Law on Mass Media and Communication with Bonus is: As stated in the syllabus. Due Sept. 11

     The second exercise is as stated in the syllabus. The bonus exercise: Same.

     Please see instructions given in the first exercise: Same instructions apply.

   The deadline is on Wednesday Sept. 11, 2019 at 5pm.

     Happy posting!

31 thoughts on “Law on Mass Media 2nd Exercise with Bonus is: As stated in the syllabus. Due Sept. 11

  1. Concept of a Supreme Court

    Supreme Court Junks same-sex marriage case on techinicalities

    Last Tuesday, September 03, 2019, the Supreme Court unanimously voted to dismiss on account of a technicality what was touted as a historic petition to allow same-sex marriage in the Philippines.


    “The Court’s decision dismissed Falcis’ petition on account of his lack of standing, violating the principle of hierarchy of courts, and failing to raise and actual, justiciable controversy,” Supreme Court’s spokesperson Brian Keith Hosaka said in a news conference. As stated, the Supreme Court has dismissed Falcis’ petition regarding the same-sex marriage for lack of stand and justifiable controversy about the issue. The Supreme Court is the highest court in its jurisdiction, thus, it is the Supreme Court that decides the most important issues of constitutional and statutory law. The Supreme Court is also intended to provide legal clarity and consistency for the lower appellate and trial courts. In this issue, the Supreme Court has clarified that “it is only through the existence of actual facts and real adversarial presentations that this Court can fully weigh the implications and consequences of its pronouncements,” Hosaka said. Hence, in the latter part of the discussion, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the ponente, said the issue of same-sex partnerships “may, for now, be a matter that should be addressed to Congress.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court also held Falcis and his co-counsels Darwin Angeles, Keisha Trina Guangko, and Cristopher Ryan Maranan liable for indirect contempt. The Supreme Court have cases to consider, not all cases are decided by the Supreme Court, some are decided and appealed in lower courts.

  2. BONUS:

    Special Proceeding as a Remedy

    Zsa Zsa Padilla bares annulment case over fake marriage

    Last April 14, 2019, the singer-actress, Zsa Zsa Padilla, found out that she was ‘married’ to a Japanese man whom she doesn’t even know.


    During in an interview with ABS-CBN last April 12, Zsa Zsa Padilla and her fiancé were trying to get a Certificate of No Marriage back in 2016 when she discovered the alleged marriage with a Japanese man. Based on the document, Zsa Zsa Padilla was married to Shigemi Nabehigashi in Manila in 1992. The singer-actress said that it was impossible since she’s in the United States that time with the late comedian Dolphy. This issue would be covered by Special Proceedings under the case of cancellation of correction of entries in the civil registry since Zsa Zsa Padilla filed an annulment with the Japanese man. There are enough evidences that led this case to success, such as according to Zsa Zsa Padilla, she was in LA for Dolphy’s kidney treatment in 1992, while the Japanese man was in Japan and this man has visited Philippines ones in 1993. And so, the fake wedding has since be annulled, with the singer-actress receiving the papers that the decision was made on July 6, 2018.

  3. Power of Sumpreme Court

    News : Supreme Court spares IBP, Diokno in West PH Sea case mess

    Source :

    Short of serious sanctions that Solicitor General Jose Calida wanted, the Supreme Court (SC) merely “warned” the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and human rights lawyer Chel Diokno over the pulling out of a writ of kalikasan case against the Duterte government.The SC en banc voted 15-0 to issue this warning to the IBP and Diokno, who had to withdraw the petition after some of their fishermen clients disowned it.”Counsels for petitioners were sternly warned that the commission of the same or similar infractions in the future would be dealt with more severely,” SC Spokesperson Brian Keith Hosaka said in a news conference on Tuesday, September 3.It was a highly-political petition that sought to compel the Duterte government to enforce maritime and environmental laws to protect the West Philippine Sea.The IBP and Diokno eventually withdrew the case after more of their clients asked to withdraw. The IBP and Diokno also withdrew as counsel to the fishermen that they could no longer locate at the time.Responding to the withdrawal, the Supreme Court asked the IBP and Diokno to prove that all of their fishermen clients were fully informed about the petition they were filing.
    “Due to the unusual procedural developments of the case, the Supreme Court, through the ponente, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, emphasized that counsels should establish and maintain a form of communication with their clients at all times. Mere difficulty in contacting clients should not be used by counsels as an excuse to renege on their duties to disengage from their commitments,” Hosaka said.The SC also decided to dismiss the entire petition based on the withdrawal alone.

  4. BUNOS

    Special Proceeding as redemy.

    News : Custody battle forewarns moms yielding child for adoption

    Source :

    Petitioner Christina Caram failed to regain parental authority over her biological son, after the Supreme Court (SC) ruled in early August that she was invoking an inapplicable court order to her case.The SC ruled that a writ of amparo was the wrong legal remedy. Caram sought the writ in a July 2010 bid before the Quezon City regional trial court Branch 106 that was later on denied.”Since it is extant from the pleadings filed that what is involved is the issue of child custody and the exercise of parental rights over a child, who, for all intents and purposes, has been legally considered a ward of the State, the Amparo rule cannot be properly applied,” read the SC decision, upholding the ruling of the trial court.The 9-page decision was penned by Associate Justice Martin Villarama, in a case that is one of its kind.Caram had “an amorous relationship” with one Marcelino Gicano Constantino III and “eventually became pregnant with the latter’s child without the benefit of marriage.”She, however, made Constantino believe “that she had an abortion when in fact she proceeded to complete the term of her pregnancy.”She later on executed a deed of voluntary commitment (DVC), surrendering custody over their child Julian to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

  5. The Concept of Jurisdiction

    Daraga mayor surrenders to police – 10 May 2019


    Last December, Ako Bicol Partylist Rep. Rodel Batocabe and his police escort were gunned down while he was distributing Christmas gifts in his hometown. The Regional Trial Court Branch 10 in Legazpi City issued a warrant of arrest against Daraga Mayor Carlwyn Baldo for murder charges. After two failed attempts by the police to serve a warrant for his arrest, he voluntarily surrendered before the Regional Trial Court that issued his arrest warrant, although he claims to be innocent.

    Regional Trial Courts have original jurisdiction over capital offenses – which include murder. This can be seen in the news article because it was a Regional Trial Court that issued the warrant of arrest against the suspect of a murder case.

  6. BONUS: The Use of a Special Civil Action as a Remedy

    SC grants lawmaker’s bid for writ of habeas data over ‘narco list’ inclusion – 28 June 2019


    Leyte Representative Vicente Veloso, questioning his inclusion in the government’s drug watch list, filed a petition for the writ of habeas data to the Supreme Court. The high court has granted his petition last June 17.

    A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC or The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Section 1 states that “the writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.”

    According to CNN, “Veloso’s petition, dated April 25, sought the ‘rectification, suppression or destruction’ of the database or information that tagged him as an alleged narco politician.”

    Facing the problem of his inclusion in the government’s ‘narco list’, Rep. Veloso used the writ of habeas data as a remedy to that problem.

  7. The Concept of Jurisdiction

    QC court dismisses case vs WellMed officials for ‘lack of jurisdiction’


    The article illustrates the concept of jurisdiction as it’s about the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (QCRTC) dismissing the case for estafa (in relation to falsification of public documents), due to lack of jurisdiction, that was filed against the owner and officers of WellMed Dialysis and Laboratory Center who were accused of getting payment claims for “ghost dialysis” sessions from the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation.

    According to QCRTC Branch 219 Presiding Judge Janet Abergos-Samar, it is not the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases but the first level courts or the Metropolitan Trial Courts because: (1) the amount involved in the case ranges only from P5,200 to P39,000; and (2) the offenses involved carried only a maximum jail term of six years.

  8. Concept of the Supreme Court / Structure of the Judiciary

    The 4 applicants for chief justice include SC Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Estela Perlas Bernabe, Andres Reyes Jr, and Jose Reyes Jr


    The article talks about chief justice aspirants for 2019. Despite extending the deadline for chief justice applications by two more weeks, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) received only 4 confirmations for nominees. With the extended deadline closed last Monday, September 2, here are the 4 applicants for the top magistrate post that will be vacated by Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin who will retire on October 18: Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, Associate Justice Estela Perlas Bernabe, Associate Justice Andres Reyes Jr, and Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has set the public interviews of the 4 applicants on October 2.

    In addition, Peralta, Bernabe, Andres, and Jose Reyes all voted in favor of Duterte’s closure of Boracay island, a decision that dissenter Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa called a realization of a tyrant.

  9. BONUS:

    Supreme Court issues writ of amparo in favor of rights groups


    The Supreme Court (SC) has issued a writ of amparo and habeas data in favor of 3 groups tagged by the government as alleged fronts of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). It has directed the Court of Appeals to hear the petition of Gabriela, Karapatan, and the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines on June 18.

    The petitioners want court protection against threats to the lives, liberty, and security of their members through a writ of amparo. They also want the government to disclose and destroy all files or records gathered against their members through a writ of habeas data. A writ of amparo is a legal remedy seeking a protection order, while a writ of habeas data asks the Court to compel the respondent to delete or destroy damaging information

  10. The Concept of Jurisdiction

    Maguindanao massacre trial ends –September 3, 2019


    Following a decade-long trial, the QC judge handling the Maguindanao massacre case has issued an order to formally end the trial for the multiple murder cases filed.

    “The 58 counts of murder against over the 100 accused have been submitted for decision,” said Regional Trial Court Branch 221 Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes.

    From the 197 suspects charged for the massacre, 117 were arrested with for having died in detention. Eleven suspects are out on bail, nine others had their charges dropped, and 80 suspects remain.

    The article highlights the jurisdiction of RTCs as stated in BP 129: “Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.” As seen in the article, the RTC took on the case as the penalties were 1) more than 6 months and 2) induced by murder.

  11. BONUS

    The Use of a Special Civil Action as a Remedy

    NUPL’s writ of Amparo petition vs police, soldiers up for resolution – July 18, 2019


    Induced by alleged state-sponsored harassment and red-tagging, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) filed writs of amparo and habeas data against the military and police.

    As defined in the article, writ of Amparo is ‘a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or under threat.’ Moreover, it stated that writ of habeas data is ‘a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security has been violated or under threat by the unlawful gathering of information about the person, his or her family, and home.’

    Both writs were filed to mitigate and remedy EJKs and disappearances among community members. Though the petitioners and NUPL lawyers were able to provide documents, flyers, posters, and tarpaulins that proved the ‘red-tagging’ occurring, the Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG) still objected to the offered evidence saying that they were ‘hearsay.’ “The generals not only did not bother to show up but also are afraid of the truth. That is why all they did in all the 4 hearings were to merely deny, deflect the issues and raise technicalities,” said NUPL President Edre Olalia.

  12. Concept of Jurisdiction

    Civilian courts have jurisdiction over indigenous peoples – Supreme Court


    MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) said that civilian courts still have jurisdiction over indigenous peoples who are charged with criminal offenses.

    The SC made the declaration after it denied a petition from a Higaonon tribe leader seeking to compel a trial court in Cebu to drop charges against him and instead follow the ruling of a tribal court that cleared the leader of charges.

    Sumatra made a petition to the High Court to drop his charges of rape because of the ruling of their tribal court. He even quoted Section 65 of RA 8371 which states that, “When disputes involve ICCs/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute.” However, the SC’s 3rd Division Associate Jsutice Marvic Leonen pointed out that Section 65 is limited by Section 15 and said that, “Section 65 is qualified by Section 15. With respect to dispensing justice, resolving conflicts, and peace-building, the application of customary laws and practices is permissible only to the extent that it is in harmony with the national legal system. A set of customary laws and practices is effective only within the confines of the specific indigenous cultural community that adopted and adheres to it.” Therefore, civilian courts still have jurisdiction over indigenous people charged with criminal offenses.

  13. Structure of Judiciary
    SC orders AFP exec sacked over P36.7-million clothing allowance
    MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) recently ordered the dismissal of former Marine commandant Maj. Gen. Renato Miranda for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty in handling the disbursement of P36.7- million clothing allowance for enlisted personnel.

    The case against Ret Maj. Gen. Miranda was appealed to the Supreme Court (SC) after being heard by the Court of Appeals (CA). Because the SC is higher on the judiciary structure than the CA, it had the power to overturn the later’s decision that exonerated the retired officer. The SC found Miranda guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.

    The SC decision also reinstated the previous ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman dismissed Miranda and four other officers from the service in 2009.

  14. BONUS

    Special civil action as remedy

    Bus firm president seeks SC protection amid corporate row
    MANILA, Philippines — The president of the country’s largest passenger bus firm has filed a petition for a writ of amparo before the Supreme Court after an estimated 300 “heavily armed” members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) gathered at the company’s headquarters in Bacolod City.

    Roy Yanson filed a petition for a writ of amparo after the “forcible entry” of police officers into the Vallacar Bus Transit Inc. Compound. The alleged event happened due to disagreements between the Yanson Siblings over the management of the Yanson Group of Bus Companies.

    According to Yanson, police officers also cut power in the office and were poised to take over the area.

  15. BONUS

    Special Civil Action

    News article: Supreme Court junks fisherfolks’ plea for protection of West PH Sea

    Last September 3, 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea of Filipino fishermen seeking to protect the marine environment and ecology of the West Philippine Sea. These petitioners filed the Writ of Kalikasan, however they were dismissed by the Supreme Court due to the request of petitioners to withdraw their signatures. Some of these fishermen claimed they were forced to withdraw their signature. In addition, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines accused the Office of the Solicitor General of committing a breach of legal ethics.

    In response, the Supreme Court ordered the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to provide proof that the remaining petitioners were aware of the contents of the petition.

    In this context, the fishermen filed the petition based on the Writ of Kalikasan, a remedy to any violation of one’s constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology by either a private or public entity.

  16. Concept of a supreme court

    Supreme Court cleared Noynoy Aquino of all Mamasapano charges


    According to Rappler, the SC ordered to disperse the Special Action Force (SAF) families’ petition claiming that former ombudsman Carpio Morales “comitted grave of abus of discretion” when she decided to take down homicide complaints against Aquino.

    This ruling denied the petition aiming to charge former President Aquino of 44 counts of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide over the ill-fated mission in 2015.

  17. BONUS

    Use of Special Civic Action

    IBP, fisherfolk withdraw writ of kalikasan plea before SC


    Along with seven fisherfolk from Palawan and Zambales, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines filed a Writ of Kalikasan and meant ot order the Departmant of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to impose maritime and environmental laws within our territory, specifically the West Philippine Sea.

    But the IBP and other fisherfolk withdraw the plea leading to the dismissal of the petition by the Supreme Court in Sept. 3.

    Other Sources:

  18. | Structure of the Judiciary

    Supreme Court orders Tulfo to pay P1.7M damages, fee for libel
    – 26 July 2019


    The libel case originated from a column Tulfo wrote in 2003 for Abante Tonite, where he accused businessman Michael Guybut of seeking help from a government official for an alleged tax fraud investigation. Guybut sued Tulfo and the executives of Abante Tonite on March 24, 2004. Makati City Regional Trial Court convicted Tulfo and the other respondents of libel in 2010.
    In 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s conviction but reduced the award from 5 million pesos to 500,000 pesos in moral damages and 211,200 pesos in attorney’s fee.
    Guybut then elevated his case to the high court to seek the reinstatement of the RTC judgement, noting the amount of 5 million pesos is a reasonable compensation for the grief and suffering he has endured.
    The Supreme Court 3rd Division affirmed the CA’s (Court of Appeals) conviction, however the SC decided that the “petitioner failed to substantiate the loss he had allegedly sustained.” – amounting to 5 million pesos in moral damages. Still, the SC increased the total damages: P500,000 in moral damages, P1 million in exemplary damages and P211,200 in attorney’s fees.

    In this news article, the structure of the judiciary lies within the country’s national court system. The libel case was handled by the Regional Trial Court; was appealed through the Court of Appeals; was ultimately brought up to the Supreme Court which has the authority over regular trial and appellate courts. In this case, it affirmed the conviction of Raffy Tulfo and the other respondents; decided to increase the total damages against Michael C. Guybut. But the court noted Guybut failed to prove tainted reputation and loss of clientele, that’s why he was given only P500,000 and not the P5 million moral damages the trial court had originally granted.

  19. The exercise of quasi-judicial powers of the executive departments like the MTRCB, the NTC, etc.

    MTRCB to hear PDEA’s bid to ban ‘Amatz’

    The government agency tasked to classify movie and broadcast material would be hearing the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency’s (PDEA) bid to ban rapper Shanti Dope’s song “Amatz” from the airwaves.

    This article talks about the powers of Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) regarding the bid of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to ban a music video called Amatz by Shanti Dope because of its “underlying influence to viewers on marijuana use”. PDEA, as a drug enforcement agency has no authority over banning a music video with allegations such as the promotion of drugs. Instead, MTRCB would have to deliberate such claims considering the interests of both parties. Shanti Dope’s camp claims that the “high” he implies on his song is not by drugs, but by music therefore, counter-arguing that it should not be a factor to be taken down. The censorship of a music video due to its themes might inflict upon repression of artistic and creative freedom and thus, the powers vested upon this executive department must be well thought out and deliberate to not have conflicts on the constitutional mandate “freedom of expression”.

  20. Topic: Concept of a Supreme Court

    “SC imposes almost P2B fine on MWSS, Maynilad, Manila Water”

    The Supreme Court ordered the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) along with two major concessionaires, Maynilad and Manila Water, to pay fines of almost P2 billion for their non-compliance with the country’s Clean Water Act.

    Article 8 Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution: “The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”

    As per the Clean Water Act, the MWSS is legally required to provide wastewater treatment facilities and connect sewage lines to all establishments within five years of the Act becoming effective. As the act became effective on March 6, 2004, the time has lapsed for MWSS to provide such facilities and this matter was brought to the Supreme Court, which alone holds jurisdiction over the supposed “abuse” of a government agency such as MWSS. Through its investigation, the Supreme Court found the case against MWSS to be sound. Through unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court exercised its judiciary power and imposed a fine on MWSS, along with two major concessionaires who fall under its jurisdiction: Maynilad and Manila Water.

  21. The concept of jurisdiction

    “Court convicts Army reservist in killing of cyclist Mark Vincent Garalde” – August 5, 2019


    The Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 14 declared Vhon Martin Tanto guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the killing of Mark Vincent Garalde, a cyclist, in a road rage incident in 2016. A CCTV footage revealed Tanto fatally shooting Garalde. The RTC ordered Tanto to “pay Garalde’s heirs P1.048 million as actual damages, P100,000 as civil indemnity, P100,000 as moral damages, and another P100,000 as exemplary damages” and up to 40 years in prison.

    From this article, we can see that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction in cases with a jail time higher than 6 months and 1 day or costs greater than P100,000. Tanto was sentenced up to 40 years in prison and was ordered to pay an amount exceeding P100,00.

  22. BONUS:

    Use of special civil action – Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data

    Supreme Court issues writ of amparo in favor of rights groups

    The Supreme Court (SC) has issued a writ of amparo and habeas data in favor of 3 groups tagged by the government as alleged fronts of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).


    This article talks about the successful petition filed by rights groups on the special civil action of both writ of amparo (a protection order) and writ of habeas data (which compels the respondent to delete or destroy information about the petitioners). The petitioners included were Karapatan, an alliance of individuals, groups and organizations working for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Philippines; Rural Missionaries of the Philippines, a national organization, inter-congregational and inter-diocesan in character, of women and men religious, priests and lay. We live and work with the peasants; and Gabriela, leftist Filipino organization that advocates for women’s issues. These rights groups filed the special civil actions due to the threats and deaths of their members during the course of Duterte’s administration. A few of the respondents included Pres. Rodrigo Duterte, Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. This petition is an integral part of upholding the rights of these groups in our current democratic state wherein the constitution is emanated by the people and thus, the governing body must cater to their needs.

  23. Concept and powers of the Supreme Court

    News article: A look at the Supreme Court rulings behind Duterte’s order to re-arrest freed convicts

    In the context of the possible release of former Mayor Antonio Sanchez due to the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA), Justice Secretary Guevarra said that President Duterte’s order to re-arrest 1,194 convicts of heinous crimes who were granted time allowances is based on two Supreme Court rulings. The first is People v Fidel Tan, 1967, in which the case ruled on the re-arrest of Fidel Tan, whose time in prison was reduced due to a GCTA granted by the provincial warden of Samar. The second is City Warden of the Manila City Jail v Estrella et al, 2001, in which the warden refused to release the convicts based on the provision of the Revised Penal Code that states that the Director of Prisons, now called the director general of the Bureau of Corrections, can grant them.

    This instance shows the concept of the Supreme Court as the highest court in the country, and its power to make rulings on major cases. The Supreme Court has the duty to settle huge controversies, and the rulings of the Court are to provide context for future cases. As such, the current case regarding former Mayor Sanchez will be ruled based on previous cases.

  24. BONUS

    | Special Civil Action

    “Ardot Parojinog seeks SC protection”
    — 08 July 2019


    Former Ozamiz City Councilor Ricardo “Ardot” Parojinog has sought protection from the Supreme Court against the alleged continuous threat from the Philippine National Police (PNP).
    Ardot, the brother of slain Ozamiz City Mayor Reynaldo Parojinog Sr., also asked the high court to stop the transfer of his custody to Ozamiz City Jail and to stop the proceedings in court.

    Parojinog is facing cases for violating Republic Act RA 10591 (Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunition) and RA 9516 (law against illegal possession of firearms and explosives).
    In his writ of amparo petition, he said there is “an imminent danger to [his] life whose circumstances can only be mitigated if not fully allayed by the issuance of a protection order against the respondents.”

    The petition was filed by the aggrieved party (Parojinog) – A writ of amparo, which directly defines as ‘protection’ is a legal remedy seeking a protection order. It provides legal protection for people who are threatened with violation of an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. In this case, Parojinog cited “continuous threat to his life, liberty and security.” He also sought his transfer from the Quezon City jail to the Ozamiz City jail and for his cases to be heard before the Ozamiz City regional trial court.

    However, The Supreme Court (SC) has junked the petition saying he is not entitled to it because he is under police custody. It was for the same reason that the high tribunal rejected Parojinog’s plea for issuance of a temporary protection order.

    Additional Source:

  25. 11 September 2019

    “The concept and power of the courts”


    Back in 2009, the Department of Transportation and Communications gave the private corporation Stradcom the right to collect fees from motorists to use RFID modems.

    However, the Makabayan bloc brought up to the Supreme Court the issue that there was no sufficient bidding system set up in order to justify Stradcom collecting such fees. The Supreme Court has since ordered the Land Transportation Office (LTO) to refund motorists who availed of the RFID modems in 2009.

    Thus, the Land Transportation Office must comply with this order, which it is in this latest news update.

    The above order is an example of the Mandamus power of the courts to compel a private person, lower court, public official, or public entity to act in a particular way without any discretion on the part of the same. Writs of Mandamus generally compel officials to perform ministerial acts.

  26. 11 September 2019

    Bonus: Special Proceedings for Name Change and change in the Civil Registry.


    In the case of Republic v. Cagandahan, Jennifer Cagandahan was born with a medical condition that qualifies her sex classification as intersex. Jennifer was looking to change her name to Jeff and her sex to male in all official documents in the civil registry. The Supreme Court decided that Jennifer may change her name to Jeff and her sex to male. Such a decision was carried out by the state, and Jennifer is now legally a male named Jeff Cagandahan.

  27. BONUS

    Special Civil Action (Writ of Amparo and Writ of Kalikasan)

    Lawyers score SC victories vs army harassment, West PH Sea neglect – May 3, 2019


    Special civil actions were issued on May 3, 2019, suing the Duterte administration in two separate petitions. The first one is when the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) requested writ of amparo and habeas data for the harassment from the Military and Malacanang. NUPL were included in the “matrix that tagged media groups in a supposed ouster plot”. The writ of habeas data compels the military to turn over “copies of all the facts, information, statements, records, photographs, and other evidence, documentary or otherwise, pertaining to each of them in the respondents’ files and records.”

    The second one is when a writ of kalikasan was requested for the Duterte administration’s inability to protect the marine resources in the West Philippine Sea territories. The Supreme Court said that writ of kalikasan was issued to “protect, preserve, rehabilitate, and to restore the marine environment in Scarborough Shoal (also known as Panatag Shoal), Ayungin Shoal, and Panganiban Reef (also known as Mischief Reef)”.

  28. Concept of a Supreme Court

    SC asserts independence over GMA quip on acquittal from plunder


    The Supreme Court spokesperson Brian Keith Hosaka told the press that “the Supreme Court is guided by the rule of law and its decisions are always based on facts, laws, and reason.”, an assertion he made after Gloria Macapagal Arroyo thanked President Rodrigo Duterte for her acquittal for the plunder cases filed against her. The Supreme Court voted 11-4 in favour of Arroyo. Hosaka always said that “-the Supreme Court has and will always act independently, and free from influence from the other branches of Government,”.

    The statement that the SC acts independently reinforces its foundation as one of the three pillars of our government, and that it really should not be affected by the insights of other branches, because it is their duty to execute only their job, which concerns only judiciary actions. The president must have no effect on their decisions, and that goes for anyone else.

  29. BONUS: The Use of a Special Civil Action as a Remedy

    Families of detained minors file writ for habeas corpus


    Since the families of the 10 minors, aged 12 to 17, who were arrested due to their alleged participation in a barricade that was set up by residents at Barangay Sta. Lucia in Pasig City to prevent the demolition of their houses were not allowed by officials at the city-run Bahay Aruga shelter in Barangay Pinagbuhatan to visit their children, they were forced to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

  30. Concept of a Supreme Court

    Supreme Court affirms ex-PCGG chair Sabio’s graft conviction.

    The graft conviction of former Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) chair Camilo Sabio was upheld. Because of the 12 million peso rental of 11 vehicles, he was sentenced upto 20 years in prison by the Sandiganbayan during the year 2012.The Supreme court ruling said that he “cannot claim immunity from suit for being an alter ego of the President.” The court also rules that, “… Sabio’s acts unmistakably reflect ‘a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will.”

    The news provided above is an example of how the Supreme court exercises its power based on the Section V, Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution. particularly its power to “**review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm, on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of the lower courts in:All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher”

    Other sources, **

  31. BONUS

    The Use of a Special Civil Action as a Remedy (Writ of Habeas Corpus)

    ‘Duterte order to rearrest heinous crime convicts anchored on 2 SC rulings’

    President Rodrigo Duterte ordered “the rearrest of convicts erroneously released after years were shaved off their jail term because of good conduct,” in the 2001 case of City Warden of Manila City Jail vs. Raymond S. Estrella, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) filed a petition for habeas corpus to release inmates from the Manila City Jail. 24 in 33 inmates have been released because they have earned enough time and have exhibited good behavior and conduct. The city’s warden has issued them certificates that verify this. But the court said that the inmates cannot be released if it is issued by the city warden because according to the Article 99 of the Revised Penal Code, only the Director has the authority to certify good conduct.

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.