• Home
  • About me
  • My Privacy Policy

Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Trillanes lawyer: Treat Gloria Arroyo the way her government treated my client

December 5, 2011

Share:
Twitter0
Facebook0
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

 

My exclusive
By Raïssa Robles

Trillanes using cellphoneWhen Senator Antonio Trillanes was in detention for a capital crime, he was banned from using the Internet and mobile phone by a regional trial court judge.

Trillanes appealed the ban but the government of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo successfully blocked this, as well as his request to physically attend Senate sessions.

That was four years ago. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Today Congresswoman Arroyo (CGMA) is the one in detention for a capital crime and a regional trial court judge recently barred her mobile and Internet access.

This prohibition prompted her husband-lawyer Mike to send my former Philippine Star colleague Jess Diaz the following text message:

Why is the government trying to isolate and cut off CGMA’s communication line with the outside world as if she’s a convicted criminal already?

This is another assault on her constitutional rights, much more an unlawful obstruction of her right to perform her function as an elected representative of her district in Pampanga.

When will this oppression stop?

Mike Arroyo’s rant seems to have ignored what his wife did to Trillanes and how that might have set a precedent on how courts should treat detained lawmakers facing non-bailable charges.

Trillanes’ lawyer Reynaldo Robles told me in an interview:

When the senator was in jail we made a (court) request for him to use the Internet and a cellphone. He was not allowed. Now, if they change the rules just because of former President Arroyo, obviously they are not being objective anymore.

This (request for Internet and phone access) is the ultimate test of (the court’s) objectivity.

By the way, my first question to Atty. Robles was – “Are we related?” It turned out he and my hubby came from different provinces so we are not in any way related.

Back to Arroyo. It is likely her lawyers will again appeal the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. And this is where it will get very interesting.

I would love to see how the Supreme Court justices, particularly Chief Justice Renato Corona, would rule on this one.

Because you see, in 2008, fourteen Supreme Court justices including Corona dismissed Senator Trillanes’ petition to be allowed to attend Senate sessions. But their en banc ruling went beyond that. Their ruling touched on how “ALL PERSONS ” under detention” should be treated.

At that time, Corona was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, having been appointed by Arroyo to that position in 2002.

When Trillanes sought permission to attend Senate sessions and to use a cellphone and the Internet, Assistant State Prosecutors Richard Anthony Fadullon and Juan Pedro Navera of the Department of Justice gave three arguments why the court should not entertain Trillanes’ requests.

First, they said these would smack of “preferential treatment.” Second, his election as senator did not exonerate him of the crime of coup d’etat. And third, Trillanes was charged with a non-bailable offense.

Trillanes’ lawyer dropped the request for mobile and Internet access and concentrated on being allowed to physically attend Senate sessions when the matter was raised to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court rejected Trillanes’ request and instead affirmed the decision of the regional trial court judge. The Supreme Court noted, while citing a previous ruling in the case of People versus Hon. Maceda:

As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention.[26] (Underscoring supplied by the Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court added that:

The trial court thus correctly concluded that the presumption of innocence does not carry with it the full enjoyment of civil and political rights.

In other words, the SC actually rebutted Mike Arroyo’s complaint when he said:

Why is the government trying to isolate and cut off CGMA’s (wife Arroyo’s) communication line with the outside world as if she’s a convicted criminal already?

Recall that Mike Arroyo also slammed the ban saying:

This is another assault on her constitutional rights, much more an unlawful obstruction of her right to perform her function as an elected representative of her district in Pampanga.

But the Supreme Court noted four years ago that Trillanes had argued along similar lines:

Third, petitioner posits that his election provides the legal justification to allow him to serve his mandate, after the people, in their sovereign capacity, elected him as Senator. He argues that denying his Omnibus Motion is tantamount to removing him from office, depriving the people of proper representation, denying the people’s will, repudiating the people’s choice, and overruling the mandate of the people.

The Supreme Court dismissed this saying “the rule of law” is paramount to the “disenfranchisement argument. It said:

In once more debunking the disenfranchisement argument,[45] it is opportune to wipe out the lingering misimpression that the call of duty conferred by the voice of the people is louder than the litany of lawful restraints articulated in the Constitution and echoed by jurisprudence. The apparent discord may be harmonized by the overarching tenet that the mandate of the people yields to the Constitution which the people themselves ordained to govern all under the rule of law.

The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. The duties imposed by the “mandate of the people” are multifarious. (In the case of detained congressman Romeo Jalosjos) The accused-appellant asserts that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of government. The accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the House of Representatives, not to mention the 24 members of the Senate, charged with the duties of legislation. Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members. x x x Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly restrained by law.[46] (Underscoring supplied)

In short, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that even lawmakers are NOT exempt from rules that the rest under detention have to follow.

I asked Atty. Robles the possible reason behind the ban on cellphones and Internet. He said:

First, for security reasons. Apparently if you have a cellphone you can phone people outside as to the situation inside the detention facility. Maybe it’s possible to coordinate an attempt to try to bring you out.

He (Trillanes) was never allowed a cellphone. In fact during the latter part of his incarceration at the Philippine National Police custodial center, several times there would be a sweep. Hahalughugin yung buong jail facility to look for cellphones in particular.  (The entire jail facility would be searched for cellphones in particular.) The room of the senator was not spared from that.

Despite the fact he was elected even while he was incarcerated, we were denied the basic tools and equipment to be able to perform his function. Even assuming they are just both legislators, rules which were applied to the senator should apply to her also.

So, if they will extend to her that privilege, lalabas na may special treatment nga (it will turn out that she will have special treatment).

UPDATE: I heard just now (Dec 6) from Lynda Jumilla on radio DZMM that Trillanes surreptitiously used a cellphone while in jail. Lynda should know since she’s covering the Senate. This would indicate that GMA would probably use one even if barred by court. 

Surprisingly, though, Atty Robles told me that Senator Trillanes was even willing for Arroyo to be placed under house arrest:

I think Sen. Trillanes doesn’t really care whether she’s placed under house arrest or hospital arrest. What’s important to him is, she should stand trial for the alleged offenses she committed during her time. Even with all the privileges, it’s okay with him so long as she faces all her cases.

But for me as a lawyer, I see this as a test. If they (Arroyo’s lawyers) bring this up to the Supreme Court, would it uniformly apply the rules they set in the senator’s case?

I am posting below the entire Supreme Court ruling on Trillanes’ case which his legal counsel, Robles, confirmed to me was precedent-setting and relevant to Arroyo’s case:

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008]

ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV, PETITIONER, VS. HON. OSCAR PIMENTEL, SR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT- BRANCH 148, MAKATI CITY; GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, VICE ADM. ROGELIO I. CALUNSAG, MGEN. BENJAMIN DOLORFINO, AND LT. COL. LUCIARDO OBEÑA, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

At the wee hours of July 27, 2003, a group of more than 300 heavily armed soldiers led by junior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City and publicly demanded the resignation of the President and key national officials.

Later in the day, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 declaring a state of rebellion and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion.[1] A series of negotiations quelled the teeming tension and eventually resolved the impasse with the surrender of the militant soldiers that evening.

In the aftermath of this eventful episode dubbed as the “Oakwood Incident,” petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes IV was charged, along with his comrades, with coup d’etat defined under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-2784, “People v. Capt. Milo D. Maestrecampo, et al.”

Close to four years later, petitioner, who has remained in detention,[2] threw his hat in the political arena and won a seat in the Senate with a six-year term commencing at noon on June 30, 2007.[3]

Before the commencement of his term or on June 22, 2007, petitioner filed with the RTC, Makati City, Branch 148, an “Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to be Allowed to Attend Senate Sessions and Related Requests”[4] (Omnibus Motion). Among his requests were:
(a) To be allowed to go to the Senate to attend all official functions of the Senate (whether at the Senate or elsewhere) particularly when the Senate is in session, and to attend the regular and plenary sessions of the Senate, committee hearings, committee meetings, consultations, investigations and hearings in aid of legislation, caucuses, staff meetings, etc., which are normally held at the Senate of the Philippines located at the GSIS Financial Center, Pasay City (usually from Mondays to Thursdays from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.);

(b) To be allowed to set up a working area at his place of detention at the Marine Brig, Marine Barracks Manila, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, with a personal desktop computer and the appropriate communications equipment (i.e., a telephone line and internet access) in order that he may be able to work there when there are no sessions, meetings or hearings at the Senate or when the Senate is not in session. The costs of setting up the said working area and the related equipment and utility costs can be charged against the budget/allocation of the Office of the accused from the Senate;

(c) To be allowed to receive members of his staff at the said working area at his place of detention at the Marine Brig, Marine Barracks Manila, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, at reasonable times of the day particularly during working days for purposes of meetings, briefings, consultations and/or coordination, so that the latter may be able to assists (sic) him in the performance and discharge of his duties as a Senator of the Republic;

(d) To be allowed to give interviews and to air his comments, reactions and/or opinions to the press or the media regarding the important issues affecting the country and the public while at the Senate or elsewhere in the performance of his duties as Senator to help shape public policy and in the light of the important role of the Senate in maintaining the system of checks and balance between the three (3) co-equal branches of Government;

(e) With prior notice to the Honorable Court and to the accused and his custodians, to be allowed to receive, on Tuesdays and Fridays, reporters and other members of the media who may wish to interview him and/or to get his comments, reactions and/or opinion at his place of confinement at the Marine Brig, Marine Barracks Manila, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, particularly when there are no sessions, meetings or hearings at the Senate or when the Senate is not in session; and

(f) To be allowed to attend the organizational meeting and election of officers of the Senate and related activities scheduled in the morning (9:00 or 10:00 a.m.) of 23 July 2007 at the Senate of the Philippines located at the GSIS Financial Center, Pasay City.[5]

By Order of July 25, 2007,[6] the trial court denied all the requests in the Omnibus Motion. Petitioner moved for reconsideration in which he waived his requests in paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) to thus trim them down to three.[7] The trial court just the same denied the motion by Order of September 18, 2007.[8]

Hence, the present petition for certiorari to set aside the two Orders of the trial court, and for prohibition and mandamus to (i) enjoin respondents from banning the Senate staff, resource persons and guests from meeting with him or transacting business with him in his capacity as Senator; and (ii) direct respondents to allow him access to the Senate staff, resource persons and guests and permit him to attend all sessions and official functions of the Senate. Petitioner preliminarily prayed for the maintenance of the status quo ante of having been able hitherto to convene his staff, resource persons and guests[9] at the Marine Brig.

Impleaded as co-respondents of Judge Oscar Pimentel, Sr. are AFP Chief of Staff, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon (Esperon); Philippine Navy’s Flag Officer-in-Command, Vice Admiral Rogelio Calunsag; Philippine Marines’ Commandant, Major Gen. Benjamin Dolorfino; and Marine Barracks Manila Commanding Officer, Lt. Col. Luciardo Obeña (Obeña).

Petitioner later manifested, in his Reply of February 26, 2008, that he has, since November 30, 2007, been in the custody of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Custodial Center following the foiled take-over of the Manila Peninsula Hotel[10] the day before or on November 29, 2007.

Such change in circumstances thus dictates the discontinuation of the action as against the above-named military officers-respondents. The issues raised in relation to them had ceased to present a justiciable controversy, so that a determination thereof would be without practical value and use. Meanwhile, against those not made parties to the case, petitioner cannot ask for reliefs from this Court.[11] Petitioner did not, by way of substitution, implead the police officers currently exercising custodial responsibility over him; and he did not satisfactorily show that they have adopted or continued the assailed actions of the former custodians.[12]

Petitioner reiterates the following grounds which mirror those previously raised in his Motion for Reconsideration filed with the trial court:

I.

THE JURISPRUDENCE CITED BY THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO IS CLEARLY INAPPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

A.

UNLIKE IN THIS CASE, THE ACCUSED IN THE JALOSJOS CASE WAS ALREADY CONVICTED AT THE TIME HE FILED HIS MOTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ACCUSED/PETITIONER HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED AND, THEREFORE, STILL ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE;

B.

THE ACCUSED IN THE JALOJOS (SIC) CASE WAS CHARGED WITH TWO (2) COUNTS OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SIX (6) COUNTS OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE. HEREIN ACCUSED/PETITIONER IS CHARGED WITH THE OFFENSE OF “COUP D’ETAT”, A CHARGE WHICH IS COMMONLY REGARDED AS A POLITICAL OFFENSE;

C.

THE ACCUSED IN THE JALOSJOS CASE ATTEMPTED TO FLEE PRIOR TO BEING ARRESTED. THE ACCUSED/ PETITIONER VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED TO THE
AUTHORITIES AND AGREED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTS AT OAKWOOD;

II.

GEN. ESPERON DID NOT OVERRULE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MARINE BRIG’S COMMANDING OFFICER TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO ATTEND THE SENATE SESSIONS;

III.

ACCUSED/PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, ELECTED HIM TO THE POSITION OF SENATOR OF THE REPUBLIC PROVIDES THE PROPER LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO ALLOW HIM TO WORK AND SERVE HIS MANDATE AS A SENATOR;

– AND –

IV.

MOREOVER, THERE ARE ENOUGH PRECEDENTS TO ALLOW LIBERAL TREATMENT OF DETENTION PRISONERS WHO ARE HELD WITHOUT BAIL AS IN THE CASE OF FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH “ERAP” ESTRADA AND FORMER ARMM GOV. NUR MISUARI.[13]

The petition is bereft of merit.

In attempting to strike a distinction between his case and that of Jalosjos, petitioner chiefly points out that former Rep. Romeo Jalosjos (Jalosjos) was already convicted, albeit his conviction was pending appeal, when he filed a motion similar to petitioner’s Omnibus Motion, whereas he (petitioner) is a mere detention prisoner. He asserts that he continues to enjoy civil and political rights since the presumption of innocence is still in his favor.

Further, petitioner illustrates that Jalosjos was charged with crimes involving moral turpitude, i.e., two counts of statutory rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness, whereas he is indicted for coup d’etat which is regarded as a “political offense.”

Furthermore, petitioner justifies in his favor the presence of noble causes in expressing legitimate grievances against the rampant and institutionalized practice of graft and corruption in the AFP.

In sum, petitioner’s first ground posits that there is a world of difference between his case and that of Jalosjos respecting the type of offense involved, the stage of filing of the motion, and other circumstances which demonstrate the inapplicability of Jalosjos.[14]

A plain reading of. Jalosjos suggests otherwise, however.

The distinctions cited by petitioner were not elemental in the pronouncement in Jalosjos that election to Congress is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement as the functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement.[15]

It cannot be gainsaid that a person charged with a crime is taken into custody for purposes of the administration of justice. No less than the Constitution provides:

All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.[16] (Underscoring supplied)

The Rules also state that no person charged with a capital offense,[17] or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal action.[18]

That the cited provisions apply equally to rape and coup d’etat cases, both being punishable by reclusion perpetua,[19] is beyond cavil. Within the class of offenses covered by the stated range of imposable penalties, there is clearly no distinction as to the political complexion of or moral turpitude involved in the crime charged.

In the present case, it is uncontroverted that petitioner’s application for bail and for release on recognizance was denied.[20] The determination that the evidence of guilt is strong, whether ascertained in a hearing of an application for bail[21] or imported from a trial court’s judgment of conviction,[22] justifies the detention of an accused as a valid curtailment of his right to provisional liberty. This accentuates the proviso that the denial of the right to bail in such cases is “regardless of the stage of the criminal action.” Such justification for confinement with its underlying rationale of public self-defense[23] applies equally to detention prisoners like petitioner or convicted prisoners-appellants like Jalosjos.

As the Court observed in Alejano v. Cabuay,[24] it is impractical to draw a line between convicted prisoners and pre-trial detainees for the purpose of maintaining jail security; and while pre-trial detainees do not forfeit their constitutional rights upon confinement, the fact of their detention makes their rights more limited than those of the public.

The Court was more emphatic in People v. Hon. Maceda:[25]

As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention.[26] (Underscoring supplied)

These inherent limitations, however, must be taken into account only to the extent that confinement restrains the power of locomotion or actual physical movement. It bears noting that in Jalosjos, which was decided en banc one month after Maceda, the Court recognized that the accused could somehow accomplish legislative results.[27]

The trial court thus correctly concluded that the presumption of innocence does not carry with it the full enjoyment of civil and political rights.

Petitioner is similarly situated with Jalosjos with respect to the application of the presumption of innocence during the period material to the resolution of their respective motions. The Court in Jalosjos did not mention that the presumption of innocence no longer operates in favor of the accused pending the review on appeal of the judgment of conviction. The rule stands that until a promulgation of final conviction is made, the constitutional mandate of presumption of innocence prevails.[28]

In addition to the inherent restraints, the Court notes that petitioner neither denied nor disputed his agreeing to a consensus with the prosecution that media access to him should cease after his proclamation by the Commission on Elections.[29]

Petitioner goes on to allege that unlike Jalosjos who attempted to evade trial, he is not a flight risk since he voluntarily surrendered to the proper authorities and such can be proven by the numerous times he was allowed to travel outside his place of detention.

Subsequent events reveal the contrary, however. The assailed Orders augured well when on November 29, 2007 petitioner went past security detail for some reason and proceeded from the courtroom to a posh hotel to issue certain statements. The account, dubbed this time as the “Manila Pen Incident,”[30] proves that petitioner’s argument bites the dust. The risk that he would escape ceased to be neither remote nor nil as, in fact, the cause for foreboding became real.

Moreover, circumstances indicating probability of flight find relevance as a factor in ascertaining the reasonable amount of bail and in canceling a discretionary grant of bail.[31] In cases involving non-bailable offenses, what is controlling is the determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong. Once it is established that it is so, bail shall be denied as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion.[32]

Petitioner cannot find solace in Montano v. Ocampo[33] to buttress his plea for leeway because unlike petitioner, the therein petitioner, then Senator Justiniano Montano, who was charged with multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder,[34] was able to rebut the strong evidence for the prosecution. Notatu dignum is this Court’s pronouncement therein that “if denial of bail is authorized in capital cases, it is only on the theory that the proof being strong, the defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than face the verdict of the jury.”[35] At the time Montano was indicted, when only capital offenses were non-bailable where evidence of guilt is strong,[36] the Court noted the obvious reason that “one who faces a probable death sentence has a particularly strong temptation to flee.”[37] Petitioner’s petition for bail having earlier been denied, he cannot rely on Montano to reiterate his requests which are akin to bailing him out.

Second, petitioner posits that, contrary to the trial court’s findings, Esperon did not overrule Obeña’s recommendation to allow him to attend Senate sessions. Petitioner cites the Comment[38] of Obeña that he interposed no objection to such request but recommended that he be transported by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms with adequate Senate security. And petitioner faults the trial court for deeming that Esperon, despite professing non-obstruction to the performance of petitioner’s duties, flatly rejected all his requests, when what Esperon only disallowed was the setting up of a political office inside a military installation owing to AFP’s apolitical nature.[39]

The effective management of the detention facility has been recognized as a valid objective that may justify the imposition of conditions and restrictions of pre-trial detention.[40] The officer with custodial responsibility over a detainee may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure the safety and prevent the escape of the detainee.[41] Nevertheless, while the comments of the detention officers provide guidance on security concerns, they are not binding on the trial court in the same manner that pleadings are not impositions upon a court.

Third, petitioner posits that his election provides the legal justification to allow him to serve his mandate, after the people, in their sovereign capacity, elected him as Senator. He argues that denying his Omnibus Motion is tantamount to removing him from office, depriving the people of proper representation, denying the people’s will, repudiating the people’s choice, and overruling the mandate of the people.

Petitioner’s contention hinges on the doctrine in administrative law that “a public official can not be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor.”[42]

The assertion is unavailing. The case against petitioner is not administrative in nature. And there is no “prior term” to speak of. In a plethora of cases,[43] the Court categorically held that the doctrine of condonation does not apply to criminal cases. Election, or more precisely, re-election to office, does not obliterate a criminal charge. Petitioner’s electoral victory only signifies pertinently that when the voters elected him to the Senate, “they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action [and] x x x with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison.”[44]

In once more debunking the disenfranchisement argument,[45] it is opportune to wipe out the lingering misimpression that the call of duty conferred by the voice of the people is louder than the litany of lawful restraints articulated in the Constitution and echoed by jurisprudence. The apparent discord may be harmonized by the overarching tenet that the mandate of the people yields to the Constitution which the people themselves ordained to govern all under the rule of law.

The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. The duties imposed by the “mandate of the people” are multifarious. The accused-appellant asserts that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of government. The accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the House of Representatives, not to mention the 24 members of the Senate, charged with the duties of legislation. Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members. x x x Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly restrained by law.[46] (Underscoring supplied)

Lastly, petitioner pleads for the same liberal treatment accorded certain detention prisoners who have also been charged with non-bailable offenses, like former President Joseph Estrada and former Governor Nur Misuari who were allowed to attend “social functions.” Finding no rhyme and reason in the denial of the more serious request to perform the duties of a Senator, petitioner harps on an alleged violation of the equal protection clause.

In arguing against maintaining double standards in the treatment of detention prisoners, petitioner expressly admits that he intentionally did not seek preferential treatment in the form of being placed under Senate custody or house arrest,[47] yet he at the same time, gripes about the granting of house arrest to others.

Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners, at the discretion of the authorities or upon court orders.[48] That this discretion was gravely abused, petitioner failed to establish. In fact, the trial court previously allowed petitioner to register as a voter in December 2006, file his certificate of candidacy in February 2007, cast his vote on May 14, 2007, be proclaimed as senator-elect, and take his oath of office[49] on June 29, 2007. In a seeming attempt to bind or twist the hands of the trial court lest it be accused of taking a complete turn-around,[50] petitioner largely banks on these prior grants to him and insists on unending concessions and blanket authorizations.

Petitioner’s position fails. On the generality and permanence of his requests alone, petitioner’s case fails to compare with the species of allowable leaves. Jaloslos succinctly expounds:

x x x Allowing accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings for five (5) days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused-appellant’s status to that of a special class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system.[51]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-De Castro, and Brion, JJ., concur.

_________________________

[1] The validity of both issuances was decided by the Court in SANLAKAS v. Executive Secretary Reyes, 466 Phil. 482 (2004), notwithstanding the petitions’ mootness occasioned by Proclamation No. 435 (August 1, 2003) that lifted the declaration of the state of rebellion. It ruled that the declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter superfluity devoid of any legal significance.

[2] Petitioner had been detained at the Marine Brig, Marine Barracks Manila, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City since June 13, 2006. Prior thereto, he was detained at the ISAFP Detention Cell; rollo, pp. 8, 278.

[3] Garnering 11,189,671 votes, petitioner was proclaimed the 11th Senator-Elect in the May 2007 Elections by Resolution No. NBC 07-28 of June 15, 2007; rollo, pp. 8, 33, 58-59; CONSTITUTION, Art. VI, Sec. 4.

[4] Rollo, pp. 61-65.

[5] Id. at 62-64. For items (d) and (e), petitioner further manifested that he is willing to abide by the restrictions previously imposed by the trial court when it previously granted him access to media, to wit: (a) that he will not make any comments relating to the merits of the instant case or otherwise make statements tending to prejudge or affect the outcome of the case (i.e., sub judice statements); and (b) that he will not make any libelous statements or seditious remarks against the Government.

[6] Id. at 89-99.

[7] Id. at 114-115. Petitioner reiterated only his requests in paragraphs (a), (d), (e) with the additional concession that “the Senate Sgt-at-Arms or his duly authorized representative (with adequate Security) be authorized to pick up and transport herein accused from his place of detention at the Marine Brig, Marine Barracks Manila, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, to the Senate and back every time he needs to attend the official functions of the Senate when the Senate is in regular session[.]”

[8] Id. at 137-147.

[9] Id. at. 14-15. Petitioner alleges that several government officials and private individuals met with him at the Marine Brig from July 2, 2007 to September 26, 2007. The initial organizational meeting of the Senate Committee on the Civil Service and Government Reorganization, of which he is the Chairperson, was held inside the Marine Brig on September 20, 2007. On September 27, 2007, however, petitioner’s staff, resource persons and guests were refused entry, causing the cancellation of the meeting.

[10] Id. at 297.

[11] Cf. Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 56279, February 9, 1993, 218 SCRA 578; Matuguina Integrated Wood Products, Inc. v. CA, 331 Phil. 795 (1996) following the legal axiom that no person shall be affected by proceedings to which he is a stranger.

[12] Vide RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 17 which also accords the party or officer to be affected a reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard; Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galvez v. CA, 325 Phil. 1028 (1996); Rodriguez v. Jardin, G.R. No. 141834, July 30, 2007, 528 SCRA 516.

[13] Rollo, pp. 22-24.

[14] 381 Phil. 690 (2000).

[15] Vide People v. Jalosjos, supra at 707.

[16] Art. III, Sec. 13.

[17] Defined in the RULES OF COURT, Rule 114, Sec. 6; vide REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659 (1993); but cf. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9346 (2006).

[18] RULES OF COURT, Rule 114, Sec. 7.

[19] Vide REVISED PENAL CODE, Arts. 266-B & 135.

[20] Rollo, pp. 86, 257 citing the RTC Orders of July 24, 2004 and June 13, 2006, respectively.

[21] RULES OF COURT, Rule 114, Sec. 8; vide Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 427 Phil. 820, 864 (2002); People v. Manes, 362 Phil. 569, 576 (1999).

[22] SC ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 2-92 (January 20, 1992); People v. Divina, G.R. Nos. 93808-09, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 209, 223; People v. Fortes, G.R. No. 90643, June 25, 1993, 223 SCRA 619, 625-626; Padilla v. CA, 328 Phil. 1266, 1269-1270 (1996); People v. Gomez, 381 Phil. 870 (2000).

[23] People v. Jalosjos, supra at 703, which states the rationale that society must protect itself.

[24] G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 188, 212.

[25] 380 Phil. 1 (2000).

[26] People v. Hon. Maceda, 380 Phil. 1, 5 (2000).

[27] People v. Jalosjos, supra at 706, even while remarking that the accused should not even have been allowed by the prison authorities to perform certain acts in discharge of his mandate.

[28] Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan, 227 Phil. 642 (1986).

[29] Rollo, pp. 68, 91.

[30] Supra note 10.

[31] Vide RULES OF COURT, Rule 114, Secs. 5, 8.

[32] Obosa v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 253, 271 (1997). In exceptional cases, the court may consider serious illness or an ailment of such gravity that his continued confinement will endanger his life or permanently impair his health. [De la Rama v. People’s Court, 77 Phil. 461 (1946) cited in Borinaga v. Tamin, A.M. No. RTJ-93-936, September 10, 1993, 226 SCRA 206, 213; vide People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 573, 585-586].

[33] No. L-6352, January 29, 1953, 49 O.G. No. 5 (May 1953), 1855.

[34] Notably, at that time, “reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death” was the imposable penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code prior to Republic Act No. 7659 (1993) which, inter alia, increased the penalty.

[35] Supra note 33.

[36] Vide RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1940), Rule 110, Sec. 6; RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1964), Rule 114, Sec. 6.

[37] Bravo, Jr. v. Borja, No. L-65228, February 18, 1985, 134 SCRA 466, 472; vide Obosa v. Court of Appeals, supra at 268-269 citing De la Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1, 6-7 (1971). It must be understood, however, that the standard of strong evidence of guilt is markedly higher than the standard of probable cause sufficient to initiate criminal cases. (Vide Cabrera v. Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 157419-20, December 13, 2004, 446 SCRA 207, 217).

[38] Rollo, pp. 71-74. Obeña rejected, however, his request to set up a working area at his place of detention, citing space and security reasons, but stated that other areas within the Marine Barracks Manila can be considered as an immediate and temporary working area.

[39] Id. at 31-32.

[40] Alejano v. Cabuay, supra at 206.

[41] REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438 (1992) or “An Act Defining Certain Rights of the Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation, as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, and Investigating Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof,” Sec. 4, last par.

[42] Aguinaldo v. Santos, G.R. No. 94115, August 21, 1992, 212 SCRA 768, 773; Salalima v. Guingona, 326 Phil. 847, 919-920 (1996).

[43] Aguinaldo v. Santos, supra at 773-774; People v. Jalosjos, supra at 703; Cabrera v. Marcelo, supra at 21-6-217; People v. Toledano, 387 Phil. 957 (2000).

[44] People v. Jalosjos, supra at 706.

[45] People v. Jalosjos, supra; cf. Government of the United States of America v. Puruganan, 438 Phil. 417, 456-458 (2002).

[46] People v. Jalosjos, supra at 707.

[47] Rollo, pp. 75-76.

[48] People v. Jalosjos, supra at 704.

[49] Rollo, p. 60; before Barangay Chairman Ruben Gatchalian of Barangay 169, Deparo, Caloocan City.

[50] Id. at 34-35.

[51] People v. Jalosjos, supra at 704.

You can also access the same court ruling in the Surpeme Court website by clicking here.

 

Tagged With: Chief Justice Renato Corona, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, lawyer Reynaldo Robles, Philippine news, Senator Antonio Trillanes, Supreme Court

Comments

  1. nona says

    December 12, 2011 at 2:14 PM

    @jl
    a final posting in simple economics.
    hopefully even dumb and dumber can understand this

    World Bank 11 Dec 2011

    Among emerging markets, the Philippines
    received one of the lowest levels of foreign
    direct investments. FDI net inflows in
    the Philippines amounted to just $1 .71 billion – the only country to record a decline – 36% down, just a fraction of the global FDI flows of $1 .3 trillion.

    FDIs received by the Philippines were
    much lower than
    China’ s $185 .08 billion,
    Brazil’s $48 .4 billion, Russia’s $42 .9 billion,
    India’s $24 .2 billion, Mexico’s $18 .7 billion,
    Singapore’s 16.8 billion, +123%
    Indonesia’s $13 .3 billion,+163%.
    Malaysia’ s $9 .51 billion, +410%
    Vietnam’s $8.6 billion +110%
    Thailand’s $6 .3 billion +65%
    and within 2 years it is likely that even
    Cambodia – $1.3 billion – will overtake the Philippines

    Clearly the international investor is bypassing the Philippines in favour of the other ASEAN countries and, with 20%+ of GDP derived from ofw remittances and call centres, impending legislation, in particular the anti-outsourcing bill in the US, the Philippines will face significant added challenges in 2012 with increased pressure on unemployment, which is already over 7.5%, and poverty levels – still increasing as population growth continues at a high level.
    Rising power and commodity prices are also contributing to a slowdown in retail spending as families have reduced disposable income.
    The PPP strategy which is the Government’s single economic stimulator has failed resulting in little spending on infrastructure projects and no stimulus to the economy as a whole.
    investment restrictions, trade barriers, levels of corruption and difficulty in business ‘set-up’ add to a less than receptive environment.
    macro-economic fundamentals have shown little positive improvement and S&P will not improve the credit rating in the foreseeable future.

    better look for a new scapegoat than chief economist corona – the projections for 2012 look even grimmer.
    plan a – play the blame game
    plan b – god will provide.

    game, set and match
    au revoir

    • Baltazar says

      December 12, 2011 at 6:05 PM

      Splendid. But this one gives a glimmer of hope ..at least to the optimist.

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/45128939/The_World_s_10_Worst_Countries_for_Business?slide=8

    • Johnny Lin says

      December 13, 2011 at 2:21 AM

      @Nona
      You understand the problem, refuse to cooperate solving it, criticizes by wallowing on it.

      Low FDI along with flight of established foreign investors is due to poor investment climate plagued by corruption, unstable judiciary, complex regulatory requirements. This is what PNoy is trying to correct. 7 days creating the universe. PNoy on first year out of 6.

      Simple solution: Clean the impurities, prepare the land gingerly, harvest fruitfully.
      Problem: stubborn, pessimistic, impatient, egotist, domestic business people.
      Are you?
      Ciao!

    • Dan Lao says

      December 14, 2011 at 12:49 PM

      Nona since you like plagiarizing your comments let me copy and paste something for you.

      WE ARE A SOCIETY BUILT NOT JUST BY MEN, BUT THE LAWS CREATED BY MEN. WHEN PEOPLE LOSE TRUST ON THE VERY LAWS WHICH SERVES AS PILLARS OF OUR DEMOCRACY, ANACHY RESULTS. WHEN PEOPLE SEE THAT INJUSTICE RULES, AND THE RULES OF THE ELITE ARE MOST DOMINANT, DISSENT RAGES AND DYSFUNCTIONALISM ENSUES. FOREIGN INVESTORS WILL ALSO BE DEATHLY AFRAID OF DEALING WITH US, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE IMPRESSION THAT THE COURTS INTEGRITY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED http://newphilrevolution.blogspot.com/ .

      So Nona what else does your crystal ball says about 2012? Ooohhh “The Projections for 2012 look even grimmer”. Lol first you paint yourself as a millionaire foreign entrepreneur, a luminary of Philippine laws, a socialite, a connoisseur of expensive whisky etc… Now you’re a Fortune Teller.. Good try twisting facts and spreading you’re shrewd wisdom. You need to tell your buddy Corona AU REVOIR!! He is on his way down that filthy drain your kind belong to.

      Weak people will listen to shrewd wisdom. People who look at the world objectively, will see the lies and will not be fooled by men pretending to be LUMINARIES.

      2 Corinthians 11:15 Since Satan himself is capable of appearing to be an angel of light, it is not to be deemed strange that those who are in his service also should resemble him.

    • nothing knows says

      December 18, 2011 at 5:08 AM

      @ nona

      it seems you are good business woman that loves so much profit. and afraid of bankruptcy. now as part of your presentation FDI can you cite what factors why PH is below level behind other countries? how it does corporate to the 3 co – equal branches as of present time? what does gov’t needs to do base on the 3 co -equal branches? what can you recommend?

      Since you are good in business category? how will you interpret this simple equation
      base on 3 co -equal branches?

      A. P 1,000,000.00 minus 1 centavo =?

      what is the result?
      what happen to the result?
      how does it affects to the assets?
      how much the impact?

      B. HLI 2 BN pesos compare to 1 BN dollar of GMA’s total illigal transactions? which is bigger?
      what is the effect of the law of diminishing supply?
      the law of supply and demand?
      how much the cost and benefits ratio to the PH?

      i hope you can answer logically and rationally.

      Ms raiissa thank you i found so much wisdom on your article why GMA should not treated well? Thanks to PNOY he is the first president checking the monkey business in SC.

      oppsss Thank you nona for your pretending as good economist educator. wish your company will not derail in economic crisis, no riots and long live for your money egos.

      sorry my English.

    • leona says

      February 5, 2012 at 3:22 PM

      Can I suggest a reply Ms. Raissa? With your permission: maybe the ‘PINAS gets only so much because the “other billions” may just land in the pockets of corrupt officials! So, the foreign investors skip ‘PINAS !

  2. MALYN says

    December 10, 2011 at 11:02 AM

    Isipin na lang ng mga Abogago (este Abogado ) ng mga Arroyo at ganon din ng kanilang magaling na tagapagsinungalin at sobra kasinungalin at nabubuhay sa kasinungalingan (este spokesperson) na si Elena Horn na hindi sila dapat humingi sa gobyerno na bawat naisin ng kanilang Klieyente na si GMA na kailangan ng ganito at ganoon , sapagkat si Gloria Arroyo ay karaniwang detainee na ngayon. at hindi sila dapat magdemand ng kung ano ano ang gustuhin , okey. Hndi nakakapagtakang isipin na kaya naman walang takot ang mga Arroyo ng gumawa ng kabulastugan noong sila ay nasa puwesto, kase naman siya ang may ari ng Arroyo Supreme Court Corporation. Oh anong say ‘n’yo.

  3. Tron C. says

    December 10, 2011 at 7:30 AM

    Very nice analysis. Keep it up, people should really know what really happened before and now they are crying foul!!!!

  4. Windy says

    December 10, 2011 at 5:28 AM

    Trillanes was convicted before he was not allowed to use the computer, etc… while Gloria has not been convicted yet.

    • raissa says

      December 10, 2011 at 7:11 AM

      Don’t twist the facts. He wasn’t convicted yet.

    • MALYN says

      December 12, 2011 at 2:02 PM

      Wow! hanggang sa kaunting hininga, talagang isinisingit mo pa rin ang pagtatanggol sa sa pekeng naging Pangulo ng Pilipinas na si Gloria Magnanakaw Arroyo, na malaki ang ginawang kabulastugan sa mga institusyon ng bansa at nangulimbat sa kabang yaman ng bayang sinilangan. Sulong Magsama kayong dalawa sa VMMC .

      • Baltazar says

        December 12, 2011 at 3:02 PM

        @Malyn ,
        I think you are barking the wrong tree. Raissa refers to Trillanes hence she said “He wasn’t convicted yet”. And with all her blogs here, Gloria will be the last person on earth Raissa will defend LOL. :-) . Be careful and read carefully.

      • Karl says

        December 14, 2011 at 5:01 PM

        wow mali

        • jeoff says

          December 21, 2011 at 5:00 PM

          @MALYN

          Please bring your brain, sometimes. Thanks!

        • jundel says

          January 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM

          I think Malyn was referring to Windy here not Raissa. Guys do tell the lady some apology. Ok

  5. nona says

    December 9, 2011 at 6:08 PM

    @balt
    you labour under a fundamental misapprehension that anyone who expresses an adverse opinion must be (a) paid or (b) pro arroyo.
    i am neither and it is the likes of you who stifle debate through prejudgement and bias, and schoolboy logic/manners, which will not get you far in life, i assure you.
    i will be nicer, if you will be smarter.
    and a point for future reference.
    keep arguments clear , concise and on the topic.
    all issues are multi-faceted.
    additionally i respect RR and her journalism/blog, so am not interested in those who relegate the quality through personal sleights.

    • Johnny lin says

      December 10, 2011 at 11:29 AM

      @Nona
      Please read the Peter Wallace article, attachment on latest posting of @keanleago in another RR thread “Lawyer Lozano”….. this should enlighten you on the business importance of a fair judicial system. Mr.Wallace is a businessman and columnist of a business publication, Manila Standard. His sources were local and foreign businessmen and company CEOs doing business in the Philippines.The conclusions he presented on the reforms needed by our SC, like the cessation of TRO issuance by SC and credible SC with trusted independent minded justices were basically the same answers I replied to your questions in the article.

      • nona says

        December 10, 2011 at 7:41 PM

        @jlin
        The columnist peter wallace and i do agree – that the economy is in bad shape with no clear strategy to effect a turn-round.
        I have stated previously that corruption is a critical barrier to investment, however trying to place the economic ills at the door of the sc is not only illogical, it would be an insult to expect a 5th grader to believe that.
        International investors would like to see the implementation of FoI, charter change on 60/40 investment and the implementation of World Trade Organisation ruling on duties.(this is another ruling aquino doesnt like and is not implementing!) no doubt he thinks he knows better than them also.
        protectionism and an oligarchical economic model is outdated and condemns the country to generations of poverty.
        The sc telenovela is a convenient diversion.
        As an addendum the case will not prosper so aquino et al had better shape up, or maybe they already know it and are preparing the public.
        FDI has plummeted to the lowest in ASEAN at less than 6%. arroyo tro/election saga is not my priority in decision making. the incompetence of how the government is handling it and that they have a one-trick strategy to their administration is of more concern.
        Advice
        Get better lawyers as a start point!
        Impeach corona if so critical ( after distributing hacienda luisita land)
        But stop stirring up unrest and playing on peoples emotions, who suddenly seem to think they are legal luminaries, constitutional experts or international businessmen.

        • Dan Lao says

          December 10, 2011 at 10:50 PM

          Lol why don’t you read your own advice. You’re the only one that’s trying to be all of what you wrote. Self appointed Legal Luminary, A constitutional expert, millionaire international business man. Stop claiming to be someone that we can’t verify. Nona’s thoughts and projection of the world only revolves around Nona’s world.

          The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity. ~André Gide

      • nona says

        December 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM

        i dont want to belittle peter wallace – too much – since i havent met him, but do scan his columns on occasion and since you use him as a key foundation of your comments then remember that firstly he is a columnist not a businessman. a 1 person company for speeches etc is not a businessman. and secondly his international survey in 2008 concluded that the 2007 elections were ‘ fair and credible’ and that gma was the leader the country needs.!
        he wont be consulting for me.

    • Dan Lao says

      December 10, 2011 at 9:13 PM

      Nona says Baltazar stifles debate through prejudgement and bias but then she said this about Pnoy “the hypocricy is appalling and reveals the true person. self interest with no sense of decency, integrity, or right and wrong etc… just the cojuangco trait of dictatorship”. Even a 5th grader knows that only a hypocrite talks like this. She didn’t just prejudge the president but the whole Cojuanco clan. Rants about our capacity for debate but never answer back, instead eludes it with ” Yo mama can’t suck duck eggs (then she said I’m not in her league cause I called her a crab mental retard after saying this lol, and mind you people, this person claims she’s an intellectual), I’m too smart or too rich to answer that question, you haven’t been to Singapore so i’m smarter than you, I can’t talk to people who doesn’t use big words”. I can go on and on. I’m starting to think that Nona last name is “Horn”. And then Cry me a river when she said this “those who try to shoot the messenger have no ammunition against the message nor the intellectual capacity for debate” Really?. You already got shot so many times but you only fired back with blanks. lol. Let me see. I think i can guess the response for this. ” You have bad manners and bad parenting, so am not interested in those who relegate the quality through personal sleights, an amusing insight into the political awareness of the masses, but now boring. And this “The columnist peter wallace and i do agree, I saw President Aquino in the crowd so I know him”. lol now she’s a self appointed important person (utak wang wang). Sounds like a bitter sweet symphony of a hypocrite who craves national attention and stop trying to be smart. You’re pathetic.

      • Baltazar says

        December 11, 2011 at 8:44 AM

        LOL & LOL . I have missed a lot! I’ll get back , promise. I’m just too busy this weekend to write my dumb piece :-)

      • Baltazar says

        December 11, 2011 at 11:11 PM

        @Nona,
        Extreme as it may be, but that is prejudice and everyone in this world has his/her share of it. You have yours. You’ll go to hell (because liars do) if you say you don’t have one. When you join a site discussion like this, you get out of your circle – your “league” as you intelligently put it. Your own circle is your comfort zone but don’t expect everyone outside it to just catch and chew what you throw.
        Your very own words hammer nails to your own coffin:
        “i will be nicer, if you will be smarter.” – It’s ok, you don’t owe me anything to be nice and hmm… yeah you made your self a cut above the rest – no one can be smarter than you because just as Dan Lao said, you are an “appointee” as the smartest here ; appointed by none other but yourself. And hang on, that’s a prejudice isn’t it?
        Now, here’s my point on the topic. Being a business person as you claim to be, you are explicitly advocating charter change on the 60/40. In my understanding, this means if the cha-cha gets implemented, 100% foreign ownership of local businesses and properties will be possible but hold on… I saw another nail “(this is another ruling aquino doesnt like and is not implementing!) ” ..Oh my, why Aquino, why not Gloria when she was still in the position? To my recollection, she tried to push cha-cha as well right? And why the executive when cha-cha is supposed to be danced gracefully by the legislative? Uh oh, is it a dumb question? Well, there goes his influence as the party leader nevertheless, GMA failed also on this area. Anyways, that’s beside the point. What about this: one of the growing social issues here in Singapore is the locals’ outcry that foreigner- owners of real properties are getting more and more and because of the incumbent party’s policy in the past where more foreigners were employed and (paid better), it has reverberated negatively on the real property cost which in short means: foreigners can afford to buy the properties in already marked-up prices (dictated by the law of supply and demand, I believe) and the Singaporeans with their lesser income could not afford to. FYI, this was the main reason why in the General Elections this year, the Singapore founding father’s party (PAP = Lee K Y’s party) only garnered an embarrassing 60% vote. Now being an expert in everything here, how will you address this possible similar social issue if the cha-cha gets passed?… that more foreigners will be owning Philippine lands where the price gap becomes wider and make it even more impossibly affordable for the masses? This is just a “Miss Universe” question. With your self-imposed intelligence, I believe it is trivial. BTW, I think you still have not defended your position regarding your argument “It’s all about Hacienda Luisita”. Come on, your enlightenment will be an added bonus for me aside from meeting some jerks on this site .
        And thank you indeed for the cheap shot “and schoolboy logic/manners, which will not get you far in life, i assure you.”. But you, a personality expert who knew PNoy in a single wink of an eye are entirely wrong. I’m quite happy with what I have accomplished in life now, family and property-wise and my contemporaries envy me for that. ( oops, modesty aside, no self-adoration please)… well “schoolboy logic/manners” really makes me younger than you – an old whino.
        I think Payatas is better place to visit than Singapore… that will give you more of the reality about the Filipinos’ lives. You’re too far-sited. And you have the nerve to brag about your investments. The Philippine dollar economy relies heavily on the OFW remittances and I’m proud to be one of those unsung heroes providing this for the country. Sorry for being out of your league, I may not be able to reach your level. It’s too low maybe. Merry Christmas.

        • Johnny lin says

          December 12, 2011 at 4:23 AM

          Sometimes it is necessary pinpointing to others their proper pole. Baltazar couldn’t have verbalized it more eloquently.
          St Augustine: “do you want to rise, begin by descending”

          @Nona, try not to be condescending to fellow bloggers. You might be surprised many of us are not what you have imagined, probably possess more than what you unnecessary brag. Hard earned too.Humility is still admirable despite overflowing pockets. Lol!

          @Baltazar, I salute you; what the heck, we worked our ass, once in a blue moon we deserve to be cocky. Toast to your candor and honesty, cheers with my 18 yr single malt McCallan, caviar and foie gras hor d’ouevres while watching football in my penthouse overlooking Shaq’s lanai on Fisher Island.

        • Baltazar says

          December 12, 2011 at 12:07 PM

          @Johnny Lin . A toast mate! Your place is a beauty but Alaskan cruise is next to my itinerary LOL :-). Seriously, thanks but no, a salute to everybody. I really mean everyone here. An environment becomes colorful because of people. The Philippine senate would have been more boring without the likes of Miriam Santiago :-) Case rested. Lets follow what’s next. The whole world is watching.

        • Johnny Lin says

          December 12, 2011 at 1:43 PM

          @Baltazar
          Agree,nice crowd here, more power and cheers to Robles tandem too.
          Miriam?  If the troll knows what you mean.
          Freezing tundra this time, bison adobo with Chivas Royal Salute, cooool
          safe sailing.

        • nona says

          December 12, 2011 at 2:02 PM

          @jl
          “We must not contradict, but instruct him that
          contradicts us; for a madman is not cured by
          another running mad also.”
          Anisthenes

          Disagree but do not dissent – The former is the lifeblood of democracy in the civilised world, the latter the foundation of tyranny in the 3rd world.
          Disagreement is opinions based on fact and argument based on intellect. Dissent is rantings based on blind belief.

          Try MENSA to exercise the mind, yoga to chill, and take out the angst on the squash court but keep both life and endorphins in balance.
          And always remember manners separate us from untrained animals, and uncouth airheads.

          P.s. Its only arrogance if you are wrong. And the best have earnt bragging rights – not that i personally need to.

          P.p.s hacienda luisita – cojuangco loss if sc ruling not changed in near future ; est. 5 – 7 Billion pesos, and future opportunity loss est. 30 – 40 Billion pesos.

          Gdp comparison (annual) – US Dollars
          Singapore – 62,100
          US – 47,200
          HK – 45,900
          Japan – 34,000
          Malaysia – 14,700
          Cuba – 9,900
          Thailand – 8,700
          Philippines – 3,500

          Wealthy in singapore is the norm.

          Good luck. The holidays beckon.
          Dont spend all your xmas bonus on cheap scotch. Try lagavulin or glenlivet. For the more discerning bon viveur.

        • Johnny Lin says

          December 13, 2011 at 2:56 AM

          @Nona
          You must be in the hotel/restaurant/club business; your clients expenditures are dwindling that is why you are panicking and blaming PNoy. Yes or No?

          Glenlivet and Lagavulin are preferred brands of bars and restaurants because from them they make the most profit. They are the budweisers of single malts. If you don’t know, it’s the casking years and place of origin in the highlands of Scotland that make a fine single malt taste.

          MENSA is over rated, many of whom are confined in penitentiaries and mental institutions; that’s why I renounced by membership decades ago. AA is better, Above Average, i.e. Yes above proved my Mensa.
          Oh, did you you watch the nude yoga instructor of Kim Kardashian. She divorced after that yoga training. Overyoga that is why you are divorced from the reality of the nation’s problems.

  6. nona says

    December 8, 2011 at 2:33 PM

    i wouldnt deem to lower myself to your level or style of comment and ‘debate’.
    dont play above your league. it is demeaning – for you and a waste of time and cyberspace for me.

    an amusing insight into the political awareness of the masses, but now boring

    • nona says

      December 8, 2011 at 2:39 PM

      above @danlao
      check out why the government has filed MR against SC HL ruling
      will be good for your education
      manners , i blame bad parenting

      • Dan Lao says

        December 9, 2011 at 9:24 AM

        You’re narrowing all your arguments on an isolated case. You’re the type that will put a blind eye for the right price. You can’t even prove your nonsense blabber with an educated explanation. Why should I check it out? Why do we have to go to Singapore?Why don’t you in an objective manner, prove it in this discussion that Hacienda Luisita and Hacienda Luisita alone is the sole purpose of President Aquino’s quest to nail the SC justices to the cross. Don’t just throw words out, prove it. Since you’re the expert in everything from politics to the supreme court and LOL, You caught a glimpse of President Pnoy and all of the sudden you know all about him. I’m sorry but, I don’t think you even come close to my league. My parents taught me at an early age that money, fame and power don’t mean anything unless you have the right convictions. My foot is always on the ground where I came from and I was always taught to stand up to people who thinks their shit don’t stink. What’s the matter, are you running out of big words, maybe you should go back to Singapore and attend some more comparative events. You claim to be a multi millionaire investor??? You’re shit still stinks!!. With that statement alone, you looked down on everyone here. I’m sure that made you feel important. You’re just making a fool of yourself. I don’t like “Utak Wang Wang” crab mental retards, who’s full of nonsense blabber just to feel important. “Dont play above you’re league, waste of cyberspace…Looks like excuses to me, you can’t prove with objectivity all the nonsense you wrote in here, looks like you’re the one who can’t play in our league. Maybe you should take debate classes, stop wasting you’re money going to Singapore and stop looking at the dictionary when you’re writing a response. You sound pathetic every time. Start going to church. Start basing everything from “Right and Wrong” and look at the bigger picture. I just gave you the cure to your crab metal retiredness. Its alright my friend, you can keep your millions. My consultation is free of charge.

        • nona says

          December 9, 2011 at 10:01 AM

          that rattled your cage.
          closed minds prisons make, as you have so ineloquently shown.
          merry xmas

        • Baltazar says

          December 9, 2011 at 11:38 AM

          … yeah bragging about her tax in millions. I just hope she got her earnings with clean hands, or who knows , for getting associated with the midget thief. To quote her ( or him) : “an amusing insight into the political awareness of the masses, but now boring” .. this means she can’t identify herself with the masses..
          @Nona you mentioned Singapore, I am here. Why not see me for a real show down?

    • Baltazar says

      December 8, 2011 at 10:12 PM

      Nona, Nona , your pseudonym reveals your true self… NON..sense. Has someone paid you to be nuisance here?

      • nona says

        December 9, 2011 at 7:19 AM

        @baltazar
        “The wise understand by themselves; fools
        follow the reports of others”

        those who try to shoot the messenger have no ammunition against the message nor the intellectual capacity for debate

        • Baltazar says

          December 9, 2011 at 10:35 AM

          @Nona,
          Let me quote your own words: “don’t play above your league. it is demeaning – for you and a waste of time and cyberspace for me.” It’s a blog site – You comment and if somebody comments back, fine but at the end of the day it’s Raissa’s blog , not yours, and the argument “root” is not yours. You are shooting arrows indiscriminately hence the cursings – although I agree with Raissa, it’s boring. If it’s a waste of cyberspace and time for you, what are you doing here? And what intellectual capacity for debate you are bragging? Your heavily grammatic way of defending your cause? We can debate in English, Spanish, and Tagalog – certainly no problem with me but there’s no point in doing that. Why? You have already set your biases. It’s quite obvious that you are on the midget thief’s side.But sorry, she’s unfortunately too unpopular and you are overwhelmed by her detractors here (just fyi, if you are stupidly naive of the facts). And I hate thieves! And let me reverse your psuedonym – Anon for anonymous… who knows, you are one of those paid ass kissers surrounding the famous unfamous fake president.
          Ms. Raissa, beware of spammers. It may shutdown the site. And if that happens, I will definitely miss it. :-)

  7. nona says

    December 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM

    with so much to say on the judiciary and how right he is, then maybe aquino would like to talk about ericson acosta – wikipinoy of the year – locked up this year by the government on fabricated charges and now on hunger strike. he is not the only one.
    maybe the subservient media should also start acting as journalists and not pr spokemen.

    the hypocricy is appalling and reveals the true person. self interest with no sense of decency, integrity, or right and wrong. just the cojuangco trait of dictatorship.

    • raissa says

      December 8, 2011 at 5:37 PM

      whose hypocrisy?

      • nona says

        December 9, 2011 at 7:57 AM

        Corruption and hypocricy are the almost inevitable stock in trade of politicians.
        It is up to the thinking minority to apply the vigilence and standards which the blind faith of the majority will not, or cannot, see and which those in power do not want you to see.

        Apollo Victoria, said he had
        visited Acosta in jail and his continuing
        detention without charges constitutes a
        grave human rights violation.
        “Aquino wants to talk about human rights
        but cases like Ericson’s slip through the
        cracks, and he doesn’t do anything about
        it,” he was quoted as saying in a report.

        “Amnesty international condemned the continued abuse of human rights under the aquino administration”

  8. nona says

    December 7, 2011 at 8:36 PM

    waffle.
    failed.
    point proved.
    but good try.
    anyone else care to step up to the plate

    • nona says

      December 7, 2011 at 8:38 PM

      above @jlin re prosecution statistics

    • neknek says

      December 8, 2011 at 2:39 PM

      il try.. putang ina mo!

  9. maricel pangilinan arenas says

    December 7, 2011 at 4:58 PM

    always so lucid, raissa. salamat.
    when do we meet na pala? :-)

  10. Maria C. Zarate says

    December 7, 2011 at 1:58 PM

    Nothing personal? Not disrespecting the SC?

    FRONTLINE

    Ninez Cacho-Olivares
    12/07/2011

    Noynoy Aquino is so full of himself, as well as his being so full of bull manure that he believes he can insult and attack anyone he sees as his foe — and get away with his ultra rude behavior with his spokesmen and aides coming to his defense by claiming that Noynoy was not being “bastos” but merely articulating the frustration of the people, or that he was just voicing his opinion on “factual events” and not in any way was he trying to destroy the credibility of the high court, erode the public’s faith in the court of the last resort and that there was nothing personal in his attacks. They even claimed that Noynoy respects the Supreme Court (SC).

    That’s pure bullshit and if they think that the Filipino people will buy their crappy explanation, they should have another think coming.

    What makes Noynoy think that it is he, and only he, who “serves” the interest of the people, and not the SC justices, and particularly, SC Chief Justice Renato Corona, merely because Gloria Arroyo had appointed him to head the top post of the judiciary? He has proved many times over that he protects his and his family’s interest, as well as the interests of his KKK.

    And why does Noynoy, who claims to uphold the Constitution, insist in his belief that Corona is a midnight appointee, despite the fact that the SC justices ruled that Corona’s appointment is legitimate and constitutional? Noynoy may sit in Malacañang today, but he certainly does not have the people’s mandate to interpret the law — only the SC has that power and authority.

    Truth is, he made a fool of himself making that disgusting speech, insulting the high court before a crowd gathered at the justice summit where all three heads of the government branches were present. He not only demeaned the Office of the President, but also made himself an embarrassment of a president and showed his lack of manners, his very poor breeding, his kanto boy nature, apart from his megalomia and perhaps he even showed signs of emotional instability, if not bipolarism.

    Just how can he claim he does not disrespect the high court and the Chief Justice, when his words and actions all point to his utter disrespect for them, especially as he knew that the SC CJ was present, as he should be, since it was a summit organized by the judiciary.

    How can he even say that he respects the SC and the Constitution, when he refuses to abide by the rulings of the court, saying the SC comes up with wrong decisions, and that he and he alone knows what is right and wrong, insisting that the SC, whose majority members have been appointed by Arroyo, are partisan and loyal to the person who appointed these justices? That he was undermining the high court is much too evident, and he has turned himself into a laughingstock locally and internationally. What president encourage the people to go against the high court rulings?

    But what hypocrites they all are, Noynoy being the most hypocritical of them all, to claim that it is the court that is at fault for Noynoy’s inability to bring about change and reforms. Why can’t Noynoy even take responsibility for his failure as a president, and constantly lay the blame of his failures on somebody else, in this case, CJ Corona.

    Then he states that it is not he who is fighting Corona and the high court. It is Corona who is fighting the executive by being the stumbling block to his reforms and change.

    What crap. From the start, he targeted Corona calling him a midnight appointee and refused to recognize him as the duly constituted head of the judiciary. To this day, Noynoy refuses to acknowledge Corona as such, which is why he cannot possibly claim that he does not disrespect him and the high court, nor can he claim that he is not undermining the court, because he is doing just that — and not just once attacking the high court but many times over — and on the same theme.

    The SC spokesman, Midas Marquez, warned against undermining the credibility of the courts, which is a co-equal branch of government along with the legislative and executive.

    “That is why we have the rule of law. Tat is why we have our courts because we have to exercise these proper checks and balances no matter how popular one branch of government is. If one branch is not doing something in accordance with the Constitution, then the other branch should check that particular branch,” he said.

    But the megalomaniac Noynoy won’t ever stop with his hate campaign.

    He is a sorry excuse for a president of the republic—so thoroughly unfit to be president of a nation.

    • Johnny Lin says

      December 7, 2011 at 6:55 PM

      If Ninez Olivares is related to columnist Belinda Olivares her opinion is expected. Belinda was staunch defender of GMA because her husband was SSS administrator S. Cunanan accused of pocketing millions worth of stocks belonging to the government.
      Ninez was exercising her right expressing her freedom of speech by criticizing the President’s speech, who in turn, despite being chief executive, also has similar freedom which was directed to the Chief Justice. The final judge is “by the people, of the people, for the people”, the way it works, PNoy critics like it or not!

      • raissa says

        December 7, 2011 at 7:19 PM

        Belinda is the sister-in-law of Ninez.

        They did not see eye to eye on GMA.

        • net says

          December 7, 2011 at 7:35 PM

          kasi magkaibang partido sila ma’am ano po? maka gloria si belinda, maka erap naman si ninez. ba’t kaya gigil na gigil yan kay pnoy, may alam ka ma’am? :)

        • Johnny Lin says

          December 7, 2011 at 7:52 PM

          They have a common enemy, PNoy.

        • Johnny Lin says

          December 7, 2011 at 8:13 PM

          @Raissa
          The reason I appreciate your blogs is everyone is fair game to you. When journalists are getting favors from the administration or appointed to paid government positions by politicians their independent judgment is clouded. It does not mean their articles should not be read but always view them with skepticism because the writers are tainted. When their request for favors are rejected watch out for their opinions inclination?

        • pelang says

          February 21, 2012 at 1:53 AM

          these names are familiar. i remember when real newspapers during martial law days were hard to come by (meaning puro mga pronouncements lagi ng malakanyang ni marcos ang isinasaad sa mga newspapers, i resorted to reading Business Day and Belinda Olivares was one of my favorites. I haven’t read her columns for a long time. Most of those she wrote were against the past government. Bumaligtad na baga ‘yan?

        • raissa says

          February 21, 2012 at 6:41 AM

          Yes.

    • Baltazar says

      December 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

      Why would someone post this pathetic old-school journalist’s personal comments here? This is Raissa’s blog, hello?Her column and that of Beinda’s are the ones I always skip in the Philippine Daily Inquirer back in my college days. Is she losing her readers?
      Ms.Raissa, can I request your hubby to put a thumb up and thumb down button for each post? This Ninez’s comments surely gets one thumb down from me. Let me make myself clear… not because of content but because of being posted improperly. Show stealer.

      • raissa says

        December 8, 2011 at 9:11 PM

        I’ll try to look for the widget but I’m not promising anything.

    • Mike says

      December 15, 2011 at 12:58 AM

      Ako ay ordinaryong taxpayer na nakatira sa lupang hindi akin. Ang katiwaliaan, pagnanakaw at pananamantala ng nakaraang administrasyon sa kaban ng bayan ay hinahabol ng kasalukuyang administrasyon na hinaharang ng SC. Iyan ang aking naiintindihan.

      Ibang usapin ang ekonomiya sa krimen. Pwedeng pagsabayin pero dapat papanagutin ang nagkasala sa batas.

      Pinahinto ba ang pamumudmod ng Fertilizer pagkatapos ng SCAM ni Joc-joc? Pero dapat papanagutin si Joc-joc at mga kasabwat niya.

      Si Corona at GMA ang nagbaboy sa SC at hindi si PNOY!

  11. nona says

    December 7, 2011 at 11:56 AM

    flawed logic and a lack of constitutional understanding, and a disregard of the political and practical implications of
    – a constitutional crisis
    – a call for impeachment
    – a revolutionary government
    – fuelling unrest

    p-noy is not thinking. period.

    • Ed says

      December 17, 2011 at 4:58 AM

      So be it!

  12. Taga diin says

    December 7, 2011 at 9:14 AM

    I smell people’s power against SC if they sided with CGMA.

    • raissa says

      December 7, 2011 at 9:19 AM

      How does it smell?

      • Tolitz says

        December 8, 2011 at 9:17 PM

        halitosis cum fart

  13. MALYN says

    December 7, 2011 at 8:36 AM

    Kung ano ang ipinatupad na pagtrato ng Administrasyong Arroyo kay Senator Trillanes noong itong ay nakakulong ay dapat ganun ang trato na ipatutupad kay Gloria Arroyo ngayong siya naman ang nakakulong tutal naman pareho na non – bailable ang kanilang kaso. Kung walang cellphone, at internet access si Senator Trillanes noong nasa PNP Custodial Center siya dapat wala rin para kay GMA ngayong siya ay mananatili sa VMMC. Wala dapat exemption to the rule para walang maging precedent sa mga susunod na high profile na makukulong din eh alam natin na di malayo ,siguradong marami pa ang mga government official sa panahon ni Arroyo ang susunod na mapapalagay sa Tangkal, lalo’t seryoso ang Aquino Administrasyon sa pagsugpo ng Korapsyon sa kanyang panunungkulan.

    • Shelltox says

      December 7, 2011 at 8:48 AM

      I agree.

      • chris says

        December 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM

        I argee… sigurado yan pag pinag bigyan si arroyo ng special treament yan ay maulit ulit ng sandalan ng mga high profile na politiko na makukulung. kaya kung ano ang batas yan ang masusunod.

« Older Comments
Newer Comments »

Trackbacks

  1. The internet and telephone connections of Gloria Arroyo and Antonio Trillanes | reyna elena dot com says:
    December 9, 2011 at 9:13 AM

    […] Read the full story here: Trillanes lawyer: Treat Gloria Arroyo the way her government treated my client […]

  2. [In the Web] Trillanes lawyer: Treat Gloria Arroyo the way her government treated my client | CARPE DIEM says:
    December 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM

    […] read full article at http://raissarobles.com/2011/12/05/trillanes-lawyer-treat-gloria-arroyo-the-way-her-government-treat… 0.000000 0.000000 GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist Then they came fof the Trade Unionists, and I did not out speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me— And there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Subscribe to raissarobles.com

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from raissarobles.com:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

This blog uses MailChimp as a mass mailing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp but only for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.

Christopher “Bong” Go is a billionaire – Duterte

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NmX1Px57cI

Find more of my articles by typing here:

My Stories (2009 – Present)

Cyber-Tambayan on Twitter:

Tweets by raissawriter

Copyright © 2022 · News Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Decline Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT