Category Archives: Columns

The Supreme Court knows only too well that our people are carefully watching how the Maguindanao massacre trial is handled. Without breaching the basic rights of the accused, the Court has tried to assuage public anxiety, by closely monitoring the proceedings and by issuing press statements detailing the progress of the cases. Continue reading →

“The state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law,” so the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 26) solemnly declares. Despite repeated clamor, this provision of our Charter, like its many other “principles and state policies,” remains unimplemented to this day. How then can this provision be enforced and political dynasties ended, or at least regulated? There are four possible options: legislative, judicial (and quasi-judicial), sovereign and political. Continue reading →

As expected, the Supreme Court resolution (dated Oct. 23, 2012, but known publicly only last week) “disallowing the live media broadcast” of the Maguindanao massacre trials and allowing only the “audio visual recording and streaming of the video coverage … both (1) for documentary purposes and (2) for transmittal to specified viewing areas: (i) outside the courtroom, within the Camp Bagong Diwa premises; and (ii) selected trial courts in Maguindanao, Koronadal, South Cotabato, and General Santos City where relatives of the accused and the victims reside” generated a maelstrom of controversy. Continue reading →

The controversy over the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act 10175) digs deep into one of the most revered rights in a democracy—the right to free expression. The guardians of liberty are always alarmed when a new law tends to suppress free expression. Continue reading →

How are party-list winners determined? The Supreme Court answered this question in its very first decision on the party-list system, “Veterans Federation Party vs Comelec” (Oct. 6, 2000). Since then, several other decisions affirming and modifying this landmark case have come out, but the controversy on how to determine the winners persists. Continue reading →

Every election season, the party-list system always becomes a vortex of controversies. And yet, all the time, the controversies revolve around the same two basic questions: First, what and who are qualified to be party-list representatives? And second, how are party-list winners determined? I will tackle the first question today and will continue with the second next Sunday. Continue reading →

The Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro forged between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is a modest but essential beginning, a road map to a shared vision of peace, a declaration of principles to be fleshed out in four annexes and in a final peace agreement “by the end of the year.” But it is not comprehensive, complete and final. Much more work needs to be done. Continue reading →

Judicial decision-making, I wrote last Sunday, may be reduced in its simplest terms to an Aristotelian syllogism. Most of the time, the crucial part of the syllogism is the minor premise—that is, whether the facts alleged in the complaint or information have been duly proven. Continue reading →

In its most simplified sense, judicial decision-making can be reduced to an Aristotelian syllogism consisting of a major premise, a minor premise and a logical conclusion. Example: The major (or legal) premise in a criminal case for homicide is “anyone who kills another shall be jailed.” The minor (or factual) premise is “Pedro killed Juan.” And the logical conclusion (or decision) is, therefore, “Pedro shall be jailed.” The syllogism can be abbreviated in the formula: law times facts equals decision, or L x F = D. Continue reading →

I understand why the senior justices of the Supreme Court are disappointed, even dismayed, by the choice of a junior justice as the new chief. For years, they have patiently lined up in faithful observance of the century-old tradition that only the most senior and second most senior are chosen to lead the judiciary. Tradition, seniority and rank are sacred in the judiciary, as they are in the military and in the Church. Continue reading →