Month: July 2008

Election law & election campaigns

(Updated) Postponing the ARMM elections is like…..

        Photo by Mike Gonzales in www.vistapinas.com . Used here for educational and non-commercial purposes under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License of the photographer and the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 (UPDATED: i moved your sked by one day because the House Speaker scheduled the caucus only on Tuesday. )

            Postponing the ARMM elections scheduled on August 11  is like…  working  in quick-drying cement, wading in it and building a Parthenon-like Manila Film Palace in 14 days, (or maybe un-building). You work in a rush on a prayer  and see if you don’t get buried alive in plaster and stone.  Wait! It isn’t 14 days.  It’s eleven days, that’s the number of days you have in order to pass the law postponing the August 11 ARMM elections. Why eleven days? There’s a  requirement of publication!  before laws take effect, have you forgotten, do you have lawyers?

      It takes a law to postpone the ARMM elections. Congress opens on SONA day July 28. There’s going to be no other activity on SONA day,  in both Houses (to be convened as one) except preening before the cameras in jusi and ternos.

 

       So, legislative work effectively starts Tuesday July 29. Since the ARMM elections take place August 11, the law postponing it has to be published  in full in the newspapers not on the day of the elections but before that day or at the latest  August 10. While the Civil Code as amended says that laws take effect 15 days after publication, there’s a clause there that says “unless otherwise provided” , which clause was held in Tañada vs. Tuvera and other cases as referring to the date of effectivity.

       Since publication is an element of due process (as held in said cases), the public should be given reasonable opportunity  to read. Which probably means it should be published at the latest a day before, even if the law provides it shall take effect immediately upon publication. People should be given time to read it. Since it has to come out August 10, the press work for it should be August 9, which means you should give the law in full as signed in Malacañang to the newspapers by 2pm August 9 (ads have to be given to newspapers at 2pm or earlier to make it). That means the  President should sign the law in the morning of August 9.

      So i made you a schedule for quick-drying cement;  i worked  it backwards because you have a target date. Here’s how:

     July 29 – House caucus as called for and scheduled by the House Speaker

     July 30 — Sponsorship speeches, House and Senate, referral to committees, House and Senate

    There are at least three committees concerned with the ARMM elections.

     July 31 – House Committee One and Senate Committee One: Finish your hearings and deliberations. Start and finish on Day One.

    August 1 – House Committee Two and Senate Committee Two: Finish your hearings and deliberations. Same: Start and finish in 24 hours.

   August 2  — House Committee Three and Senate Committee Three: Finish your hearings and deliberations. Start and finish one day.

        August 3-4 – Finished or unfinished, pass your papers. House committees and Senate committees: write out your reports. Route them for signatures. Committee members: sign them right away.

        August 5 – “Report out” committee reports in the House and Senate.

        August 6 – Second reading of proposed bill, both houses. Make senators  quickly jump the hoops by not raising any questions, any clarification, any points of order, any objections, any call for quorum, no filibustering allowed.

     In record-time, finish second reading in one day.

     August 7 – Third reading, both houses

      August 8 – Bi-cam conference. Quickly.

      August 9 – Signing, morning. Press time 2pm

       August 10 – Day of publication. You made it!

        That’s your sked. Got it?

         The ARMM elections is the pilot project for computerization of elections in the country, ushering us, half a century late, out of blackboard chalk, Manila paper, ballot box snatching, burning of schoolhouses, burning of schoolteachers alive, and disappearing election returns; it will not solve everything but it will solve at least those i enumerated. Stopping it now, in eleven days, is like stopping the institution of fundamental electoral reforms for the 2010 elections, i.e., computerization for the 2010 elections. If any. If eynee. Or maybe that’s the idea. Of course, for those who don’t believe in elections, that’s a cinch.

 

Original videos photos music-slides

all works by Michelangelo. music & lyrics: Mariah Carey


ALL WORKS BY MICHELANGELO. PHOTOS RIGHTCLICKED FROM http://www.artist-biography.info used here for academic and non-commercial purposes.

Criminal law, Rules of Court

Ombudsman wages “invisible war” against some of her own prosecutors; is losing cases 8 out of 10

    

 

Photo by the Office of Ombudsman at  

 www. ombudsman. gov. ph

         This is based on a reading of the documents available. I don’t go to the Office of the Ombudsman everyday, i don’t really know what’s going on there, what the atmosphere is among the lawyers and between the prosecutors and  their boss, the Ombudsman,  how she relates to them and how the lawyers regard her, (i will change what i wrote here if she gives an interview describing how untenable the situation in her office has become that led her to fire off these orders on her prosecutors.) 

         But just based on the documents,  the series of internal office memos volleyed by the Ombudsman to her prosecutors gives the impression of an “invisible war” between, on one hand,  her and a chosen group of prosecutors, and on the other hand the prosecutors under the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Special Prosecutor himself, SP (former judge) Dennis Villaignacio. (The Ombudsman is having him investigated by an internal affairs board for alleged estafa, but i’m saving that for “part two” of this post.)

     (In the interest of full disclosure: this blog is stating that the  blog admin was in the legal team of the Special Prosecutor and some of his prosecutors in the plunder case. I am trying to be fair by saying that this article is based only on the documents available and i do not have first-hand knowledge of the professional relationships or the situation inside her office).

      It is bad enough that the Ombudsman is losing cases at the rate of 8 out of 10.

      The online newspaper, www.abs-cbnnews.com uploaded copies of the internal memos as pdf files (abs-cbnnews.com  wins the award for recognizing the importance of primary sources and uploading them as  pdf files  such as decisions in cases of public interest, vital  resolutions, orders, etc. Good work.), including a report from the Office of the Special Prosecutor summarizing the “batting average” of the prosecution.

      According to the report prepared by the supervising administrative officer of the Office of the Special Prosecutor  entitled “Sandiganbayan  Decided Cases for Year 2008, covering 12 months, as of July 7, 2008:

      Out of a total of 97 cases decided by the Sandiganbayan,  the prosecution lost 83 cases (acquittals) and won only 14 cases (convictions). 

      83 losses out of 97 means roughly,  out of 9.7 cases (or 10 cases),  the Ombudsman is losing 8.3 cases ( or 8 cases).  When you ask her what her batting average is and she answers 8 out of 10, you have to clarify: Wins? No, losses. In other words, the Ombudsman’s  batting average is 1.4 wins out of 9.7 or roughly 1 out of 9; losing the 8 others.  

     Normally, in a private law office, if you’re losing 8 cases out of 9 or 8 out of 9.7; you will be….fired! Or transferred to the Slovenia branch of the law office. Here of course in the Philippines, nobody holds the Ombudsman accountable, Congress is not doing anything; because by protecting her, they protect themselves. Glasshouses. 

       Now, the figures do not even include Informations (cases or formal charges) dismissed before or after arraignment (without prejudice and with prejudice) and cases dismissed on demurrer;  in other words, the record may be far worse.

       One of the series of memos fired off by the Ombudsman is a gag order (i will write about the other memos in “part two” of this post) on her prosecutors in a memo  of June 17, 2008 entitled “Media Interviews and Press Releases”, to all her employees, to quote:

       Quote “For purposes of the orderly administration of the functions of the Office of the Ombudsman, and towards enhancing the effectiveness of the OMB in the performance of its functions, it is hereby ordered that henceforth all media interviews and press releases of the OMB, including offices within it, shall be handled by Assistant Ombudsman Jose Tereso de Jesus and Assistant Ombudsman Mark E. Jalandoni.

      Quote “If there shall be a need for sectoral offices to conduct media interviews or issue press releases, to avoid making statement/s that  may be haphazard, or capable of different interpretations, or of being misquoted, such conduct of interviews or issuance of press releases shall be done only upon prior clearance or approval of Assistant Ombudsman Jose Tereso de Jesus depending on the subject matter of the interview/s or press release/s, and in which event, said authorized person shall be thoroughly  briefed on the details of the intended subject of interview or press release.

     Quote “For immediate compliance.

                        “(SGD) MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ

                                        “Ombudsman” closed-quote.

      In other words, if any of the prosecutors is asked by a reporter about the status of his/her case, cases that are of public interest because all graft cases against public officials are matters of public interest, he/ she is now allowed to as much as make a peep without getting the permission of the assistant of the Ombudsman.

      Usually, in a law office or a legal office, the handling lawyer or the legal team handling the case,  or any member of it, is authorized to give public statements about the case on aspects of public interest; since it is the handling lawyer who  knows all the facts of the case, studied all the legal issues involved, interviewed the witnesses, scrutinized the documentary evidence, attended the case conferences, conducted or assisted in the conduct of the direct or cross, etc. So, it is the handling lawyer (or member of the legal team handling the case) who is in the best position to know what to disclose or not disclose. You don’t usually farm out or contract out the task of giving public statements to a lawyer outside of the handling lawyers. If the supervising lawyer (or the Ombudsman) does not trust her handling lawyers enough to decide what public statements to give, she should remove them from the case; because this is what the order is all about: It is a manifestation, or an expression,  of distrust of your own handling lawyers.

       More important, all the cases being prosecuted by the Office of the Ombudsman are matters of public concern and utmost transparency is required. What’s with the prohibition on prosecutors giving media interviews? What’s going on in the Office of the Ombudsman?

       The gag order is in writing; if any of the prosecutors gives a media interview without clearance, or if with clearance, strays off the topic, he/she is in danger of being charged with insubordination; for not obeying the memo. What is going on in the Office of the Ombudsman?

 

      (to be continued)