ACLAS - Alliance of Concerned Law Students

Alliance of Concerned Law Students

Established 1993

Tested by Time, Taught by Experience.
Only one goal - STUDENT SERVICE at its BEST.

Objectives:


1. Unity in Diversity. The ACLAS believes that the Institute of Law of the Far Eastern University is a representative section of the Philippines, a microcosm of our society. As such, we reach out to the various persons, groups, affiliations, and organizations, in the Institute to foster harmonious relations with all students.

2. More than Adequate Representation. The Student Council should, first and foremost, be the voice of the students. As a Party, we believe in the truthful representation of the students’ concerns and grievances to the proper authorities – to fight no matter what and to face the consequences of our stands.

3. Freedom and Justice for all. The ACLAS’ main and foremost concern is the propagation of a free and just administration in the Institute of Law, either by the school administrators or the student leaders.

4. A Tradition of Quality Service. The ACLAS has been the hallmark of student oriented services. Ever since the party was established and countless student leaders have graced the party’s line-up, our projects have been hailed as exemplars of good student practices.

5. Truthful and Honest Administration. The ACLAS believes in the accountability of its chosen leaders. As such, we have been successful in keeping our role as stewards of the students’ trust.


Platforms:


1. Amendment of the Institute of Law Student Council Constitution
Amendment of the provisions limiting student participation in the electoral processes.

2. Institutionalization of the Commission on Elections and the Political Party System
Creation of a Fixed-term Commission on Elections in accordance with University Rules, creation of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and the Institutionalization of the Political Party System in the Student Council Elections.

3. Pro-active support for the activities of the Central Bar Operations, Legal Rights Center, Far Eastern Law Review and the Moot Court Council
A more positive support for the Institutional Organizations of the Institute, i.e. financial, material and manpower support.

4. Creation of a Student Grievance Committee
The creation of this committee aims to provide an institutionalized venue for the redress of student grievances and look towards the resolution of the problems in a manner that is harmonious and acceptable to all concerned.

5. Continuation of the Law Student Newsletter under a revitalized and independent Editorial System
The Legal Advocate shall become an independent and institutional organization in the Institute of Law in order to foster higher ethical standards for the journalists who shall join its fold.

6. Institutional Celebration of the Law Week
The Law Week Celebration shall become an institutional event that shall mark the establishment of the Institute of Law. During the Law Week, student achievements shall be highlighted and awarded.

7. Institute Intramurals
Sports activities shall become a cornerstone agenda of the ACLAS. Mens sana in corpore sano. Competitive sports tournaments shall be held during the 1st and 2nd Semesters, in order to promote sports activities to all law students. We shall likewise bat for higher subsidies for participants in the Conflicts of Law.

8. Outreach Programs
The Outreach program is an integral part of the party objectives, which aims to help our less fortunate brothers, staying true to our Tamaraw traditions, and causing the development of our society in whatever small measure we may take.

9. Legal and Leadership Training Programs, Forums and Seminars
As law students, legal trainings are essential in our extra-curricular and co-curricular activities, if we can still manage our time. Legal Forums and Seminars should be conducted as much as possible because the Institute of Law is a respected member of the University, upon whom the rest of the studentry reposes their trust.

10. System-wide reform in the Enrollment Process
Problems in the Enrollment process have been the worse issue being raised by students year after year. We shall endeavor to try a new system-wide approach at the enrollment system in the upcoming Summer Enrollment.

11. Voice of the Students
We can never truly define the functions of the Student Council. The functions of the Council are defined by the needs of the students and our needs are overly changing. Just like our government, which cannot act properly if the citizens will not let their voices be heard, the Student Council cannot address your needs if you, the students, do not let us know your needs.

It is wrong to say that the Student Council is working for you. We aim to work with you, our fellow law students. It is with your cooperation that we will truly realize our goals. We are your ears. We are your guide. Never hesitate to voice out your concerns. We are your representatives, and it is our duty to make sure that you are represented.


This area is for students’ voices. We shall represent your voices; we shall promote your interest. You will be our first priority. We shall stand by you although out. We will do it, without promising. We will act on it, without speaking. We will make our stand; together we shall make a difference. Make yourselves heard. We shall make sure that it will reach the highest pinnacle of powers. We shall make it happen. ACLAS – Alliance of Concerned Law Students. All of us are concerned law students, ALL OF US ARE ACLAS!

A Spate of Gubernatorial Reversals - Election 2010

What is going on?

From late last year, a series of gubernatorial election contests, particularly those being handled by the Commission on Elections Second Division consisting of Commissioners Nicodemo Ferrer, Lucenito Tagle, and Elias Yusoph, were being decided in favor of the protestants.

It started with the reversal of the victory of Governor Grace Padaca of Isabela over former Governor Benjamin Dy. Based on the 2007 election results, Padaca had 237,128 votes as against Dy’s 220,121 votes for a margin of 17,007 votes. However, the Second Division resolution, showed that Dy obtained 199,435 votes while Padaca had 198,384 votes for a winning margin of 1,051 votes.

Last week, Governor Joselito Mendoza of Bulacan was ordered by the same COMELEC Division to relinquish the post in favor of former Governor Roberto "Obet" Pagdanganan. In 2007, Mendoza won in 14 out of 24 towns, barely beating Pagdanganan. Mendoza got 364,566 votes while Pagdanganan got 348,834 votes or a margin of 15,732 votes. The result of the revision of ballots showed that Pagdanganan defeated Mendoza by a narrow margin. Pagdanganan garnered 342,295 votes as against 338,064 of Mendoza, or a margin of 4,231 votes.

And just recently, priest and Pampanga Governor Eduardo "Among Ed" Panlilio apparently lost by 2,011 votes against former Board Member Lilia Pineda, wife of alleged jueteng lord Bong Pineda. In 2007, Among Ed won against rival Pineda by a narrow 1,147 votes.

One peculiar feature emerges. All decisions were penned by the poll body's Second Division. All the protestants are Lakas-Kampi-CMD candidates while all protestees are known critics of the Arroyo Administration.

With few months left before a very crucial 2010 elections, the only question that remains in our minds is - what is going on?

Saying hello to 24

To the following persons who greeted me on the occasion of my 24th birthday.

gc yags, atty gatcho, konsi larry, aunt tet, richard, sis da, sis jeng, to cocs, mamooh, gabby, bro jess, sis layla, ninang lala, mi gher, gc bry, jastine, to hen, bro cope, luap, paulo, vice chito, te marlyn, kuya ric, apao, te elaine, tita nona, tita gi, joa ilong, gc thet, mes iza, bernoy, gc gerry, ethel, pan dyo...h, bea, gjay, mommy, ate inah, arnel, robel, konsehala, achurra, vanj, vice marj, sharon, sy, aldrin ALSP, AJ, alvin guts, jenna ortiz, pepe olav, nice, janice, sis liz, jamer, batch hanz, bro ogie, barbie, rudy, mega, caps, veni, rahat, junella, ciara, kuya reneboy, mara, jeydee, rhiny, zarny, pipoy, james, jette, angela, mich, stef pulido, mareng jes, tita nerry, chrissie, noelyn, jasmine, florenz, jaypee, allan, sugar, ghen, ericka, uncle eddie, aunt mel, luis g, johnny och, jomar, gc belmi, marty, nicxliet, iggy, ivah, erik david, thes v, mai, margie, erleen, jeng mupas, bro jonnel, kat2x, bro erwin, gerald, fatima, te edith, bryan pauly, jason thattil, chuchu, mich alfaro, geloy, migz rieta, marj, baiman, charm sem, tita peachie, yvez ilao, bro ryan, aunt anne, batch eduard, tin c, grace indo, beano, jamjam, ehm, joyce es, ulysses, x-bhee, pristine, adhi, hazel reyes, angie HK, issa, arvin, jerrymama, kampoo, ruben, romeo, mara, edward santi, ronnie, jenny jeciel, monique, karla dunham, lo wai, meysil, greyciel, pearl, chris, aris, emman, jaimee, tita emily, garret, gian palad, tina, alex taccad, shomer, april, margette, denise, lee roda, quelly, gene, x-M, hazel bilang, te verlie, xtian bunal, camssy, pablo, dina, angelica, jhane, mycz, vince, eigh, mita pogue, bong, mamay, jeff caganap, dydi, edwin calanog, raph abrina, jason K, pat, byron, keng, maybeline, y’ane, lucky, gc manny e, jing tabernilla, edith alvarez, josephine genuine, danielle, ian roberts…

As of February 5, 2010, 0048H, 201 friends greeted me, through Facebook, Friendster, Multiply, text messages and YM, not counting those who greeted me in person.

additional greetings by February 6, 2010.

bro ice, te nilda, te amy, anita, carol, tukayo/ya, talaokoy, micoco, winston, hazel calica, monrawee, johnjon, karlo sicat, camille manalansan, janelle, mariony, mario, gel, irish, renz nejal...

THANKS FOR ALL THE GREETINGS; I AM OVERWHELMED BY YOUR LOVE. I MAY NOT BE RICH IN WORLDLY POSSESSIONS, BUT I AM VERY HAPPY TO BE CERTAINLY RICH IN FRIENDS AND LOVEONES.

Appointment of the next Chief Justice

Can President Arroyo appoint the next Chief Justice?

This controversy was actually the "drunken" discussion of a fraternity hang-out mid last year when one freshman brod asked my position on the possibility of a No-El, or a no election scenario come 2010. Being the most senior that time, I answered that there can be no No-El since the 1987 Constitution still stands and there are a dozen opponents if ever such scenario happen. But, as I told them back then, the more serious question would be the possibility of having no Chief Justice come May 2010. As I told them, this could be the discussion in the legal and political community next year.

Fast forward to present, true enough, lo and behold, my prediction came true. With the current hype, I feel it is my social responsibility to educate the people regarding this.

The reply to the question is NO!

The 1987 Constitution provides in Article VII, Section 15 that

"Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety." (Emphasis supplied).

The said provision clearly provides a ban on any appointments extended by the President to fill up any vacant offices. This election ban was an out spurt of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aytona v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-19313, January 19, 1962, which laid the doctrine of caretaker government. The Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Bengzon, revoked the midnight or last minute appointments by President Carlos Garcia and said that:

" x x x it is common sense to believe that after the proclamation of the election of President Macapagal, his was no more than a "care-taker" administration. He was duty bound to prepare for the orderly transfer of authority the incoming President, and he should not do acts which he ought to know, would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his successor. x x x The filling up vacancies in important positions, if few, and so spaced to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointee's qualifications may undoubtedly be permitted. But the issuance of 350 appointments in one night and planned induction of almost all of them a few hours before the inauguration of the new President may, with some reason, be regarded by the latter as an abuse Presidential prerogatives, the steps taken being apparently a mere partisan effort to fill all vacant positions irrespective of fitness and other conditions, and thereby deprive the new administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding appointments" (Emphasis supplied).

Hence, it is quite clear that appointments cannot be made by the outgoing President, not only because of a clear constitutional provision, but also because of the doctrine laid down by a landmark case.

However, proponents of an early appointment found a correlative provision on judicial appointments in Article VIII, Section 4 (1) which states that:

"The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof" (Emphasis supplied).

The proponents would have been given an ample legal bullet had there not been a precedent on 1998. The then Narvasa Court, through the case of In Re: Valenzuela and Vallarta A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, November 9, 1998, voided the appointments of two Regional Trial Court judges when President Fidel Ramos did so during the election ban. Chief Justice Narvasa said:

"The Court's view is that during the period stated in Section 15. Article VII of the Constitution — "(t)wo months immediatey before the next presidential elections and up to the end his term" — the President is neither required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so; and that Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII simply mean that the President is required to fill vacancies in the courts within the time frames provided therein unless prohibited by Section 15 of Article VII. It is not noteworthy that the prohibition on appointments comes into effect only once every six years" (Emphasis supplied).

Hence, after clear and concise words from the Constitution and the Supreme Court, the answer is simply, GMA cannot appoint the next CJ!