; and the representative from the ranks of active law practitioners and the representative of the law students' sector, for one (1) year, without reappointment. Appointments to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpire portion of the term of the predecessor.

The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall have the same salary and rank as the Chairman and members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions: Provided, That their salaries shall not be diminished during their term of office.

Section 6. Office and Staff Support. - The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall provide the necessary office and staff support to the Board, with a principal office to be located in Metropolitan Manila.

The Board may appoint such other officers and employees it may deem necessary in the performanceof its powers and functions.

Section 7. Powers and Functions. - For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Act, the Board shall havethe following powers and functions:

(a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Act;

(b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its powers and functions as herein enumerated;

(c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the faculty, the library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning;

(d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation;


(e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications and compensation of faculty members;

(f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, and such other courses of study as may be prescribed by the law schools and colleges under the different levels of accreditation status;

(g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office or firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific period that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such accreditation and the specifications of such internship which shall include the actual work of a new member of the Bar.

(h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary; and

(i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act.


Section 8. Accreditation of Law Schools. - Educational institutions may not operate a law school unless accredited by the Board. Accreditation of law schools may be granted only to educational institutions recognized by the Government.

Section 9. Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The Board may withdraw or downgrade the accreditation status of a law school if it fails to maintain the standards set for its accreditation status.

Section 10. Effectivity of Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The withdrawal or downgrading of accreditation status shall be effetive after the lapse ofthe semester or trimester following the receipt by the school of the notice of withdrawal or downgrading unless, in the meantime, the school meets and/or upgrades the standards or corrects the deficiencies upon which the withdrawal or downgrading of the accreditation status is based.

Section 11. Legal Education Fund. - There is hereby created a special endowment fund, to be known as the Legal Education Fund, which shall be under the control of the Board, and administered as a separate fund by the Social Security System (SSS) which shall invest the same with due and prudent regard to its solvency, safety and liquidity.

The Legal Education Fund shall be established out of, and maintained from, the amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 13 hereof, and from sixty percent (60%) of the privilege tax paid by every lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994; and from such donations, legacies, grant-in-aid and other forms of contributions received by the Board for the purposes of this Act.

Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the Legal Education Fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes of this Act, including support for faculty development grants, professorial chairs, library improvements and similar programs for the advancement of law teaching and education in accredited law schools.

The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this purpose, an amount not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest on the Fund shall be utilized.

The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shall issue the necessary rules and regulations for the collection, administration and utilization of the Fund.

Section 12. Coverage. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to all schools and colleges of law which are presently under the supervision of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Hereafter, said supervision shall be transferred to the Board. Law schools and colleges which shall be established following the approval of this Act shall likewise be covered.

Section 13. Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be charged against the current year's appropriation of the Contingent Fund for the initial expenses of the Board.

To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated annually, under the budget of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for a period of ten (10) years effective Fiscal Year 1994.

Section 14. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or the application thereof to any person, circumstance or transaction is held invalid, the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act and the applicability of such provisions to other persons, circumstances and transactions shall not be affected thereby.

Section 15. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executie orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act is hereby repealed or amended accordingly.

Section 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general circulation.


Approved: 23 December 1993.

Custom Search