Philippines offers refugee transit: aid agency

Report from Agence France Press

The Philippines on Friday offered emergency transit facilities on its territory for refugees in a novel arrangement signed with the UN and an aid agency, the latter said.

The agreement was the first formal document of its kind, said the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), a co-signatory with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

It will offer safe passage for refugees "who risk being sent back to countries from which they have fled or who need to transit in another country, pending the processing of their cases and their subsequent resettlement in a third country," IOM said in a statement.

Under the agreement, IOM will provide transport to and within the Philippines for the refugees, as well as onward transport to resettlement countries.

It will also provide medical screening on arrival and prior to departure, as well as cultural orientation to prepare the refugees for their new lives in their country of destination.

"This agreement will result in better protection for refugees in high risk situations, who can now be evacuated to the safety of the Philippines and processed, prior to their permanent resettlement in a third country," said Bruce Reed of the IOM Manila office.

The Philippines foreign office said in a statement that it is a party to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and "has a long-standing commitment to assist the UNHCR in addressing the plight of refugees".

It said the country "has served occasionally as a temporary safe haven for refugees and asylum-seekers not only from Asia, but also from various parts of the globe.
"Philippine refugee centres and policy framework towards assisting the UNHCR have been recognised as models internationally," it added.

The Philippines, which provided military bases for US forces who fought in the Vietnam War, later operated transit facilities for Vietnamese who fled their country by boat.

Some of the boatpeople who chose not to be repatriated or did not gain entry to resettlement countries were eventually given residency status in the Philippines.

Philippines mourns democracy icon Corazon Aquino

Copied verbatim from Yahoo! News Obituary

By JIM GOMEZ, Associated Press Writer Jim Gomez, Associated Press Writer Sun Aug 2, 2:41 am ET

MANILA, Philippines – Thousands of Filipinos lined up for hours Sunday to see the body of former President Corazon Aquino — the beloved democracy icon who swept away a dictator and inspired nonviolent resistance to autocratic rule.

Aquino, 76, died early Saturday in a Manila hospital after a yearlong battle with colon cancer.

Thousands trooped to a suburban Manila university stadium where Aquino's coffin, teeming with yellow roses and orchids, was displayed on a platform.

Some mourners openly wept and carried yellow ribbons — the color that symbolized her democratic advocacy. One held an old poster of Ferdinand Marcos, the strongman she helped depose in 1986.

Aquino rose to prominence after the assassination in 1983 of her husband, opposition leader Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. The uprising she led in 1986 brought down Marcos' repressive 20-year regime and served as an inspiration to nonviolent resistance across the globe, including those that ended communist rule in eastern Europe. Chinese President Hu Jintao sent condolences to Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a statement Sunday.

"Mrs. Aquino is an outstanding leader of the Philippines and she is also a good friend of the Chinese people," Jiang said. "The Chinese government and the Chinese people deeply lament her death."

President Barack Obama was deeply saddened by Aquino's death, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Saturday.

Aquino's supporters had been holding daily prayers for her in churches around the country since she was rushed to intensive care after she stopped eating in late June.

Arroyo, who is on an official visit to the United States, remembered Aquino as a "national treasure" who helped lead "a revolution to restore democracy and the rule of law to our nation at a time of great peril.

Arroyo declared a 10-day national mourning period Saturday.

Maria Corazon Cojuangco was born on Jan. 25, 1933, into a wealthy, politically powerful family in Paniqui, about 75 miles (120 kilometers) north of Manila. Her unlikely rise began in 1983 after her husband was gunned down at Manila's international airport moments after soldiers escorted him from a plane on his arrival from exile in the United States to challenge Marcos, his longtime adversary. Investigations showed one of his military escorts was the assassin.

After the murder, Aquino returned to the Philippines and led the largest funeral procession Manila had ever seen, with crowd estimates as high as 2 million. The killing enraged many Filipinos and unleashed a broad-based opposition movement that thrust Aquino into the role of national leader.

"I don't know anything about the presidency," she declared in 1985, a year before she agreed to run against Marcos, uniting the fractious opposition, the business community, and later the armed forces to drive the dictator out.

In the wake of that election, the Marcos regime — which declared martial law in 1972 and had jailed Aquino's husband — started to unravel.

But Marcos claimed victory in those polls — widely seen as fraudulent — leading a group of military officers to mutiny against him on Feb. 22 and holed up with a small force in a military camp in Manila, leading to three days of protests by hundreds of thousands that finally toppled him.

On Feb. 25, Aquino was sworn in as the Philippines' first female leader and Marcos flew to exile in Hawaii, where he died three years later.

She stepped down in 1992 after serving for six years.

___
Associated Press writers Hrvoje Hranjski and Oliver Teves contributed to this report.

With Finance Disgraced, Which Career Will Be King?

By STEVE LOHR

In the Depression, smart college students flocked into civil engineering to design the highway, bridge and dam-building projects of those days. In the Sputnik era, students poured into the sciences as America bet on technology to combat the cold war Communist challenge. Yes, the jobs beckoned and the pay was good. But those careers, in their day, had other perks: respect and self-esteem.

Big shifts in the flow of talent can ripple through the nation and the economy for decades with lasting effect. The engineers of the Depression built everything from inter-city roads to the Hoover Dam, while the Sputnik-inspired scientists would go on, often with research funding from the Pentagon, to create the building-block innovations behind modern computing and the Internet.

Today, the financial crisis and the economic downturn are likely to alter drastically the career paths of future years. The contours of the shift are still in flux, in part because there is so much uncertainty about the shape of the economic landscape and the job market ahead.

But choosing a career is a guess about the future in which economics is only part of the calculation. Prestige, peer expectations and the climate of public opinion also matter. And early indications suggest new career directions that are tethered less to the dream of an immediate six-figure paycheck on Wall Street than to the demands of a new public agenda to solve the nation’s problems.

The deep recession has clearly battered industries — and professions — whose economics were at risk before the downturn. Law firms are laying off lawyers as never before and questioning the industry’s traditional unit of payment, the billable hour. Journalism is reeling from the falloff in advertising and the inability of newspapers and magazines to make a living on the Web.

Still, the industry whose troubles are having the greatest impact on the rethinking of careers, especially at the nation’s elite universities, is the one at the center of the country’s economic downturn — finance. For years, the hefty paychecks and social status on Wall Street proved irresistible to many of America’s brightest young people, but the jobs, money and social respect there are much diminished today.

“In choosing careers, young people look for signals from society, and Wall Street will no longer pull the talent that it did for so many years,” said Richard Freeman, director of the labor studies program at the National Bureau of Economic Research. “We have a great experiment before us.”

What will the new map of talent flow look like? It’s early, but based on graduate school applications this spring, enrollment in undergraduate courses, preliminary job-placement results at schools, and the anecdotal accounts of students and professors, a new pattern of occupational choice seems to be emerging. Public service, government, the sciences and even teaching look to be winners, while fewer shiny, young minds are embarking on careers in finance and business consulting.

For the highest-paid business fields, the outlook is for a tempering correction instead of an all-out exodus. At Harvard, for example, about 40 percent of undergraduates in recent years went into the most lucrative corporate arenas like finance and consulting, based on surveys at the school year’s end. “That certainly won’t be the case this year,” observed Lawrence Katz, a professor and labor economist who has studied undergraduate career choices at Harvard going back to the 1960s. “We’re seeing students who would have been part of the Ivy League pipeline to Wall Street in the past considering very different career paths.”

Kedamai Fisseha, a 21-year-old senior, is one of them. An economics major, Mr. Fisseha says he always assumed he would go into finance, and his summer internship last year was at the investment bank Morgan Stanley. Yet after Wall Street’s meltdown, job prospects there have withered. Instead, he is interviewing with Teach for America, a nonprofit group that recruits college graduates to teach in hard-to-staff schools for two-year stints. (After that, only one-third stay in the classrooms, though two-thirds remain in education.)

Mr. Fisseha regards the turn of events as an opportunity to broaden his horizons. “It’s been liberating, and lucky for me,” he said. “But your situation does dictate your preferences.”

Graduate schools of government and public policy are seeing a surge of applications. In a survey of its members released last week, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration found that 82 percent reported an increase in applications this year, and many saw the largest percentage jumps in several years, or ever. The most-cited reason was the expectation by students that government will be hiring.

Still, the appeal of public sector careers extends beyond job openings, say school officials. The laissez-faire presumption that government is not the solution but the problem, dating back to the Reagan era, has been cast aside, they say.

The government’s need to step in with financial bailouts and recovery programs to steady the economy is seen as the immediate proof, they say, but not the only one. The environment, energy and health care also pose huge, complex challenges. “Young people today understand that government has a powerful role to play in solving these problems,” said Sandra Archibald, dean of the Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington, where applications this year are up 26 percent.

Government school officials also point to an Obama effect: his election as an endorsement of government activism.

The economy, other long-range policy issues and the new administration, according to David Ellwood, dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, add up to a “benevolent perfect storm,” which could lure talented people to public service in a way not seen in decades.

Yet even before the economic crisis, Mr. Ellwood said, there were signs of a drift among young people toward trying to work on public problems, influenced by everything from the 9/11 attacks to climate change.

Matthew McKnight attended Phillips Exeter Academy and was a freshman at Dartmouth College during the 9/11 attacks. The event and its aftermath, he recalled, left him with a conviction that he should serve his country “because of the opportunities I’d been given.” After graduating from college, Mr. McKnight joined the Marines. His four years in the military included a stint at the State Department in a counterterrorism unit, and he recently returned from 13 months in the field in Iraq.

This fall, Mr. McKnight, 25, is headed to the Kennedy School for a joint-degree program with the Harvard Business School. He may work in the private sector for a couple of years at some point, he said, but he plans to make his career in government service. Mr. McKnight’s particular experience, to be sure, is unusual. But, he said, “There is a big crop of people, like me, who grew up in a different time when public policy and public issues have been at the center of things.”

At leading business schools, too, a shift in career patterns is evident. Last year, 64 percent of the graduating class from the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia went into finance or consulting. Graduation is still a couple of months away, but that percentage will be well down this year, especially in finance, said Jack Oakes, director of the career development center. Jobs in investment banking, for example, are running at less than half the level of last year, while more students are showing an interest in government jobs.

Patricia Foglesong, a second-year student at Darden, turned down a job offer from a major consulting firm. Instead, she is considering two government jobs, one with the Secret Service and another with the Park Service.

“Am I going to be a federal employee for the next 30 years? Probably not,” Ms. Foglesong said. “But public-private partnerships are going to be increasingly important in almost any field. And the timing is right to do this.”

The sciences could well rise in the new pecking order of career status. The Obama administration wants to double federal spending in basic research over 10 years and triple the number of graduate fellowships in science.

There are already signs of a renewed interest among students in science and technology. For the first time in six years, enrollment in computer science programs in the United States increased last year, according to a university survey last month. At Stanford University, the number of students taking the introductory computer science course increased 20 percent this year, said Eric Roberts, a professor of computer science.

“What we need to do is to broadly educate as many people as possible in science, so the most talented people find their way into the field,” Mr. Roberts said. “That’s what happened in the Sputnik era.”

Don Chamberlin, a professor of computer science at the University of California at Santa Cruz, was a member of the “Sputnik generation,” when American schoolchildren were encouraged to pursue careers in science, after the launch of a tiny satellite in 1957 appeared to give the Soviets a lead in missile technology used in nuclear strikes. As a teenager, he endangered his family garage in California with his rocket kits and later went into the fledgling field of computer science. He was a leading scientist in a team of IBM researchers that created the SQL database, an unseen technology that nonetheless animates every credit card purchase and A.T.M. banking transaction.

In the early 1960s when he was choosing a career, Professor Chamberlin recalled, technical people were respected and well paid. Money, he said, was part of the equation. “But the bigger part of the motivation for me,” he said, “was that I would be doing exciting and important work and that my contributions would be appreciated.”

Paalam Kiko!

A true disciple of music, a farewell tribute to Sir Francis M!

"Francis Magalona Songs"

This is how the House Committee on Justice voted

Against Dismissing the Complaint
1. Minority Leader and San Juan Ronaldo Zamora
2. Deputy Minority Leader and Bayan Muna Rep. Satur Ocampo
3. Gabriela Rep. Liza Maza
4. Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro Casiño
5. Bukidnon Rep. Teofisto Guingona
6. Makati Rep. Mar-Len Binay
7. Parañaque Rep. Rufus Rodriguez
8. South Cotabato Rep. Darlene Antonino-Custodio


For the Dismissal of the Complaint
1. Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro
2. Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman
3. Baguio City Rep. Mauricio Domogan
4. Negros Oriental Rep. George Arnaiz
5. Iloilo Rep. Raul Gonzalez
6. Cebu Rep. Pablo John Garcia
7. Cebu Rep. Antonio Cuenco
8. Antique Rep. Exequiel Javier
9. Apec Rep. Edgar Valdez
10. Bohol Rep. Edgardo Chatto
11. Lanao del Sur Rep. Faysah Dumarpa
12. Leyte Rep. Eufrocino Codilla
13. Zamboanga Sibugay Rep. Belma Cabilao
14. Ifugao Rep. Solomon Chungalao
15. Zamboanga del Sur Rep. Antonio Cerilles
16. Masbate Rep. Rizalina Seachon Lanete
17. Sulu Rep. Munir Arbison
18. Bohol Rep. Roberto Cajes
19. Tawi Tawi Rep. Nur Jaafar
20. La Union Rep. Victor Ortega
21. Lanao del Sur Rep. Pangalian Balindong
22. Romblon Rep. Eleandro Madrona
23. Isabela Rep. Giorgido Aggabao
24. Cebu Rep. Eduardo Gullas
25. Quirino Rep. Junie Cua
26. Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga
27. Surigao del Norte Rep. Francisco Matugas
28. Sultan Kudarat Rep. Arnulfo Go
29. Manila Rep. Theresa Bonoan-David
30. Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas
31. Parañaque Rep. Eduardo Zialcita
32. Cebu Rep. Raul del Mar
33. Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong
34. Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia
35. Iloilo Rep. Arthur Defensor
36. Iloilo Rep. Janette Garin
37. Quezon City Rep. Bingbong Crisologo
38. Misamis Occidental Rep. Herminia Ramiro
39. Bukidnon Rep. Candido Pancrudo
40. Manila Rep. Zenaida Angping
41. Negros Occidental Rep. Alfredo Maranon (for Occidental Mindoro Rep. Amelita Villarosa)
42. Agusan Del Norte Rep. Jose Aquino

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)

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)

ABS-CBN News Exclusive: SC Justice Alicia Martinez to retire early

A repost! I'll make a comment later.

by ARIES RUFO, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 09/30/2008 10:10 PM

Move allows Arroyo to make 7 new appointments to high court in 2009

 

Supreme Court (SC) Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, one of the most fiercely independent magistrates in the Tribunal, has opted to make an early retirement due to health reasons.

A staff of Austria-Martinez confirmed with abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak that the justice is set to hang her robe on April 30, 2009, or 15 months before her compulsory retirement on Dec. 19, 2010.

This allows President Arroyo to make seven new appointments next year, as six other justices reach the mandatory retirement age of 70 years old.

Austria-Martinez submitted a letter to SC Chief Justice Reynato Puno Jr. last week indicating her desire to step down, ahead of her compulsory retirement.

Puno announced the move in Monday’s en banc meeting of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The JBC screens applicants for the SC, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals and other members of the judiciary.

Observers said Austria-Martinez’s abbreviated stint in the SC would be a big blow to the High Court’s independence, already under the heavy cloud of doubt, with practically all except for Puno and senior Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, her appointees.

Independent justice

Although an appointee of Arroyo, Austria-Martinez has displayed independence of mind by taking positions that do not favor the government or big businesses.

One anecdote we got was, one time, she spurned a P10 million offer by a controversial businessman to vote favorably in one case. She reported the matter to the en banc. A SC source said this happened during the time of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban.

Austria-Martinez was among the six dissenters in the executive privilege case of former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary Romulo Neri. She was among the nine who voted in favor of airing the controversial wiretapped conversation of President Arroyo with disgraced poll commissioner Virgilio Garcillano.

She was among those who six justices who dismissed the petition of the Lucio Tan-led Asia Emeging Dragon Corp. to take over and operate the Ninoy Aquino International Aiport (NAIA) Terminal 3.

Among Austria-Martinez’s ponencias (or penned decisions) include the constitutionality of the Expanded-Value Added Tax law and the Absentee Voting Law. She also penned the decision upholding the legality of the rules and regulations imposed by the Department of Health on breast-milk substitutes.

In this ruling, however, the SC struck down the provision banning the advertisement of infant milk formula but imposed stricter regulations.

Rose from ranks 

Austria-Martinez has been in government service for more than 40 years, starting as a clerk in the Office of the Insurance Commissioner. She began her stint in the judiciary as a legal researcher for the Court of First Instance (now regional trial court) of Rizal. Prior to her SC appointment, she worked as senior attorney, Division Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, presiding judge of Calamba Regional Trial Court, presiding judge and executive judge of Pasig City, Associate CA justice, and Presiding Justice of the CA.

A JBC member who was present in Monday’s meeting said Austria-Martinez had wanted to retire earlier because of health reasons. “We were told she had health problems even when she was in the CA.”

The magistrate’s staff said Austria-Martinez announced her early retirement to them last week “so we would have time to prepare, to look for other jobs.”

Her early retirement will be preceded by the compulsory retirement of Justices Ruben Reyes and Adolfo Azcuna, who will be leaving the court on Jan. 3 and Feb. 16 respectively.

Other justices who are scheduled to retire next year are Dante Tinga (May 11); Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Oct. 5); Leonardo Quisumbing (Nov. 6) and Minita Chico Nazario (Dec. 5)

as of 10/03/2008 12:01 PM

Timeline: CA Bribery case

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:55:00 09/10/2008


May 27 - The GSIS gets from the SEC a cease-and-desist order (CDO) to stop the counting of proxy votes during the Meralco stockholders meeting and election in May. Meralco ignores the CDO, announcing that the SEC order is "null and void", since the order does not a carry a docket number, has no official seal, and only signed by an officer in charge and not by the entire commission sitting en banc.

May 28 - SEC orders Meralco to explain why it should not be cited in contempt for ignoring the CDO.

May 29 - Meralco goes to the Court of Appeals to oppose the SEC directive. The Meralco petition is raffled to the Special 9th Division.

May 30 - Justice Jose Sabio is chosen as acting chair of the 9th Division (taking the place of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, regular chair of the 9th Division and who is on vacation leave) with Justices Myrna Dimaranan Vidal and Vicente Roxas as members. Roxas is designated the ponente, or the designated writer of the decision.

The 9th Division hears the oral arguments in the case.

The appellate court issues a temporary restraining order on the SEC order.

July-A reorganization takes place in the Court of Appeals and Roxas is transferred to the 8th Division.

Reyes returns to duty and reclaims chairmanship. Sabio opposes.

Roxas, on the other hand, upon his transfer to the 8th Division, brings the case along with him since he is the ponente.

Both Reyes and Roxas ask CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. to issue an opinion on who has jurisdiction on the Meralco case. Vasquez fails to immediately resolve the impasse.

July 23 -The CA's 8th Division - headed by Reyes, with Justices Antonio Bruselas Jr. and Roxas as members - voids the SEC CDO.

July 24 -Vasquez finally issues an opinion on the squabble, saying that it's the 9th Division that should rule on the Meralco case. The opinion is of course rendered useless since the Reyes-led division has already promulgated a ruling just the day before.

Sabio and Vidal protest the promulgation.

July 26 - Sabio tells Vasquez in a letter that he had been offered P10 million on July 1 to inhibit himself from the Meralco case. Sabio says the offer was made to him by a Makati businessman brokering for Meralco.

July 31 - The CA holds a rare en banc session and decides that it will elevate the issues to the Supreme Court.

Aug. 4 - The high court forms a panel to investigate the bribery allegations.

Minerva Generalao and Eliza Victoria, INQUIRER Research



Copyright 2008 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

SC dismisses CA justice

Sabio suspended, Vasquez reprimanded
By Tetch Torres, Leila Salaverria
INQUIRER.net, Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:54:00 09/10/2008


MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed and forfeited the benefits of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente Roxas for writing the decision that favored Manila Electric Co. based on a fabricated transcript of deliberation of the Eighth Division and for committing other violations.

The Supreme Court found that Roxas had undue interest in the Meralco case, was dishonest and discourteous, and had failed to resolve pending motions before handing down his ruling.

“In sum, this Court finds that Justice Roxas’ multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct constitute grave misconduct, compounded by dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which warrant his dismissal from the service,” it said.

Adopting the findings of a three-member panel it created to investigate the Meralco case, the Supreme Court also suspended Justice Jose Sabio Jr. for two months without pay, and reprimanded Justice Bienvenido Reyes and Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr.

The investigation stemmed from the battle for management control over Meralco between the Lopez family and the Government Service Insurance System.

Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said the high court’s decision would be referred to the justice handling the GSIS petition questioning the disputed ruling written by Roxas on the Meralco case.

The panel said the irregularities, improprieties and a bribery attempt in the appellate court in connection with the case were “damaging to the institutional integrity, independence and public respect for the judiciary.”

The panel was composed of retired Supreme Court Justices Carolina Griño-Aquino, Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Sr.

Marquez said the tribunal’s decision was immediately executory. Although the magistrates could file a motion for reconsideration, they would have to serve the penalty while their appeals are pending.

Marquez also said the high court’s decision should be a wake-up call for judges and justices. “The court will not take these cases for granted,” he said.

‘Clinging’ to case

Besides suspending Sabio, the high court sternly warned him against repeating his actions after it found that his discussion of the case with a businessman with ties to Meralco was improper and indiscreet.

The tribunal also found improper Sabio clinging to the Ninth Division, which handled the case even though the chair he substituted for had returned.

Vasquez was severely reprimanded for failing to act promptly to prevent the scandal that has “damaged the image of the Court of Appeals.”

Discourteous

Reyes was reprimanded for being discourteous to Vasquez for ruling on the Meralco case even though the latter had yet to hand down his opinion on whether it was Reyes’ or Sabio’s division that should rule on the case.

Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal was admonished and was told to watch her actions after the Supreme Court found that she allowed herself to be convinced by Roxas to sign the Meralco decision even though she had not read the memoranda.

An admonishment is considered a warning and is not a penalty.

Camilo Sabio

The Supreme Court also decided to refer the attempt of Camilo Sabio, chair of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, to influence his brother to side with the GSIS to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action.

Camilo had revealed that it was Jesus Santos, a GSIS trustee and lawyer of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s husband, who asked him for help regarding the case.

Justice Sabio’s allegation that businessman Francis de Borja, supposedly acting as Meralco emissary, attempted to bribe him with P10 million so that he would inhibit himself from the case was referred to the Department of Justice.

De Borja may be liable

“The present investigation has given this Court reason to believe that De Borja may be criminally liable for his attempt to bribe a magistrate of the Court of Appeals,” the high court said.

De Borja, who denied offering the P10-million bribe, had issued an affidavit saying it was Sabio who told him that he was offered a Supreme Court seat and money to side with Meralco, and named P50 million as his price to reject the government offer.

In dismissing Roxas, the high court found his handling of the Meralco case suspect, citing the panel’s findings that he began writing the decision even before all pleadings were submitted.

Rush to judgment

It said Roxas’ “undue interest” was shown by his rush to judgment. The “inexplicable haste” was also bolstered by his failure to resolve pending motions before handing down the decision; his “rushing” of Vidal to sign the decision; his abrupt transfer of the case to the Eighth Division from the Ninth Division without notifying Vidal and without waiting for the resolution of the dispute on which division should rule on the case.

“We reiterate here that as the visible representation of the law and justice, judges are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that would enhance respect and confidence of the people in the judicial system,” the high court said.

Fabricated transcript

It also found him guilty of gross dishonesty when he submitted a fabricated transcript of the justices’ deliberations, which also contained statements that were falsehoods. It also cited the panel report that he lied about his reason for bringing the Meralco decision to Vidal.

“Indeed, the fabrication and falsehoods that Justice Roxas blithely proffered to the panel in explanation/justification of his questioned handling of the Meralco case demonstrated that he lacks the qualification of integrity and honesty expected of a magistrate and a member of the appellate court,” the high court said.

Recently fined P15,000

It also said that his failure to resolve pending motions was a violation of the Code of Judicial conduct, noting that this was not the first time he was penalized for such an offense. He was recently fined P15,000 for a similar failure in the case of Orocio v. Roxas where Roxas failed to act on a motion despite the promulgation of the main case.

In finding him discourteous, the high court noted the panel’s findings that he ruled on the Meralco case without waiting for Vasquez’s decision on which division should resolve the case.

“This Court cannot view lightly the discourteous manner that Justice Roxas, in his apparent haste to promulgate his decision in the Meralco case, treated his colleagues in the Court of Appeals. It behooves the Court to remind all magistrates that their high office demands compliance with the most exacting standards of propriety and decorum,” it said.

"He made a mockery of his own order for the parties to submit memoranda, and rendered their compliance a futile exercise," it said.

Roxas left early from his office at the Court of Appeals after reports leaked that he has been dismissed.

Improper conversation

As for Sabio, the high court said he failed to uphold the standard of independence and propriety that he should meet as a magistrate with regard to his brother Camilo’s phone call to him trying to convince him of the GSIS stand in the dispute with Meralco.

Camilo, also a lawyer, was taken to task for making the call. “As they were both members of the Bar, it is incomprehensible to this Court how the brothers can justify their improper conversation regarding the Meralco case,” the tribunal said.

Not influenced by his brother

But it did not adopt the panel’s finding that Sabio had an “unusual interest in holding on to the Meralco case” and that he seemed to have been influenced by his brother to help the GSIS.

“Based on the facts on record, the Court is wary of declaring that Justice Sabio had been influenced by his brother by speculating that he would have favored GSIS had he been a part of the division which rendered the decision in the Meralco case,” it said.

However, the high court found it improper for him to hold on to the chairmanship of the Ninth Division when the chair he substituted for, Reyes, had returned. It also viewed with “disfavor” Sabio’s “stubborn insistence” on his interpretation of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals and his “hostile, dismissive attitude” on the positions of his colleagues on the interpretation of the rules.

De Borja not credible

The high court also agreed with the panel that De Borja’s allegation that Sabio had wanted P50 million was “not credible.”

But it said Sabio’s conversations with De Borja on the Meralco case were indiscreet and improper. It said the continued communication between the two even after the justice rejected the bribe was “highly inappropriate and shows poor judgment” on Sabio’s part.

It thus found him liable for simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming a justice.

As for Vasquez, the high court said the scandal that rocked the country’s second highest court could have been prevented had he acted promptly and decisively.

“Certainly, this unpleasant and trying episode in failure to act in the early part of his tenure as Presiding Justice has indelibly impressed upon him what is required of him as leader of the second highest court in the land,” it said.

How they voted

A total of 13 Supreme Court justices voted on the issues. Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Justice Antonio Carpio were allowed to inhibit themselves from the case. One of Puno’s staff members is Sabio’s daughter, while Carpio used to belong to the law firm that represented Meralco in the case against the GSIS.

Of the 13 justices, 12 voted to dismiss Roxas, and one said he should be suspended for six months. Ten justices voted for Sabio’s two-month suspension without pay. One voted for a six-month suspension, another said he should only be reprimanded because he should be credited for being a whistle-blower. Another said he should be dismissed.

Eight justices voted to reprimand Reyes and five wanted him suspended for one month.

For the rest, the voting was unanimous.

Roxas is the third CA justice who has been dismissed from service.

Justice Demetrio Demetria was removed form the bench in 2001 after he was found guilty of interceding on behalf of alleged drug queen Yu Yuk Lai.

In 2007, the high court sacked Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and delaying motions of consideration filed before his division. Asuncion was also accused of accepting bribe money.



Copyright 2008 INQUIRER.net, Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Bar Ops banned!

MANILA, Philippines - Manila has banned the holding of bar operations or “bar ops" for the 2008 bar examinees this September to avoid traffic jams on Taft Avenue.

Radio reports on Wednesday said Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim’s action was prompted by the call of Supreme Court Deputy Clerk and Bar Confidant, Ma. Cristina Layusa, to the city government to stop issuing permits to bar ops organizers.

The activities have been the tradition of school organizations and fraternity groups to demonstrate their support for bar examinees. Organizers put up tents, use loud sound systems and create other forms of hoopla, including partying on the streets.

According to Layusa, these activities snarl up traffic, making it hard for both commuters and examinees to pass by the exam venue. She added that in the past bar ops, some streets along Taft Avenue have been closed to accommodate the supporters.

The report said secretary to the mayor Rafaelito Garayblas has tasked Supt. Roberto Rosales, Manila Police Director, to enforce the ban.

The Philippine Bar Examination is the national licensure exam for the admission to the practice of law. It is conducted during the four Sundays of September of yearly.

The 2008 Philippine Bar Examinations will be held at the De La Salle University on Taft Avenue, Manila, on September 7, 14, 21 and 28 from 8 a.m. to 5p.m. - GMANews.TV

Judicial Activism - SC issues TRO on GRP-MILF MoA and forms 3-man Panel on CA Bribery Scandal

By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 13:30:00 08/04/2008

 

MANILA, Philippines -- The Supreme Court has stopped the signing of the memorandum of Agreement between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front over ancestral domain and set the hearing on August 15, its spokesman said.

The high tribunal also ordered the executive to provide the court and the parties that petitioned concerned a copy of the MOA not later than August 8, said lawyer Midas Marquez, information chief of the Supreme Court, Monday.

“The court issued a TRO [temporary restraining order] restraining the respondents from signing the MOA,” Marquez told reporters, hours after the high tribunal met in an en banc session to deliberate on the petition filed by officials of North Cotabato who asked for a full disclosure of the contents of the MOA ahead of its signing.

The court also discussed the allegations of bribery at the Court of Appeals involving the settlement of the dispute between the Manile Electric Co. and the Government Service Insurance System.

Shortly after the high court started its session, government, through Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera, sent its comment to the North Cotabato petition, Marquez said.

Invoking executive privilege in its 26-page comment, the government said while negotiations with the MILF did not involve any foreign power, there were military and national concerns that were raised.

“This being so, the entire process, the negotiations involving the said MOA and the drafts, documents thereof resulting from said negotiations is covered by the doctrine of executive privilege, which prevents the disclosure of information that could subvert military or diplomatic objectives,” the solicitor general said.

With a report from Agence France Presse

GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD): A Draft Pact on Bangsamoro Homeland

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.