Here’s the Proof
By Raïssa Robles
I felt infinitely sad and could not believe my ears when I heard presidential spokesman Harry Roque defend the fact that the security agency owned by Solicitor General Jose Calida had cornered over P150 million worth of contracts in six government agencies.
Roque, a former constitutional law professor, said: “I don’t think mere ownership of stock certificates is prohibited by the Constitution.”
Yes it is.
It is prohibited by Article VII, Section 13. This is a special section on “conflict of interest” which covers only the top members of the Executive Department. This is what it says [underscore in red mine]:
Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Member of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business,or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.”
UPDATE as of May 30, 2018:
Apparently, SolGen Calida is aware of Section 13. Because in Philippine Daily Inquirer’s Marlon Ramos’ report today, Marlon Ramos had this sentence attributed to Calida as saying that “the limits imposed on Cabinet members as stipulated in Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution should not be applied to him ‘for the simple reason that he is not a member of the Cabinet, although he is conferred Cabinet rank‘ under the law.
Calida misinterprets Section 13. It covers not only Members of the Cabinet but also “their deputies or assistants“. Let’s see how Calida, the presidential palace and the Department of Justice explains what the phrase “their deputies or assistants” means.
I know I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to be one.
But I am a journalist who happened to have covered the first “conflict of interest” investigation by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee involving Jose Concepcion, Jr., then the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry of President Corazon Aquino.
I recall that Concepcion was minutely questioned over whether he truly divested from his business holdings and had really placed his assets in a “blind trust”. In the end, Concepcion decided to resign while protesting he did.
Let’s go back to the case at hand.
Roque is perhaps engaged in misdirection when he says Calida is not violating the Constitution. You see, Roque cites Article XI on the Accountability of Public Officers – which does contain nothing about divestment.
I also heard Roque say during his press briefing that SolGen Calida did not hide but disclosed his shares in Vigilant Investigative Security Agency Inc. in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
In fact Calida had resigned as chairman and president of Vigilant, Roque said. Roque also pointed out that no contract was ever struck between Calida’s firm and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
Calida continued to own 60% of the company as of September 2016, according to Rappler based on Securities and Exchange Records.
But, Roque said, “I don’t think mere ownership of stock certificates is prohibited by the Constitution.”
Roque is right. Article XI of the Constitution does not ban what Calida is doing.
But Roque totally ignores Article VII which does.
Let’s look at Section 13 of Article VII again:
Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Member of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business. or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
The Constitution was written not just for lawyers but also for ordinary people like you and me. Because it is supposed to be the contract between We the People and the leaders we choose to govern us.
I remember my dad telling me to first look for the main subject and verb in trying to discern what a sentence in the Constitution could mean.
The pertinent section, in the case of SolGen Calida, is the second sentence which states:
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly…be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries.
Let’s break it down:
The subject here is “They” – meaning, “The President, Vice-President, the Member of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants.”
Clearly, Calida being a member of the Cabinet is included in the subject “They”.
The sentence is a complex one which can be broken down further into this:
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,
- practice any other profession,
- participate in any business,
- or be financially interested…
Now let us see what “they” are not supposed to be “financially interested” in. A long enumeration follows on what the top government officials in the Executive Branch of government SHOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN:
- in any contract with,
- or in any franchise,
- or special privilege granted by
- the Government
- or any subdivision,
- agency,
- or instrumentality thereof,
- including government-owned or controlled corporations,
- or their subsidiaries.
And THAT I believe, is what SolGen Calida, who happens to be THE CHIEF GOVERNMENT LAWYER violated.
Section 13 quite clearly defines what conflict of interest means for the President, the Vice President and the President’s Cabinet officials down to Cabinet deputies or assistants.
This clause clearly bans Calida’s stock ownership in VISAI. And even if he divests but his wife and children remain in the company, that still gives him an “indirect” financial interest.
This clause clearly bans VISAI, which continues to be owned by Calida, from entering into a contract with ANY government entity.
I had often wondered why this particular conflict of interest ban is only for top officials of the executive branch.
I guess it is because the President and his Cabinet have the power to sign multi-billion peso government contracts since they are supposed to execute the Program of Government.
It is precisely meant to prevent them from cornering such contracts for themselves and their families.
♦ ♦ ♦
Roque has connected the surfacing of such contracts to the quo warranto case of Supreme Court chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
All I can say is that if such contracts had surfaced earlier, they would still be wrong, with or without the quo warranto case.
And the fact that it is the SolGen involved makes the case doubly sad.
♦ ♦ ♦
The 1987 Constitution did not give any penalty to top Cabinet officials who violate the conflict of interest clause.
The case of Trade Secretary Concepcion showed that divestment was the method to cure any “conflict of interest”. Note how, when confronted with the question whether or not he had divested properly from his companies, Concepcion did the honorable thing and resigned.
Contrast that to Calida, who not only chose NOT to divest but has been somewhat belligerent in asserting there’s no problem even if his company bags multi-million peso government contracts. And the presidential palace says he does not need to divest. Resigning from the company board was enough.
I guess they don’t make public officials like they used to? With a sense of ethics? Or shame?
Anyway, whether or not Calida should have divested could become a constitutional question.
Under Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, non-divestment is punishable by not more than P5,000, not more than five years in jail and “disqualification to hold public office.”
Mel says
Rest In Peace
Ex-security adviser Golez passes away, http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/06/11/18/ex-security-adviser-golez-passes-away
arc says
dead at 71 of apparent heart attack. rest in peace. died, and leaving a country fast losing hope.
Mel says
Oft topic from a con joker?
President RR Duterte announced a threat against Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.
Source: http://politics.com.ph/wala-kasing-pumapalag-someday-someone-will-shoot-trillanes-for-being-too-arrogant-duterte/
And Senator Antonio Trillanes IV replied and took on the ‘threat’.
http://www.rappler. com/nation/204564-antonio-trillanes-president-duterte-shoot-someday
arc says
threat of shooting na lang from kisser with ugly ngusu, his minions kasi failed to steal trillanes’ cell phone, he, he, he. trillanes refused to get in the elevator with him whose fingers are sticky!
loved the man who carries arrogance with aplomb! hate the man whose arrogance is china boosted.
arc says
sabi pa ni kisser with ugly ngusu, be heroes! fight korapsyon, fight kriminality, fight drugs . . . . kaya, many are being heroes today, fighting him, the father of korapsyong, god father ng kriminality, and killer of drug suspects.
palpak ang drug war niya, drugs is still very much around and thriving quite well. drug war should be against drugs, not waged against drug suspects. kaya, he got no cooperation tuloy from suspects, not heeding his call and bingi to him na.
if kisser with ugly ngusu is feeling the heat directed at him, it’s because he’s mr korapsyon! cannot see himself as people see him. fond of appointing koraps and then moving them around, still within arm’s length of him, and still up to their old tricks. his reason? they need jobs kuno, I think, they need punishment!
Mel says
Australia’s once richest man at one time threatened a no pushover younger man, know who and where this man is today.
* Australian Politician And Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Malcolm_Turnbull
leona says
– The unbending jurisprudence in this jurisdiction is to the effect that a petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public office must be filed within one (1) year from the date the petitioner is ousted from his position x x x
. . . the Many CASES:
1. Galano, et al. v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-31241, September 12, 1975, 67 SCRA 8;
2. Cornejo v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. L-32818, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 663;
3. Sison v. Pangramuyen, etc. et al., G.R. No. L-40295, July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA 364;
4. Cui v. Cui, G.R. No. L-18727, August 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 755;
5. Villaruz v. Zaldivar, G.R. No. L-22754, December 31, 1965, 15 SCRA 710;
6. Villegas v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-23752, December 31, 1965, 15 SCRA 720;
7. De la Maza v. Ochave, G.R. No. L-22336, May 23, 1967, 20 SCRA 142;
8. Alejo v. Marquez, G.R. No. L-29053, February 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 762).
For what reason that it must be filed within one (1) year? The COURT said:
– [W]e note that in actions of quo warranto involving right to an office, the action must be instituted within the period of one year. x x x
– The following considerations as to public officers, by Mr. Justice Bengzon, may well be applicable to employees in the civil service:
– Furthermore, constitutional rights may certainly be waived, and the inaction of the officer for one year could be validly considered as waiver, i.e., a renunciation which no principle of justice may prevent, he being at liberty to resign his position anytime he pleases.
= And there is good justification for the limitation period; it is not proper that the title to public office should be subjected to continued uncertainly (sic), and the peoples’ interest requires that such right should be determined as speedily as practicable. (Tumulak vs. Egay, 46 Off. Gaz., [8], 3693, 3695.)
– This has been the law in the island since 1901, the period having been originally fixed in Section 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190). We find this provision to be an expression of policy on the part of the State x x x
– There are weighty reasons of public policy and convenience that demand the adoption of a similar period for persons claiming rights to positions in the civil service. There must be stability in the service so that public business may (sic) be unduly retarded; delays in the statement of the right to positions in the service must be discouraged.
The ponencia of J. Tijam says that J. Peralta did not know that CJ Sereno failed to submit all the required SALNs to the JBC. But the proceedings at the JBC were known being held in public or at most must have been known to all. Thus, the one (1) year period filing the Quo Warranto lapsed or prescribed. Correct? But J. Tijam says: No.
– Mr. Justice Bengzon said: x x x the inaction of the officer for one year could be validly considered as waiver, i.e., a renunciation which no principle of justice may prevent, he being at liberty to resign his position anytime he pleases.
So, now based on the 8 majority number, the Republic (State) is not barred in Quo Warranto even if more than one (1) year has prescribed.
How time changes the law and rules by the numbers. . . Stability? No. Convenience? Yes and No.
leona says
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_102232_1994.html
kalahari says
Obviously, the time-honored legal maxim REX NON POTEST PECARRE (the king can do no wrong), as successfully invoked by then Pres. Barack Obama during his incumbency, was in the minds of the SC and solgen calida – thus the prescriptive period was ignored.
The King in the instant case is PRRD as represented by calida
arc says
he’s not my king! and he has done many things terribly wrong. so many protests against him that he resorts to telling fake news! lies! to defend himself. and be’s being quo warranto-ed too, the kisser with ugly nguso. he’s not my king. democratic country ang pinas, not monarchy.
arc says
and his collection of baby sitters and constant traveling companions: bong go, roque, cayetano et al, are all busy spinning lies and faking news, forever countermanding kisser with ugly nguso. tiresome job, lies repeated and recorded overtime, recycled lies. the bunch of chinese pacifiers!
leona says
rege cunctas iniquitates. . . follow all wrongs by the king
justitia non debet reprehendere rex programs. . . no justice should criticize the king’s programs
tacet reclamantibus cunctis adinventionibus Sinis scriptor. . . silent protests to all China’s wrongs
Da nobis fines Sinae. . . Give our territories to China
Sinis ad statuam ad omnes pisces. . . Establish to give all the fish to China
FUCK! I AM THE KING!. . . Pedicabo ego? Ego sum rex!
he he he
arc says
he would not be the 1st king that got deposed, he, he, he. some were put in iron mask!
liberty! fraternity! equality!
arc says
the tzar of russia, alexander II, the romanovs, the whole royal family got assassinated, even little anastacia did not escape. in the end, the romanovs once living in grand palaces, got only small a piece of dirt, dust to dust . . .
kalahari says
Washington – Obama claims immunity from lawsuit under the “king can do no wrong” legal maxim
Just when you thought the lawlessness of the most lawless administration in history couldn’t get worse, the Department of Justice files another legal brief.
In response to a class action lawsuit by as many as 3,500 ready-to-hire air traffic controller applicants whose names were “purged” so the Federal Aviation Administration could hire based on race, federal lawyers asserted that the administration is immune from liability for denying constitutional equal protection because of sovereign immunity. In other words, they claim protection by the legal maxim REX NON POTEST PECARRE, which means, “the king can do no wrong.” (more)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-claims-immunity-from-lawsuit-under-the-king-can-do-no-wrong-legal-maxim
arc says
yeah, kings always think they can do no wrong until the day they offed their heads!
leona says
Sorry….trebled postings – all under moderations. Kindly release them moderator. Thank you.
leona says
One reason, among others, the ponencia of J. Tijam as concurred by 7 justices, is that: this Quo Warranto action has not prescribed and that the State through the OSG representing the Republic is not barred from filing the action.
What is the correct rule then? Many agree with the recent decision vs. CJ Sereno and also many disagree with it.
In many cases decided by the SC on the matter, cited by CJ Davide the COURT said:
– The unbending jurisprudence in this jurisdiction is to the effect that a petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public office must be filed within one (1) year from the date the petitioner is ousted from his position x x x
. . . the Many CASES:
1. Galano, et al. v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-31241, September 12, 1975, 67 SCRA 8;
2. Cornejo v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. L-32818, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 663;
3. Sison v. Pangramuyen, etc. et al., G.R. No. L-40295, July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA 364;
4. Cui v. Cui, G.R. No. L-18727, August 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 755;
5. Villaruz v. Zaldivar, G.R. No. L-22754, December 31, 1965, 15 SCRA 710;
6. Villegas v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-23752, December 31, 1965, 15 SCRA 720;
7. De la Maza v. Ochave, G.R. No. L-22336, May 23, 1967, 20 SCRA 142;
8. Alejo v. Marquez, G.R. No. L-29053, February 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 762).
For what reason that it must be filed within one (1) year? The COURT said:
– [W]e note that in actions of quo warranto involving right to an office, the action must be instituted within the period of one year. x x x
– The following considerations as to public officers, by Mr. Justice Bengzon, may well be applicable to employees in the civil service:
– Furthermore, constitutional rights may certainly be waived, and the inaction of the officer for one year could be validly considered as waiver, i.e., a renunciation which no principle of justice may prevent, he being at liberty to resign his position anytime he pleases.
= And there is good justification for the limitation period; it is not proper that the title to public office should be subjected to continued uncertainly (sic), and the peoples’ interest requires that such right should be determined as speedily as practicable. (Tumulak vs. Egay, 46 Off. Gaz., [8], 3693, 3695.)
– This has been the law in the island since 1901, the period having been originally fixed in Section 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190). We find this provision to be an expression of policy on the part of the State x x x
– There are weighty reasons of public policy and convenience that demand the adoption of a similar period for persons claiming rights to positions in the civil service. There must be stability in the service so that public business may (sic) be unduly retarded; delays in the statement of the right to positions in the service must be discouraged.
The ponencia of J. Tijam says that J. Peralta did not know that CJ Sereno failed to submit all the required SALNs to the JBC. But the proceedings at the JBC were known being held in public or at most must have been known to all. Thus, the one (1) year period filing the Quo Warranto lapsed or prescribed. Correct? But J. Tijam says: No.
– Mr. Justice Bengzon said: x x x the inaction of the officer for one year could be validly considered as waiver, i.e., a renunciation which no principle of justice may prevent, he being at liberty to resign his position anytime he pleases.
So, now based on the 8 majority number, the Republic (State) is not barred in Quo Warranto even if more than one (1) year has prescribed.
How time changes the law and rules by the numbers. . . Stability? No. Convenience? Yes and No.
he he he
Mel says
ON QUO WARRANTO RESOLUTION
Lacson argues with Pangilinan: Is Senate ‘encroaching on powers of SC?’, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/996207/lacson-argues-with-pangilinan-is-senate-encroaching-on-powers-of-sc
Piiing, or was it the other way around?
Did the Supreme Court by a nose and a chin committed a judicial legislation? By granting the quo warranto petition by a seemingly masquerading (forum err window shopper) SG Calida?
Ano ang muon ng tatlong haligi ng Republika?
The Lower House do not like her, The Dingo isn’t attracted to her – by hook or by crook, she is his or their enemy. It is their ‘political’ choice by preference of some other ilk at the justice helm.
But ousting her as Chief Justice, is that as per Constitution?
Mel says
Kung wala na si CJ Sereno sa Supreme Court, at tuta ni dingo ang maupo?
Eto ang buod –
Duterte looking forward to facing court cases in 2022: Mas maganda nga eh!, http://politics.com.ph/duterte-looking-forward-to-facing-court-cases-in-2022-mas-maganda-nga-eh1/
Naniniguro lang bah ang mamamatay tao?
arc says
carpio must be prepared to vacate the high chair, in case si calida pa ang maging bagong chief justice appointed by digong.
Mel says
SC SA JUSTICE Antonio T. Carpio, acting CJ, is set to retire on Oct 2019.
In the interim, okay si Antonio Carpio as Chief. He remains a decent & excellent Magistrate, a Gentleman and a Patriot, IMHO.
While SC CJ Sereno sorts her fate with her pending MR now before the SC, and anticipating response answers/comments from SG Calida. Hopefully when the SC counts its votes with finality, it will restore CJ Sereno, still as Chief Justice beyond 2022, six year fix term of PRRD.
Whether the six concerned Justices recuse or not, they shall ‘do the right thing’ by their country, calling and fulfill their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. That the concerned six justices would rise above petty dislikes, spites and selfish pride. And the other two votes to dissent, rather than concur political patronage owed from their benefactor.
arc says
uhm, I say, better the devil they know po. supreme court ought to hang on to sereno. newer devils could be deadlier and harsher, bringing in reforms more controversial than anticipated, or divesting of status and amenable to snakes in the grass making them lesser snakes to be gobbled by bigger snakes. law is weapon best kept sharp, not transgressed and dulled by justices’ own prejudices, indifference and dislikes.
in their old age, the justices ought to show a final hurray, save the supreme court from usurpers, upheld and defend the constitution, their triumph and legacy to the nation is an independent supreme court free of bias, not impaired by political meddling and dictated to by politicians. justices should walk among humans with head held high; respected, not burdened and cowered by undue political meddling.
arc says
it’s defeatist po of justices to think they got appointed to supreme court mainly to fulfill politician’s sinister purpose, and be thankful forever for the position.
methink, justices got appointed to the job because they were best candidates with noteworthy qualifications, the creme dela creme. and the best way justices can be thankful is for them to do their jobs fairly and diligently, blind to all but justice.
netty says
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/06/05/china-removes-missile-launchers-from-disputed-island-after-row-with-us-images-show.html
This is the latest move in the contested islands in which the U.S. scared CHINA, the mighty LORD OF THE DIGONG.
Digong should KISS ( Keep It Simple Digong) PURO KAMANYAKAN ANG ALAM.
On the other hand, wala na ba talaga taste ang mga OFWS sa mga lalaking hahalikan nila sa lips.
Ohyayay, buhay pinay. Just make a little bit of class and brand who you kiss with.
Mel says
They mean the same thing, although with different titles.
US warns of capacity to ‘blow apart’ China’s artificial islands, https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/06/01/1820683/us-warns-capacity-blow-apart-chinas-artificial-islands
US general: We can take down China’s islands | Inquirer Global Nation, globalnation.inquirer. net/167410/us-general-can-take-chinas-islands
ani ni digong? away ng tsina at america iyan (pero sa luob naman ng Phils’. Economic Zone?) maka tsina o maka pinas o talagang galit lang talaga sa estado unidos.
—-
abangan, what if one has a disease and transmitted it with a venom like kiss? he will not only be known as a purveyor of fake news, could also be known as a carrier of oral sexual transmitted disease with a presidential seal. nakakahiya? wait if later someone is tested for HIV or AIDS infection.
arc says
he got super headache kuno on the way home from korea. he could get more than singaw! pneumonia even.
uhm, the woman’s kids must be jumping with joy, if not embarrassed.
if only to give kilig, kisser with ugly nguso ought to amend train law, then we shall all be kilig to the bone.
leona says
“If there should be war, Blair is confident the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force are capable of rapidly “neutralizing” China’s outposts in the South China Sea, which are practically defenseless from a determined attack being isolated and strung out over hundreds of kilometers of sea.
These offensive operations by the Navy and Air Force will only take “probably 10 or 15 minutes’ worth of worth of work for U.S. forces.”
10-15 MINUTES’ work to obliterate Chinese artifical islands as outposts.
Dennis C. Blair Blair is also a retired U.S. Navy Admiral who was formerly Commander, United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) from 1999 to 2002, and has the experience and expertise to analyze the military situation in the South China Sea.
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/102517/20161003/destroying-china-militarized-islands-will-take-15-minutes-former.htm
leona says
China has caused SEVERE HARM to the coral reef environment with its artificial islands violating its obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea “to PRESERVE AND PROTECT FRAGILE ECO-SYSTEMS.”
China uses a grinding ball; it got grooves and teeth and it spins around and tears up living coral and parts of the coral reef substrate, to make more gravel and sand to be sucked up and used for island-building.
Chinese fishermen have been destroying entire reefs, by using propellers to try to dredge up and harvest the CLAMS which appear on the IUCN Red List as a “vulnerable” species. Their fishermen are poaching the GIANT CLAMS.
PDutz understands all this? “Silent protest daw” acc to Sec. Caye.
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/01/491395715/one-result-of-chinas-buildup-in-south-china-sea-environmental-havoc
arc says
he, he, he, bet caye does not know what he’s silent protesting about. he has not been to artificial islands, not been invited by his chinese master. and the most times he’s been to china mainland is when he’s being digong’s buntot, like a dog with tail tucked between his shaking legs! sit where he’s told to sit, bark only when told to bark, baring no fangs.
buti pa yong rebels at aktibista, their protests are visible and audible, not silent and hidden, unheard and un-expressed. caye ought to borrow a leaf from them, he might just learn how to do his job properly.
he, he, he, caye’s silent protest is not protest at all!
arc says
caye is better off going on hunger strike.
leona says
My guess is J. Tijam will be the next CJ of the Court for job well done.
. . . if he applies for it.
Majit !
he he
arc says
leona, babe, dont break acting chief jusitce carpio’s heart, he, he, he. sobrang bait pa naman siya ngayon at ayaw na pong magsalita contra digong’s friend, china. may bagong mga transgressions na nagawa ang china. see po how quiet carpio is becoming? walang imik na siya, makes one wonder if he has laryngitis! he, he, he.
si alejano na ngayon ang becoming voice of concern, few others as well, concern talaga sa kalagayan sa pinas na tudo-tudong ginigipit ng kaibigan ni digong.
leona says
One reason, among others, the ponencia of J. Tijam as concurred by 7 justices, is that: this Quo Warranto action has not prescribed and that the State through the OSG representing the Republic is not barred from filing the action.
What is the correct rule then? Many agree with the recent decision vs. CJ Sereno and also many disagree with it.
In many cases decided by the SC on the matter, cited by CJ Davide the COURT said:
– The unbending jurisprudence in this jurisdiction is to the effect that a petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public office must be filed within one (1) year from the date the petitioner is ousted from his position x x x
. . . the Many CASES:
1. Galano, et al. v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-31241, September 12, 1975, 67 SCRA 8;
2. Cornejo v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. L-32818, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 663;
3. Sison v. Pangramuyen, etc. et al., G.R. No. L-40295, July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA 364;
4. Cui v. Cui, G.R. No. L-18727, August 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 755;
5. Villaruz v. Zaldivar, G.R. No. L-22754, December 31, 1965, 15 SCRA 710;
6. Villegas v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-23752, December 31, 1965, 15 SCRA 720;
7. De la Maza v. Ochave, G.R. No. L-22336, May 23, 1967, 20 SCRA 142;
8. Alejo v. Marquez, G.R. No. L-29053, February 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 762).
For what reason that it must be filed within one (1) year? The COURT said:
– [W]e note that in actions of quo warranto involving right to an office, the action must be instituted within the period of one year. x x x
– The following considerations as to public officers, by Mr. Justice Bengzon, may well be applicable to employees in the civil service:
– Furthermore, constitutional rights may certainly be waived, and the inaction of the officer for one year could be validly considered as waiver, i.e., a renunciation which no principle of justice may prevent, he being at liberty to resign his position anytime he pleases.
= And there is good justification for the limitation period; it is not proper that the title to public office should be subjected to continued uncertainly (sic), and the peoples’ interest requires that such right should be determined as speedily as practicable. (Tumulak vs. Egay, 46 Off. Gaz., [8], 3693, 3695.)
– This has been the law in the island since 1901, the period having been originally fixed in Section 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190). We find this provision to be an expression of policy on the part of the State x x x
– There are weighty reasons of public policy and convenience that demand the adoption of a similar period for persons claiming rights to positions in the civil service. There must be stability in the service so that public business may (sic) be unduly retarded; delays in the statement of the right to positions in the service must be discouraged.
The ponencia of J. Tijam says that J. Peralta did not know that CJ Sereno failed to submit all the required SALNs to the JBC. But the proceedings at the JBC were known being held in public or at most must have been known to all. Thus, the one (1) year period filing the Quo Warranto lapsed or prescribed. Correct? But J. Tijam says: No.
– Mr. Justice Bengzon said: x x x the inaction of the officer for one year could be validly considered as waiver, i.e., a renunciation which no principle of justice may prevent, he being at liberty to resign his position anytime he pleases.
So, now based on the 8 majority number, the Republic (State) is not barred in Quo Warranto even if more than one (1) year has prescribed.
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_102232_1994.html
How time changes the law and rules by the numbers. . . Stability? No. Convenience? Yes and No.
he he
leona says
From mel highlighted source –
“And that’s all the resolution is asking for, expressing the sense of the Senate; expressing the opinion of the Senate. We recognize that the final arbiter is the Supreme Court” Sen. Ping pressed on
Expressing an opinion is not wrong nor contemptuous.
In that sense, Sen. Ping has only one (1) opinion. . . Supreme Court’s.
Buhay ka talaga sa opinyun mo Senator Ping!
he he
leona says
Buhay reyna! PhilHealth chief Dela Serna spends a year living in P3,800 per night hotel
“She admitted to staying in the hotel for one year or more… More or less one year sa hotel siya nakatira charged to Philhealth and she said she thought it was okay, that’s why she did it,” he said.
ONE YEAR STAY SA HOTEL – P3,800.00/DAY!
. . . at least honest siya kaya lang: uoTot!
Do Not Be Uotot Honestly.
he he
http://politics.com.ph/buhay-reyna-philhealth-chief-dela-serna-spends-a-year-living-in-p3800-per-night-hotel1/
arc says
hospitals may have been gouging philhealth too, charging more and maybe falsifying illnesses. ang ubo yata, chest cold at maybe bronchitis too ay ginawang pneumonia kuno. there are hospitals with prevalence of pneumonia, daming patients admitted for pneumonia halos pang-epidemic proportion na when there is no flare up of pneumonia in the district. kunting lagnat lang, aba pneumonia na kaagad. worse, the drugs the supposedly pneumonia sufferers are given are not for pneumonia, but for others, he, he, he. huli ang hospitals sa cross checking. hindi yata tugma ang data. patients are being scammed and may have to pay more for premiums.
ang pinas ngayon is scammers paradise!
Mel says
Garin on diversion issue: P10.6-B PhilHealth fund is non-existent, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/996170/garin-on-diversion-issue-p10-6-b-philhealth-fund-is-non-existent-garin-doh-health-philhealth-padilla-graft
leona says
Jardeleza to new lawyers: Stay humble, have room for empathy
Jardeleza to new lawyers: Stay humble, have room for empathy
De Castro to new lawyers: Hard work, not politics, will get you ahead.
Bersamin to new lawyers: Protect the judiciary
me, at Raissa Robles’ blog to New Lawyers: BE HONEST ’til the day you stop lawyering.
he he
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/996654/jardeleza-to-new-lawyers-stay-humble-have-room-for-empathy-jardeleza-sc-angara-roco-bar-passers
arc says
bwelta ko po sa mga justices, practice what you preach! be what you say and upheld the status quo. be ethical and trustworthy and not go lower than a snake in the grass.
Mel says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UNtFCSsmSI&list=PLgyY1WylJUmiaGwHBOF54CvbTg95r2aea&index=1
Mel says
Be humble, show empathy says SC J Jardeleza to the new lawyers.
Yet he failed to show empathy for his non-recusal, in his ‘vote’ to oust his Chief. Recollecting his and the other five justices, their testimonies and statements conveyed at the Lower House Justice Committee rang hollow his commencement speech.
It was the opposite, his showmanship was harsh, unjustified to summarily remove a CHIEF JUSTICE for some missing SALNs of yester years.
Hopefully this second time around, he would reconsider his stance, put in a sympathy vote with CJ Sereno’s MR.
Show real spine what he meant by what empathy means. Otherwise, its just empty, ring hollow.
arc says
to bersamin’s protect the judiciary! indeed, dahil supreme court’s bent eight is not protecting the judiciary. one of the bent eight is bersamin, ‘sold’ the judiciary to calida. applied unwarranted quo warranto.
and it’s up to new lawyers now to protect the judiciary because bersamin is being loopy! not protecting na siya. and by copying and borrowings sereno’s cry of protect the hudicatura! bersamin should be protecting the law too, not fudging and budging, usurping of senate and being in trance with calida. what has calida and his vasia got on the bent eight anyway?
bersamin en blanc, save the hudikatura yourselves! not leave it to young lawyers.
save the hudikatura, thanks but no thanks to quo warranto. let sereno back in supreme court and be chief justice again. she’s one of best defence against those that threaten the hudikatura.
Mel says
Failure to submit SALN not enough to cause ouster, http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/31/18/sereno-camp-failure-to-submit-saln-not-enough-to-cause-ouster
leona says
If quo warranto did prescribed, failure to submit SALNs inutile.
So, to find reason to overrule the one (1) prescriptive period, 8 votes needed that the State/Republic is not barred even after the period.
6 justices did not inhibit. So, not barred again.
Make a long decision – 153 pages to justify. Not barred again.
CJ Sereno BARRED as Chief J. ! If afterwards, she isn’t fit at all to be a lawyer, disbarred !
This Adm will put bars around her. That’s how the hatred against her goes beyonder.
Kawawa. A true-to-life real nightmare.
Take the Queen. . . the King wins!
arc says
china wins!
drill down says
Connect the dots to TRAIN.
arc says
train leading to the graveyard, the poor hit hardest. not nice being poor these days kaya many are resorting to crime as livelihood. the help the govt promised, the 2hundred pesos added to pantawid is not even band aid. and many still have not received the promised 2hundred pesos.
people in high places, the rich and wealthy with sapat na income, should not think they’ll be unaffected by train. for crime committed by the poor could very well target them, their children, relatives and families could be victims.
Mel says
… wage considered an income?
http://www.foundationfortruthinlaw.org/Griffin-article.html
Ang Pamana
gaya gaya ang pinas sa amerika, mula’t sapul.
Mel says
“Our new Constitution is now established, everything seems to promise it will be durable; but, in this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes,” Franklin said.
– https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/benjamin-franklins-last-great-quote-and-the-constitution
Ariel Anthony Tizon says
I beg to disagree with the premise and arguments of Ms. Robles for the following reasons:
1. Section 13 of Article VII in the 1987 Constitution does not define a , “Conflict of Interest”. The second sentence enumerates the acts that are deemed punishable and in fact are also enumerated in the R.A. 6713 and R.A 3019, among others. In fact the third and last sentence separates a Conflict of Interest concept from the rest of the provision. In fact the provision does not define what a “Conflict of Interest” is:
2. SG Calida is not covered by the first sentence of the aforementioned provision since he does not hold a cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary position in government. The case of Mr Concepcion is inapplicable as his appointment was to a cabinet position.
Conflict of Interest and when it arise is defined explained in Section 3(i) of R.A. 6713, to wit:
(i) “Conflict of interest” arises when a public official or employee is a member of a board, an officer, or a substantial stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a substantial interest in a business, and the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty”.
There are two elements that must be present for a Conflict of Interest to arise, namely:
a….”when a public official or employee is a member of a board, an officer, or a substantial stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a substantial interest in a business;” and
b….” the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty”.
Now, SG Calida may be found to be a stockholder or part-owner of the security agency (VASIA) that is currently providing security guard services to government agencies, but is the procurement of those contracts part of his official duty? Was he the granting authority that bound the agency with the government? Obviously NOT!
The second element is absent in his case so no Conflict of Interest can be substantiated or proved.
HOWEVER, if it can be proven by irrefutable evidence that SG Calida had intervened or influenced the deciding body to grant the contracts to his security agency (VASIA) then he may be prosecuted under one of the acts deemed punishable under R.A 3019 and other relevant laws BUT NOT because of a Conflict of Interest.
Further, SG Calida do not need to divest for another reason aside from the one stated above (No.1).
Granting for the sake of argument that during his incumbency, SG Calida has to decide the procurement of a security guard contract and his company submitted a bid for it, what is his legal option?
Under Section 2(a) RUule IX of the Implementing Rules of R.A. 6713, states:
“Section 2. (a) When a conflict of interest arises, the official or employee involved shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and/or divest himself of his share-holdings interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption. For those who are already in the service, and conflict of interest arises, the officer or employee must resign from his position in the private business enterprise and/or divest himself of his shareholdings or interest within the periods herein-above provided, reckoned from the date when the conflict of interest had arisen. The same rule shall apply where the public official or employee is a partner in a partnership.”
SG Calida has the option of divesting his interest in the company within sixty (60) days from the time such “Conflict of Interest” arises.
in summation, it is argued that there is no conflict of interest involved in SG Calida’s circumstances.
netty says
He maybe lobbying for his own business, isn’t that a kind of conflict of interest? It’s human nature to promote or to sell your own products or services than someone else. You provided such lengthy section articles links but it can be ignored, be impeached , q w in all ways and manner in the country of the PH. Come on, even the SC IS DISRESPECTED WITH A MERE ILLEGAL MANEUVERING.
“Now, SG Calida may be found to be a stockholder or part-owner of the security agency (VASIA) that is currently providing security guard services to government agencies, but is the procurement of those contracts part of his official duty? Was he the granting authority that bound the agency with the government? Obviously NOT! (you)
I also disagree with you for in this instance, he is not only a stockholder , he is also a stakeholder in the business with his family , sons and wife.
He also may be lobbying , “Professional lobbyists are people whose business is trying to influence legislation, regulation, or other government decisions, actions, or policies on behalf of a group or individual who hires them. Individuals and nonprofit organizations can also lobby as an act of volunteering or as a small part of their normal job (for instance, a CEO meeting with a representative about a project important to their company, or an activist meeting with their legislator in an unpaid capacity)
There I got it for you. He should be investigated, nevertheless, as per your summation that he is spotlessly clean , NO STAIN OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
If for you , he is within “faithful performance of official duty”, then hearing the case is the way to go.
Ariel Anthony Tizon says
If he is lobbying as you say to corner the contracts in favour of his agency, this is not conflict of interest as defined in the legal provisions I cited in my main comment. However, he may be prosecuted under the relevant provision in RA 3019. Please do read the elements for a conflict of interest to legally exist
arc says
legally or illegally, conflict of interest exist and calida is being panot to let himself be dazzled by all that glitters. his economic interest is far ahead of him; mapped, and job of solgen is awfully, terribly, added bonus, gave him unprecedented access to influence and won contracts. the man just could not help himself, all that money! contracts won even after becoming solgen, that man is a harvester! and should be in boracay harvesting lumots, lol! lumots might have been gone by now.
bad, bad, bad calida, alam papa niya there is 60 days window kaya pusposan ang lakad! get more contracts, he, he, he, squeezed in more contracts within the 60 days allotted, hala tira! tornadong naano.
arc says
methink, 60 days of round robin, calida calling on firms and telling them he might not be chairman of sekyu business anymore, so please support and do business with his 2nd in command, his wife. else, he’ll ripped their cheeks apart! a support for his wife is a support for him, so do business with his wife if they know what’s good for them. good boy solgen is, he, he, he. keeping eyes on the money! caring for his investment, always.
uhm, calida has also been calling on lacson, zubiri and sotto in thier offices pa, and not at their homes, may official business baga. the conference of the like minded. pinakita lang yata ni calida how ‘wide’ a mile he can walk! and not for a camel it is, he, he, he. very important visit, cannot be done by mere phone call, or text, gotta make it in person, intimidating kaayo. face to face with pineapple face, another contract in the making?
leona says
Reply to reply on – Ariel Anthony Tizon says JUNE 1, 2018 AT 11:22 PM. The latter’s reply said:
x x x In fact the provision does not define what a “Conflict of Interest” is: x x x
A rule: Rules of conduct are substantive and should not be in definitions. Avoid granting a power to a person solely by means of a definition.
But when is a definition substantive? One test is to look at how much meaning a provision conveys without the definition, for example, in “The Minister may appoint qualified persons as members….” qualified conveys little on its own — the substantive nature of the content should be added in a subsequent sentence: “A person is qualified to be appointed if the person….” On the other hand, in “The Minister may make emergency orders for the purpose of protecting the habitat of a listed wildlife species” habitat conveys meaning on its own. A definition would simply clarify its meaning.
Raissa Robles’ said: – The Constitution was written not just for lawyers but also for ordinary people like you and me. Because it is supposed to be the contract between We the People and the leaders we choose to govern us.
Again, on COMMON MEANING OF WORDS, the legislative rule is –
Definitions in legislative texts are stipulative; they state what a term is to mean in the text. They are only required if they depart from the commonly understood meaning of the term.
. . .Definitions included in legislative texts must never simply reiterate the content of a dictionary or state the obvious. If the meaning of a term is well understood by the intended audience and unambiguous, don’t define the term.
. . . It is not necessary to define a term simply because it is a technical, scientific or other term of art. Legislative counsel should systematically avoid defining terms that do not depart from their ordinary meaning.
Mr. TIZON, your begging argument puts a strain on the readers’ common understanding which will make readers’ ability to read and understand the substantive provisions of the text.
Ms. Raissa Robles clearly said: Section 13 quite clearly defines what conflict of interest means for the President, the Vice President and the President’s Cabinet officials down to Cabinet deputies or assistants.
Last words: Do not attempt to put a strain on the readers’ common understanding and ability to read the Constitution’s text.
leona says
Legistics
Definitions
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/legis-redact/legistics/p1p5.html
Atty Ariel Anthony Tizon says
Leona, Please read the cases of
Civil Liberties Union v Executive Secretary G. R. #83896, 22 February 1991 where the Supreme Court en Banc discussed and ruled on how Section 13 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution must be interpreted.
Dennis AB Funa v Acting Sec of Justice Alberto C Agra, G.R.# 191644 19 February 2013.
In the first case, the SC HELD that Section 13 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution specifically identified the persons who are affected by this prohibition as enumerated therein and CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO MERELY HAVE THE RANK OF SECRETARY, UNDERSECRETARY OR ASSISTANT SECRETARY.
Being a lawyer, these cases are the controlling as far as I know.
Have you not heard of the rule, “ EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS” in statutory and Constitutional interpretation?
Your interpretation as well as Ms Robles’ of the aforementioned Constitutional provision are faulty, misleading, and basically WRONG.
The Supreme Court say so in these cases…
leona says
BOTH the Civil Liberties Union and Funa vs Agra cases are about ‘holding multiple positions in government,
and not about ‘directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. ‘
Check the facts re the factual issue of holding of multiple positions.
In both your cited cases, the SC ruled about on the holding of multiple positions by Cabinet members, etc., was unconstitutional and not about engaging in any practice or having contracts, etc.
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_191644_2013.html
leona says
the Funa case
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_83896_1991.html
Ariel Anthony Tizon says
I beg to disagree with the premise and arguments of Ms. Robles for the following reasons:
1. Section 13 of Article VII in the 1987 Constitution does not define a , “Conflict of Interest”. The second sentence enumerates the acts that are deemed punishable and in fact are also enumerated in the R.A. 6713 and R.A 3019, among others. In fact the third and last sentence separates a Conflict of Interest concept from the rest of the provision. In fact the provision does not define what a “Conflict of Interest” is:
2. SG Calida is not covered by the first sentence of the aforementioned provision since he does not hold a cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary position in government. The case of Mr Concepcion is inapplicable as his appointment was to a cabinet position.
Conflict of Interest and when it arise is defined explained in Section 3(i) of R.A. 6713, to wit:
(i) “Conflict of interest” arises when a public official or employee is a member of a board, an officer, or a substantial stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a substantial interest in a business, and the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty”.
There are two elements that must be present for a Conflict of Interest to arise, namely:
a….”when a public official or employee is a member of a board, an officer, or a substantial stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a substantial interest in a business;” and
b….” the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty”.
Now, SG Calida may be found to be a stockholder or part-owner of the security agency (VASIA) that is currently providing security guard services to government agencies, but is the procurement of those contracts part of his official duty? Was he the granting authority that bound the agency with the government? Obviously NOT!
The second element is absent in his case so no Conflict of Interest can be substantiated or proved.
HOWEVER, if it can be proven by irreputable evidence that SG Calida had intervened or influenced the deciding body to grant the contracts to his security agency (VASIA) then he may be prosecuted under one of the acts deemed punishable under R.A 3019 and other relevant laws BUT NOT because of a Conflict of Interest.
Further, SG Calida do not need to divest for another reason aside from the one stated above (No.1).
Granting for the sake of argument that during his incumbency, SG Calida has to decide the procurement of a security guard contract and his company submitted a bid for it, what is his legal option?
Under Section 2(a) RUule IX of the Implementing Rules of R.A. 6713, states:
“Section 2. (a) When a conflict of interest arises, the official or employee involved shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and/or divest himself of his share-holdings interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption. For those who are already in the service, and conflict of interest arises, the officer or employee must resign from his position in the private business enterprise and/or divest himself of his shareholdings or interest within the periods herein-above provided, reckoned from the date when the conflict of interest had arisen. The same rule shall apply where the public official or employee is a partner in a partnership.”
SG Calida has the option of divesting his interest in the company within sixty (60) days from the time such “Conflict of Interest” arises.
in summation, it is argued that there is no conflict of interest involved in SG Calida’s circumstances.
Mel says
For your enlightenment –
https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/docs/republicacts/Implementing_Rules_of_RA_6713.pdf
Ariel Anthony Tizon says
Hi Mel, if your reply refers to me, I am glad to say I have read that rules in law school and law practice. In fact that is one of the legal provisions from shich I based my disagreement with Rissa Robles’ arguments.
SG Calida is not covered by Section 13 of ART VII of the 1987 Constitution .
For your REAL, TRUE, and SPECIFIC enlightenment, kindly read the following Philippine cases
Civil Liberties Union v Executive Secretary G R # 83896 22 February 1991, and reiterated
in Funa v Agra, et al., GR # 191644 19 February 2013.
Do take be mindful, if you please, note these Supreme Court Decisions happened before the Duterte Administration hence you cannot accuse the Supreme Court of favouring a Duterte appointee.
Regards,
Atty Ariel Anthony A Tizon, LLB, LLM, PgDL
arc says
ano ito? pulling rank na, he, he, he. sir, I dont care even if you have the whole chinese alpahabet after your name! your opinion still stinks.
Ariel Anthony Tizon says
SG Calida did not violate Section 13 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Di yan opinion ko. Ruling yan nang Supreme Court, Hijo.
Matagal Na settled na yung issue na Ito. 2013 pa. panahon ni Pinoy Administration.
netty says
Hahaha, typical Filipweno show off. Of course, he can only do that flashing his laurels in the PH soil if anybody would be intimidated by those soup alphabet at the end of his name. Hambog nito.
Whoa, completos recados ang peg nya.
Atty Ariel Anthony A Tizon, LLB, LLM, PgDL
I have a funny way of looking at this marvelous name and titles that I remember a headstone from one of the places I visited, in which some says :
XXXXX You wouldn’t be missed
Gone and forgotten
Here he she lies, de composing :)
leona says
arc, mel, and netty,</b< . . . ATTY. ARIEL M. TIZON is straining his opinion by exposing his rank qualification:
he is . . . LLB, LLM, PgDL. HE HE HE
he has. . . read that rules in law school and law practice. HE HE HE
he dunks that . . . In fact that is one of the legal provisions from shich I based my disagreement with Rissa Robles’ arguments. HE HE HE
he dunks again for your . . . REAL, TRUE, and SPECIFIC enlightenment. HE HE HE
he begs you all . . . Do take be mindful, if you please, note these Supreme Court Decisions happened before the Duterte Administration hence you cannot accuse the Supreme Court of favouring a Duterte appointee. HE HE HE
and he extends his . . . Regards,
Atty Ariel Anthony A Tizon, LLB, LLM, PgDL HE HE HE
* * * * * * *
And you REPLY . . . ano ito? pulling rank na, he, he, he. sir, I dont care even if you have the whole chinese alpahabet after your name! your opinion still stinks. HA HA HA
Another REPLY . . . Hahaha, typical Filipweno show off. Of course, he can only do that flashing his laurels in the PH soil if anybody would be intimidated by those soup alphabet at the end of his name. Hambog nito.
. . . Whoa, completos recados ang peg nya.
Ha He Ha He
* * * * * * *
Raissa Robles brought up the issue . . . The pertinent section, in the case of SolGen Calida, is the second sentence which states:
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly…be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries.
It is so clear that Atty. Tizon’s 2 cited cases do not refer to the above issue.
He He He
You are trying pulling our legs Attorney!
. . .
kalakala says
baka nakalimutan ni atty mag suot ng kanyang reading eye glasses while reading
Raissa Robles brought up the issue . . . The pertinent section, in the case of SolGen Calida, is the second sentence which states:
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly…
he misread the word NOT in ” They shall not , during said tenure…”
Ariel Anthony Tizon says
Leona
Precisely because the acts deemed prohibited in the second sentence will only apply to public officers within the prohibition of the first sentence therein due to the word, “THEY”, referring to those officers enumerated in the first sentence. So, if the public officer’s position is not among those enumerated in the first sentence of Section 13 ArtVII of the 1987 Constitution, THERE IS NO NEED TO PROCEED TO THE SECOND SENTENCE TO DETERMINE THE COMMISSION OF ANY OF THE PROHIBITED ACTS.( capitalisation mine for emphasis, no disrespect to anybody in this website ).
Let me quote to you the specific explanation of the Supreme Court in the Funa case and why section 13 Article VII does not apply to SG Calida. My argument is reproduced here though originally addressed to Ms Robles.
Dear Ms Robles,
Let me reproduce in this comment your arguments on the matter- Whether or not SG Calida violated Section 13 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
t is prohibited by Article VII, Section 13. This is a special section on “conflict of interest” which covers only the top members of the Executive Department. This is what it says [underscore in red mine]:
“Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Member of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. THEY shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business,or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.” (capitalisation mine for emphasis)
UPDATE as of May 30, 2018:
Apparently, SolGen Calida is aware of Section 13. Because in Philippine Daily Inquirer’s Marlon Ramos’ report today, Marlon Ramos had this sentence attributed to Calida as saying that “the limits imposed on Cabinet members as stipulated in Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution should not be applied to him ‘for the simple reason that he is not a member of the Cabinet, although he is conferred Cabinet rank‘ under the law.
Calida misinterprets Section 13. It covers not only Members of the Cabinet but also “their deputies or assistants“. Let’s see how Calida, the presidential palace and the Department of Justice explains what the phrase “their deputies or assistants” means.”
With due respect accorded to you as a journalist, I submit there is no need for SG Calida, the Presidential palace and the Department of Justice to explain what the phrase “their deputies or assistants” mean if your intention and understanding is to include the office of the Solicitor General among the public officers enumerated in the first sentence of Section 13 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
This issue has long been settled by the Supreme Court in 2013 ( well before the PRRD administration ). When queried on this very matter, the Supreme Court in the case of( EN BANC) G.R. No. 191644 February 19, 2013. DENNIS A.B. FUNA, Petitioner, vs. CTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ALBERTO C. AGRA, ET., AL., ruled and I quote the relevant paragraphs, to wit:
” xxxxxxxxx
While Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution applies in general to all elective and appointive officials, Section 13, Article VII, thereof applies in particular to Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries and assistant secretaries. In the Resolution in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, this Court already clarified the scope of the prohibition provided in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Citing the case of US v. Mouat, it specifically identified the persons who are affected by this prohibition as secretaries, undersecretaries and assistant secretaries; and categorically excluded public officers who merely have the rank of secretary, undersecretary or assistant secretary.
Another point of clarification raised by the Solicitor General refers to the persons affected by the constitutional prohibition. The persons cited in the constitutional provision are the “Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.” These terms must be given their common and general acceptation as referring to the heads of the executive departments, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries. Public officials given the rank equivalent to a Secretary, Undersecretary, or Assistant Secretary are not covered by the prohibition, nor is the Solicitor General affected thereby. (Italics supplied).
xxxxxx”
That is so clear that a non-lawyer would easily understand..
Proceeding further,I capitalised the word THEY at the start of the second sentence of the foregoing quoted Constitutional provision because the prohibited acts enumerated therein refer to those that may be committed by the enumerated officers in the first sentence of thereof.
Query- Do the first two sentences of Section 13 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution define a conflict of interest?
My Answer: Definitely not because the last sentence operative phrase is, ” in the conduct of their Office”. The acts that are prohibited in the second sentence of the aforecited provision MAY BE COMMITTED even if not in the conduct of their office.
As defined in my main comment on your article, there are two elements for a conflict of interest to be in existence, namely
a….”when a public official or employee is a member of a board, an officer, or a substantial stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a substantial interest in a business;” and
b….” the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty”.
i.e The Secretary of Health is about to grant a contract to a Pharmaceutical Distributor where he is part owner. If it his part of his official duty to grant such contracts and favoured his own business, all the elements of a “Conflict of Interest” are in attendance hence it arises.
Thus it is only when SG Calida in the performance of his official duty is made to decide on a matter that involve VASIA agency as a party will a “conflict of interest” arise.
If so, SG Calida is not encompassed in the prohibition in Section 13 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution , does that mean he has unbridled license to commit those acts enumerated in the second sentence of the above-cited provision of Law?
CERTAINLY NOT!!!
He can be prosecuted under the relevant prohibited acts in Republic Act 3019 (Graft and Corruption) but not because of a “conflict of interest”.
leona says
REPLY to your reply ATTY. TIZON. . .
. . . you have dug deeper into further
confusing and whatever you are digging
about. I will stop looking to your digging
as you might strike oil!
Thank you.
arc says
dig deeper and he might just fell into a well! he, he, he.
I’ll follow your example, leona, and leave him to it.
Mel says
@Ariel Anthony Tizon, simple lang ang sagot ko.
Have you applied what you’ve learned from any of the four corners (in deference) into your law practice? Mean Titles gained doesn’t measure one’s moral superiority above anyone else.
Since you’ve read it, are you a more morally upright law practitioner? In your experience to date, is man’s laws better or superior than that of God’s Ten Commandments? (as an aside or example)
When you get there, kindly ask that question to SG Calida? According to wikipedia, he is a born-again christian.
I’ll put it another way, to your knowledge has anyone been convicted for a crime of ‘conflict of interest?’ To put it succinctly, is ‘conflict of interest’ a crime?
That is what you are actually saying in your comments, but not quite straight with the rest.
In your law practice, with educational titles attained, work experience and what have you, does those trailing acronyms after your name make you a better person, or the best lawyer?
I don’t mean to sound legalistic, what is the gist of the Rules then if not to apply ’em instead? [How wholesome]
Paki define naman ang mga sumusunod; LLB, LLM, PgDL.
Enlighten us, at your convenience, what do they mean, how does it make you a better practitioner, and why I should take your opinion (as above) as gospel. TY
Mel says
Addendum
‘Kindly Enlighten us in your own words, at your convenience, what do they mean to you, how does it make you a better practitioner compared with your kumpaneros‘
—
Gospel reading for the day:
See, read Matthew 16:26
Mel says
A Public Office is a Public …?
Conflict of Interest, Case Scenarios
Should ‘things’ run afoul, what if a gov’t policy just enunciated runs counter with VASIA’s business interests (i.e. security service contractual obligations)? And the OSG requires its representations against VASIA in a court of law?
What if there are labor issues by security officers/employees of VASIA against gov’t labor laws or changes to wit? What if VASIA at sometime during their contract tenure with gov’t agencies/departments to have committed breaches in laws, rules and obligations to any of their gov’t clients? Service Security contracts between gov’t agencies, opposing departments (e.g. Ombudsman, DOJ) – conflict of security clearances or Independence to counter surveillance?
How could a Solicitor General perform its duties impartially, w/o bias, for the gov’t against a private company that the SG has financial, vested interests in?
arc says
in short po, vasia could in turn be spying for calida, being calida’s extra eyes and ears and providing him with much needed intel of govt agencies, giving calida covert info and alerting him of the people and govt officials, their meetings and gatherings, memos of understanding, minutes of meetings and of things that can be of much use.
Sam says
Here is another, how Caligula este Calida bends the Law
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/655411/osg-no-basis-for-coa-rsquo-s-finding-on-lsquo-excessive-honoraria-allowances-rsquo/story/
—————————————————————————————-
Here is what they said
The statement said this circular, No. 85-25-E, cannot prevail over laws, such as Republic Act No. 9417, or the law strengthening the OSG, which states that OSG lawyers may receive honoraria and allowances without a cap to the amount.
————————————————————————————————————————————
Without Cap daw …
Now since they use RA No.9417,. Section 10 paragraph 2 clearly state NOT EXCEEDING 100% of the BASIC Salary
Sabi ko nga eh .. ang daming mga Steelman (construction workers who bend iron rods) sa govt natin
arc says
nag-follow the leader lang yata si calida. may excessive travel si digong at may bigger entourage pa, hakot yata ang buong cheer squad. lest may kausap si digong in case heads of state ignore him and refused him dayalogo.
si calida naman, easy rider and thinking ahead, better to spread the damage around and cushion his fall. if he gets blamed for excessive travels, his companyeros would also be blamed. then they and their families will all rise up to protest and defend their good names, calida’s included.