Extra

These are extraordinary times, they require creativity on the part of lawyers, especially in theorizing cases. In the case of detained senator-elect Trillanes, would he be able to fulfill his duties, attend to his functions, and serve his constituents behind bars?

“Prison Exercise Yard” by Van Gogh (print from “Essential Van Gogh”, Cutts and Smith, Parragon Publishing)

Would his acts be binding? When, behind bars, he sponsors a bill, delivers the sponsorship speech; or interpellates a colleague, or throws questions at witnesses (say, the generals who allegedly have the goods on the extrajudicial killings), would any of these acts be binding?

The legal advice there is to have bills co-sponsored; in fact, there’s no need to give that advice, bills usually are co-sponsored by other senators, so there wouldn’t be any problem for bills that the detained senator-elect would sponsor; his “physically present” colleagues can just co-sponsor them to foreclose any questions.

But what about the rest of those acts (interpellating, delivering speeches, eliciting information from witnesses, etc.)?

What about attendance? Would he be considered “present” even if he were to participate only electronically?

Lemme see.

Yeah. And you know what… I even have the legal basis for it.

It’s the Electronic Evidence Rule, approved by the Supreme Court in August 2001. (why is the tone of this post like this? it’s just that, this afternoon i saw a “review” by a non-lawyer of another non-lawyer’s work, a book dishing out legal opinions and discussing law and jurisprudence; and he praised it to high heavens because it was written by a non-lawyer and lawyers daw cannot write for a general audience. What a dumbo. If you are about to go to jail, even if only for prision correccional medium term, which is the penalty for libel, would you get the services of these two? Tell me, would you rely on what they wrote, if it’s on law and jurisprudence? Are you willing to bet your life and liberty on what they wrote when what they wrote about was law and jurisprudence? Tell me. It’s asinine, but most of all, it’s irresponsible; and if the author employed a lawyer or two to check the legal tightness his work but it appears mainly under his name, there’s a form of intellectual dishonesty there. ) Anyway.

Yeah, i have the legal basis for it; even if there were none, i would find it. If it’s not there, your lawyers can create it; they can provoke it; any lawyer can provoke jurisprudence, can create where there is none.

Here, however, there is a legal basis. This rule of evidence recognizes the validity of acts, decisions, pronouncements, that were made electronically. By teleconference, webcam, internet, electronic mail. As follows:

Electronic Evidence Rule

“RULE 3xxx“SEC. 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.

RULE 4 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
”SECTION 1. Original of an electronic document. – An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.”

Everything he sponsors electronically, every question he propounds by webcam, every vote he makes by webcast, is valid, binding and has legal effect, under this rule. It’s recognized by the Supreme Court. (I’ll be darned if the Senate says it cannot adopt it by analogy as part of its rules. Duh.)

In fact, images, sounds, video, ephemeral evidence, generated electronically, are admissible in court and considered with effect, as follows:

RULE 11

“AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC. VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE

“SECTION 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. – Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided is shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.

“SEC. 2. Ephemeral electronic communication. – Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.

“A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by the immediately preceding section. “If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document, then the provisions of Rule 5 shall apply.”

See? Is that creative or what? I don’t agree with the alleged manner by which he and his companions sought change in government in 2003 (the so-called Oakwood Mutiny). This one’s free, it’s on the house. I’ve 30 minutes and don’t have anything to blog about that quickly (I’ve turned down another request for interview on the Erap plunder case today, I hated doing that, sorry po, I feel guilty. Anyway.) Extraordinary times.