The Palladium February 2016 Broadsheet

NEWS

LEGAL

LEGALLY SPEAKING: FOUNDLINGS IN POLITICS

THE APPLICABILITY OF OBERGEFELL V. HODGES IN THE PHILIPPINES

VOLUMENo. No.XIX XVIII VOLUME

APS ROCKWELL REFURBISHMENT PLAN ‘STILL UP IN THE AIR’

STA. MARIA: SC DECISION ON ENRILE BAIL A ‘SHALLOW’ ONE

ISSUENo. No.12 ISSUE

ORSEM 2015

JANUARY FEBRUARY2015 2016

SHAKY SITUATION: APS PREPARES FOR ‘THE BIG ONE’

By Michael Francis D. Castro

By Richard Gabriel G. Filasol

THE implementation of the Ateneo Professional Schools (APS) Rockwell Refurbishment Plan, which proposes a complete overhaul of the Rockwell campus in order to give way to new infrastructure, has been put on hiatus, with discussions among concerned stakeholders still ongoing in deciding whether or not such renovations will push through.

According to Hubert Abergos, Head of Facilities and Physical Resources of the APS, the general goal of the Refurbishment Plan is to improve the order and arrangement of the existing rooms, offices, classrooms, and other areas of the Rockwell campus. The team behind the Refurbishment Plan is working hard to make sure all areas, both existing and proposed, will be given sufficient space.

Photo courtesy of Kira Rances

METRO Manila sits on the West Valley Fault, an active fault line.

According to the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), this fault line may generate earthquakes every 400 to 600 years. The last earthquake attributable to the fault line occurred in 1658, or 357 years ago.

Another earthquake, colloquially No consensus called “The Big One”, is expected to occur within this generation.

Getting a consensus of the PHIVOLCS estimates that such an continued on p. 3

earthquake would reach up to 7.2 in magnitude. A report created by the Japan International Cooperation Agency, Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and PHIVOLCS entitled the Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction Study (MMEIRS) estimates that a magnitude 7.2 earthquake could damage about 40% of buildings in Metro Manila, and cause an estimated 33,000 deaths and countless injuries.

In recent years, the Philippine government has focused on disseminating information to the public on the dangers of an impending earthquake through the initiation of various talks, distribution of leaflets, and other similar activities.

Taking the information from the MMEIRS study, the government through the MMDA conducted the Metro Manila-wide “Shake Drill” last July 30, 2015. continued on p. 2

ORSEM 2015: Freshmen start their journey at ALS

By Joren Lex A. Tan

THE 2015 Freshmen Orientation Seminar (OrSem), held July 23-25, 2015, was the result of months of hard work by Batch 2018 of the Ateneo Law School (ALS). Themed Journeys: Together in Fl19ht, the OrSem was geared towards preparing the incoming freshmen with the rigors of law school and instilling in them the mind-set that bar

preparation starts from day one. As OrSem Co-Head Mitch Espiritu (2-D) pointed out, the inception of the theme was brought about by the objective of introducing a sustainable culture to incoming law students that would emphasize long-term learning rather than semestral survivability.

Aside from traditional activities regarding learning styles and lifestyle tips, Day 1 of OrSem showcased the tracking system introduced by the ALS. Atty. Toto Villareal (Alternative Dispute Resolution), Atty. Jaime Hofilena (Litigation), Atty. Antonio Ligon (Corporate and Business Law) and Atty.

Patrick Perillo (International Law

and Development) shared their experiences with regard to their field of expertise while Atty. Amparita Sta. Maria discussed the overall process of the tracking system. Day 1 of the OrSem ended with a Mass to celebrate the entry of the freshmen to the ALS community.

Day 2 of OrSem included talks continued on p. 2

XIX VOLUME No. XVIII

ISSUE No. 32

www.thepalladium.ph

facebook.com/palladiumALS

@palladiumALS

NEWS

2

APS ROCKWELL REFURBISHMENT HIGH VOTER TURNOUT FOR FE AS RUBIO ELECTED FIRST YEAR BATCH PLAN ‘STILL UP IN THE AIR’

continued from p. 1

pertinent stakeholders, however, has never been an easy task.

According to the Student Council (SC) President Cyndy Dela Cruz who took part in consultations with the Office of the Vice President for Professional Schools (VP) and Ateneo Law School (ALS) administrators such as Dean Sedfrey Candelaria, the Associate Deans, and Dean Emeritus Father Joaquin Bernas, S.J., the original plan was to have a complete renovation of the campus, to which the ALS initially agreed to.

Thereafter, Dean Rodolfo P. Ang of the Ateneo Graduate School of Business sent a proposal to the Office of the VP which contained his plans of putting Le Cordon Bleu, a culinary school, inside the Rockwell campus. The ALS representatives disagreed with this new proposal. According to Dela Cruz, “If [Le Cordon Blue] were to be integrated with the current floor plan of the school, the organization rooms and other student activity centers, both from the ground floor and third floor, will all be transferred to different spaces smaller than where they are presently situated. Further, the space where the [third floor] organization rooms are currently situated will be replaced with a two-floor Le Cordon Bleu area

which in effect would decrease the floor area occupied by the ALS.” However, according to Abergos, the relocation of the organization rooms, student activity centers and other areas are not entirely due to the construction of Le Cordon Bleu. He adds that, “One of the major goals of the Refurbishment Plan is to put related offices, rooms or areas together in one area, if not one floor. For example, all ALS rooms or offices are grouped in one area. This will also be the same for AGSB. With regard to the space getting smaller after relocation, the team will ensure that the new areas will be, if not the same, bigger.”

Still on the table At present, the Refurbishment Plan is still under stringent review and discussion. No final decision has been made as to whether the construction of new areas in the campus or the renovation of existing ones will still push through. There is also no definite space plan yet for said renovations.

Nevertheless, Abergo believes that “the planning team is doing its best to make sure the refurbishment will benefit the whole APS community as a whole.” P

ORSEM 2015: Freshmen start their journey at ALS

REPRESENTATIVE

By Louise I. Celerio

Under Bar-Readiness, Rubio aims to encourage Bar Operations volunteerism among freshmen with the belief that volunteer work and academics are not mutually exclusive. Apart from that, he also promotes the notions of “Bar Material Repository” and “Smart Studying” which involve having access to supplementary resource materials and reviewers and getting tips and information from the It was a head-to-head race for upperclassmen and alumni as an the position of First Year Batch early preparation for the bar.

Representative as Rafael Rubio (1Inclusive of Rubio’s “All-Around B) and Bianca Soriano (1-F) vied for the position. The candidates Care” for his batch mates are conducted their campaigns from giving them updates of academic databases, aiming for cost August 24 to August 27. alleviation through photocopy Spearheaded by CEJA, the subsidies, and creating an efficient elections formally opened on online avenue for freshmen 11:00 AM and ended at exactly inquiries concerning academics 6:00 PM. Soon after the polls were and school processes. Moreover, closed, the CEJA proceeded with he intends to aid the freshmen in counting the votes in the presence reducing their photocopy costs of three watchers, two of which through a system of selling old came from campaign teams of readings to fund future ones or Rubio and Soriano. At exactly 9:52 reusing the papers to lessen the PM, the results were published, costs. with Rubio garnering a total of 128 Lastly, Rubio encourages votes as opposed to Soriano who garnered a total of 74 votes. 14 bonding and team-building among all freshmen. One of the means to voters abstained. achieve this, according to Rubio, is through sports. Aside from the Rubio’s general plan of action annual ALS sports fest, he also Bar-Readiness, All-Around believes the batch should get Care, and Energy and Exercise- together during their free times. these make up Rubio’s General Rubio hopes for a more bonded and unified Batch 2019 in the Plan of Action. months to come in law school. P ACCORDING to the Commission on Elections and Judicial Appointments (CEJA), this year’s Freshmen Elections, which were held last August 28, produced a higher voter turnout compared to the Freshmen Elections held in the previous years. Out of the 272 freshmen enrolled, a total of 216 votes were cast during the elections.

continued from p. 1

given by ALS alumni Atty. Dianne Wilwayco, Atty. Angela Antonio and Atty. Ryan Quan. The three gave advice to incoming freshmen on how to properly adjust in law school and also shared their personal experiences when they were still students. The OrSem team

concluded with OrSem Night wherein the freshmen were given a chance to interact with each other and showcase their talents in the coveted Mr. and Ms. OrSem Talent Competition. Ivan Lee and Lyka Benitez (1-F) came home with the titles of Mr. and Ms. OrSem 2015.

also provided the students with workshops on digest making, case reading and proper reciting on the same day.

tations. The OrSem team installed per block ALS students as bogus professors for the first round and invited a real professor to conduct the final round of recitations. The On Day 3 of OrSem, students first round of recitation was aimed were tested when they were sub- to expose the students to the worstjected to two rounds of mock reci- case scenario. The whole event

The Orsem 2015 Executive Committee includes Overall Heads Mitch Espiritu (2-D) and Marianne Dela Cruz (2-B), Finance Head Chris Co (2-C), Documentation and Publication Head Eloize Dayanghirang (2-D), Secretariat Heads Francis Bautista (2-C) and Lina Domingo (2-D), Logistics Head Ace Ancheta (2-B) and Haydn Tan (2-C), Talks and Tours (TNTs) Heads Nicole Gruta (2C) and Nina Santiago (2-B), Marketing Heads Kim Mondejar (2-B) and Zeth Samson (2-C), and Programs Heads Mico Clavano (2-C) and Sarah Ganto (2-A). P

NEWS

3

SHAKY SITUATION: APS PREPARES FOR ‘THE BIG ONE’

Photo courtesy of Kira Rances

continued from p. 1

APS situation The Ateneo Professional Schools (APS) campus in Rockwell, located approximately 3 kilometers west of the fault line, is in danger of being damaged by an earthquake.

In light of the prospective danger facing the school, Ateneo’s Local Unit Emergency Response Teams (LUERTs) have been preparing for such an event.

The LUERTs serve as the major communication link between the University Emergency Management Team (UEMT) and the campus community during a major emergency or disaster. LUERTs gather emergency impact data from the areas of their respective

campuses and account for their personnel, transmit reports to the UEMT, and disseminate emergency instructions to its constituents.

The LUERTs also work with the Building Emergency Assistance Team (BEAT), or the so-called “action team.” BEAT is comprised of the security guards and officials of the school who will serve to guide the students during any emergencies. Together, the LUERTs and the BEAT work together for the safety of the school.

LUERTs’ head Hubert P. Abergos has noted the increase in coverage of earthquakes and earthquake prevention. “The LUERTs have actually prepared for an earthquake situation even before the July 30 Shake Drill,” Abergos says. “We

have been conducting seminars on role identification and orientations with the BEAT.” With the increase in media coverage on the danger of earthquakes, this has only caused the LUERTs’ to be more eager in preparing and to be stricter and more vigilant in training its men.

As to the biggest factor which LUERT should focus on, Abergos believes “it’s a step-by-step process.

Information is the key. We start with the LUERT. We make sure that the LUERTs are really aware of the emergency measures and protocols.”

“The next step” Abergos adds, “is to inform the students.”

Abergos also highlighted the current dangers or deficiencies that the LUERT still faces with regard to student safety. The biggest concern is the evacuation site. Currently, for the APS Rockwell Campus, the planned evacuation site is along Rockwell Drive. Abergos states that this might not be ideal, due to the amount of trees and concrete posts that might fall down, as well as the presence of oncoming traffic. Abergos is also planning to reassess the structural integrity of the APS building in order to be assured that the building is still structurally sound. Currently, the LUERTs are engaged with discussions with the managers of Rockwell Center for an improved evacuation site.

Information is the key As to what a student can do to be safe during an emergency, Abergos states that “one of the keys really is mental alertness. Usually, we

run into trouble because we panic.

Imagine, if we panic, and something hits us. If we calm down and have a proper mindset, that’s really it.” Abergos also states that a student should know that “the role of the LUERT should also be shared by all. Just because you’re a student doesn’t mean you should solely rely on the LUERT. You should know also.”

Abergos has faced difficulties with getting the students to comply or be interested with safety.

“We experienced this in the drill.

There are some people that didn’t cooperate. We invite them and we try to make them understand why we do this. This isn’t just for fun.”

As to any future plans, Abergos also plans to implement drills initiated only by the university. “I plan for surprise drills, drills that even a majority of the members of the LUERT won’t know about, in order to see the reactions of the LUERT as well as the students.”

Abergos also proposes to incorporate this during the ORSEM. “We actually talked to the school about this. I heard it’s already happening in the Graduate School of Business. When a student enters [the school], he or she should be aware.”

As to his overall philosophy in this matter, Abergos states “I believe that when it comes to emergencies, there will never be sufficient preparation for such. Information is the key. If everyone knew or at least had a proper mindset on emergencies, then it would be a big help.” P

Sta. Maria: SC decision on Enrile bail a ‘shallow’ one

By Luis Alfonso S. Seña

“WHAT happened in the Enrile decision was a case of too much jibber jabber [by the Supreme Court].” These were some of the sentiments shared by Dean Mel Sta. Maria (82’) in the symposium spearheaded by the Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC) entitled “Bail-eve it or Not: Has the law on bail changed?” at Veritas Hall held last September 4, 2015.

Dean Sta. Maria and remedial law professor Atty. George S.D. Aquino were invited by the AHRC to share their insights on the recently decided Supreme Court decision penned by Justice Lucas Bersamin which granted Senator Juan Ponce Enrile’s motion to post bail in rela-

tion to the plunder charges against in the Rules of Court as basis for him. the determination of the amount of bail only, and not with respect Poor health and age considered to the granting of the petition for bail itself. Atty. Aquino ended by Atty. Aquino explained that saying that it was up to the audipursuant to the Rules of Court, the ence to decide on the following purpose of bail is “to ensure the question: “Does this mean that appearance of the accused during the factors to be considered for trial,” and further discussed the in- the determination of the amount stances when the granting of bail of bail take the place of the ‘eviis a matter of right or discretion- dence of guilt is strong’ standard ary upon the courts. According to when courts consider the granting him, what was peculiar about the of the petition for bail?” decision was how the Supreme Court took into account Senator The right to bail is a ‘derogable’ Enrile’s poor health and age to jus- right tify the granting of his petition for bail. Such factors are mentioned Dean Sta. Maria pointed out

that the Supreme Court misapplied international law principles in deciding the Enrile case. He stated that although the right to bail is a fundamental right which is recognized under international law, it is also a “derogable” right which may be limited by municipal law. Dean Sta. Maria also said that the Enrile case is similar to the Estrada case, wherein the Supreme Court recognized the clemency granted to Former President Joseph Estrada as an “absolute pardon,” in that the Supreme Court has once again upheld impunity over encouraging accountability of public officials. P

NEWS

4

ALS holds summer classes for Juniors and Seniors

By Thea Elyssa C. Vega

SUMMERTIME recitations happened for the first time in the Ateneo Law School (ALS), when classes were held during the summer break. The ALS administration provided the option to incoming Junior and Senior students to advance their electives during the four-month summer break, the length of which was caused by the transition of the ALS from the June-to-March academic calendar to the current August-to-May academic calendar.

According to ALS Dean Sedfrey Candelaria, this measure was also made to counter losses amounting to an estimated ten million pesos (Php10,000,000.00), which the ALS would have incurred had classes not been offered.

Class size increase

Most of the students enrolled in the summer are currently pursuing the Corporate Business Track, with exactly 100 enrollees from the said track. As for the rest, 57 enrollees come from the Litigation & Alternative Dispute Resolution Track, and 15 enrollees come from the International Law and Human Rights Law Track.

Bacani said that the Office of the Registrar tried as much as possible to enlist all the students in the subjects they preferred through pre-enlistment. The usual elective classes comprising of only 15 students eventually was increased to 40 students per class for the summer semester. But there were also corresponding administrative detriments since certain classes had to be dissolved as students flocked to bar-related electives.

According to Ms. Liwayway Bacani, Assistant to the School Registrar, 105 Juniors and 93 Seniors enrolled in classes offered during the summer semester.

Bacani also mentioned that the pre-enlistment procedure for elective subjects was and will only be implemented during the summer semester, as students will

have to go back to the manual enlistment process in the following regular semester, so there are no more assurances of getting the elective subjects preferred.

Comments on the summer semester According to Ms. Marissa David, a member of the Administration Staff, the work load was still the same for the administration regardless of the presence of summer classes. David, however, mentioned that it was pleasant to see the students in school during the summer.

current First Semester, so the load reduced by summer classes still helped. Concepcion, on the other hand, decided to overload and still took the maximum number of units for elective classes this semester.

Concepcion mentions that he was always quite unlucky with elective enlistment before due to his random number, so during the summer semester he felt thankful as he was able to enlist for the subjects he preferred. Meanwhile, Steffi Sales (4-A), opted not to enroll at all so she could focus on her thesis and to also compete in the Exhibition Rounds for the Jessup Moot Court Competition held in Washington, D.C. Samantha Monzon (4-C), on the other hand, had to juggle her internship at the Intellectual Property Office, thesis writing, and summer classes.

For incoming Seniors, the summer semester was not a complete advantage. Joel Concepcion (4-C) and Paulo Rabanal (4-C) enlisted for When asked if there will be three classes during the summer another Summer Semester, Dean semester, but at the same time, also had to write their respective theses. Candelaria stated that it was only Rabanal mentioned that he only for the transition period. P enrolled for one elective for the

LENTE LAUNCHES PROJECTS FOR VOTER’S REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION FOR 2016

By Joben Mariz J. Odulio

AS NATIONAL Secretariat Head of the Legal Network for Truthful Elections (LENTE) Carlo Africa states, “The thrust of LENTE’s National Secretariat for the elections is really creating a voice. A voice that is not only smart, competent and relevant but a voice that would be loud enough and powerful enough to be noticed and heard by the people and by possible violators of the law.”

Such is the goal of LENTE for the upcoming 2016 National Elections. Over the past few months, the Rockwell-based organization has launched several projects in anticipation of the nearing polls.

Through these projects, LENTE’s members, composed of paralegals and lawyers, will fill the gap between the people and their interests. Among the projects they have launched is the “STEP Coalition”

or “Ang Samahan para sa Tunay na seeks to open LENTE Chapters all over the Philippines, to serve Eleksyon sa Pilipinas”. not only as vigilant watchers durThe STEP Coalition is an initia- ing election day but also to serve tive focused on motivating people as partners in LENTE’s effort to to register especially for biom- hold voter education and accountetrics, in requiring voters to have ability training. In these training their digital photograph, signature, sessions, LENTE sets out to show and fingerprints in their registra- reforms on election law and the tion records. Massive disenfran- various ways to make election law chisement may be experienced violators accountable. For accountshould millions of voters with un- ability, training involves informing registered biometrics fail to com- participants of the top election ofply with this new policy. LENTE, fenses and the evidence needed to through the STEP Coalition, has prove such offense, as well as creatcollaborated with several entities ing affidavits in order to prosecute in both the public and private sec- those violators. Lastly, through the tor in order to address this. Since establishment of these Chapters, June 2015, the STEP Coalition LENTE hopes to also give camhas opened up satellite registration paign finance talks to enlighten its booths in malls and barangay halls volunteers regarding the amount not only in Metro Manila but also candidates are allowed to spend for their campaign, and how to comin the provinces. pute for these amounts.

In addition, the organization

In the meantime, LENTE urges Ateneo Law students to exercise their right to vote and exemplify the Atenean ideal of becoming men and women for others, by collectively pushing for a more genuine elections in 2016.

To stay updated with LENTE’s work, visit their Facebook pages at https://www.facebook.com/ lentephilippines and https:// www.facebook.com/STEPCoalition. P

5

5

OPINION

facebook.com/palladiumALS

The Palladium ALS

@palladiumALS

www.thepalladium.ph

@ThePalladiumALS

palladiumALS@gmail.com

www.palladiumonline.com

E D I T O R I A L

IN RETROSPECT

Editorial Board A n a I s a b e l F. C a s t e l o Editor-in-Chief Kim L. Rances Associate Editor K at h l y n Nad ia D. Ba l d o nad o Managing Editor K e v i n L u k e V. M i z o n Junior Associate Editor R aymond Aljon A . Cusipag Office and Circulations Manager

In last year’s State of the Nation Address, President Aquino highlighted the various accomplishments which he and his administration had achieved during his term.

From the reduction of corruption through appointments to the Ombudsman, Supreme Court, and other agencies, to economic growth and development through increased foreign and domestic investment, the President painted a picture of a Philippines far removed from the country left behind by the previous administration.

With less than four months left before elections, we are nearing the end of President Aquino’s term, and it is fair to give credit where credit is due. But it is also important to keep in mind both the good and the bad that have occurred over the course of six years. For every concrete reform done under the rallying cry of “Daang Matuwid,” there are still many things that have remained unchanged. The slow delivery of aid to victims of natural disasters such as Typhoon Yolanda, the lack of accountability in tragedies such as the Mamasapano encounter, the worsening traffic jams in main thoroughfares such as EDSA -- all these are signs that there is still much to be done in terms of improving the kind of governance we have here in the Philippines.

The aspiring candidates for President each have their own ideas in how to achieve this. However, it is easy to be unenthusiastic with the selection we are presented with -- issues related to character, qualification, and capability surround each of them, and such uncertainties lead the average Filipino to question the current state of Philippine politics.

But these are interesting times for us as students of the law. We are faced with questions that even the Supreme Court itself has yet to decide upon with finality, such as the citizenship of foundlings and the subsequent effect of the same upon candidates. We can listen to their platforms and proposed solutions to relevant issues, and discern whether these would change the legal landscape in years to come. And so we have the responsibility to participate, to take part in the upcoming elections, whether by helping others understand how their choices will affect the way this country functions, or by simply going out to vote. P

The Palladium has its editorial office at the Palladium Room, 3/F Ateneo Professional Schools Building, 20 Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati City 1200. For comments and suggestions, please drop a line at thepalladiumals@gmail.com. © Copyright The Palladium 2014.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any manner whatsoever without the prior express written permission of the Editorial Board, except in cases of brief quotations for academic research purposes.

Luis Alfonso S. Sena News Editor Er i c a May O. Gana Legal Editor Alyssa Hannah R . Nuqui Features Editor R ac h el l e A n n e D. Gu t i er re z Arts and Culture Editor Roslyn Bianca R . Mangaser Multimedia Editor Roberto G. Reyes Layout & Graphics Editor D e n i s e A n n e V. S a l e s Photo Editor

Staff NEWS

Marianne Jezelle Jem Macarilay Solomon Michael Vardeleon Joben Mariz Odulio Michael Francis Castro

Richard Gabriel Filasol Louise Celerio Joren Lex Tan Thea Elyssa Vega

LEGAL

Earvin James Atienza Aileen Cruz Lorenz Fernand Dantes Raphael Dantes Mohammad Muktadir Estrella

Stephen Joshua Gana Jesus Lapuz, Jr. Chynah Marie Monzon Perpetua Calliope Ngo Stephanie Ann Pagdanganan

FEATURES

Maria Pilar Lusia Elago Manolo Buenviaje III Jose Maria Santos Joren Lex Tan Vanesa Joyce Banta Kirsten Erika Casas Thea Elyssa Vega

Diego Santiago Clara Murallos Julie Jolo Fe Trampe Anjan Rosario Aira Marie Andal Mariel Cristina Sadang

OFFICE & CIRCULATION Donatello Justiniani

MULTIMEDIA Kenzo Rodis

Jeah Dominguez

ARTS & CULTURE

Raymond Joseph Mercado David Robert Jacinto Rosario III Perpetua Calliope Ngo Erika Gabrielle Valdez Leslie Ann Po Maria Theresa Cervero Steffi Sales

LAYOUT & GRAPHICS

Mitch Espiritu Frankie Alba

Dar Cristobal Jillian Paris

PHOTOS Lina Maria Domingo Chelsea Ysabel Go Jansen Santos Chloe Chrysilla Laxa Philip Evardone Liz Angela Intia Jhansel Cura

OPINION

6

INTER ALIA

By Ana Isabel F. Castelo IN A perfect society, everyone reads history books. Everyone listens to stories told by their elders – stories of dank jail cells, of waiting for loved ones who would never come home, of paying the price for speaking one’s mind, the stuff of Orwellian nightmares.

Everyone sees the mistakes of the past for what they are: lessons learned the hard way, the consequences of a prosperity that benefited a few but still remains illusory to many.

Everyone takes stock of everything done, understands the value in giving credit where credit is due while still demanding accountability.

was expected – the justification of such a choice by ordinary citizens, unfortunately, was to be expected just as well in these times of historical revisionism. In an opinion piece published in Rappler.com, a young university professor discussed Senator Marcos’ various achievements, from his authorship of bills for the protection of children in conflict areas, to his role in crafting an alternative to the Bangsamoro Basic Law. He ends his article accusing Marcos’ critics of using ad hominem arguments, saying that those who are vehemently against the senator because of his last name are no longer assessing him based on his qualifications.

The uproar caused by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s announcement of Senator Ferdinand The problem with this is the premise “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. as her running- of placing Marcos’ achievements in mate in the upcoming elections a vacuum, thus deliberately taking

pro hac vice By: Kathlyn Nadia D. Baldonado With the 2016 elections coming up in a few months, names of wellknown politicians are constant elements in written articles and news channels. The likes of current President candidates Grace Poe, Mar Roxas, Jejomar Binay, and Miriam Santiago are always mentioned in the dailies, complete with their advocacies and controversies. Thrust in the public eye since they assumed their respective government positions, it is of no wonder that the nation is more or less familiar with these personalities.

The recently concluded filing of certificate of candidacy, however, gave the nation something new to talk about.

The country was definitely in for a surprise when other aspirants for the presidential positions were introduced. Most popular of these aspirants are those that presented out-of-this-world, outlandish reasons for filing their candidacies. Such are Alfredo Tindugan, a farmer hailing from

Catanduanes who plans to establish a “divine government” with his vicepresident; Romeo John Reyes, or better known as Archangel Lucifer, who is a missionary in real life and insists that Jesus Christ has sent him to run for President; Arturo Pacheco Reyes, who wants to legalize the four seasons and abolish our current rainy and dry season; and Allan Carreon, a man who claims to talk to aliens and an “intergalactic space ambassador,” espousing our claim over the West Philippine Sea with the help of “Gundam.”

Aside from these outrageous aspirants, the media has also focused its eye on other candidates.

Chemical engineer Victor Quijano got accolades for his concrete and well-organized plans for federalism.

76-year-old taxi driver Alejandro Ignacio has been tagged as a defender of the Constitution. And lastly, tricycle driver Freddiesher Llamas was praised for his humble beginnings and simple wish to be the “President of the Pangulo ng Pilipinas.”

Pieces

By Kim L. Rances “The problem is not the dumb voters who keep electing dumb politicians.

The problem is the smart people who can’t help dumb people from being dumb.

Why blame dumb people for being dumb?

They wouldn’t want to keep being one if they can.

The problem is not with others. It is with us for letting others be what they are.”

Ateneo Law students are perceived as apathetic (at least, amongst ourselves).

But are we really apathetic? Have we been reduced to machines that only memorize and spew the law out on command? Have we become detached to the realities outside our posh enclave?

It’s easy to blame law school as the rea-

son of this apathy – really, who has time to go out and “do something” when we’re hidden behind a mountain of readings and about to get cut by the professor in tomorrow’s recits? But that’s not true, because the school offers a lot of opportunities for us to make a difference. There’s the Ateneo Human Rights Center, LENTE, Legal Aid Office, Campus Ministry, and all the other orgs and affiliations, as well as the Student Council, with their many activities that push us to do some good beyond our books.

With the elections coming up next year, we have another opportunity to show to ourselves that we are not apathetic, that we are better than what we believe ourselves and the school can be, and that we are not just Bar passers, but “real” lawyers in the making. These elections are highly contested (with candidates

Remembrance of things past him out of the context of his family’s background. To some degree, it makes sense to focus on an individual’s merits instead of his personal circumstances.

However, turning a blind eye to that same individual’s complicity in the atrocities committed during his father’s regime, in addition to using appeals to hypocrisy to justify the same, are just as reprehensible as choosing a leader based solely on his name. Ignoring his refusal to acknowledge his family’s wrongdoings is a flat-out disservice to the thousands of victims of human rights violations committed during Martial Law – and no, the outrage over these and the outrage over other instances of abuse and maltreatment committed during other regimes are not mutually exclusive.

What people seem to forget is that

character is a huge factor in determining the measure of a man, especially a man who aspires to lead an entire country. Recognition of values such as an individual’s integrity, honesty, and humility play an important role in the selection of a leader, as it should be. Intelligence alone does not make a good leader, let alone a great one. Nor does a curriculum vitae of accomplishments and credentials necessarily indicate the kind of person one is. In selecting leaders, the whole package should be considered. After all, the people we elect are a reflection of the kind of society we have, and the kind of society we aspire to be. What hope do we have, when we choose leaders who neither have the capacity for introspection, nor the willingness to learn from the lessons of history?

Nuisance = new ones Social media has gone haywire over these candidates. These aspirants are better known as “nuisance candidates” or those that do not really have the intention, capacity, or the money to run for office. The reaction from the public was a mix of amusement and annoyance. Others have tagged our elections to be one big joke, shaking their heads in disbelief because of the outrageousness and the oddity presented by the aspirants. The other side celebrated the practice of democracy; that it is because of the very essence of our government that people from all walks of life could participate in something as tremendous as running for public office.

real nuisance candidates are the “traditional” politicians, having already served in office but without really alleviating the situation of the country. The tag of nuisance candidates opened up a more pressing discussion on the availability of competent, able, and most importantly, new individuals willing to serve in public office in order to provide for the changes and complete overhaul of the system that everyone is waiting for. And right now, what the Philippines has as willing game changers are those that advocate winter, believe in robots as saviors, and old men wanting to retire from their day job of driving their vehicles.

More than the laughs and the commentaries, the phenomena of nuisance candidates presented a larger issue. It signifies that people are getting tired of hearing the same names, the same promises, and the same platforms over and over again, but without getting the results our country needs.

Remarks have been made that the

As for now, we may laugh at their initiative, but it’s only a matter of time when we will finally realize that the joke is really on us. However utterly bonkers these new aspirants are, may these individuals serve as further inspiration to compel fresh blood to sign up for public office.

Apathy, ALS, and Elections 2016 who have no clear-as-of-yet platforms or divisions as they all seem to come from one or two major political parties) and critical (the next president will appoint 11 Supreme Court justices in his or her term, issues with China coming to a head, and the catastrophe that is our traffic and transport situation, must be addressed in the next administration among many other things). We must do our part.

Which is why the Student Council, AHRC, LENTE, and the Canadian Fund have kickstarted the biggest student project ever in the ALS, the Ateneo Law National Elections Task Force 2016. Not only is this the biggest student project we’ve ever had, but this is also actually (and surprisingly) the first time ALS students have had any project concerning the elections. It will be deploying hundreds of law students to communities and

provide information regarding the elections, such as voters’ rights and violations of election rules. It would be great if all of us would sign up here, but if not, I’m sure there are many organizations that have similar plans for the elections.

It’s time to stop Facebook-whining about the state of Philippine politics, about bobotantes. We, ALS students with majority of us belonging in the middleupper income classes, have the privileges and opportunities to be informed; it’s about time we share that with others if we truly care about the outcome of these elections. We can’t blame people for being uninformed if most of them don’t have access to the right information, and through the Task Force and similar programs, we can give it to them.

OPINION

TINTED GLASSES

By Rachelle Anne D. Gutierrez

Choose to Care “Too often, we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring – all of which have the potential to turn a life around” – Leo Buscaglia

Almost any person will admit that at one point in his or her life, he or she wanted to change the world for the better. Whether it’s discovering the cure to cancer and AIDS or finally being the person that makes world peace happen, we all just want to make a difference.

As we grow older, however, we realize that making a difference isn’t all that simple after all. There are responsibilities to be fulfilled and bills to be paid. After all these have been met, you’re just too tired to go out and change the world. Suddenly, making that big difference seems more of a daydream than a vision waiting to become a reality.

As law students, it’s very easy to get caught up in our own little world and think that we’ll go out and change lives later after we’ve graduated and passed the bar.

But there are people in our society who won’t live long enough to see us get through that hurdle – rather they need us to help them get through their hurdles now.

Depression and suicide has been more prevalent in the news in recent years, but each one continues to shock society because “no one saw it coming.” This shock is particularly true in relation to those who have attained success or who have so much to live for. In light of these lost lives, many would often wonder, “could we have done something

to prevent it?” The answer is YES. I have no expertise that would qualify me to give a credible opinion regarding the emotional well-being of a person, but I have encountered people who have attested that all it took was some act of kindness by another human being to turn their life around – for a suicidal to realize his or her life has meaning and value, for an addict to realize he or she can find happiness without abusing substances, and for a young person to realize he is capable of great goodness. All it took was for that person to choose to care for another.

Not all of us can leave a mark that changes the world – in fact, most of us probably will simply pass through history – but we are each capable of a simple act of kindness that can impact a life so powerfully it creates ripples that will change the world for future generations.

Faced with the towering walls of life’s challenges, we forget that sometimes, making a difference doesn’t necessarily mean you change the very fibers of society in your lifetime.

Many times it has to do with changing just one life in your lifetime, and letting that person change two lives in his.

Gana Do It All

By Erica May O. Gana

Due to the intense demands of the daily grind, it’s no wonder that law students find it difficult to live a life outside the four walls of the classroom. Whether you’re a freshman struggling to adapt to the life you have recently chosen (a decision you may or may not have already regretted), a sophomore trying to balance work from twenty-five units of classes, a junior working to understand the intricacies of labor law, or a senior just waiting to get the two sacred letters every Atenean lawyer cannot graduate without, you are undeniably stuck with a mountain of school work and trying to uncover your unfortunate self from the depths of its horrendous masses.

Just like everything found on this beautiful green earth, too much work can never be

good. Sometimes, despite the overwhelming amount of cases you need to read or the recitation you know you’re on deck but haven’t prepared for, you have to afford yourself a reprieve from the responsibilities which life in law school demands.

The escape need not be a particular form. Sometimes, it can come in the form of dinner and drinks at an exciting new restaurant along Jupiter Street or a twohour-long conversation between friends regarding whatever could be happening with secret and cleverly-renamed campus crushes.

For some, it could be participating in the various activities which the different school-based organizations have to offer. Other times, it can even involve finding some joy in learning.

I have resorted to all of the

7

La Vida Lawca

By Alyssa Hannah R. Nuqui

Q&A A few weeks ago, thousands of people flocked to the nearest cinemas to watch Jerold Tarog’s latest masterpiece, Heneral Luna. The movie immediately begins with a highly-dramatic scene wherein Aguinaldo’s cabinet are debating about the presence of Americans in the country—are they friends or foes? The scene sets the tone as to how each character will have an impact in the life and death of “Heneral Artikulo Uno”.

More importantly, the first scene foreshadows how each character will shape Philippine history as important figures during that time. Several commentaries liken these historical figures to present-day Filipino politicians.

Personally, I agree with some of the comparisons. Present day Philippine society is indeed no different from Aguinaldo’s cabinet back then. There are those who use their influence for their own personal economic benefit. There are also those who are so drunk with power that they will do everything to stay on top no matter what the cost may be. Of course, there are some who stand firm by their principles and are selfless enough to sacrifice their lives for the sake the homeland. The youth is also well-represented in the movie.

The youth that is hopeful, curious and critical as exemplied in the

person of Joven Hernando. And then there is the most important “character” in the film; the one that gives meaning to all of John Arcilla’s highly-emotional, poignant scenes—the audience.

Heneral Luna would not have been as big as it is now were it not for its successful conversation with its audience. The movie, through its script, actors, and cinematography, spoke volumes of the Philippines as a nation and how we must move forward. The movie leaves us with a bittersweet ending; a juxtaposition between the greatness of this nation and the corruption of Philippine society. Although not explicit, the movie obliges us to answer a question that we must ask ourselves—Bayan o Sarili? As future Atenean lawyers, the answer must be simple for us: Bayan. An Ateneo education will be put to waste if we do not harness our skills and talents for the benefit of our motherland.

With the 2016 elections coming up, let us remember this compelling question. Regardless of who we support and vote for, let us ask ourselves whether, through our choice, we are emulating Heneral Luna by choosing Bayan Bago Sarili.

Intermission above during my entire stay in law school, and more, just to keep my sanity in check. I learned this technique early on in my freshman year as I was struggling to get my first (and eventually only) good mark in recitation in Constitutional Law 1, then taught by the highly-venerated yet terrifying Father Joaquin Bernas.

A concerned citizen advised me that sometimes, one had to learn to relax. Too much fear and panic paralyzes in a way that prevents learning. In order to prevent this, clearing up the mind from unnecessary stress helps one study better.

This does not in any way whatsoever intend to encourage reckless actions which could result in the failure to read the required coverage for class. Instead, this article strives to be a reminder

to all those who may read this – whether student or alumni or random passerby – that everything should come in moderation. Our limit for responsibilities and work and everything in between can only withstand so much that we need to take a step back and enjoy the beauty around us. At the same time, it is only by dealing with life’s difficulties that we learn to enjoy and appreciate the good things life has to offer.

So, for you who may have been too focused on school and work before finding this column, try to live, laugh, eat. The work can wait.

OPINION

8

LOOK WHO’S TALKING

By Luis Alfonso S. Seña

IT is not uncommon these days to listen to people saying that Ferdinand Marcos’ years as President were the best years of our country. It was during the Marcos administration that infrastructures such as the buildings in the Cultural Center of the Philippines Complex were developed. It was also during this time that specialty hospitals such as the Philippine Heart, Lung, and Kidney Centers were established. Pro-Marcos loyalists would even go to the extent of saying that the Philippine economy during the Marcos era was second in Asia right behind economic powerhouse Japan.

The Filipino youth of today obviously didn’t experience the Marcos years. The best we can do is to read the facts in history books and listen to experiences shared by older generations. As the present moves farther away from the Marcos years, it seems that the trend has been for the youth to justify and even glorify the Marcos years, to excuse the atrocities, the deprivation of fundamental human rights, and the pain and suffering that older generations had to go through. It has even come to a point where there some Filipinos are actually open to the idea of another Martial Law (but of course minus the human rights violations!). It

Forgive and Forget? has come to a point wherein the Filipinos of today have slowly but surely learned to excuse and even forgive Ferdinand Marcos.

Can we blame Ferdinand Marcos for the human rights violations committed during his stint as Chief Executive?

Maybe, but surely we must look at the “bigger picture.” Surely his imposition of Martial Law was done only with good intentions given that it was to quell the Communist movement at the time. In fact, Marcos should be viewed as the best President we’ve ever had because Martial Law is just what the Philippines needed and still needs today,

and that the Philippine economy was in a better state, and that he should be excused from all the wrong decisions he made as Chief Executive, because he was “only influenced” to abuse the system he envisioned possibly by his wife Imelda, or by his advisers.

But surely he is not to blame, as he was the perfect President.

Sayang! The New Society should have been maintained, and the Philippines should have been in a much better condition than it really is.

Forgive and forget, as the say.

A call for advocates: Teehankee Center visits Justice Carpio

By Luis Alfonso S. Seña and Danielle Jay M. Zerrudo

Posing with Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Amb. Manuel AJ Teehankee are TCRL volunteers (L-R) Luis Alfonso Seña, Mae Bulang, Michaelvin Chiong, Anjan Rosario, Clarissa Villanueva, Andie Rondain, May Rapal, and Danielle Zerrudo.

(Photo courtesy of the Teehankee Center)

“RESEARCH is priceless information.” This was one of the many ideas shared by Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio when the Teehankee Center for the Rule of Law (TCRL) made a courtesy call to the office of the esteemed adjudicator last June 29, 2015. The company from TCRL was comprised of Ambassador Manuel A. Teehankee and its members.

Known for his extensive knowledge on International Law, Justice Carpio shared his ideas as to how students and members of the academe can contribute to the resolution of the dispute involving the

West Philippine Sea. He stressed the need for institutions that are knowledgeable on the historical background and substance of the claims of the various countries involved in the dispute. Justice Carpio believes that this endeavor would greatly contribute to the protection of our country’s interests.

During the courtesy call, Justice Carpio showcased his personal collection of maps of the Philippine archipelago. He also shared with the students that he will be attending the oral arguments of the case concerning the West Philip-

pine Sea dispute as an observer at The Hague this July. The summer interns of the TCRL also presented to Justice Carpio the TCRL’s own collection of Philippine maps which they plan to exhibit sometime this year.

Although the upcoming hearing is expected to settle the issue on the jurisdiction of the United Nations tribunal, Justice Carpio said that the ruling would only be the first step towards the peaceful resolution of the dispute and that it would take several generations dedicated to research and negotiations to form the world opinion

that would eventually resolve the issue. Justice Carpio urged the students present to pursue interest in the matter and eventually aid the establishment of more think tanks in the country.

Combining Justice Carpio’s advocacy of preserving the country’s heritage and the TCRL’s mission to uphold the rule of law, the attendees of the event obtained not only a private audience with the Supreme Court Justice but also an understanding of how important it is to be involved in this crucial issue. P

9

LEGAL

facebook.com/palladiumALS

The Palladium ALS

@palladiumALS

www.thepalladium.ph

@ThePalladiumALS

palladiumALS@gmail.com

www.palladiumonline.com

A Step Forward? The Applicability of Obergefell v. Hodges in the Philippines By: Aileen P. Cruz

OBERGEFELL v. Hodges (2015 WL 2473451, June 26, 2015) pronounced that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States’ Constitution requires federal states to license marriage between samesex couples and to recognize samesex marriages validly performed out of State. The United States Supreme Court likewise ruled that the Due Process Clause extended fundamental liberties and protection to individual dignity and autonomy, including the intimate choice of the right to marry as an expression of one’s personal identity and beliefs.

New insights from tradition and history in the advancement of gay and lesbian rights revealed that the statutory definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman conflicts with the protection given to the individual against the State on matters affecting his liberty.

The United States Supreme Court, in its reasoned judgment, identified the interests of the person that the State must respect.

The United States Supreme Court in Obergefell recognized that the right to marry was long protected, and enumerated four (4) basic reasons that applied with equal force to same-sex marriages. First, the right to personal choice of whom to marry is inherent in individual autonomy.

Second, the State supports the two-person union of committed individuals in marriage is unlike any other. Third, the State protects the right to marry because it safeguards the growth of the child in the family because of the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers.

Last, marriage is the keystone of social order, from which springs civilization and progress.

In Obergefell, jurisprudence traced the United States’ recognition of a person’s right to marry, corresponding with the individual’s right to privacy, and the requirement to respect and protect it under the Due Process Clause. Griswold v.

Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 (1965), June 7, 1965) held that the United States’ Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception. In Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1 (1967), June 12, 1967), the Court invalidated bans on interracial unions. Later, in Zablocki v. Redhail (434 U.S. 374 (1978), January 18, 1978), a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying was struck down. Even prisoners could not be denied the right to marry, as held in the case of Turner v. Safley (482 U.S. 78 (1987), June 1, 1987).

Finally, in Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558 (2003), June 26, 2003), the Court dealt with same-sex issues

when it struck down a Texas statute criminalizing same-sex intimacy.

The United States Supreme Court drew the relation of the Due Process Clause to Equal Protection, as the concept of liberty and equal protection leads to a stronger understanding of each other, and act together to prevent the State from burdening rights with fundamental importance.

Striking down prohibitions in same-sex marriage based on Equal Protection is similar to striking down former State laws prohibiting interracial marriage, since both reveal inequalities in the institution of marriage. The reason that legislation was not needed to declare that the fundamental right to marry was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment relied on the fact that those with personal and direct rights may vindicate the same in the Constitution.

With federal recognition of same-sex marriage, Obergefell is a landmark decision that promotes gay and lesbian rights and reflects the dramatic changes in the recent years toward a more open acceptance of same-sex relationships. A number of countries, mostly in Europe and the Americas, through legislation or polling and referendum, subscribe to granting equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples in recognition of discarding the age-old discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.

Nevertheless, the decision is problematic from the standpoint of constitutional law. For all the fanfare involved, it was decided on a 5-4 vote. Essentially, the major argument of the dissenting justices was that the justices who agreed with majority decision, composed of five (5) lawyers who graduated either from Harvard or Yale Law School, decided to go with the fashion of the times, to disregard and repudiate the entire 150 years of history and tradition of the United States. According to the dissenters, it was a prideful, blind, and unwise decision, and contrary to the duty they were commissioned as judges. As Justice Roberts wrote in his Dissent: Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration.

But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens – through the democratic process – to adopt their

view. That ends today. Five lawyers have close the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.

Despite the persuasive application of jurisprudence in the United States with regard to the Fourteenth Amendment on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in Philippine law, Obergefell cannot be used as a justification for legalizing same-sex marriage in the Philippines.

The reasoning behind the law, which allowed the United States Supreme Court in their “reasoned judgment” to identify the right to same-sex marriage as impliedly granted by the United States’ Constitution where nothing states the same, is flawed.

The legislature enacts the law to decide “what marriage is,” and makes the valid distinction between heterosexual unions and same-sex unions based on the fact that the former results in the procreation of children, and that the State institutionalizes marriage to promote better child-rearing and development when the couple remains together. The Court cannot usurp the powers of Congress, who are the elective representatives of the people, and granted by the people in their sovereign capacity to make laws to govern them. A law promoting same-sex unions and granting them the same rights as in marriage is perfectly valid and due; however, a court reading in the Constitution a “fundamental right” which has heretofore not been considered since the time it was passed is not. Despite the laudable ends, the means are not justified.

The decision would have had better application to the Philippines if the United States Supreme Court rooted its arguments in international law, such as principles of nondiscrimination, the right to marry and found a family, and to have equal rights to marriage under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Similarly, the right to equality and nondiscrimination as well as equality of rights in marriage have a similar principle lodged in Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The children fostered and reared by same-sex couples also have rights under the treaties not to be discriminated against.

In both conventions, the United States is a signatory. Moreover, these human rights principles are customary law. For the Philippines, a possible basis under international human rights is the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages, which entered into

force in 1964, and ensures equality in marriage and ensures complete freedom of persons in their choice of spouse.

In the Philippines, it is a State Policy under Section 12 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution to protect marriage by recognizing the sanctity of family life. The same constitutional provisions likewise reflects the State’s duty to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. Concomitantly, Article 1 of the Family Code (E.O. 209) declares that “marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution.”

Marriage between two persons of different sex is emphasized in Article 2 of the Family Code, which highlights that one of the essential requisites of marriage are that the contracting parties “must be a male and a female.” In Republic v.

Cagandahan (G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008), a person’s sex is determined from birth, and cannot be changed.

There is nothing in the 1987 Philippine Constitution which prohibits same-sex marriage, or requires that marriage between two persons must be between a man and a woman. While the landmark ruling of Obergefell might help in opening the minds of legislators toward liberalizing and extending marriage to same-sex couples, it is an uphill battle. Rather than bills which seek to amend the Family Code to allow same-sex marriage, a Senate bill filed by the late Senator Marcelo Fernan and Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago in 1998 sought to prohibit same-sex marriage. In 2011, a bill was filed seeking to enumerate such “forbidden marriages.”

One bill in 2013, however, filed by former Congressman Edcel Lagman, sought to address the property rights and obligations of same-sex couples that have cohabited together. Last May 2015, Atty. Jesus Francis sought to annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code for defining and limiting marriage as between a man and a woman, a few days before Ireland voted to allow same-sex marriage.

Philippine culture militates strongly against allowing samesex marriage in the Philippines.

Marriage in the traditional sense of the term may remain the prevailing norm in this country for a long period of time. P

10

LEGAL

BAILED OUT?

By: Lorenz Fernand D. Dantes & Earvin James M. Atienza DID THE Supreme Court afford special treatment to Senate Enrile’s bail petition? This question has hounded the Court since its controversial ruling in the case of Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015).

Senator Juan Ponce Enrile filed a petition assailing the resolution of the Sandiganbayan that denied his motion to fix bail. He claimed that he is entitled to bail as a matter of right, under the Constitution and the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court granted Senator Enrile’s petition and allowed his provisional release upon posting of a cash bond worth one million pesos (Php1,000,000.00).

to the Supreme Court. He claimed that the Sandiganbayan erred in denying his motion to fix bail, as he is entitled to bail as a matter of right, based on the three grounds that he raised.

Matter of Right?

Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that “all persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.”

The Rules of Court provided for a definite standard in determining whether bail is a matter of right or merely discretionary on the part of the court. It is a matter of right in the following situations: 1. Before or after conviction in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court; or 2. Before conviction in the Regional Trial Court for an offense not punished by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death.

On the other hand, it is merely discretionary on the part of the court when the following circumstances are present: 1. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court for an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment; or 2. If the Regional Trial Court has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, provided none of the circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present.

In ruling that Senator Enrile is entitled to bail, the Supreme Court did not anchor its ruling on the basis of the abovementioned provisions.

Rather, the Court said that it is guided by the principal purpose of bail, which is to guarantee the presence of the accused during trial. It also invoked the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, claiming that the right to bail is a fundamental human right.

In addition, the Supreme Court gave due consideration to Senator Enrile’s social and political standing, including the fact of his voluntary surrender. The Court claimed that Senator Enrile’s previous history of not jumping bail when he was charged with rebellion as well as his long years of public service, and his fear of history’s judgment, constitute additional justification to the grant of bail.

Finally, the Supreme Court relied on the testimony of Senator Enrile’s doctor about the precarious medical condition of the Senator. The Court reviewed the testimony of the officer in charge of the PNP General Hospital who recognized the limitations in the medical facilities within the hospital.

Thus, the Court concluded that bail must be granted regardless of the crime charged and independent of its merits, should incarceration be dangerous to health or endanger the prisoner’s life.

Failure to grant bail, the Court warns, will defeat the purpose of preventive incarceration during trial.

stating among others the majority’s failure to discuss vital issues which the ponente himself raised. These included matters such as the prematurity of Senator Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail, as well as the sufficiency and strength of evidence against him which would make the grant of bail discretionary on the part of the Court. Instead, the majority settled the matter by invoking the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Enrile did not mention himself. This, in the words of Justice Leonen, may tempt the reader “to conclude that the decision is the result of obvious political accommodation rather than a judicious consideration of the facts and the law” (G.R. 213847, August 18, 2015, Dissenting Opinion).

Prematurity, as discussed in the Dissent, was a valid ground for the Sandiganbayan to deny due course to Senator Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail, precisely because no factual determinations have been made based on the prosecution’s evidence of Senator Enrile’s guilt to warrant a determination that the same is strong, such fact being a condition for the bail to be discretionary. Senator Enrile did not even make an application for the same, as pointed out by Justice Leonen.

The denial of the Sandiganbayan was accordingly supported by a long line of Supreme Court decisions, which held that a factual determination through a summary bail hearing must first be made if an application for bail is to be considered a matter of right in cases involving the imposition of capital punishment. Citing Gacal vs. Infante (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1845, October 5, 2011), a bail hearing is mandatory even if the accused has not applied for it or if the prosecutor already recommends the amount for it. Not even the testimony of Senator Enrile’s doctor was subjected to cross-examination, thus depriving the prosecution an opportunity to rebut the existence of the need for “humanitarianism” in resolving the motion. Thus, the said denial could not have been attended with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The dissent essentially discussed not only the failure of the majority to settle standing issues on the case, but also the majority’s unjustified usage of human rights as a ground for granting bail, one which was never raised nor argued by any party in the course of the proceedings. Not only did Justice Leonen argue against the use of the “blanket protection” of human rights as a ground for bail, he also questioned the applicability of the ponencia’s ratio to other cases involving bail issues to offenses imposing capital punishment, stating that the same would massively clog the dockets of trial courts with various cases of bail petitions invoking such grounds. Further, according to Justice Leonen, the ponencia was not able to properly set guidelines as to which age and conditions would warrant such an application, such that trial court judges would have to decide whether its enforcement applies to Senators and former Presidents only, possibly leading to unsound judgment.

Lastly, Justice Leonen took time to reveal certain procedural antecedents involving the Court’s arrival at the current opinion, which for him was tainted with certain irregularities and political manipulations.

Antecedents On July 12, 2013, the Philippine Daily Inquirer published the first of a sixpart special report by Nancy Carvajal entitled NBI Probes P10-B Scam on an alleged channeling of some ten billion pesos (Php 10,000,000,000.00) worth of government funds into fictitious projects and “dummy” non-government organizations (NGOs), one of which was JLN Corporation headed by Janet Lim Napoles. This report later ignited a series of probes, both on legal and journalistic fora, resulting not only to the call of President Benigno Aquino III to abolish the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) but also to the filing of a complaint against Napoles for illegal detention of Benhur Luy, her former aide turned whistleblower to the PDAF Scam, and for plunder, malversation, bribery, graft and corrupt practices against Napoles and several other legislators identified

by Benhur Luy. Senator Enrile was among those charged with plunder in the Sandiganbayan. He was accused of conspiring with Napoles in diverting appropriations totaling one hundred seventy-two million eight hundred thirty-four thousand five hundred pesos (Php172,834,500.00) under the PDAF to several fictitious ghost projects. After voluntarily surrendering himself, Senator Enrile filed a motion to fix bail with the Sandiganbayan, asking that he be allowed to post bail on three grounds: first, he claimed that the prosecution failed to establish that evidence of his guilt was strong; second, even if he were charged with plunder, the presence of two mitigating circumstance – age and voluntary surrender – would result in a maximum imposable penalty of reclusion temporal, not reclusion perpetua; and third, he was not a flight risk and that his age and physical condition must be given special consideration.

The Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s motion by answering that Enrile’s motion was premature, as it was only during the bail hearing that the prosecution can establish that the evidence of guilt is strong. If the prosecution failed to establish this, it is only then that the court will consider the circumstances of Senator Enrile’s flight risk, as well as his age and physical condition, in fixing his bail.

As to the presence of two mitigating circumstances, the Sandiganbayan said that they can only be appreciated in determining the penalty to be imposed should the accused be found guilty of the offense. In other words, mitigating circumstances are not considered for purposes of bail.

The “Great Dissent” When the Sandiganbayan denied Losing to an 8-4 vote, Supreme his motion for reconsideration, Senator Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen Enrile brought a petition for certiorari fleshed out a twenty nine-page dissent, The Implications

The majority opinion, despite its unpopularity with the public, summons both good and bad consequences. For one, it establishes a new ground for the grant of bail, i.e. the protection of the right to liberty, which is corollary to an accused’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The majority is of the opinion that the ninety-one-year-old Senator’s frail health and condition, his track record in public service, and his seemingly non-threatening character, warranted humanitarian considerations. If this is considered good law, should the advocates of human rights now rejoice at the pronouncement? Will this open the court dockets to pleas of sympathy and allow the aged and the delicate to avail of such remedy despite lack of necessary guidelines as argued in the dissent? If this case is applied to those who are currently under preventive detention, it will undoubtedly facilitate decongestion of jails and ultimately promote the ideals of human rights.

Yet, precisely because of the absence of guidelines, those who really deserve compassion from the Court may not enjoy the fruits of the instant decision.

One may even say that the decision is not doctrinal because the ratio decidendi did not even squarely tackle the issues at hand. The very lis mota of the certiorari action, i.e. whether Senator Enrile’s bail was a matter of right or a matter of discretion, remains unresolved.

The dissent of Justice Leonen persuasively identified that even if humanitarian considerations were to be given to Senator Enrile, still, his frail health and medical condition was not even subjected to cross-examination.

This patent disregard of due process and established jurisprudence on evidence invites every accused to simply concoct evidence to establish their poor health to invoke humanitarian conditions, knowing that the prosecution cannot even rebut their testimonies. While it is true that the right of the accused to presumption of innocence deserves respect, preventive detention as an exercise of the state’s police power should likewise be upheld. In the words of Justice Leonen, “[t]he mere invocation of human rights does not mean that the Rule of Law is suspended” (G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015, Dissenting Opinion).

Once again, judicial power has been expanded in ways that shake the very system of laws in the Philippines.

As more and more personalities get involved in high profile cases, the Court continues to find ways to balance various “interests” in sacrifice of judicial stability. Although the ends of justice may be ultimately served in this controversial decision, the Court should not forego sound legal principles that pre-date even the 1987 Constitution itself. Equality in the law must always be upheld, whether the subjects are senators and former presidents, or preventively detained persons from marginalized sectors.

For if such equality is not defended, especially by the “last bulwark of democracy,” then our very integrity as a civilized nation would necessarily falter. We cannot allow justice to be compromised under the guise of humanitarianism if the same would lead to even more arbitrariness and instability in our criminal justice system.

We must not stand down when threats of politics and corruption befall our courts, leaving those responsible free from accountability. We must ensure that those who deserve reformation remain in custody of law, and those who truly deserve compassion be properly bailed out. P

11

LEGAL

Legally Speaking: Foundlings in Politics By: Jesus R. Lapuz, Jr. and Raphael V. Dantes

THE PAST year has been nothing short of tempestuous in politics. Even with various political parties still fretting over announcements of who shall be their respective anointed ones, the grape vine has nonetheless been filled with a drone of names and prediction. With the highly anticipated 2016 Presidential Election just around the corner, it is to no one’s surprise that all of a sudden, issues are being raised against would-be candidates that question their integrity and eligibility to run for the most highlycoveted position in the land. Take Senator Grace Poe-Llamanzares, who has already expressed her intentions to run for President. According to Pulse Asia, Senator Poe has already seen an exponential rise in the presidential surveys over the past few months by obtaining a 30% preference in a survey conducted in June 2015. She is by far the most favoured presidential candidate among other hopefuls, including Vice President Jejomar Binay who only managed to acquire 22% preference in the same survey.

In the case of Senator Poe, it is her foundling status, which makes her ineligible for the position in the eyes of her adversaries. The opposing parties insist that the 1987 Philippine Constitution has expressly prescribed qualifications and limitations on who may run for the highest government post and the fact that Senator Poe is a foundling makes her in fact ‘stateless’ and not a natural-born Filipino citizen.

The narrative of Senator Poe has enough material fit for a daytime soap opera arc: the infant Grace Poe was found by a passerby at the break of dawn, swathed in a blanket and covered in blood, at the entrance of Jaro Cathedral in Iloilo. She was then eventually adopted by the late

actor and former presidential candidate Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) and actress Susan Roces. Her name was legally changed to have Poe as her surname, and the adoption procedure was complied with yielding a proper adoption certificate.

Life may be unprecedentedly dramatic, as Senator Poe’s story might suggest, but in reality, such a story is not merely for anecdotal value. Legally, Senator Poe’s unknown lineage poses a legal question about her citizenship that is perhaps even more complicated than her beginnings.

Presently, it is not uncommon to hear Senator Poe’s unique situation discussed as an example of a potentially problematic presidency due to issues with citizenship, allegedly because of her unclear origins.

The 1987 Constitution is clear and unequivocal about its requirements for presidency, and absolutely no deviation can be made from those aforementioned requisites. Senator Poe, then, is in a troublesome predicament as a “foundling.” Nomenclature describes a “foundling” as a child abandoned without a known parent or guardian.

By definition, according to the New Rule on Adoption promulgated by the Supreme Court En Banc on July 31, 2002, a foundling is “a deserted or abandoned infant or child whose parents, guardian or relatives are unknown; or a child committed to an orphanage or charitable or similar institution with unknown facts of birth and parentage and registered in the Civil Register as a ‘foundling.’” The Philippine law on adoption, however, is only applicable to a child with Filipino parents and not to a child whose parents’ nationality are still undetermined. Nevertheless, it does not make the child stateless as the right to a nationality is a fundamental human right protected by the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to which the Philippines is a signatory. Foundlings, owing to their nature – stateless and parentless – are in a vulnerable position in terms of their rights. The right to a nationality and not to be regarded as ‘stateless’ is explicit in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and likewise replicated by other essential instruments as the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the CRC. The Philippines, however, is not a signatory to the 1961 International Convention on Statelessness, which means that the treatment of foundlings hinges only on generally accepted international principles and the ICCPR, which recognized the right of every child to a nationality. When these foundlings are adopted, jurisprudence holds that they are not automatically conferred citizenship, but they are however granted civil rights accorded to children. The issue on foundlings has yet to be probed thoroughly by our Courts, but jurisprudence and the spirit of the law seems to favor the presumption that parents of a foundling found in the Philippines are presumed Filipino. The Senate’s very recent press release dated August 6, 2015 also affirms that presumption. What remains to be seen, however, is how the Court will deal with the matter when the matter is elevated before it. Until then, the saga of a potential foundling president continues while the rest of the Philippines awaits the conclusion with bated breath.

Senator Grace Poe is one of those personalities seemingly paving the way to her ascent to Malacañang. Surveys polling potential successors to the Aquino presidency highlight Senator Poe’s name as a contender, in spite of her nascence in politics. The as-yet earthed campaign trail

of Senator Poe, however, has been caught lately in a bedlam of unpopular opinions about a religious denomination, and, more exigently, citizenship concerns.

Even with her campaign giving hints of her advocacy of inclusivity and on continuing the “daan na matuwid” of the current administration, her personal history is threatening to stymy it all together from getting off the ground.

Senator Poe’s issues about citizenship is also an occasion to review similarly situated scenarios or past circumstances relating to the matter, if any. While she is in a nonpareil position as =becoming the first foundling to run for president, foundlings nonetheless have been granted citizenship based on jurisprudence, laws, and international conventions. A DOJ opinion in 1951 (DOJ Opinion No. 189, series of 1951) dealt with the citizenship of a foundling, a young boy named Anthony Hale whose parents were casualties of the World War II. Here, Hale’s adoptive parents sought the DOJ’s opinion on the matter when it procured a Philippines passport for the boy. The DOJ, in ruling that Hale is indeed a Filipino, applied international conventions in determining that he is a Filipino. Since then, this opinion has been used as a precedent to issue Philippine passports to foundlings. Certain legal practitioners and media have been using this DOJ Opinion analogously to corroborate Poe’s citizenship claims.

Taking into consideration that there are no clear-cut laws to which the Supreme Court may eventually support their decision in settling the issue, it would now depend upon the Justices’ own proficient interpretation that would decide a possible landmark case and finally define the rights of thousands of foundlings in the country and their future political aspirations. P

Urgenda v. the Netherlands: Implications of a State Caught in Climate Change By: Stephen Joshua O. Gana & Perpetua Calliope C. Ngo

THE INCREASING unpredictability of the weather, with long bouts of dry rainy seasons and sudden pouring of heavy rains, has highlighted the reality that States were remiss in treating climate change as a non-priority and low-risk issue. Accordingly, States should actively pursue and implement effective climate change prevention measures, as was held in the recent Dutch case, the Urgenda Foundation v. the State of Netherlands (C/09/456689/ HA ZA 13-1396, June 24, 2015).

The Case of Urgenda v. The Netherlands In the case of Urgenda Foundation v. the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment), the Hague District Court ruled against the Dutch Government, finding that it has been negligent in its actions to prevent climate change.

The Urgenda Foundation (Urgenda) is a Dutch-based organization comprised of various members of Dutch society and serves as a platform for its citizens to take action for the prevention of climate change. Since 2012, the foundation has requested the State of Netherlands to commit and undertake a reduction of CO2 emissions within its territory. However, their dissatisfactory responses prompted Urgenda, acting on its own behalf as well as a representative of 886 other individual petitioners, filed a lawsuit in order to compel the Dutch government to increase the Dutch reduction target

of greenhouse gases for the year 2020 to 40%, or at least 25%, less than the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions, which serves as the point of comparison or baseline of the reduction target. To support its claim, Urgenda stated that reputable scientific organizations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, and the United Nations Environment Program, have found that climate change poses dangerous and farreaching consequences. They also pointed out that greenhouse gas emission per capita in the Netherlands is among the highest in the world and the state is acting unlawfully in its failure to increase the reduction target to at least 25%.

In its decision, the Hague District Court ruled that the Dutch Government has acted unlawfully in failing to increase the reduction target, finding that the Dutch Government was negligent in its duty of care to prevent the dire consequences of climate change under Article 21 of the Dutch Constitution, which states that the protection and improvement of the environment is a concern of the government. Under Dutch law, this provision involves the discretionary power of the government; hence, on its face, Urgenda cannot base its claim on it. However, the District Court justified its finding of negligence in the fact that the exercise of the government’s discretionary power must not be fall below the standard prescribed.

At the outset, the District Court recognized that Urgenda is not the proper party to allege violations of Dutch international obligations to prevent climate change, such as those founder under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, stating that these are obligations generally due to another State. The District Court also found that Urgenda cannot justify its claim on the European Convention on Human Rights since Urgenda, as a juridical person, cannot not be a victim of the violation of human rights under Article 34 of the said Convention. Despite the aforementioned issues with Urgenda’s petition, the Court also recognized that the said Conventions may provide necessary minimum standards of protection.

Accordingly, in reference to these international obligations, the Hague District Court found that that the 25% threshold is the bare minimum standard of the reduction rate of greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, although Article 21 of the Dutch Constitution involves governmental discretionary power, the Dutch Court held the Dutch government negligent for its failure to adopt the bare minimum of 25% threshold reduction rate.

Implications of the Decision In its decision, the Hague District Court had the insurmountable task of balancing governmental discretion visà-vis the protection of the environment

against climate change. The decision is not new since the Hague District Court still upheld the basic rules in International Law as to treaty interpretation and application, as illustrated by its finding that Urgenda cannot invoke Dutch international obligations for its case. Rather, it merely utilized these international obligations as a means of determining whether or not the Dutch government has failed to comply with Article 21 of its Constitution. In the end, the District Court still relied on its internal laws in finding the Dutch Government accountable for its failure to prescribe the bare minimum of greenhouse gas reduction rate. Accordingly, the decision’s implications to other States is not as far-reaching as it seems given that a similar finding in other States’ courts would largely depend on their internal laws and jurisprudence regarding the duty of the government to protect the environment. At the same time, the Urgenda decision is significant since the Hague District Court utilized international standards in determining the bare minimum rate of reduction of greenhouse gases to be imposed. To date, according to Urgenda Foundation, the Dutch government has filed an appeal to the decision of the Hague District Court.

According to Dean Sedfrey Candelaria of the Ateneo Law School, in the Philippines, the world-renowned case of Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, July 30,1993) recognized the principle of intergenerational continued on p.12

LEGAL

12

It’s All in the Blood: The Stubborn Prevalence of Political Dynasties in the Philippines By: Chynah Marie M. Monzon & Stephanie Ann G. Pagdanganan

POLITICAL dynasty, a term as ubiquitous as the political families that embody it, is not an invention of modern society. It has been suggested that even before Magellan first set foot on “uncivilized territories,” the pre-colonial Philippines had a form of government which shared something in common with the “civilized” 15th century Europe; a government wherein power is contained within select families. Once the Spaniards came, however, they introduced the principalia. Gone were the days of the datus and maharlikas from whence power once was invested. Now, the principalia held the status of local oligarchs and they were, coincidentally, mostly descendants of the datus and maharlikas.

To this day as well, political dynasties continue to circulate through the veins of the government, poisoning the system like a perpetual leukemia.

Currently, only 1 out of 7 members of Congress has no familial connections with his or her colleagues. The Philippines also boasts of a whopping 178 active political families. In fact, in 2007, 60% of Philippine lawmakers had relatives in the law-making field as opposed to America’s paltry 7%.

Such statistics seem disappointing, given that Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution prohibits political dynasties. However, being non self-executing, the same section also leaves the definition of political dynasties up to law. Such law is in the hands of the Congress— the same Congress of which many of its congressmen benefit from political dynasties— and is known as House Bill No. 3587 or, as it is more popularly referred to as, the Anti-Dynasty Bill.

An uphill battle Unsurprisingly, the bill did not have an easy time in Congress. For more than 25 years, it had been pending in Congress without yielding any results. But in November 2013, Capiz Representative Fredenil Castro, chair of the House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms approved House Bill No. 3587 that substituted previous bills 172, 837, and 2911.

After 27 years of neglect, the bill was tackled in plenary.

The latest version of the AntiDynasty Bill defines a political dynasty as “the concentration, consolidation or perpetuation of public office and political power by persons related to one another.” It exists “when two or more individuals who are related within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity hold or run for national or local office in successive, simultaneous or overlapping terms” (Sec. 3(a), House Bill No. 3587).

Categories of candidates covered by the bill are the following: 1) the spouse; 2) a person related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, whether legitimate or illegitimate, full or half-blood; and 3) a candidate related to another candidate within the said prohibited civil degree of relationship (where only one will be allowed to hold or to run for office).

In all of these cases, no person within the said prohibited civil degree of relationship to an incumbent official shall immediately succeed to the position of the latter (Sec. 5, House Bill No. 3587).

As manifested by the following provisions, in the event that the AntiDynasty Bill hurdles Congress, only one member from each of the existing political families will remain in office.

This will affect most members of Congress where there exists at least two (2) members of the House of Representatives or Senate coming from the same political family.

In 2014, President Benigno S. Aquino III said that the Anti-Dynasty Bill was not a priority, citing other domestic and international matters in his agenda. Notably, President Aquino is himself part of a political family, with first cousin Senator Bam Aquino in the Senate. However, the winds have changed. President Aquino, in his final State of the Nation Address on July 27, 2015, stated that “panahon na para ipasa ang isang anti-dynasty law.” The House Leaders hoped that such endorsement may garner support from their peers. Unfortunately, the latest version of the bill was rejected in the second hearing.

Giving flesh to the real intent of the Constitution “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

(Section 26, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution) Strongly pushed is the implementation of this constitutional provision in order to curb the evils of having several political family members hold government positions which usually result to poverty, corruption and other offenses committed by virtue of being in a public position.

The presence of an implementing law will prevent what Rep. Fredenil H. Castro refers to as a “vulnerability to monopolistic” rule (House of Representatives – Legislative Library Online).

Rep. Castro added that Section 26 of Article II of the Constitution represented the reformist mindset of the crafters of the charter. However, as stated by Angela Casauay in her 2014 article entitled Anti-political dynasty bill reaches House plenary, despite the inclusion of such provision, the lack of enabling law has prevented its implementation.

“This provision is no less than an admission of the framers of the Constitution of the menaces that political dynasties may bring or have brought and continue to bring if unabated or unregulated by an implementing law in frustration of the spirit of Section 26, Article II of the Constitution,” Rep. Castro said.

According to the Philippine Institute for Developmental Studies, passing an anti-dynasty bill no doubt, will allow more Filipinos to participate in politics and governance. It further added that while House Bill 3587 will not remove all political dynasties in the country, passing it would start the path towards effective and accountable governance.

A tug-of-war of political interests It cannot be denied that a lot of Filipinos are already tired of the negative effects of political families monopolizing the powerful public positions in the country. One may even go as far to say that political dynasties

are the reason why the Philippines’ economic and social conditions are not improving. However, no matter how numerous the supporters of this bill are, there will continue to be lawmakers against it. The reason most specifically has to do with its legal implications.

House Minority Leader Ronaldo B. Zamora expressed that the AntiDynasty Bill is not only about the relationships of those seeking elective posts but also about the elections themselves. Some provisions of the bill provide that a relative of an incumbent official cannot run for a number of elections. Rep. Zamora commented that that such provisions would not be easy to implement.

House Deputy Sherwin N. Tugna argued that there should be a balance between giving equal opportunity to all persons who want to hold elective offices and the right of the person to exercise his or her political right to vote and be voted by the public.

Additionally, in an article written by Llanesca Panti in 2014 entitled Antidynasty bill seen as not feasible, Rep. Tugna allegedly commented that the right to be voted by the public can be only curtailed by Congress “if it has been proven that the evil of unequal opportunities to public office and virtual monopoly of a particular family to a public position has resulted in deleterious effects to our country.”

For Rep. Castro, however, the antidynasty bill will not prohibit anyone from seeking or holding an elective office. It would only be regulatory, such that “it only limits the number of those who may run, be elected and hold public office from a political clan in a span of time. As such, other elective officers will be free for grabbing of the best and the brightest from disadvantaged families” (Panti, L., 2014).

The anti-dynasty bill: a “doubleedged sword” As stated by Carmina Untalan in her 2015 article entitled The antidynasty law: A cosmetic measure, political dynasties are not the primary problem; it is the lack of political will and the presence of greed that makes it the bane of Philippine politics. The reason for this is because there are public officers who come from these so-called political families but at the same time, are able to show promise as a good political leader and to implement good governance in their respective political territories.

An example of this is Mayor Jose Enrique Garcia III of Balanga City, Bataan. Under his leadership, Balanga City received the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)’s Good Housekeeping Sea. Balanga City was recognized internationally for its anti-tobacco efforts and in addition, the city has been exerting considerable efforts to become a university town by 2020.

Mayor Garcia comes from a political family, being the son of Bataan Governor Enrique Garcia Jr. It is a double-edged sword in that if the bill is not passed, some public officers coming from political families would continue their tradition of corruption and poverty. If the bill is passed, however, some local government units would be deprived

of public officers who continually implement programs without a stain of corruption. These programs even transcend their respective terms, proving that it is not a dynasty that makes bad governance, but the public officer himself.

A cosmetic measure It cannot be denied that there is an imperative need to pass an antidynasty bill in order to give life to the constitutional provision providing for it. No matter how good the intentions of the sponsor and authors are, however, opposition from lawmakers coming from political families will always be a threat to its passage as they have interests to uphold as well.

It should be noted that having political families and continuity in their terms is not without advantages.

It is just a matter of inculcating in themselves their purpose of running for office and the welfare of their constituents.

Ultimately, balancing the interests of incumbent public officers from political families and the rights of other individuals who wish to run for office will always be the main concern in passing the Anti-Dynasty Bill. Until affected legislators choose to give way to the public interest, there will forever be a deadlock and the future of Philippine politics will remain as murky and as bleak as it is today. P

Urgenda v. the Netherlands: Implications of a State Caught in Climate Change

continued from p.11

responsibility to protect the environment in relation to the right of present and future generations to a “balanced and healthful ecology,” as enshrined in Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In a more recent case, the Resident Marine Mammals v. Secretary Angelo Reyes (G.R. No. 180771, April 21,2015), the Supreme Court recognized that petitioners may represent the interest of future generations to protect the various sea creatures found in Taňon Strait, a protected area. In both cases, the Court recognized the standing of Filipino citizens to represent future generations for the protection of the environment but still relied on other laws in ruling against respondents.

Comparing these with the Dutch case, Urgenda is evidently a step forward from the Oposa and Resident Marine Mammals cases since the Court in the Urgenda case indirectly incorporated international standards set by various international instruments into its internal laws whereas the two Philippine cases still relied on its internal laws in isolation to rule on whether the action or inaction of a particular government agency violated the right of Filipino citizens to a “balanced and healthful ecology,” as enshrined in Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution. P Disclaimer: The views and opinions of the authors do not represent the opinion of the Ateneo Law School nor The Palladium regarding the issue.