Affidavit of Janet Lim-Napoles, evidentiary purposes, guide for reporters:
The DOJ secretary said Janet Lim-Napoles told all, in a five-hour meeting in one full pack of yellow pad paper, for fear she would not live to tell the tale post-surgery and onwards. Fortunately, her surgery was successful and her sworn Q&A/ sworn statement/ sinumpaang salaysay would now be reduced into a duly executed affidavit.
This affidavit, detailing how ten billion pesos in public funds were allegedly siphoned by her (at 30% commission) and by Senators Enrile, Estrada, Revilla and others (at 70% portion of their pork allocation) and staffmembers and government bureaucrats (in tens to hundreds of millions of pesos), will supposedly remove any “motivation” on the part of those implicated to silence her by whacking her, to use a mafiosi term.
Would an affidavit be admissible in evidence if, god forbid, the affiant is no longer available?
Alas, no. An affidavit introduced without the affiant presented in court for direct and cross examination is a form of hearsay and is considered a “mere scrap of paper” — a phrase trial judges love to use as they roll the rr’s when they say “scrrapp of paper”. The witness is not home (not “safe”) until after his/her cross-examination is terminated. How many crosses? As many as the number of accused.
For the “star witness”, how long could this take? The trial would take more than five years.
If this case is not expected to reach trial within the year, a remedy is to perpetuate her testimony by way of a deposition in which all the expected parties would be given a chance to cross the deponent. That is admissible in evidence in its entirety with or without the deponent/ witness being presented in court.
By the way, extra tips given to the handling lawyer in cases such as this include: Use your own vehicle, do not use the car assigned to the witness, and always bear in mind that a bullet-proof vehicle is like cardboard to RPGs. Like crepe paper. Or onion-skin paper.
(part one, just filling gaps here and there in the coverage by the mainstream media, to be continued…)
Newspeg: “(Slain journalist) Rubylita Garcia’s 28-year-old son, Tristan, earlier on Monday told the Inquirer that on the way to the hospital his mother told him Villanueva could be behind the attack. “But (PNP spokesperson) Sindac told reporters at the PNP headquarters at Camp Crame that Villanueva was merely “being alluded to” since the victim did not tell her relatives before she died whether the person behind the attack was ‘a former or incumbent police chief of Tanza.’ ” (from the Inquirer) “Lawman wanted me dead, said dying reporter. Gasping for her last breath, journalist Rubylita Garcia identified the police chief of Tanza town in Cavite province as the “brains” behind her shooting, the National Press Club of the Philippines (NPC) said on Monday. “In a statement, NPC President Benny Antiporda, who is also the owner of the tabloid Remate where Garcia wrote, said the victim managed to tell her son just minutes after she was shot that Supt. Conrado Villanueva was the only person who wanted her dead. “ ‘While we welcome the PNP’s [Philippine National Police] immediate decision to form a special investigation task group [SITG] that would directly report to Cavite provincial police director, Senior Supt. Joselito Esquivel, the NPC remains doubtful as to whether justice would be rendered to Rubie in the swiftest time possible—the main purpose for the formation of the SITG,’ Antiporda said.” (from Manila Times) *** *** ***
Rubylita Garcia’s pronouncements given to her son is a form of “dying declaration” admissible in evidence not just as part of the narration of the witness (the son) but as to facts contained in the declarant’s statement itself. It is sufficient to give due course to an affidavit-complaint by the witness and for the filing of a criminal complaint against the subject of the dying declaration, PNP Supt. Conrado Villanueva.
Colleagues of Villanueva, such as PNP spokesperson Sindac and other PNP officers, have a conflict of interest with the person of interest (Villanueva) because of their fraternal relationship with him. Their behavior in the past few days shows this.
Allowing the PNP officers to take charge of the investigation of this case is like allowing the da-barkads (barkada; buddies) of Villanueva to be in charge of the evidence-gathering — it’s like commissioning a paint job.
Malacañang should know better — it’s the one chance it could redeem itself.
SC upholds #RHLaw , legal implications : Guide for Reporters
The right to health which includes reproductive health is one of those rights that fall under “economic rights”, or, more technically, “economic, social, and cultural rights” enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
In the Philippine Constitution, these rights are embodied in the motherhood provisions of Art. XIII on “Social Justice and Human Rights”.
The approval of the RH Law and the validation of its salient provisions by the Supreme Court elevates this economic right to the status of a legally demandable right.
Big words. “Legally demandable right”. What does that mean?
Normally, or generally, the motherhood provisions of Art. XIII “Social Justice and Human Rights” (Art. XIII 1987 Constitution reiterating some provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights) require an enabling law or enabling acts to be enforcible. Absent a law, these motherhood provisions do not create “legally demandable rights”. They are not like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, which enshrine civil liberties – those rights [fundamental civil liberties, like the right not be deprived of life (not to be put to death) without the chance to defend yourself in a trial, or the right not to be deprived of liberty (not to be jailed) without trial] – those rights are so fundamental that they are enforcible withoutneed of an enabling law. In other words, if you are jailed without charges beyond 12, 18, 36, you could sue government (the PNP or AFP or the NBI or the DOJ, etc) and get a court order to set yourself free (a habeas corpus writ). See – it’s legally enforcible, you can sue government and force government to observe your right; if your jailer disobeys the writ, you can send him to jail immediately for contempt.
“Social, economic, and cultural rights”, on the other hand (like, for example, the right to adequate housing, the right to health care, the right to education) require enabling laws. In other words, without an enabling law, they are not legally enforcible. For example, if you are homeless, you cannot sue government to force government to give you a house, or, failing which, send the housing official to jail – you can’t — not without an enabling law — it’s not a legally demandable right.
If you could see this framework, you would realize how this law, in elevating the right to reproductive health to a legally demandable right, turns the century around.
The Supreme Court upheld the most important provisions of the RH Law — those requiring government to fund and make accessible reproductive health services, information, and education. Those rights have become legally enforcible.
A representative of the anti-RH bill groups said in an interview that the Supreme Court rendered the RH Law “toothless” or “defanged” it.
Well, more like , de-whiskered it.
If you take a look at the RH Law, you would see that the SC tweezed out a few whiskers. Here’s an example:
The entire Section 7 states (I bracketed, put multiple x’s and rendered in pink color, the clauses of Section 7 that were invalidated by the SC so you will not make the mistake of still reading it into the provision but I retained the entire provision to illustrate the point):
Sec. 7. Access to Family Planning. – All accredited public health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, which shall also include medical consultations, supplies and necessary and reasonable procedures for poor and marginalized couples having infertility issues who desire to have children: Provided, That family planning services shall likewise be extended by private health facilities to paying patients with the option to grant free care and services to indigents, except in the case of non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group, but they have the option to provide such full range of modern family planning methods: [Provided, further, [That x these x hospitals x shall x immediately x refer x the x person x seeking x such x care x and x services x to x another x health x facility x which x is x conveniently x accessible:] Provided, finally, That the person is not in an emergency condition or serious case as defined in Republic Act No. 8344. No person shall be denied information and access to family planning services, whether natural or artificial: Provided, That minors will not be allowed access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s [x except x when x the x minor x is already x a parent x or x has x had x a x miscarriage. ]
Do you see the entire provision? Do you see what “whiskers” were taken out?
(if you want the text of the dispositive portion of the SC decision, it’s online — the paragraph on Section 7 reads: “1) Section 7, and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: (a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and (b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s;”).
The most important provisions of the RH Law, to my mind, are Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 20, 23, 24.
The Supreme Court reporters who broke the news, and the resource persons who discussed the SC announcement, failed to situate those clauses enumerated by the SC spokesperson within the entire provisions themselves, which remain in effect. In fact, the SC did not invalidate entire provisions, but only pulled out certain clauses, or parts of a provision.
When editors or news directors or resource persons fail to show the entirety of the most important provisions that remain in effect, and fail to situate the invalidated clause within the entire provision which is bigger, they fail to see the point, fail to show the millennial shift.
Forest for the trees, sweetie.
Fowwest… fo tha… tweees — gubat for da kuli—sap (ngeh ehek)
