Inside Philippine politics & beyond

That certain smile

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

Here’s what Pres. Aquino said about smiling at the #SAF 44 commandos’ wake – 

Exclusive

by Raïssa Robles

When my request to interview President Aquino was unexpectedly granted last week, Malacañang Palace asked me, again, for a list of  interview questions. I had submitted a list months ago, but apparently they wanted a new copy.

I debated with myself whether I should take the opportunity to include something that had puzzled me for a long time.

It had to do with his facial expression during dramatic, tense moments. It seemed in many of these moments he was smiling – some said smirking.

I decided to submit it anyway.

Mindful he might walk out or terminate the interview abruptly, I waited until the latter part of the interview that lasted over two hours before I asked the question.

You could hear a pin drop in that vast room as his face visibly changed when he replied. Here’s what he said and it’s now on the front page of South China Morning Post online:

During the editing of my piece, my editor asked me to verify a photo he found online of Aquino, taken after he was shot in 1987.

He was also smiling.

Here is an excerpt of the top story on SCMP’s website today –

Philippine president Aquino explains why his smile shouldn’t make people angry

Raïssa Robles in Manila

UPDATED : Tuesday, 21 April, 2015, 8:42am

Philippine President Benigno Aquino has explained why people sometimes misunderstand his awkward smile – including in the wake of the 2010 Manila hostage tragedy in which eight Hongkongers died.

“I have various smiles for various purposes,” he told the South China Morning Post in an exclusive interview, as he recounted the outrage his enigmatic expressions have caused.

“Usually I have a particular smile when I am so fed up.”

Aquino is well known for smiling during moments when it would seem inappropriate. Earlier this year, he set off a storm of controversy in the Philippines when he appeared to smile at the wake for 44 commandos who were killed in a disastrous anti-terror operation in country’s Muslim majority south.

But it was an earlier smiling incident that is perhaps better known to Hongkongers.

In the aftermath of the 2010 Manila hostage crisis – in which disgruntled former Philippine policeman Rolando Mendoza hijacked a bus of tourists, leading to the deaths of eight Hongkongers – Aquino attracted furious criticism after appearing to smile at a press conference.

To read the rest, please click on this link.

UPDATE as of 12:31 PM, April 21, 2015:

Here’s what victims of the bus hostage crisis said in reaction to Aquino’s explanation:

Smiling Benigno Aquino ‘ridiculous’ and ‘lacking empathy’, Manila hostage crisis survivors say

By Samuel Chan

[email protected]

Philippine President Benigno Aquino’s reason for smiling after the 2010 Manila hostage crisis in which eight Hongkongers died was “ridiculous”, survivors said, accusing him of lacking empathy.

Aquino attracted furious criticism after disgruntled former Philippine policeman Rolando Mendoza hijacked a tourist bus, leading to a deadly shoot-out with police, when he appeared to smile at a press conference following the incident.

But the Philippine president told the South China Morning Post in an exclusive interview published today that “it was the absurdity” that made him smile briefly at the time.

“Some people will curse, will shout to high heavens… [the smile] is an effort to control [my emotions and actions],” he said.

But two survivors of the crisis agreed that “ridiculous” was the first word that came to mind when they heard Aquino’s reason for smiling.

One of them, Lee Ying-chuen, said Aquino’s attitude over the past five years, including his latest explanation, showed he “lacked empathy”.

To read the rest, please click on this link.

 

Comments

  1. Raïssa,

    Just a question, is there or are there any more article(s) you intend to write or release, and publish online in your blog (or at SCMP) from your 2 hour long exclusive interview with President B. Aquino III?

    Thanks.

  2. Judicial Activism

    The courts interpret and apply the law to the facts and circumstances of each case while the legislative branch makes the law.

    The courts are interpreting and applying the law to our constantly changing and evolving society.

    In the US Judicial Activism was applied in the Roe vs. Wade. The US Supreme Court created the right to abortion out of a “right to privacy” that’s not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. Meaning there was vagueness in the US constitution about this so the there was a need of Judicial Activism.

    In the Philippines, the SC in 1959 in deciding the case of Pascual vs. The Honorable Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija did just that, Judicial Activism, due to the absence in our Phillippine 1935 constitution about pubic trust thus the Doctrine of Condonation became a quasi-law until there is an explicit law overriding or supersedes that. In this case the 1987 Constitution just did override and supersede the existing jurisprudence of Doctrine of Condonation.

    We should not be against Judicial Activism since in challenging circumstances where there is vagueness in the existing laws or even absence of such, the judiciary can fill in the role of the legislative until the legislative decides to adopt, scrap, or improve on that jurisprudence with clear creation of laws.

    That is why, I repeat, the 1987 Constitution supersedes and make the Condonation Doctrine obsolete.

    Parekoy
    04-28-2015

    • The Court decision in Pascual vs Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija was never a result of judicial activism – far from it.

      It resulted from two grave judicial errors on the part of the Court. I will explain later.

      • I think the proper reply is to enumerate those two grave judicial errors you are referring and you can explain them later, else don’t reply with half-baked inclomplete reasoning.

        Your reply appears dismissive and change the tone of the discussion.

        Just a reminder.

        • Ok, let me explain why, in my opinion, the SC decision on the Pascual case was not an act of judicial activism.

          Judicial activism is when a judge decides on the basis of his personal leanings (example when one is anti-abortion or not), his political belief (example leaning democratic or republican beliefs) and is making decision contrary to existing laws (example, gay marriage.)

          In the case of Pascual the Supreme did not decide on the basis of personal or political leanings, and definitely did not decide against existing laws – if fact there was no existing law on the issue that is why I said the Pascual case is far from being a case of judicial activism.

          Now, your turn to explain the basis of your conclusion that it was judicial activism. Fair enough?

    • @ parekoy do you mean …Phillippine 1935 constitution about public trust thus the Doctrine of Condonation

      • xxx due to the absence in our Phillippine 1935 constitution about pubic trust thus the Doctrine of Condonation became a quasi-law

        • They call it “Legal Doctrines.”

          Some are here:

          abogadomo.com/philippine-jurisprudence/legal-doctrines-archive/legal-doctrines-page-1

        • There is no such term as quasi law in our legal system. The Condonation doctrine is a legal precept borne out of a case law or jurisprudence which has the force of law as per Civil Code.

        • ha ha ha . . . no such term as ‘quasi law’ . . . in 1959 before Pascual case, there was no term of condonation doctrine also. Now, Cdoctrine is a horrible term.

          When SC now adopts [email protected]’s term, there is will be a quasi law.

        • Quasi naman walang creativity ang mga SC noong 1959, nangopya pa sa America dahil ang 1935 Constitution nating eh bale bastardized lang na Constitution ng America.

          Quasi, quasi, quasi puro na lang palusot quasi…

          Quasi di pa ako pinanganak noon at wala pang internet quasi…

          :)

    • If I recall the second day of the oral arguments at the SC in Baguio City correctly, CJ Sereno in his questioning of Binay counsel Coronel (which sounded, to me, more like a lecture or a scolding from a teacher to a student) made much of the 1987 Constitution and it’s strong push or point on public trust in relation to the Condonation Doctrine. Meaning much like you wrote above, obsolete or inapplicable in the context of the new Constitution.

    • It would take another SC ruling or an enabling statute to abandon, override or supersede the Condonation Doctrine. The promulgation of the 1987 Constitutation did not automatically make such doctrine ineffective. Unless superseded by an act of Congress or ruling by SC, the doctrine remains valid and has the force of law per Civil Code. It does not make sense but this how our legal system operates. I agree that the doctrine contravenes the 1987 Constitution that is why it is now high time for Congress or SC to invalidate it.

      • Magandang umaga/tanghali/hapon/gabi.
        Hindi po ako abogado, ako po ay isang inhenyero.
        Hindi ba dapat mas dapat nasusunod ang 1987 Constitution kaysa sa 1935 Constitution kasama na yung mga doktrina na nakalumaan na.
        Ito’y aking opinyon lamang, na ibinabatay ko sa aking eksperiyensa bilang inhenyero; halimbawa nito ay ang pagdisenyo ng mga gusali o planta, bago maitayo ang isang planta may mga plano o design drawings na hinahanda, at ang mga plan o drawings na ito ay dumadaan sa maraming pagbabago o Revisions; sa aktuwal na pagtayo ng planta ang palaging ginagamit ay yung latest revisions.
        Kaya ganun din dapat sa ating Konstitusyon, kung ano yung pinakabago dapat siya ang masusunod.
        Salamat po.

        • Hi @ErwinR, like you, I’m an engineer, and like all engineers, we like to keep things simple and straightforward. I, too, am sometimes confused by how lawyers interpret the law. As far as I’m concerned, we must always keep the spirit of the law in mind. Our lawyers, however, keep on insisting on technicalities and argue over semantics. Maybe w should have more engineers to aid in crafting laws? Hehehe…

          By the way, @NHerrera is also an engineer.

        • filipino_mom,

          Sounds like a gem of an idea, fellow engineer. Them were the days — my days — when we had that wonderful piece and pride of the engineering profession: THE SLIDE RULE. I become nostalgic when I picture in my minds eye that piece of wood (made of plastic later).

        • Tama nga naman kayong mga Engineers!

          Ang BAGO ay dapat sinusunod. Sal engineering concepts or sa legal concepts.

          Ang problema ay: sinunod ba ng engineers? Sinunod ba ng mga judges at abogados? Sagot: Hindi.

          Paano ma susunod ang BAGO?

          Sagot para sa mga engineers: Pag BUMAGSAK ang structura kasi LUMA ang sinunud.

          Sa mga Judges at abogados: Pag NAKA LUSOT ang mga CORRUPTS ng local officials kasi na RE-ELECTED sila sa kabulagbulagan ng mga bobotantes!

          Hanggan walang bumagsak ‘o walang maka lusot na corrupts, HINDI NASUSOD ANG BAGO.

        • @ leona, as with everything else, we should avoid generalizations. wag lahatin. ;)

        • @NHerrera, di ko na inabot ang slide rule. hehehe… but i did hear about it from my instructors and my aunt who is also an engineer. stuff of legends, apparently. ;)

        • calculator na ang inabot ko pero tinuruan pa rin ako ng tatay gumamit ng slide rule. ngayon tinuturo ko na din sa aking 8 yr old kung papaano ang gumanit sa kanyang multiplication. wala lang para mayroon lang syang sense of history sa gamit ng kanyang lolo;

          engineers are involved in precisions. in exact science. but in law, ang mali ay pinipilit na maging tama. depende sa usapan. nawala na ang moral pera ang nangibabaw.

        • As a modern version of an engineer – a computer scientist – I subscribe to the same logic.

          Stuff that is not compatible with the latest operating system (Constitution) is obsolete.

          Kaya lang, legal thinking is somewhat different like some have already mentioned here…

        • I appreciate your reply @filipino_mom.
          I am still hoping that someday our beloved Pilipinas will be rid of all corrupt politicians/government officers/Judicial officers.

        • Unfortunately we can’t get rid of them all.

          We can minimize the numbers by the following:

          1. FOI Bill be out of Limbo Rock and be approved into law and be the BedRock of transparency! FOI Rocks!

          2. Anti-Dynasty Law to satisfy the aspiration explicitly cited in our constitution of the desire to have one, but our Legislators won’t budge to for it will be like shooting themselves.

          3. Make Epal (Billboards of construction sponsored by name of “Politician”, Tarpaulins with their unnecessary greetings, healthcards with the faces of the sitting politicians face, symbols like B in Quezon City’s properties) as a violation and could suspend the guilty from min. of 6 months to a max of one year.

          4. Throw the book of law to our erring public servants and don’t stop even if they are no longer sitting in their positions. Follow up and have a closure so that the message is clear, the law is not selective and prosecution does not stop even one steps down until the ill-gotten wealth are accounted and taken back in the coffers of our government and the guilty be meted punishment and pay time in jail or prison!

        • MY LAST WORD ON THE SLIDE RULE

          1935 Constitution is to the Slide Rule

          As

          1987 Constitution is to the Modern smartphone, tablet.

          Condonation Doctrine is to the Slide Rule

          As

          Public Trust in government is to the Smartphone, Tablet

          (BIG IMMEDIATE CORRECTION: no way can my beloved Slide Rule be compared to the Condonation Doctrine — a sacrilegious statement that.)

          Basta in love pa rin ako sa Slide Rule. I have it in in its case stored in a box of beloved mementos (the dear wife — goodness gracious, when will you throw all those things). I take it out from time to time. I demonstrated its use to my youngest Apo one time and showed how from the simple algebra of logarithms the engineers can multiply and divide numbers strung in a series in the numerator and denominator. Out of kindness to the Lolo, she said in a politically correct way — Thanks but I will stick to my calculator Lolo. (End of my demonstration of the marvels of the Slide Rule.)

  3. Arrogance and Ignorance in the Philippines – Siamese twins? My latest and shortest blog article.

    Could it be that wealth and knowledge being only in the hands of a few are related as well?

    True knowledge is mental wealth, striving for it is learning, striving for wealth or learning is both seen as bad in certain parts of Philippine society, which resembles Medieval Europe in that regard – and also in the selfishness of those who have both kinds of wealth. These two dynamics impede true progress.

    Universities and striving for wealth changed Europe and brought progress, overcoming Church and feudalism. Wealth of both kinds increased for all instead of only being in the hands of a chosen few:

    http://filipinogerman.blogsport.eu/arrogance-and-ignorance-in-the-philippines-siamese-twins/

    • My answer to a blog article of Joe regarding ignorance and inviting to answer at my blog since my article is a possible answer – I have a thirty-day break at Joe America – was deleted in the space of a few hours.

      So much for him not looking at his blog on vacation – I used another mailaddy and alias, but made it clear who I am. And obviously he wants to keep people thinking he is the only game in town, the pied piper.

      Well, I have no problem with that – I am only looking for knowledge/truth, not for traffic or popularity.

      • Hello, Mr. Salazar. I’m Joe’s cousin and he asked me to read his blog while he is away and try to keep it clean of scoundrels who spam the blog and try to leverage his great fame and readership for their own selfish aims. I suspect he will be disappointed to know that you seem to cast aspersions on his motives and means here, yet want to use his blog for your own purposes. And I will advise him to extend your suspension if you continue to use wily means to sneak past the temporary ban. I mean, there is such a thing as honor, after all.

        • No need for me to continue in Joe’s blog, Mrs. Garrison. I have communicated with the readership in his blog and some post in mine. I gave an answer to a topic he opened in his blog via an article in mine, respecting the temporary ban on posting – and inviting my readership to discuss there. Now you can call it wily if you want. Joe and myself used to work together inspiring each other with ideas, I have used his and he has used mine. Exchange of knowledge is something universal. Now I will find my own crowd, it will take more time but I have something longer-term in mind. The crowd for that is smaller, but that is of no import. What I do admit to is slight provocation which is my style when people are on such a high horse and claim to monopolize things such as honor and morality for themselves alone.

          The world is big enough for both blogs. My blog is focused on learning. Joe has another focus. Now one can go by the worst case and assume we both have ulterior motives, or by the best case and assume we both have ideal motives. Real life is usually the grey zone in between.

          Now Joe and me have had our recent differences, I am sure you are aware of them. The best way to a peaceful coexistence is to accept these differences. It is naturally your decision to take me in again or leave me out. I may have been wily, but I did deal straight in identifying myself. There are other, truly devious means to infiltrate a blog, such as using a false name, changing my lingo completely – I have done this before, but respect Joe too much to do that to him. What did happen is that I got carried away and spammed, so I decided to take care of my own stuff.

          I am very used to straight talk, and it is my nature and that of many Filipinos not to take things at face value but to question people’s motives. Now I do accept that I am seen as a scoundrel who spammed Joe’s blog and tried to leverage it for selfish aims, but would have appreciated straight talk upfront from the bossman himself. This is the way we do here in Bavaria, they say everything below physical violence is polite over here. Forthright mountain people, like Igorots.

          In that sense, I admit to being a Schlitzohr, a rascal. But I am an honest rascal, a mandurugas. Within being a rascal I do have my own code of honor, it is different from Joe’s, very definitely. What I find strange though is that Joe calls for people here to come to his blog to help LCPL_X – pulling people to his place – while someone like me doing the same in his blog is not OK. Could be that I was testing exactly his blogs reaction to something similar happening there. But that test is completed, just a sortie to test defences and reactions. Back to my own stuff.

        • AND my main online hangout is here now. Though I do get verbose from time to time, never shall I spam or annoy, besides true discussion is better here. Plus I owe Raissa’s deceased father very much, these are the bonds that count in the Philippines, this is our form of honor.

    • We can criticize the SC for amending the laws, which is referred to as judicial legislation, as in Orbecido and other cases but we could also argue that that is merely interpreting the laws. I would rather call it blending of power.

      • Saavedra said that Aguinaldo Doctrine is unconstitutional because of “jjudicial legislation.”

        From what I gather from CA J. Vidal’s discussion of “judicial legislation” the “blending of power” is just an acceptable flexing of Judicial power.

        Incidentally, does this “blending of power” apply also to the Executive’s Diversionary Allocation Process when it grabbed a hold, for a considerable amount of time, the Legislature’s power of the purse?

        • It does apply also to Executive in the DAP case. Unfortunately, Executive’s act can be reviewed by the SC but no one can review SC’s grave abuse of discretion.

  5. To repeat this, maybe our Gov’t Agencies should provide this at ALL Departure Areas of our In’tl Airports:

    Please CHECK THOROUGHLY All Your Luggage and Hand Carry for Any iLLegal Drugs You May Not Know You Are Carrying Like: Paki Dala, or Someone Bought a New Luggage For You, or You Were Paid For To Do Some Acts You May Not Know You Are Carrying Prohibited Drugs or Goods, Etc. THANK YOU.

    . . on TV Screens or POSTERS specially at NAIA.

  6. to repeat this, maybe our Gov’t Agencies should provide this at ALL Departure Areas of our In’tl Airports:

    Please CHECK THOROUGHLY All Your Luggage and Hand Carry for Any iLLegal Drugs You May Not Know You Are Carrying Like: Paki Dala, or Someone Bought a New Luggage For You, or You Were Paid For To Do Some Acts You May Not Know You Are Carrying Prohibited Drugs or Goods, Etc.

    . . on TV Screens or POSTERS specially at NAIA.

  7. . . . may a little help might do for a favor for ALL OUR OFWs

    at the DEPARTURE AREA NAIA…a TV Notice is displayed or POSTERS:

    Kung Ikaw ay Tumanggap Ng PAKI DALA, ‘o Binigyan Ka ng Suhol, ‘o Binili Ka ng Malete ‘o Anuman na Usapan At Hindi Mo Alam Kung May Dala Ka na iLEGAL na DRUGA, Paki alis Mo Yan. Wag Kang Sumakay Muna. CHECK YOUR LUGGAGE and Hand Carry!’

    Gov’t Agencies should put this in all our In’tl Airports in the Country.

  8. Administrative Code of 1987

    When the SC of 1959 decided on the case of Pascual vs. The Honorable Provincial  Board of Nueva Ecija there was no clear public policy in the current 1935 constitution and lacking precedence resorted to existing American Jurisprudence, thus created or conveniently copied this jusriprudence now known as the infamous Doctrine of Condonation.

    But constitution is a living document and changes to serve the needs of the public in their respective times, thus the 1973 constitution was created and refined afterwards , because of our destructive experience of corrupt public servants, as the 1987 constitutio. The 1987 Constitution  is born out of necessity to provide clarity in public trust and should be the primary constritution that shall be upheld in case of conflict and shall trump the two previous constitutions.

    To make my analogy simple if you are using software in computer, there is what you call a limit of reverse compatibility since the new version has advanced features which took out the  bugs and cater the current needs of its users and take advantage of the powerful hardware that was not available before. 

    And for obvious reasons the new cases should be tried and examined in accordance with the latest laws available which are in harmony of the latest aspirations of the people and not resort to old obsolete vague laws, which served the past era.

    Doctrine of Condonation  by election should be scrapped since there is now an available tool to try administrative and criminal cases in the 1987 Constitution which paved the way on the creation of the office of the Ombudsman in 1988 as the implementing arm against the erring public servants!

    Parekoy
    04-28-2015

    • Administrative Code of 1987

      What are the grounds for filing an administrative complaint?

      An administrative complaint may be filed for acts or omissions which are:

      1. contrary to law or regulations;

      2. unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;

      3. inconsistent with the general course of an agency’s functions though in accordance with law;

      4. based on a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts;

      5. in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose;

      6. otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification;

      7. due to any delay or refusal to comply with the referral or directive of the Ombudsman or any of his deputies against the officer or employee to whom it was addressed;and

      8. such other grounds provided for under E.O. 292 and other applicable laws.

      http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/index.php?home=1&navId=MTI=#8

      </blockquote cite=""
      ***

      Administrative Code of the Philippines of 1987

      Adjudication

      http://www.gov.ph/1987/07/25/executive-order-no-292-book-viichapter-3-adjudication/

      Administrative Appeal In Contested Cases

      http://www.gov.ph/1987/07/25/executive-order-no-292-book-viichapter-4-administrative-appeal-in-contested-cases/

      ***
      The 1935 Constitution has no express policy on public office whereas the 1987 Constitution is explicit that :

      1. public office is a public trust

      2. must at all times be Accountable to the people; 

      3. serve them wuty utmost responsiblity, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; 

      4. and act with patriotism and justice;

      5. and lead modest lives.

    • I will present two legal theories on why the condonation doctrine is unconstitutional.

      I will also present legal theories on why the Supreme Court made two judicial errors in in the landmark case of Arturo Pascual vs. the Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija (G.R. L-11959).

    • I like that apt analogy:

      To make my analogy simple if you are using software in computer, there is what you call a limit of reverse compatibility since the new version has advanced features which took out the bugs and cater the current needs of its users and take advantage of the powerful hardware that was not available before.

      • I wrote a commentary under yvonne’s note below, the last paragraph of which I write again:

        I may add that the social media commentaries (by a ratio of much more than 9-to-1) are all for the striking down of this Condonation Doctrine. Some of the social media commentaries — not on this Blog, I may add — on the Condonation Doctrine are filled with expletives about the Judiciary. Aside from the rational and logical points above, I hope the SC gives weight to these commentaries.

        Additionally in our system of government with its three branches — Judiciary, Legislative, and the Executive — we cannot allow the SC to be subject to the kind of expletives written in the social media. The Legislative or the Executive may be fair game, but continued maligning of the Judiciary — our last line of defense, so to speak — will be a very unhealthy situation. So aside from the points expressed by some of the SC Justices themselves and the points expressed here, we hope that the more rational and discerning of the social media commentaries such as in this Blog will be given due weight by the SC Justices. The poor who survive by the day does not have the time nor the facility to express the outrage now, but given time the outrage will filter down if this ridiculous doctrine is preserved.

        • @NHerrera

          The social media might be 9 to 1 condemning the court for its condonation doctrine. But at the end of the day, the SC will decide on the basis of established legal doctrine and existing laws.

          We must accept the fact that the other side of the fence is represented by a powerhouse team of lawyers and that there will justices who will be sympathetic to their cause.

          Therefore, we must consolidate all the legal ammunitions we can muster to checkmate the other side. Moral arguments are not good enough.

          We must reach a high point where someone would be ready to concede and say: “Sorry, panyero, masyadong malakas ang argumento ng kabila, hindi kayang itumba.”

        • I agree 100% — sound legal and moral arguments is the key.

          We hope that will come to pass; your words — “Sorry, panyero, masyadong malakas ang argumento ng kabila, hindi kayang itumba.”

        • “Sorry, panyero, masyadong malakas ang argumento ng kabila, hindi kayang itumba.” hindi kayang itumba ng billion ni jejomar binay ang pader ng conscience.

        • “Moral arguments are not good enough.” Precisely why I think SAJ Carpio’s line is more compelling from a legal standpoint than that of the CJ – although both of them are saying that the Condonation is a bad doctrine. CJ’s argument is more popular because it is anchored on moral grounds and has hit the nerve or soul of the people.

          In essence, this is how I understood his thought process was framed, using mostly his own words: “Who has the power to condone in administrative case? In Llamas vs Orbos, the President has the sole power to condone in the Executive branch, but only after conviction. Can that power be delegated? No. Can Congress pass a law authorizing a group of persons like the voters or Makati to condone or pardon administrative acts? No. In the Pascual case there was no language in the Constitution then that stresses upon honest governance, giving it equal importance as the due process and equal protection.”

          Because of the principle of Stare Decisis, the Justices who might invariably agree with Carpio’s argument could still have their hands tied behind their back. But there is another argument that Carpio had advanced in the 2nd orals. Inapplicability. “The Pascual ruling only proves that the administrative is attached to the term, meaning it is simply moot to mete out administrative penalty to a former official when his term is over. How can you remove or suspend an elective official who is no longer there?” The caveat to this argument is that SC will be perceived as again sweeping the issue under the rug and not tackling it head on, similar to what the Corona court did in Erap’s disqualification case when they were confronted with the issue on the question of presidential pardon. The court simply said then “well, he was not elected anyway so no need to decide on the issue”.

        • In the subject being discussed, the answer lies in the definition of the suspension – is it being sought as an administrative preventive action, or as an administrative penalty?

          You are right that in the Pascual ruling “the administrative is attached to the term, meaning it is simply moot to mete out administrative penalty to a former official when his term is over.”

          The question at hand in the Binay case is whether the suspension being sought by the Ombudsman constitute an administrative penalty.

          And the answer is NO. In ordering the suspension, the Ombudsman invoked Section 9 (preventative action) as opposed to Section 10 (penalties) of Administrative Order No. 07

        • Coronel mentioned a 2009 case ( http://raissarobles.com/2015/04/21/that-certain-smile/comment-page-2/#comment-289799 ), though she believes Binay’s suspension is a penal one, which clearly cites a then J. Carpio-Morales ponencia stating:

          “A preventive suspension is not a penalty and such an order when issued by the Ombudsman is accorded the highest deference unless the order violates Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770.”

          – G.R. No. 177211 (some excerpts of which were given at Comment No. 68)

          J. Leonen even asked her whether the preventive suspension ordered by the OMB against Binay is included in the “investigation” referred to in Section 14. She didnt completely concede that it is so and she didn’t commit that preventive suspension is necessary for an investigation.

        • Coronel mentioned a 2009 case ( http://raissarobles.com/2015/04/21/that-certain-smile/comment-page-2/#comment-289799 ), though she believes Binay’s suspension is a penal one, which clearly cites a then J. Carpio-Morales ponencia stating:

          “A preventive suspension is not a penalty and such an order when issued by the Ombudsman is accorded the highest deference unless the order violates Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770.”

          – G.R. No. 177211 (some excerpts of which were given at Comment No. 68)

          J. Leonen even asked her whether the preventive suspension ordered by the OMB against Binay is included in the “investigation” referred to in Section 14 of RA 6770. She didnt completely concede that it is so and she didn’t commit that preventive suspension is necessary for an investigation.

        • This is getting interesting. Perhaps we should debate as to when is a penalty a penalty? Which one counts? The purpose or the effect? Would a 6-month preventive suspension without pay unconscionable given there is still no underlying offence given they are only in the fact-finding phase of the investigation and not preliminary investigation? Shall we apply the same test on liquidated damages to determine whether a preventive suspension is a penalty?

          It looks like the SC would have to break a lot of grounds and as what @Parekoy is saying embrace judicial activism because they have been sleeping for the longest time. We have a 1987 Constitution that contains a crystal clear language emphatically and crying loudly about accountability and the power of the Ombudsman and we have lawyers and courts that use old statutes and jurisprudence – even the old bylaw – that directly undermine the current constitution.

        • Some laws were legal but immoral. Slavery is one example but later abolished.

          Some laws are illegal but moral. Prostitution is illegal but for me or some liberal minded persons it is moral just like any other profession.

          Then there is ethhics…

          But ultimately laws are usually look at in legal stand point and moral secondary unless the people change their constitution to adopt certain morality. Sharia is a moral law but some of its provisions could be found illegal in the context of modern society.

        • Pickers, I see you were listening as carefully to Carpio as I was and that I think is the reason why Aguinaldo is cited more than Pascual in more of the condonation doctrine cases. Carpio is the paramount expert on constitutional law and while his exposition on who the basic law empowers to authorize pardons, it is one of the best arguments against the doctrine. The CJ is no slouch either although she was free to admit and lambast condonation in a way Carpio could not because he belonged to the courts that maintained the juridical doctrine.But condonation for me is not the raging topic of interest it seems to be here at CPM which is why I dont visit and comment as frequently as I once did. The Binay case as brought before the Supreme Court by the petitioner, the Ombudsman, is not about condonation per se. It is about the constitutional power of the OMB to investigate and suspend a public official without the intervention of the CA or lower courts. Condonation only became a factor and an item of interest in the case because Binay’s counsel
          built their defense on a flawed concept of that doctrine and mistakenly appealed to the CA instead of the Supreme Court. They probably would have lost anyway but that is beside the point. Those who are incapable of comprehending what this case about and presume to educate this current set of SC justices on why legally they should scrap the condonation doctrine…more power to you! hehehe

        • I am with you. The more important subject is about the constitutional power of the OMB to investigate and suspend public officials without the intervention of the CA or lower courts, not the condonation doctrine.

          But this being a political blog, and not a judicial blog, I think we can indulge the CPMers on taking on simpler topics that are more within the intellectual reach of most readers considering that most are not lawyers, including myself.

        • You are right on the money Caliphman!

          I think CPM believes that the SC will side with the Ombudsman on that petition for suspension. But because of the invocation of Condonation Doctrine by the lawyers, it opens up the discussion in the more important issue that SC needs to correct their predecessors’ faulty Judicial Activism.

          CJ Sereno, Leonen, and Carpio are priming the public for some additional commentary on the obsolescence of the Condonation Doctrine in their much awaited decision which has great national importance and will set a new precedent in matters of powers of the Ombudsman and the 1987 Constitution.

        • Caliphman,

          I agree with your view as to the thrust of the Ombudsman’s reason for going to the SC. But as things happen not too infrequently in our earthly existence, there is the unintended consequence. Binay using the Condonation Doctrine as an avenue for defense has a serendipitous effect — the chance for the SC to revisit and rule on the Condonation Doctrine in the light of the 1987 Constitution.

          Obliquely we have to thank Binay for this. It gave the chance and opportune time for the SC to articulate and for the public, including myself, to the nuances of the power of the Ombudsman and the nature of the Condonation Doctrine and whether the latter continues to exist.

        • The OMB had a good fight sticking to their original arguments. Plus additional ones.

          With help from some SC justices and weakness in Binay’s arguments (through lawyers of course), I may say the anti-corruption drive of the OMB will flourish.

          Here’s still hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.

          Tata…for now.

        • Binay got the “boomerang” effect. But instead of catching that curved piece by the hand, it seems likely it is headed straight to his head. Ouch! Good work Certeza and Coronel. Hahaha.

          Tata …

        • Right, for better or for worse, in any system that has these three powers, the highest court in the Land are the guardians of how the law is to be correctly interpreted. They are the final referees.

          Any country will have a mixture of laws that are partly OK, partly inconsistent, so it is important to respect the Highest Court as an institution. Especially in the Philippines which to me seems to have a makeshift jumble of legal traditions with many carryovers from both colonial periods. Anywhere you are, legal traditions and their interpretation have to be reinterpreted and readjusted to fit changing times and the changing values that go with them. From my observation until now times and values in the Philippines are changing very fast, the country is developing rapidly.

          If I look at the difference between 2015 and 1960, it is light-years. Totally different Philippines.

        • Yes, the country has the development momentum and to my mind the Supreme Court can greatly help in that momentum.

        • I notice the changes strongly, having left the country 33 years ago. My Filipino attitude – which of course comes out in forums like this, is somewhat old-school. Sometimes I am embarrased when the baduy and Erap aspects of it come out spontaneously.

          Because the new attitude is much more straightforward, hindi na mandurugas tulad noon, good thing. It reminds me a bit of the difference between Latin American old-school migrants and the new, no-nonsense straightforward pros that are coming to Germany now.

  9. Here is another one from Yvonne’s theories:

    THE WILL OF THE PAROCHIAL ELECTORATE OF MAKATI IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF THE NATIONAL WILL

    The parochial electorate of Makati represents a parochial interest. Its will expressed in the ballot box is parochial and is not an expression of the national will; it cannot overrule a national rule of law, or the state’s declared principles and policies.

    Let us assume hypothetically that a reelected Mayor of Makati has been convicted of an administrative wrongful act in the overpricing of a Makati building committed during his first term. Does his reelection as mayor constitute a condonation of his conviction of administrative violation?

    In this scenario, and in a narrow sense, the wrongful act was committed in violation of a national administrative law. The harmed parties are the people at large, specifically the national taxpayers whose tax money was misappropriated in the overpricing; the harmed parties are not just the people of Makati.

    In the broader sense, the violation is also against the constitutionally stated national principles and policies of maintaining honesty and integrity in public service and in taking positive and effective measures against graft and corruption (Article II, Section 27, of the 1987 Constitution).

    The will of the electorate of Makati is not an expression of the national will – it is parochial and it does not represent the national will of the people. It is only the national electorate that can represent the will of the people at large. The action of the parochial electorate of Makati in reelecting its mayor, is not a national political exercise; it cannot be assumed to be a pardon of an administrative wrongful act, if the act was committed against the people at large, and/or against the nation. The argument of condonation can be valid only if the harm done is exclusive to the people of Makati, and done to no one, or nothing, else.

    It is precisely for this fundamental reason why the power to grant pardon is the exclusive province of the national leadership whose mandate and power emanate from the national populace. In the case of the Executive Branch of government that power is given to the President, with some exceptions as stated in the Constitution.

    • I’m dedicating the above post to Baycas, Kalakala, and NHerrera for wanting more soon. :-)

      More will come later. I want our fellow CPMers to digest the two posts first and come up with contrarian views, if any, to initiate a healthy political discourse and validate or disprove the stated arguments.

      • agree 100%.

        may tanong uli ako: bakit laging uphold ang kanilang argumento ng kon donasyon?

        • @mam/sir yvonne, maraming slamat po. Medyo tumatalas na ang pangunawa ko. Kaya lang DAHAN DAHAN ANG PAGBASA.

        • Maraming salamat din sa pagbasa. Naisin ko mang isatagalog ang pagsulat ko ay hindi ko magawa sa mahabaang salaysay dahil sa ako’y nalilito kung ano ang mga tamang salita na dapat kong gamitin, at kung paano ko bubungkusin (?) ang mga talata(?).

          :-)

        • mam/siryvonne, ay ok na po talaga po mahirap isalin sa ating wika ang english. mabuti nga po para nagagamit ko mabuti ang isipan ko pagnililimi ko ang mga isinusulat ninyong lahat.

          galing nyo nga po o kita nyo yung gamit nyong BUBUNGKUSIN aba eh malalim na tagalog na po yun. saka talaga po binabasa ko lahat ng mga isinusulat nyo lahat para kahit paano nahahasa ang aking isipan. mahirap na po na tumatanda na kakalawangin ang pagiisip.

          isa pa po MIRON lang po kami dito. wala po akong naiaambag dahil TALAGA pong WALA akong alam sa BATAS AT POLITIKA. heheheh

          maraming salamat din po sa pagsagot nyo sa akin.
          may mapaguuspaan na naman kaming magaamiga.

        • Sana po ang lahat ng ating mamamayan ay kagaya ninyong may adhikain na maunawaan ang mga kaganapan sa ating bansa nang sa gayon ay maisulong natin ang kapakanan, hindi lamang ng pangkasalukuyan, bangkos ay kasama pa ang mga darating na henerasyon.

        • Mag-ingat sa mga tusong abugadong magugulo ang isip na sumasalahula sa batas ng tao’t Kautusan! “ANG KASALANAN AY KASALANAN”! Mangmang na nga ang kaisipan ng mga taong nananatiling bihag ng maling pagtangkilik sa mga kurap, ay lalo pang nililito ng mga taong ito na bumabaluktot sa kawastuan. Akala nila sa sarili’y matatalino na sila’t puno ng karunungan. Ano at naisip nila at ginamit na depensa ang “Doctrine of Condonation” upang isalba si Jun Binay? “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever, I will thwart”. Talagang marunong and Panginoon! Nandiyan sina CJ Sereno, Justice Carpio, at ng mga CPMayers particularly @ PAREKOY, @YVONNE, atbp. na ginamit ng Kataastaasan upang saranggahin ang NAGYAYARING kabuktutan!

      • this is good, @yvonne. i salute you. very astute observation and i must say i agree with your point.

      • @ yvonne. maraming salamat …in the process of learning while reading your dedicated posts.

    • But condonation on a national level will not be acceptable either because it will run smack against the equality clause of the law, “What’s good for Juan must also be good for Jose, etc.” So condonation per se should be abandoned.

      • Ah, but you have to make an apple-to-apple comparison, and not mix apples and oranges.

        A local condonation requires a local political exercise.

        A national condonation requires a national political exercise.

        A local political exercise cannot condone a national offense, but a national political exercise can condone a local offense.

        • but a national political exercise can condone a local offense.

          Do you mean to say that a former corrupt local official recently elected at a national level like the Senate can be condoned because he was reelected at a national level?

        • He/she cannot be administratively charged of the wrongdoing he/she has done when he/she was a local official because of a reelection at a national level?

        • Reelection refers to the same elective position. There is no reelection if the positions were different.

          But you opened up a very interesting point – is there condonation if a senator convicted of admistrative wrongful act in a prior term is reelected as senator, since the election is national in scope?

          Boy, that would really open the flood gates for graft and corruption.

          The answer to this perflexing question goes into one of my arguments on why the condonation doctrine is unconstitutional.

        • Just like feeding an infant, OPEN WIDE !!! Or much more like opening a CAN OF WORMS (bulate, right ?)

        • If condonation is to be applied only to convicted prior acts then Mayor J Binay cannot hide under this because his prior acts were not known and not convicted. His prior wrongful acts were not known by the public and the courts and so there should be no claim on condonation.

        • @ yvonne,

          “Boy, that would really open the flood gates for graft and corruption.”

          It’s really true that there will be a deluge of graft and corruption cases filed in both chambers baka si Leni Robredo lang ang maiiwan sa both chambers. In other departments in our government baka wala pang 10% ang hindi makakasuhan ng graft and corruption……di ba?

        • But condonation on a national level will not be acceptable either because it will run smack against the equality clause of the law, “What’s good for Juan must also be good for Jose, etc.” So condonation per se should be abandoned.

          BFD

          Kaya nga it should be abandoned because it is in line even with the equality clause as pointed by one of Justices, I think Justice Leonen that you cannot make a law or ruling that is beneficial to a male, but not beneficial to a woman like, let’s say, law limiting who to vote.

          Because as CJ Sereno pointed out, it will open a floodgate or deluge of defense using the doctrine condonation cases and the Filipino people will suffer because of this.

        • . . . mayroon pang – .01% matitira! . . . si VP Binay. He’ll fight for that all teeth, gums, tongue and palate!

          And his JAWS!

          ha ha ha

        • “but a national political exercise can condone a local offense.” Yvonne, Ok the majority rules is a no brainer. But how do we square this with protecting the rights of the minority? Could you also drill into this?

        • My comment was given in the limited context of the condonation doctrine in an administrative wrongful act of an elective public official. As I mentioned in another post, it was intended as a persuasive moral argument only because I hold the position that the condonation doctrine is unconstitutional.

    • This post from BFD is still being held in moderation but I want to reply to it in advance of its release:

      Author: BFD
      Comment:
      @yvonne, I’ll be a contrarian at this time.

      Plurality of votes may not be the case for Binay, I’m afraid. On 2013, there were only two candidates for Mayor in the City of Makati, Bondal and Binay Jr, and Binay Jr. won the majority vote, almost eight times the votes gotten by Bondal.

      MY REPLY (Yvonne’s theory):

      I’m glad that you raised that contrarian view – I would have been disappointed if no CPMer did.

      Yes, it is true that Mayor Binay won in his reelection bid by a wide majority of votes. I’m fully aware of that beforehand and that is not an issue I will argue about.

      My argument is that the condonation doctrine as it currently exists in our jurisprudence does not make a distinction between reelection by majority of votes, and reelection by plurality of votes. Plurality of votes can invalidate the condonation doctrine, as shown in the above example. Binay can argue in the Supreme Court that his condonation is assumed because he won by a wide majority of votes, but he still have to convince the Court on that theory and the Court has to make a ruling making that distinction. But for now the distinction is not in our jurisprudence so it invalidates the entire condonation doctrine – invalid in part, invalid in whole.

      Binay can offer his theory on majority vote in support of condonation; on the other hand, the opposing party can also argue that such theory is wrong. I, myself, can offer several arguments against that theory.

      This is just one of the many arguments against the condonation doctrine.

      In fact, I will present a number of arguments that the condonation doctrine is unconstitutional in the first place, but that is for a separate discussion.

    • As a child can set rules for its own money but not for his parent’s. A municipality gets a lot of national money, it is not up to them to set rules how to control its spending. Condonation of wrong doings too is not in their authority. (… but what if we reelect the parent too on a national level ;-)

      • Yaman din lang na ang “condonation doctrine” ay isang malawakang pagpapalagay lamang, nawa’y ‘magkapalagayan’ tayo…

        Ang pagpapalagay dito http://raissarobles.com/2015/04/21/that-certain-smile/comment-page-2/#comment-289830 ay napatunayan nang may salang administratibo ang alkalde ng Makati. Nangyari halimbawa ito sa kaniyang ikalawang termino matapos ang kaniyang pagkakahalal muli noong 2013…di bale na nga kung ito ma’y botong “majority” or “plurality.”

        Maaaring may punto ang may-akda ng komento kung ang saloobin ng lokal na siyang naghalal ay ipinagpapalagay na labag sa interes na pangnasiyonal.

        Iyon ay pagpapalagay lamang ng siguradong pagkakasala. Dahil, kung gayon, sa kabilang banda, maaari rin namang ipagpalagay na pinatawad na siya ng lokal at kaalinsabay nito, dahil sa kasikatan ng mga Binay–mapamabuti o mapamasama–ay pinatawad na rin siya ng nasiyonal.

        Sa aking palagay, puro na lamang palagay ang mangyayari.

        Nguni’t, datapuwa’t, subali’t, ang sigurado’y dapat huwag ilapat sa alkalde ng Makati ang doktrinang napatawad na siya ng sambayanan sa dahilang naihalal siyang muli.

    • yvonne,

      I have an extended commentary. Let me frame the commentary in the following way:

      Firstly, the 1959 Pascual ruling started the Condonation Doctrine in the Philippines on the concept that an electorate by re-electing a public official to the same position with full knowledge of his administrative misconduct in the previous period is condoned of that misconduct. Already, there is the curious item that the Condonation Doctrine copied from the US, was a cherry-picked activity, copying only portion of the concept, not the entire concept. CJ Sereno stated also that 17 other US states abolished this Condonation Doctrine.

      Secondly, as everyone agrees, including the SC Justices, the 1987 Constitution was the result, of the massive corruption and other acts of the Marcos regime — the 1987 Constitution is much later than the 1959 first application of the cherry-picked Condonation Doctrine.

      From the above consideration alone, I strongly believe this ridiculous if not abhorrent doctrine, in the light of the strong anti-corruption stand of the 1987 Constitution should be struck down by the Supreme Court.

      But, I understand that your theory, even granting the practice of the Condonation Doctrine in the Philippines which started in 1959, finds fault with the Doctrine on at least two points you have so far enumerated and discussed:

      – Point 1: Condonation Doctrine is not applicable in a Multi-party Electoral System now practiced in the Philippines (where you gave an example of a winning candidate from a list of five getting 27% of the vote whereas the other four got a total of 63%, 10% not voting for any of the five — and thus, 63% did not in fact condone the winning candidate’s misconduct in the previous term);

      – Point 2: Local or parochial election is not an expression of national will, where you specifically emphasized that Tax Money is not a local fund but a national fund and so the NATIONAL WILL is needed to use that fund — which fund was used in the misconduct — and not just a LOCAL WILL OR RE-ELECTION.

      I am not a lawyer but I am persuaded by your Points 1 and 2 on top of the points expressed in the earlier paragraphs. I await your later points.

      My understanding is that the staff of our Supreme Court reads Raissa’s Blog. I HOPE THE SC CONSIDERS YOUR POINTS IN ADDITION TO THEIR OWN ANALYSES.

      I may add that the social media commentaries (by a ratio of much more than 9-to-1) are all for the striking down of this Condonation Doctrine. Some of the social media commentaries on the Condonation Doctrine are filled with expletives about the Judiciary. Aside from the rational and logical points above, I hope the SC gives weight to these commentaries.

      • What I have written about so far are what I consider to be pursuasive moral arguments.

        But the Court will decide on the basis of legal doctrine and jurisprudence – something that have, in fact, some basis in established laws. I intend to make those arguments which are entirely different from what I have already written. Stay tuned.

      • Point 1: Plurality of votes wins reelection and the premise is that even though 63% repudiated the reelected he is still adjudged winner. As to the prevailing doctrine of condonation, it was anchored on the absolution of the winner (as evidenced by canvass of votes) by reelection.

        The “plurality” question may complicate things with an issue that in order to avoid a “plurality winner” then an instant run-off election must be put to practice.

        The inherent weakness of the condonation doctrine, I believe, must be the one attacked simply because it is based on speculation blanketly applied on reelected public officials, regardless if he/she won by majority or by plurality of votes.

      • Point 2: Sereno’s slide presentation in a way impresses upon us the impact on a national scale if ever corrupt but reelected local officials are blanketly absolved of their administrative liability/ies.

        The SC deliberation, I believe, will tackle this issue as they revisit the media-highlighted highly speculative doctrine (“condonation by reelection”)…especially for Junjun’s case.

    • Agree. Misappropriation of city fund including the internal revenue allotment (IRA) provided by the national government from taxes paid by the people nationwide cannot be condoned by the city electorates only. If the administrative violation consisted of merely irregular issuance of mayor’s permit, nepotism or “epalism” or illegal billboards and absenteeism, then the city electorates may condone their mayor. Because only the city electorates suffered from the mayor’s violations.

      But, is it not that the mayor’ salary is paid from the city fund which includes the IRA? Any angle I look at the mayor’s malfeasance or misfeasance, the Filipino people as a whole are aggrieved by his irregularities. In other words, condonation could be given to public officers reelected at national level only, i.e., senator, Vice President, President. In my book reelection includes from lower position to higher position, i.e., mayor to senator or president, or from higher to lower position, i.e. President to VP or senator.

        • Yvonne & [email protected]

          Pascual case defines the condonation doctrine.

          “The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to practically overrule the will of the people.”

          The SC did not give definitive meaning of a prior or previous term. It merely said “acts done prior to his present term of office” without specifying whether the same or another office.

        • The court was deciding on the premise submitted by the petitioner. The decision was to be interpreted on the basis the petitioner’s pleadings. It has to be taken also from the citations presented by the Court to support its decision.

        • . . . the SC in the Pascual case said ‘ x x x if he had been guilty of any. x x x’ But who said or found the local official ‘guilty of any’ prior to re-election? as no one has done that yet? It is a deep flaw in this Pascual case.

          To continue adopting Pascual case even under the 1987 Constitution and the statute creating the Ombudsman is outright hard headedness! It is now without constitutional and statutory basis.

          A flagrant violation of the fundamental law of the land.

          i

        • Ah yes, Leona, you get it! One of my main arguments on the unconstitutionality of the condonation doctrine. The 1989 Constitution is very emphatic about this that pardon can be granted only after final conviction, not just a conviction but final conviction. (The 1935 Constitution only says “conviction” which is clarified in the 1989 Constitution to “final conviction.”)

          Boy, I better get that main piece published, or all my arguments might be pre-empted by Leona. LOL!

        • @leona,

          I believe it was a further presupposition from the original assumption of ‘knowledge’ then ‘condonation.’

          In Pilipino…

          “Kung nakagawa siya ng anumang sala” (if he had been guilty of any)

          Not “kung napatunayang nakagawa siya ng anumang sala” (If he had been proven guilty of any).

        • [email protected] . . ‘either’ way of your Pilipino’s understanding of the English quoted phrase ‘ x x x if he had been guilty of any. x x x’ still the decision is wront. Why?

          …Because when the decision went into the point of stating the ‘voters are assumed to have condoned’ the officials, this rather aggravates two or more unsupported ‘assumptions’ which connotes like ‘factually’ saying the voters knew about the bad past of the officials which is not true.

          Why should the courts in making such untruthful assumptions, theory or fictions at that, be a source of abuses or excuses of public officials? Even under the 1935 Constitution, a public office is a public trust, whether it was express or not in the fundamental law.

          Now, even under the 1987 Constitution, courts or judges still have the tendency or even the mistaken belief that ‘condonation’ doctrine still hold water. It it because of ‘stare decisis’? Abandoning the doctrine is the only remedy under the present set up of the law, not of what existing jurisprudence is.

          In this particular case(s) of Pascaul or Aguinaldo against the power of the OMB, jurisprudence should follow the law and not the other way around.

          Law is made by the people through their representatives. Jurisprudence is made by appointed judges.

    • Isa ako sa mga masusugid na nagaabang ng balita o salaysay tungkol sa mainit na issue sa panahon ngayon. Bagamat hindi ako taga-Makati ako ay interesado din ang kahihinatnan nito sapagkat ang susunod na mangyayari ay botohan para pagka presidente na. At may koneksyon si Mayor sa Bise. Kaya ayaw ko man apektado pa din ako nito sa mga darating na araw.
      Salamat sa paliwanag na ito. May natutunan uli ako sa maayos at malinaw na paglalahad tungkol sa “Condonation”.
      Sana ang mag mahistrado sa SC ay maging malinaw ang kaisipan at malinis ang puso sa pagpapasya kung ano ang nararapat na gawin. Marami ng magandang pagbabago at malayo na ang ating narating mula sa nakaraang panahon.

    • Yvonne, does the last sentence of the penultimate para in sync with your last para? My understanding is the President can only grant pardon after a conviction whereas the condonation by election is being used in cases where the official was not even charged, and in some cases the people were not made aware of his “wrongful acts” or allegations. I know you are making a distinction between parochial and national but I just thought that pardon and condonation may not necessarily be the same.

        • A necessary element of condonation is prior conviction. Even the jurisprudence cited by the Supreme Court in its Pascual decision states that. There can never be pardon or condonation without prior conviction. That is where the SC erred in its original decision where the SC invoked the condonation doctrine when Pascual was not yet convicted. I wrote about the in my main piece.

        • And that is why Binay cannot also invoke the condonation doctrine because he has not yet been convicted of administrative misconduct.

        • I believe it was a further presupposition from the original assumption of ‘knowledge’ then ‘condonation.’

          In Pilipino…

          “Kung nakagawa siya ng anumang sala” (if he had been guilty of any)

          Not “kung napatunayang nakagawa siya ng anumang sala” (If he had been proven guilty of any).

        • Aha! So, in Pascual case, it was a judicial PARDON! like the president’s pardon. The same is judicial legislation with congress’ legislation.

          It’s a crazy thought really. . . can the judicial make a ‘judicial pardon’ without a conviction or ‘after a conviction’? Yes, in both. It is ACQUITTAL. In the first, it is questionable. In the latter, valid but maybe with mixture of corruption. That was in 1959 then.

          Now in 2015 or earlier to 1973, in BOTH, it can be mixed with corruptions.

          ha ha ha

  11. Sharing with you an insightful poem “The Last to Know”:

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/84434/show-proof-or-apologize

    buninay1 • a day ago

    The last to know…
    The carpenters stole the nails
    the foremen the roofs and beams
    the engineers the sacks of cements
    and the master builder was the last to know.

    The dishwasher smuggled out the utensils
    the waiters the bags of flour and sugar
    the assistant cooks the supply of meats
    and the chef was the last to know.

    The fruit-pickers pilfered the grapes
    the farmhands the goats and chickens
    the tenant half of the harvest
    and the landlord was the last to know.

    The mechanic siphoned off the parts
    The driver the fuel
    the conductor the day’s collection
    and the bus operator was the last to know.

    The military looted their fund
    the legislators their pork barrel
    the mayors their treasuries
    but the judges pretended as if they were the last to know.

    As the leaders raided the coffers
    and the people thereby suffered
    as poverty raged on and ignorance prevailed
    the judges were sitting pretty waxing they were the last to know.

    Good day to all cpmers!

    • and King David stole the wife! Poor dead husband never came to know.

      But GOD is the first to know! Ma KARMA sila LAHAT! Panalangging ko!

      ha ha ha

  12. Just sharing an interesting exchange of posts re “country of thieves”, not “country of the rule of law”:

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/84434/show-proof-or-apologize

    soulkitchen My two cents • a day ago
    in a court of law,the burden of proof lies with the accuser.the court of public opinion is nothing.we are a country of law,not of men.
    o
    jgl414567 soulkitchen • 4 hours ago
    We are a country of thieves not of the rule of law moron!

  13. Here is a trailer on my upcoming piece on the condonation doctrine, just one of the many posits I’m going to present:

    THE CONDONATION DOCTRINE IS INVALID IN A STRONG MULTI-PARTY ELECTORAL SYSTEM

    The condonation doctrine, as it applies to elective public officials, has its history deeply rooted in American politics dominated by a two-party system. In its history of strong two-party electoral system, the winning candidates almost always receive majority of votes. The rise of third party candidates eroded the dominance of majority votes and gave rise to plurality of votes. In many jurisdictions a run-off is required between the two top candidates to ensure that the winning candidate obtains a majority of votes.

    The Philippines has a strong multi-party electoral system. Candidates from different political parties participate in the elections and many winning candidates obtain plurality of votes only, not majority of votes. Our electoral system does not require a run-off election.

    Take for example the Vice-Mayoral election in Caloocan in 2013. The five candidates and their respective votes were: Asistio (27%), Varela (25%), Almeda (21%), Malonzo (16%), and Yu (1%) – 10% was cast either blank or invalid. For illustration, let us assume hypothetically that the winner was a reelectionist with prior conviction of administrative wrongful act. Was his reelection a condonation of his wrongful act? No, it is not. It may be argued that 27% of the electorate may have pardoned him, but 63% have not, and the sentiment of 10% was unknown.

    Instead of condoning his wrongful act, the reverse can actually be inferred whereby 63% of the electorate rejected him and considered him unfit for office.

    Clearly, winning an election and condoning a wrongful act are two separate and distinct acts that cannot be inferred from each other. It is for this reason why the condonation doctrine does not apply, and is invalid, in jurisdictions with strong multi-party electoral system.

    • The 2nd to the last paragraph should read:

      Instead of condoning his wrongful act, the reverse can actually be inferred whereby 63% of the electorate rejected his reelection and considered him unfit for office

        • The cake is courtesy of Makati’s Binay – figuratively.

          If Binay did not raise up the cake, the public was unlikely to have seen it.

          :-)

      • wow @yvonne..
        so loud and so clear!
        now i understand our good OMB.
        all the while i thought that reelection is a guaranty of exoneration from misdeeds.
        sana nga talagang ma-revamp na ang doktrinang iyan.
        unsupreme doctrine pala iyan.
        tanong: ang doktrina din kayang iyan ang naging modelo/sandigan para muling tumakbo ang dalawa nating naging pangulo sa mas mababang posisyon?
        hindi miminsan kong narinig ang mga katagang mahal pa rin ng mga pilipino ang dalawa dahil sa pagka-reelect!
        para namang nakakaadwa..

    • Following your argument, the candidate who got 27% of the votes should not assume office because 63% of the voters rejected him. I am not sure, but logic will follow that argument. Or I am just splitting hairs.

        • 63% rejected him/her with disapproval or condemnation.

          ang nangyari iyong CONDEMNATION ay naging CONDONATION.

          tama ang sabi ni justice carpio kay atty coronel “You’re twisting our decisions,”.

        • What’s the prevailing situation?

          – Majority or plurality wins reelection.

          – Condonation operates after reelection.

          The respective memoranda in OMB vs. CA/Binay will mention the condonation doctrine. The current SC will deliberate on it.

        • I have it from reliable sources that those in the corridors of power in our government read Raissa’s blog.

          That is why we need to put all our arguments against the condonation doctrine front and center before the SC finish its deliberations in OMB vs. CA/Binay.

          And that is what I intend to do.

        • Is it really correct to say that 63% rejected, disapproved or condemned him/her? Paano kung tatlo doon sa candidates ay gusto ko o para sa akin pwedeng mamuno. Ang ibinoto ko ay si no.1 pero okay din ako kung manalo si no. 2 or no. 3. Ibig ba sabihin disapproved ko yung dalawa kung ibinoto ko si no.1?

        • I’m not sure it is correct to say that 63% rejected, disapproved or condemned him/her. The 63% simply did not support him/her in the election. It could be that him/her was a second choice for many of the 63% who have no objection to him/her being elected despite their voting for a different candidate.

      • In a two-party system, yes, a majority of votes is needed to win an election.

        But in a multi-party system a plurality of votes is all that is needed, unless a run-off election is required to gain majority of votes.

        That is why the condonation doctrine has to be reconciled with the electoral system prevailing in the specific jurisdiction. There cannot be a “one size fits all” doctrine.

        In the above cited example, it is paradoxical that his bid for reelection was rejected by a majority of the electorate but he still won the election. It is a paradox but that is how the electoral system is setup.

        • That’s why the memoranda from both parties will touch on the issue.

          The current SC will consider arguments for and against the condonation doctrine being applied on Binay. The justices will decide by majority rule.

          As for me…

          I raise my condemnation to it loudly because I believe the doctrine does not apply to Junjun.

          I’m also not silent in my disapproval of Binays in government

      • @ uprightbike imho you are not splitting hairs. in one of the european countries, pag hindi naka abot ng 50% of the total votes ang candidate mayroon silang second round of election between the two candidates who got 1st & 2nd highest votes. as far as i know, wala silang condonation doctrine/ did not copy USA laws

        • Yes, that is what is referred to as “run-off” election. Each jurisdiction has a different threshold for determining the winner in an election.

          That is why reelection is not necessarily an expression of condonation – these are two separate and distinct acts.

      • @yvonne, I’ll be a contrarian at this time.

        Plurality of votes may not be the case for Binay, I’m afraid. On 2013, there were only two candidates for Mayor in the City of Makati, Bondal and Binay Jr, and Binay Jr. won the majority vote, almost eight times the votes gotten by Bondal.

        • @BFD,

          I replied on this earlier (see #78.5.11) but it disappeared and di not resurfaced. But here is what I wrote in answer to your comment:

          x x x

          Yes, it is true that Mayor Binay won in his reelection bid by a wide majority of votes. I’m fully aware of that beforehand and that is not an issue I will argue against.

          My argument is that the condonation doctrine as it currently exists in our jurisprudence does not make a distinction between reelection by majority of votes, and reelection by plurality of votes. Plurality of votes can invalidate the condonation doctrine, as shown in the above example. Binay can argue in the Supreme Court that his condonation is assumed because he won by a wide majority of votes, but he still have to convince the Court on that theory and the Court has to make a ruling making that distinction. But for now the distinction is not in our jurisprudence so it invalidates the entire condonation doctrine – invalid in part, invalid in whole.

          Binay can offer his theory on majority vote in support of condonation; on the other hand, the opposing party can also argue that such theory is wrong.

    • 2013 Makati mayoral election
      Party Candidate
      UNA Jun Jun Binay ————————-208,748 83.06 ———– (83.06 %)
      Independent Rene Bondal———————— 25,791 10.26 ————-(10.26)
      Invalid or blank votes ———————————- 16,791———————-( 6.68%)

      Total votes ———————————-251,330———————-( 100.00%)

      Well, be that as it may……Senator Magdalo Boy naka-abang sa mga SC Justices na magre-recuse, which in ‘Trillanes Doctrine’ ibig sabihin NABAYARAN!
      LOL

    • Yes i would agree. But do you happen to know what was the percentage of Binay when he was re-elected ?

        • BFD raised a question about the large majority of votes that Binay received as it relates to condonation. I replied to that but both his question and my reply are still in moderation.

          I anticipated the question about Binay’s majority votes will come up and I have prepared a response for that.

        • 249,789/399,726 = 62% of Makati votes went to Mayor Junjun Binay.

          is this 62% votes just plurality or more than majority votes? Is JjB condoned or not under condonation doctrine?

        • CJ Sereno laid out the national impact if a corrupt but reelected local public official is blanketly forgiven albeit in a highly speculative manner such as in Junjun’s case.

        • AT #76 by yvonne: ‘It is for this reason why the condonation doctrine does not apply, and is invalid, in jurisdictions with strong multi-party electoral system.’

          Would you not consider the much stronger expressed words of the law creating the Ombudsman and the constitutional provisions on public officer/or Public Office as doing away with ‘condonation’ which is just a ‘doctrine’ which is erroneous and a very old one at that, a theory or an unwarranted policy created by the courts rather than saying that condonation has no place in a strong multi-party system?

        • You are right @Leona. My main piece discusses the unconstitutionally of the condonation doctrine.

          My argument dealing with the multi-party system is just part of my persuasive moral arguments. I’m reserving the stronger legal arguments for the main piece.

    • @ yvonne,

      “THE CONDONATION DOCTRINE IS INVALID IN A STRONG MULTI-PARTY ELECTORAL SYSTEM”

      Your piece on this premise is really very enlightening and educational too complete with an example on the Vice-Mayoral election in Caloocan in 2013. Thus, you can and should conclude it “Clearly, winning an election and condoning a wrongful act are two separate and distinct acts that cannot be inferred from each other. It is for this reason why the condonation doctrine does not apply, and is invalid, in jurisdictions with strong multi-party electoral system.”
      I can still remember what you and your friends did in looking for Corona’s properties in the USA. Findings were supported by documents complete with photos and the like. Methinks those Corona’s foreign properties broke the camel”s back on Corona’s undeclared properties.
      Thank you for not leaving us CPMers in this blog.

      • Thank you erwin.

        We are all in this together in our fight against graft and corruption, and in the reformation of our judiciary. While others talk the talk, my family actually walked the talk. It is a personal crusade for us. I’m optimistic that if we put our collective efforts and minds together we will be heard, and we will see better days ahead if we just persevere.

    • There is no condonation doctrine in our Constitution and in our statues. There being without any such basis, existing jurisprudence on condonation should be struck down and made to conform with our Constitution’s strong anti-corruption provisions.

      Elections in the Philippines, being usually a matter of who has the bigger campaign chest, cannot erase administrative liability.

      • The “condonation doctrine” was adjudged sound policy by then J. Davide with the concurrence of SC justices (Salalima v. Guingona).

        The doctrine is based on presumption that the then SC compositions conclusively considered even if wrongdoings were unknown to the electorate prior to ‘reelection’ day.

        It is hightime that the High Court establishes the “condonation doctrine” application to be an unsound judicial policy.

        • As I brought out before, the Stare decisis doctrine – on following a law or judicial doctrine for that, has reach the point of clearling disregarding and violating constitutional provisions and a statute on the powers and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

          Time to discard the Pascual case and all other cases riding on it. Worst is, the reasoning of it was outright copied from outside jurisdictions – US and some States’ cases way back in 1959! If such US or States’ cases were later ABANDONED by such jurisdictions, why should the Philippine courts continue to apply it? It is a bedeviled continuity.

        • The condonation doctrine was misapplied ever since it was introduced into our jurisprudence in 1959 and was unconstitutional from the start. The Supreme Court committed two grave judicial errors in Pascual vs. the Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija. One error was corrected in a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court but no one seems to notice.

          I discussed this in detail in the piece I submitted to Raissa which I asked her to hold off posting until my final editing is finish because I know that the article will undergo intense scrutiny.

        • I am anxiously waiting for citation of any SC decision not adequately covered by Atty. Miguel Silos in his article on the condonation doctrine.

    • Now, let’s get real. Only 10% of the voters rejected Junjun Binay in the 2013 elections. Maybe the 10% knew about the tongpats but 90% of the voters benefitted from .000000001% of the tongpats through birthday cakes and other freebies.

      Whether Binay won by majority or plurality votes, the doctrine of condonation would not apply to him because of the gravity of his
      misconduct, being his own successor, his continuing acts of misconduct and hidden notoriety of his acts.

  14. here is a MASIKIP’s SMILE . . .

    ‘MANILA, Philippines – An open letter calling out a suspended mayor in the province of Rizal went viral on Facebook.

    Jasper Dela Cruz, who called himself an “ordinary concerned citizen,” posted with the letter a photo of an alleged identification card for senior citizens of Pililla in Rizal.

    What put Dela Cruz off was the placement of suspended Mayor Leandro Masikip’s picture on the lower left side of the card – even bigger than the picture of the owner.

    Masikip was suspended for 90 days starting February. The Office of the Ombudsman also charged him with falsification after he and another government official “made it appear that members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Pililla deliberated upon and passed” a resolution despite the council’s non-participation.‘

      • Hindi ba sya tumakbo kaagad sa CA para makakuha ng TRO? Rason — nag smile naman ako sa picture; tsaka freedom of expression ko lang yun. Hahaha.

        Re-electionist ba sya? Kung ganoon at nangyari and pag-epal na yan nuong dating pagka mayor nya, tiyak condonation doctrine ang gagamitin nyan para ma-absuelto. Maganda talaga yang Condonation Doctrine, maraming pagkakagamitan — gamot sa maraming sakit ng pulitiko.

    • Hanep! This is the height of EPAL. Not even his name or signature in the card is necessary as this is a bearer’s ID card.

        • ‘A woman prays in front of Bali’s Kerobokan prison, before the transfer of Australian death row prisoners Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, to the airport in Denpasar, on March 4, 2015. (Reuters Photo/Zul Edoardo)’ …See photo at Link.

          ‘In actuality, President Joko Widodo has, in fact, been very successful at turning convicted criminals serving time for their crime into victims that the world has rallied to support. That includes Indonesian murderers and drug traffickers in Saudi Arabia, causing a public outcry as they are beheaded.

          That is not an easy thing to do, which anti-death penalty advocates would readily testify. As we are at the tipping point regarding the death penalty now, millions around the world seem to have caught up with what the ICCPR and Second Optional Protocol are all about, thanks to Joko’s dismissal of life and human rights according to international standards. In our darkest hour we might be grateful to him for bringing it to the global collective attention.

          http://thejakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/opinion/commentary-death-hope-spurs-eternal-vigilance/

        • ‘Seven of 10 death row convicts placed in isolation cells on Nusakambangan prison Island will be executed on Tuesday, lawyer Utomo Karim said after visiting his client, Nigerian Raheem Agbaje, on Saturday.

          “Yes, I have received the notification, as has Raheem, that the execution will be held on Tuesday,” he said at the Wijaya Pura Pier in Cilacap, Central Java.

          “All convicts have been placed in isolation cells. In total, there are seven convicts [to be executed on Tuesday].”

          In total, 10 have been placed in isolation cells: Zainal Abidin (from Indonesia), Serge Atresi Atlaoui (France), Rodrigo Gularte (Brazil), Silvester Obiekwe Nwaolise alias Mustofa and Okwudili Oyatanze (Nigeria), Martin Anderson alias Belo (Ghana), and Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran (Australia) and Mary Jane Veloso (Phillipines), in addition to Raheem.

          When asked who of the 10 were not scheduled for execution, Utomo said he had not noticed Atlaoui’s name on the list.

          http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/25/convicts-face-firing-squad-tuesday-lawyer.html

        • ‘How is a death row convict executed by firing squad in Indonesia?

          Persons are meted the death penalty if they are convicted of drug smuggling in Indonesia which it considers a national crisis there.

          This simulation video shows 12 members of a police special action unit standing some 5 to 10 meters in front of the convict who is blindfolded and whose hands are tied at the back.

          Of the 12, only three are given live bullets to shoot the target.

          INTERAKSYON

          Before the execution, the target is asked how he wishes to be shot – while standing up, kneeling down or in sitting position.

          Then an “X” is marked on the target’s heart.

          After the shots are fired, the commander of the squad checks to see if the convict is already dead.

          If the target is still alive, the squad leader takes out his gun and finishes him/her off.

          http://philnews.com/headlines/2015/headline_news_0426ae.htm

        • VIDEO, ANIMATION | How is execution carried out by firing squad in Indonesia?
          By: Cheryl Cosim, News5
          April 28, 2015 6:45 AM

          ‘How is a death row convict executed by firing squad in Indonesia?

          Persons are meted the death penalty if they are convicted of drug smuggling in Indonesia which it considers a national crisis there.

          This simulation video shows 12 members of a police special action unit standing some 5 to 10 meters in front of the convict who is blindfolded and whose hands are tied at the back.

          Of the 12, only three are given live bullets to shoot the target.

          Before the execution, the target is asked how he wishes to be shot – while standing up, kneeling down or in sitting position.

          Then an “X” is marked on the target’s heart.

          After the shots are fired, the commander of the squad checks to see if the convict is already dead.

          If the target is still alive, the squad leader takes out his gun and finishes him/her off.
          http://philnews.com/headlines/2015/headline_news_0426ae.htm

        • Despite the appeals, Indonesia has shown little sign it is willing to back down and the foreign ministry indicated Sunday that UN Secretary-General is Ban Ki-moon’s statement would not change their plans.

          “We note the statement by the UN but we also note that there was no similar statement made when recently two Indonesians were executed,” ministry spokesman Arrmanatha Nasir said, referring to the execution this month of Indonesian domestic workers in Saudi Arabia.’
          http://manilastandardtoday.com/2015/04/28/widodo-offers-a-ray-of-hope/

        • additionally, world news said that australians andrew chan and sukumaran have been in jail for 10yrs and supposedly been rehabilitated, pero firing squad pa rin sila. andrew chan has been granted last wish and married his indonesian girl friend.

          australian prime minister, tony abbott, has reminded indonesia’s president widodo that australia is always among the 1st to give aids and help indonesia recover from natural disasters. pero, ayaw pa rin magbigay ng clemency si widodo. tuloy pa rin sa firing squad ang mga australiano. tony abbott even offer prisoner exchange as there are indonesian people smuggler in australian jails, pero ayaw pa rin ni widodo. it looks like our president aquino’s request that mary jane veloso be spared will share the same fate as those of tony abbott’s. widodo is not budging.

      • What I remember from the days I was part of a Philippine folkdance group in my youth is that we were told not to smile when dancing the Igorot and Moro folkdances. Only the colonial Filipino dances.

        Smiling too much is part of the colonial heritage, it is still the smile of “happy” slaves if you ask me. Relying too much on prayer is also postcolonial, it is something the Spanish friars taught to people, so that they become docile and pliant. Widodo IMHO looks annoyed by the attempt to ingratiate him…

  15. For the elderly person, like myself, who watches the boxing game with as much interest as watching an animated cartoon movie, the following gives a lot of info and trivia about the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight on May 2:

    RAPPLER — Mayweather vs Pacquiao 101: What you need to know

    http://www.rappler.com/sports/by-sport/boxing-mma/pacquiao/91239-mayweather-pacquiao-explainer

    We should be prepared to see the fight shouldn’t we? And preparing means we should have all this interesting information, or we will miss out on the full flavor of the game, if we have not yet gotten it from the nightly Philippine news, although the nightly news is 80 on Pacquiao to the 20 on Mayweather.

    • [email protected] . . Floyd Jr. will be moving away and running away from Pacquiao in 12 rounds, making that SQUARE RING like an OVAL for a 10,000 meters TRACK and FIELD event!

      ha ha ha