www.scribd.com/The Global Recession and the Philippine Economy
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Thursday, December 05, 2013
Muzzic and Laffter in Dezember feat. POOH
 |
| public domain photo |
WHAT: MUZZIC and LAFFTER in DEZEMBER
WHEN: December 6, 2013 @ 7 pm
WHERE: AB AMATONG CIVIC CENTER (aka ABC GYM)
WHO: POOH
For Sponsorships and Tickets call/text Mr. Al Abule @ 09283860168. Ticket Prices: P100, P200, P500.
Here's a sampling of POOH's comedic chops and what you'll be missing:
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Midway along the yellow brick road
By Terence Eyre Belangoy
Here’s the usual anecdote that passes around every
time there’s a State of the Nation Address (SONA), whether of the current
president or previous presidents, that would serve as an ice-breaker to
President Noynoy’s (PNoy’s) long speech crammed with facts and figures: The president cleared his (or her, as the
case may be) throat and opened his speech folder, signaling the commencement of
his speech. He quickly closed the folder. The audience stared in disbelief and
incomprehension. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true state of the nation.
The true state of the nation the above exaggeration
may not be, but PNoy’s speech appealed
more to the head than to the heart: both as to the length and to the
figure-laden reportage-style format. His economist-background (or maybe that of
his speechwriter) showed true to form in his 2013 SONA.
Personally I have no argument with facts and
figures, having an Economics background myself.
But it may not have the same effect on the ordinary listener , the Juan
or Juana dela Cruz on the street who is more likely to be persuaded by the
emotional tugs of a persuasive speech, SONA or otherwise.
Beyond the emotional effect of a SONA though, the
real-life effects on the lives and livelihood of Filipinos are what weigh most
heavily in favor of or against PNoy. More than three years into his term, the
collective expectation on everybody’s mind is whether PNoy has delivered his
promises; also whether the numerous facts and figures he quoted in his speech
have trickled to the hoi polloi, the
intended beneficiaries, his “bosses”. Already midway along the yellow brick
road of daang matuwid, by now results
should have been apparent.
The change we may have been hoping for may not be
that apparent at this point. Matching Pnoy’s SONA figures with the figures of
the National Statistical Coordination Board’s (NSCB) recently-released
triennial report, the poverty incidence of the Philippines has not changed. The
quarter for quarter 2006, 2009 and 2012 analyses showed that the Philippine
poverty incidence remained relatively unchanged: the percentage of extremely
poor Filipinos was 13.4 in 2012, 13.3 in 2009 and 14.2 in 2006, statistically
insignificant changes.
Figures for figures, the big change that everybody
was hoping for under president Aquino’s term has yet to be felt.
That being
said, he still has more or less three years to finish his term and fulfill his
promises to the Filipino people, whom he endearingly calls his “bosses”. By
then, history will judge whether President Aquino will be a farce or a first-rate;
a heel or, like his father, a hero.
Friday, December 21, 2012
NASA Investigates: Beyond 2012
From the NASA website:
Frequently Asked Questions
Below, NASA Scientists answer questions on the following 2012 topics:
› View larger
A 'Blue Marble' image of the Earth taken from the Visible/Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) instrument aboard NASA's Suomi NPP satellite. This composite image uses a number of swaths of the Earth's surface taken on January 4, 2012. Credit: NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring
Question (Q): Are there any threats to the Earth in 2012? Many Internet websites say the world will end in December 2012.
Q: What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in 2012?
Q: Does the Mayan calendar end in December 2012?
Q: Is NASA predicting a "total blackout" of Earth on Dec. 23 to Dec. 25?
Q: Could planets align in a way that impacts Earth?
"There apparently is a great deal of interest in celestial bodies, and their locations and trajectories at the end of the calendar year 2012. Now, I for one love a good book or movie as much as the next guy. But the stuff flying around through cyberspace, TV and the movies is not based on science. There is even a fake NASA news release out there..."
- Don Yeomans, NASA senior research scientist
Q: Is there a planet or brown dwarf called Nibiru or Planet X or Eris that is approaching the Earth and threatening our planet with widespread destruction?
Q: What is the polar shift theory? Is it true that the Earth's crust does a 180-degree rotation around the core in a matter of days if not hours?
Q: Is the Earth in danger of being hit by a meteor in 2012?
Q: How do NASA scientists feel about claims of the world ending in 2012?
Q: Is there a danger from giant solar storms predicted for 2012?
www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features
Frequently Asked Questions
Beyond 2012: Why the World Won't End
Dec. 21, 2012, won't be the end of the world as we know, however, it will be another winter solstice.
Contrary to some of the common beliefs out there, the claims behind the end of the world quickly unravel when pinned down to the 2012 timeline.
Contrary to some of the common beliefs out there, the claims behind the end of the world quickly unravel when pinned down to the 2012 timeline.
Below, NASA Scientists answer questions on the following 2012 topics:
- End of the World
- 'Prediction' Origins
- Mayan Calendar
- Total Blackout
- Planetary Alignment
- Nibiru/Planet X/Eris
- Polar Shift
- Meteor Strike
- NASA Science
- Solar Storms
› View largerA 'Blue Marble' image of the Earth taken from the Visible/Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) instrument aboard NASA's Suomi NPP satellite. This composite image uses a number of swaths of the Earth's surface taken on January 4, 2012. Credit: NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring
Question (Q): Are there any threats to the Earth in 2012? Many Internet websites say the world will end in December 2012.
Answer (A):The world will not end in 2012. Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012.
Q: What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in 2012?
A: The story started with claims that Nibiru, a supposed planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened the doomsday date was moved forward to December 2012 and linked to the end of one of the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar at the winter solstice in 2012 -- hence the predicted doomsday date of December 21, 2012.
Q: Does the Mayan calendar end in December 2012?
A: Just as the calendar you have on your kitchen wall does not cease to exist after December 31, the Mayan calendar does not cease to exist on December 21, 2012. This date is the end of the Mayan long-count period but then -- just as your calendar begins again on January 1 -- another long-count period begins for the Mayan calendar.
Q: Is NASA predicting a "total blackout" of Earth on Dec. 23 to Dec. 25?
A: Absolutely not. Neither NASA nor any other scientific organization is predicting such a blackout. The false reports on this issue claim that some sort of "alignment of the Universe" will cause a blackout. There is no such alignment (see next question). Some versions of this rumor cite an emergency preparedness message from NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. This is simply a message encouraging people to be prepared for emergencies, recorded as part of a wider government preparedness campaign. It never mentions a blackout. ›Watch the Video
Q: Could planets align in a way that impacts Earth?
A: There are no planetary alignments in the next few decades and even if these alignments were to occur, their effects on the Earth would be negligible. One major alignment occurred in 1962, for example, and two others happened during 1982 and 2000. Each December the Earth and sun align with the approximate center of the Milky Way Galaxy but that is an annual event of no consequence. › More about alignment
"There apparently is a great deal of interest in celestial bodies, and their locations and trajectories at the end of the calendar year 2012. Now, I for one love a good book or movie as much as the next guy. But the stuff flying around through cyberspace, TV and the movies is not based on science. There is even a fake NASA news release out there..."
- Don Yeomans, NASA senior research scientist
Q: Is there a planet or brown dwarf called Nibiru or Planet X or Eris that is approaching the Earth and threatening our planet with widespread destruction?
A: Nibiru and other stories about wayward planets are an Internet hoax. There is no factual basis for these claims. If Nibiru or Planet X were real and headed for an encounter with the Earth in 2012, astronomers would have been tracking it for at least the past decade, and it would be visible by now to the naked eye. Obviously, it does not exist. Eris is real, but it is a dwarf planet similar to Pluto that will remain in the outer solar system; the closest it can come to Earth is about 4 billion miles.
Q: What is the polar shift theory? Is it true that the Earth's crust does a 180-degree rotation around the core in a matter of days if not hours?
A: A reversal in the rotation of Earth is impossible. There are slow movements of the continents (for example Antarctica was near the equator hundreds of millions of years ago), but that is irrelevant to claims of reversal of the rotational poles. However, many of the disaster websites pull a bait-and-switch to fool people. They claim a relationship between the rotation and the magnetic polarity of Earth, which does change irregularly, with a magnetic reversal taking place every 400,000 years on average. As far as we know, such a magnetic reversal doesn’t cause any harm to life on Earth. Scientists believe a magnetic reversal is very unlikely to happen in the next few millennia. › More about polar shift
Q: Is the Earth in danger of being hit by a meteor in 2012?
A: The Earth has always been subject to impacts by comets and asteroids, although big hits are very rare. The last big impact was 65 million years ago, and that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Today NASA astronomers are carrying out a survey called the Spaceguard Survey to find any large near-Earth asteroids long before they hit. We have already determined that there are no threatening asteroids as large as the one that killed the dinosaurs. All this work is done openly with the discoveries posted every day on the NASA Near-Earth Object Program Office website, so you can see for yourself that nothing is predicted to hit in 2012.
Q: How do NASA scientists feel about claims of the world ending in 2012?
A: For any claims of disaster or dramatic changes in 2012, where is the science? Where is the evidence? There is none, and for all the fictional assertions, whether they are made in books, movies, documentaries or over the Internet, we cannot change that simple fact. There is no credible evidence for any of the assertions made in support of unusual events taking place in December 2012. › Why you need not fear a supernova › About super volcanoes
Q: Is there a danger from giant solar storms predicted for 2012?
A: Solar activity has a regular cycle, with peaks approximately every 11 years. Near these activity peaks, solar flares can cause some interruption of satellite communications, although engineers are learning how to build electronics that are protected against most solar storms. But there is no special risk associated with 2012. The next solar maximum will occur in the 2012-2014 time frame and is predicted to be an average solar cycle, no different than previous cycles throughout history. › Video: Solar Storms › More about solar storms
www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features
Sunday, May 06, 2012
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Dharma
By TERENCE EYRE BELANGOY
(Lenten Season thoughts;this essay, Dharma, appeared in my column JUSTIFIED which ran in a local newspaper.)
While
updating my Friendster profile (yes, I do have one; Editor's note: Facebook wasn't yet in vogue at the time) one day, I came
upon quite an interesting widget called "How evil are you? quiz". I took
the quiz to find out for myself. I won't reveal my results as I invoke
my Constitutional right against self-incrimination but I find the
outcome amusing if not revealing.
If ever I have to reveal the quintessential me, it would be this: I have always known myself to be a nice person, even bordering on being an asslicker. This may sound a little tad too subjective, taking into mind a line from a movie: "Deep, deep inside, everybody thinks they're good."
What does it really take to be good? How does one define "goodness"?
I have tinkered with these questions as we are into the Holy Week. (By the way, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines or CBCP said that those acts of self-flagellation and crucifixion are a "wrong understanding" of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Ha-ha , I've always been suspicious of those sadomasochistic acts; I found them too artificial. Now my suspicions are confirmed. Anyway, I've digressed.)
Socially-speaking, I've discovered that most people have a twisted sense of what being good/kind is.
We usually define something as kind/good if that person readily conforms to our pre-existing paradigms, beliefs and value system, or if that other person easily yields to our peccadilloes. Any adolescent would easily describe his/her parent as "mabait" if the latter would allow the former to go out on a weeknight even if there is class the following day. Any relative would call an aunt or uncle kind/good if the latter would, without any fuss, dole out money, overlooking the fact that the beneficiary-relative has not lifted any finger to look for a job , preferring instead to hang out in the neighborhood sari-sari store.
One anecdotal experience I had anent the good/bad dichotomy while I was still in law school involved two librarians in our library. One is a strict spinster while the other is a harmless-looking guy. The crone of a librarian sticks to the rules. If you get delayed in returning a book, you pay the fine---no buts, no excuses. The guy librarian, meanwhile, condones all the borrowers who get delayed (that included me, wink wink nudge nudge), without imposing on these late-returnees the mandatory fine. In the course of time, the old lady-librarian earned the reputation of being "masungit". If you really have to think about it, neither of them can be actually said to be kinder/more good than the other. The old lady was merely following rules and regulations---and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Strict compliance with rules and regulations is one way of disciplining the students which habit (of self-discipline) they are sure to benefit from.
We sometimes confuse being kind/good with people pleasing:not getting into arguments, trying to be understanding all the time, assenting and conceding to other people's idiosyncracies and just allowing others to do their own stuff. (We have the usual phrase "pabayaan mo na.")
A person should be considered good/kind not necessarily because he/she conforms to our views all the time but because he has an exemplary character and values which are truly admirable regardless of the situation. We are talking here of those absolute moral precepts as honesty, love. respect, being non-judgmental, acceptance, tolerance, altruism, doing the right thing and fighting for what is right, etc. etc. Being good means sticking to good values and good moral standards even if such adherence might offend other people whose values change depending on what is good for them. As Stephen covey, author of "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" would intone "even when in Rome, one does not have to do what the Romans do."
In the same manner, people-pleasing must not be construed as being kind/good. It is of course a challenge to distinguish one from the other. It definitely would take intelligence to make a finer distinction. (To digress again, it was best-selling author Robert Kiyosaki who said, "Intelligence is the ability to make finer distinctions.")
Now, despite being good/kind people still misconstrue you as exactly the opposite---well, what the heck. If you can never please everybody (which you never ever will), go ahead and please yourself. Anyway, nobody gets a prize for being good; oftentimes it is just a matter of "prinsipyo."
If ever I have to reveal the quintessential me, it would be this: I have always known myself to be a nice person, even bordering on being an asslicker. This may sound a little tad too subjective, taking into mind a line from a movie: "Deep, deep inside, everybody thinks they're good."
What does it really take to be good? How does one define "goodness"?
I have tinkered with these questions as we are into the Holy Week. (By the way, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines or CBCP said that those acts of self-flagellation and crucifixion are a "wrong understanding" of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Ha-ha , I've always been suspicious of those sadomasochistic acts; I found them too artificial. Now my suspicions are confirmed. Anyway, I've digressed.)
Socially-speaking, I've discovered that most people have a twisted sense of what being good/kind is.
We usually define something as kind/good if that person readily conforms to our pre-existing paradigms, beliefs and value system, or if that other person easily yields to our peccadilloes. Any adolescent would easily describe his/her parent as "mabait" if the latter would allow the former to go out on a weeknight even if there is class the following day. Any relative would call an aunt or uncle kind/good if the latter would, without any fuss, dole out money, overlooking the fact that the beneficiary-relative has not lifted any finger to look for a job , preferring instead to hang out in the neighborhood sari-sari store.
One anecdotal experience I had anent the good/bad dichotomy while I was still in law school involved two librarians in our library. One is a strict spinster while the other is a harmless-looking guy. The crone of a librarian sticks to the rules. If you get delayed in returning a book, you pay the fine---no buts, no excuses. The guy librarian, meanwhile, condones all the borrowers who get delayed (that included me, wink wink nudge nudge), without imposing on these late-returnees the mandatory fine. In the course of time, the old lady-librarian earned the reputation of being "masungit". If you really have to think about it, neither of them can be actually said to be kinder/more good than the other. The old lady was merely following rules and regulations---and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Strict compliance with rules and regulations is one way of disciplining the students which habit (of self-discipline) they are sure to benefit from.
We sometimes confuse being kind/good with people pleasing:not getting into arguments, trying to be understanding all the time, assenting and conceding to other people's idiosyncracies and just allowing others to do their own stuff. (We have the usual phrase "pabayaan mo na.")
A person should be considered good/kind not necessarily because he/she conforms to our views all the time but because he has an exemplary character and values which are truly admirable regardless of the situation. We are talking here of those absolute moral precepts as honesty, love. respect, being non-judgmental, acceptance, tolerance, altruism, doing the right thing and fighting for what is right, etc. etc. Being good means sticking to good values and good moral standards even if such adherence might offend other people whose values change depending on what is good for them. As Stephen covey, author of "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" would intone "even when in Rome, one does not have to do what the Romans do."
In the same manner, people-pleasing must not be construed as being kind/good. It is of course a challenge to distinguish one from the other. It definitely would take intelligence to make a finer distinction. (To digress again, it was best-selling author Robert Kiyosaki who said, "Intelligence is the ability to make finer distinctions.")
Now, despite being good/kind people still misconstrue you as exactly the opposite---well, what the heck. If you can never please everybody (which you never ever will), go ahead and please yourself. Anyway, nobody gets a prize for being good; oftentimes it is just a matter of "prinsipyo."
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Of David(e) and Judicial Goliaths
By Terence Eyre Belangoy
[ Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. visits Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte, MARCH 28, 2O12. In honor of that occasion, this essay recounts his contributions to the Judiciary during his tenure.]
Under
the leadership of then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., the Supreme Court
of the Philippines
could be best described as a proactive Supreme Court. The Court has taken upon
itself not only to adapt to dynamic changes, and combat undesirable yet endemic
practices taking place around it--- in the realm of technology and
communications, industrialization and globalization, societal changes, cultural
transformations, political uncertainty, graft and corruption, among others---
but to tackle them head on. The Supreme Court’s proactivity is clearly evident with its adoption of the Action Program
for Judicial Reforms (APJR), with then Chief Justice Davide as its staunchest
advocate.
The
Supreme Court is akin to a collegial body of “legal Davids” taking on
present-day “Goliaths.” Of course, it is common knowledge how it all
ended.
David, Davide and Legal Davids
This
analogy to the Biblical story in the Book of David is not at all
incidental. The Chief Justice himself
insinuated of his “kinship” with the Biblical character. The only difference
between Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and the Biblical David is the
letter e.[1]
The
above account is definitely facetious, but it has a ring of truth to it. With
all the transformations--- not all salutary--- happening in many sectors of
society, nationally and internationally, these changes may as well be
intimidating, juggernaut Goliaths while our Supreme Court Chief Justice and
Justices, together with the rest of the Judiciary’s personnel, are fearless,
highly-skilled modern-day Davids. (A very interesting side story: a recent Reuters report tells of a discovery by
archeologists of a shard of pottery which carried a Semitic inscription of the
name of Goliath in Ramat Gan,
Israel, lending
strong credibility to the Biblical story; but this is altogether another
topic.)
Big
Brother
One
such “Goliath” looming in the periphery of the judicial horizon is incidentally
and figuratively called Big Brother--- rapid advancement in technology, and its
various cousins (information technology, communications, life technologies,
etc.) which are continuously making their effects felt in Philippine society in
general, Philippine Judiciary in particular, and definitely affecting the
dispensation of justice and the rule of law.
The
Supreme Court, consistent with its proactive stance, through the APJR, is embracing
technological trends with open arms.
In
fact, the First component of the APJR is the “Judicial Systems and Procedure” which concerns itself with the
administration of cases and courts. Initiatives in Alternative Dispute
Resolution, computerized case management system, streamlined court rules and
similar activities are also programmed under this component. Justice Artemio V.
Panganiban in one of the lectures in the Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide Lecture Series, delivered on October 19, 2005 at
the Far Eastern University Auditorium has subclassified this component under
the general heading of “Improvement of Judicial Facilities and Tools.”
The
APJR, through the Committee on computerization, has embarked on a total
computerization of the entire judiciary. Consistent with this computerization
program, the Supreme Court has, during the past five years, provided every
courtroom in the country with at least one computer.[2]
The
Court has also launched its fully electronic library (e-library), the first of
its kind in Asia.
The
Benchbook for Trial Court Judges is another easy-to-reach tool which enables
magistrates to decide points of law quickly as they arise in the course of the
trial; this comes in digital and paper versions.
New
Rules of Procedure were also promulgated to enable the members of the bench to
rule immediately on legal issues connected with the new sciences and
technologies. The new rules cover, among
others, admission of electronic evidence, infringement of intellectual property
rights, corporate rehabilitation, and intra-corporate controversies, among
others.
In the
controversial nascent field of biotechnology, the Supreme Court has
acknowledged that ethical issues would unavoidably arise.
“The Courts, as defenders of the rule of law, must
make an informed stand as they adjudge among conflicting interests, and the
judges in these cases would have to be conversant in genetics, microbiology and
biotechnology as to be able to scientifically assess the evidence presented to
them by any number of experts.
Judges
are expected to keep abreast with these scientists, if not be ahead of them in
some respects.
While
these scientific issues have not yet found their way into our jurisdiction,
they are nevertheless knocking upon our doors. With the aid of developments in
Information Technology, they will soon be breaking down these doors. By then
our courts may be deluged with novel cases.
The Philippines,
for its part, will participate actively in this exchange, more to anticipate
than to react to technological trends consistent with the PROACTIVE stance that
the Supreme Court has taken in most other issues.”[3]
High-Technology
Yet “High-Touch” Judiciary
Despite the Judiciary’s gung-ho efforts, as initiated by the Supreme
Court, to modernize and keep apace with the technological breakthroughs for a
more efficient administration of justice, it makes it a point to always touch
base with the very people it is supposed to serve---especially the
marginalized--- and the various publics affected by its various activities.
In the highly-influential book “Megatrends,” foremost social forecaster
John Naisbitt wrote: “Whenever new technology is introduced, there must be a
counterbalancing human response--- that is, “high touch”--- or the technology
is rejected. Whenever INSTITUTIONS introduce new technology, they should build
in a high-touch component; if they don’t, people will try to create their own
or reject the new technology. We must learn to balance the material wonders of
technology with the spiritual demands of our human nature.”
Indeed,
people want to be with people; and the more technology is pumped into an
institution, or into society, the more people would want to be (or be in
proximity) with people.
The
principle of high-technology/ “high touch” is a modern version of the ancient
Greek ideal of balance. The principle symbolizes the need for balance between
physical (the need for advancement, in this case technological advancement) and
metaphysical/spiritual (the desire of people to be an integral component of the
justice system) reality. Luckily, the Davide
Court is not remiss in this regard.
“Technology
holds a promise, not a threat. I see a future where legal practitioners will
still enjoy intimate professional relationships with their clients. In the
first place, people look for more than just legal advice and assistance from
counsel. In every case, the fiduciary character of the service is sealed by a
determination of trust and reliability, which can only be cultivated or
confirmed through face-to face- encounters. Secondly, and especially in a
developing nation such as the Philippines, fundamental change in the
traditional practice of law will surely proceed at a manageable pace without
displacing those who are presently unfamiliar with the required technologies.
Lastly, at some point in the evolution of legal servicing, the old ways will
inevitably co-exist with the new paradigms, as we achieve a balance between
technological advances and due process as traditionally understood.[4]
More importantly, the Fifth component, “Access to Justice by the Poor”,
ensures that the marginalized, disadvantaged, dispossessed and other valuable
sectors will always have affordable and effective means of attaining justice.
This
ability of the Supreme Court NOT to be viewed as an institution smugly
ensconced atop an ivory tower far beyond the reach of the hoi polloi or ordinary mortals is very important. This would endear
it more to the people and the varying publics (including the very important
“donor community”) thus ensuring a continued support for the Supreme Court and
for its reform programs.
The
responsiveness of the Supreme Court in this regard is incorporated in the Sixth
component of the APJR.
The
Sixth (the last) component, “Reform
Support Systems”, installs mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of the
reform efforts. The focus here is public education, information and
communication, on the assumption that public awareness of the functions and
achievements of the judiciary would encourage people to support the courts.
Support
for the Supreme Court itself and for its various programs involves both
internal support and external support.
With
the myriad reforms the Supreme Court is undertaking or will undertake for the
Judiciary, there is bound to be resistance. This resistance could stem from the
Judiciary itself, specifically its various personnel who would be affected by
the changes.
One of
the “Policies and Strategies” of the “Reform
Support Systems” of the APJR involves “Judicial Organization Culture.”
This
resistance could be reduced through communication with employees to help them
see the logic of change. It is difficult for individuals to resist change in
which they participated. Greater involvement in the decision-making process reduces
resistance, obtains commitment and increase quality of the change decision.[5]
Externally,
the Judiciary has to contend with the various publics: the other pillars of the
criminal justice system which would surely be affected by the changes within the
Judiciary, the “donor community” from which the Judiciary sources some of its
funds, the other branches of Government, and the public at large.
The
Supreme Court itself, as the final arbiter of all legal controversies, has to
make sure that all its decisions would not only be followed but would have the
faith and confidence of the people. Instances are rife when the public
sometimes see Supreme Court decisions as partial, especially those
highly-contentious cases such as the impeachment, the legitimacy of a
government swept into power by people power movements viewed by some sectors as
“mob rule,” allegations of infringement into the prerogatives of the other
co-equal branches of the government, and the like.
To
meet the above challenges, the APJR has included a “Public Awareness
Strategies” by (a) Institutionalizing the Court’s public information, education
and communication system (b) Improve quality and quantity venues for
information exchange on judicial functions, reform agenda and achievement (c)
Enhance judicial-mass media relations. For these purposes, a Public Information
Office (PIO) was created. It primary purpose is to bring the courts closer to
the people.
This
interface between the Supreme Court as an institution together with its various
personnel on the one hand, and the public, on the other hand, is raised to a
more esteemed level as the Davide Court is also imbued with a passion for
excellence and public service.
The
Vision Statement of the Davide Watch encapsulates the above thrust. The Davide
Watch Vision Statement boldly exclaims: “A Judiciary that is independent,
effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence; and a legal
profession that provide quality, ethical, accessible and cost-effective legal
service to our people and is willing and able to answer the call to public
service.” This must also be correlated with the Third component of the APJR, “Human Resources Management Development”,
which covers the selection, hiring, education, promotion and remuneration of
justices, judges and other officials and employees.
“The
speedy and impartial dispensation of justice will ultimately depend upon the
judge. While electronic research facilities, computerized facilities and
stately courtrooms--- all of which money can buy---are desirable components of
judicial reform, in the end, justice is delivered by a human being who must be
upright, credible and competent--- qualities that money cannot buy.”[6]
Feminine
Grace and the High Court
That
the Supreme Court is not only concerned with efficiency, excellence, and
service is also apparent in the way it exists with the various cultural and
societal transformations unfurling around it.
One
such positive social change is the increasing role of women in society.
Throughout the years, the women’s liberation movement has been gaining ground.
Although none of these feminine inroads have been mentioned in either the APJR
or in the “Davide Watch: Leading the
Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession Toward the Third Millennium,”
the current Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Davide has been
an unwitting yet willing witness to this cultural transformation.
A
record five lady Justices (Justice Consuelo Yñares-Santiago, Justice Angelina
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez, Justice Conchita
Carpio-Morales, and Justice Minita Chico-Nazario) now sit in the Supreme
Court--- all career jurists who have dedicated their lives to public service
and the law.
The
first woman to be admitted to the Bar, in 1911, was Maria V. Francisco. Justice
Cecilia Muñoz-Palma made history as the first woman to be appointed to the
Supreme Court.
Today,
there are still more male justices and judges in our courts, but this is
changing. This change, and the Supreme Court’s (and other institutions for that
matter) concurrence to it is laudable.
“Social
Science affirms that a woman’s place in society marks the level of
civilization,” said Elizabeth Stanton, champion of women’s suffrage.
Hands Off the
Cookie Jar
On the not-so-positive side, a “culture” which is
said to be endemic in most government offices is the “culture” of graft and
corruption. The Davide Watch, and the APJR through its Fourth component, seeks
to curb graft and corruption in the Judiciary. The Fourth component, “Institutional Integrity Development”,
addresses concerns in graft and corruption and puts in place mechanisms to
detect and punish corrupt practices of some judges and lawyers.
To
implement the call for integrity in the Judiciary, the entire Court has agreed
to adopt a more stringent and timely measures to discipline the judiciary and
to rid it of the corrupt, the unethical, and the misfit. Specifically it has
hastened the adjudication of administrative cases. In the pursuit of
transparency, the Court, at the suggestion of the Chief Justice, has created a
Committee on Public Information (CPI). To assist the Committee, a Public
Information Office (PIO) has also been created. The CPI and PIO were created to
lend more transparency to the Court’s work and thereby increase public
understanding of its role and work in society.[7]
Legal
and Judicial education is intended to enhance not only the intellectual ability
of lawyers and magistrates, but also their ethical standards. During the last
six years, the Supreme Court has fined, warned, censured, admonished,
reprimanded, ordered arrested, suspended or disbarred lawyers for violations of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.[8]
Magistrates
decide litigations only on the basis of the rational relationship between the
law and the facts, free from any extraneous influence. They should not allow
the “ships” that plague public service--- kinship, relationship, friendship and
fellowships---to interfere in their judgments.[9]
Judicial Independence
All of the of the above reforms--- and the enthusiasm of all judicial
personnel, our legal Davids, in facing present challenges, the modern-day
Goliaths--- would all be for naught without the Second component, perhaps the
most important of all the components, of the APJR. The Second component “Institutions Development” seeks to
establish mechanisms to strengthen the Judiciary as an institution independent
from other branches of government. Included in this component are the systems
to implement the constitutionally-mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary, to
improve judicial accountability, and to devise personnel and financial policy
that will give the judiciary the flexibility needed to address the many demands
upon it.
Judicial
Independence under the Davide Watch means two
things: (a) Fiscal Independence and (b) Independence
from Partisan Politics.
Fiscal
Independence
means the freedom of the Judiciary to determine its own fiscal affairs. The
Judicial branch is not assured of an automatic budgetary increase to cope with
inflation. Judicial salaries are still pegged to the Salary Standardization
Law, which in sum spells low compensation. As a result, very few brilliant and
ethical lawyers join the Judiciary.
Independence from
partisan politics requires the involvement of the Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC) in filling up of vacant positions in the Judiciary in accordance with the
periods mandated by law.
Leadership
By Example
Amidst all of these reforms, nothing transcends the
fact that the very person at the helm of this wave of transformation, Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. himself, leads by example, thereby positively
influencing all within the Judiciary. He has adopted an inside-out approach,
focusing on his circle of influence rather than on his circle of concerns; it
was his own metanoia which has also
become the metanoia of the entire
Judiciary, so to speak.
“As
Chief Justice, I pledge that I shall spare no effort in leading the Judiciary
by example. For those who know me, you know that I don’t take this pledge
lightly,” announced Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in his very first
public appearance at a Kilosbayan
forum.
With
all of the above reforms taking place in the Judiciary, and with a Chief
Justice like Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. who initiated it all, the
Judiciary would remain an exemplary, steadfast bastion of justice despite
whatever unpredictable changes that would occur in this millennium and even in
the next millennium to come.
Hail
to (former) Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.! Hail to the men and women of the
Judiciary!
[This essay, originally titled “Legal Davids amidst
modern-day Goliaths,” was written and submitted by the author to the Supreme
Court under then CJ Davide during a Commemoration titled Davide Watch: Action
Program for Judicial Reforms prior to his retirement. The author was then
Associate Editor of the FEU Law Journal and represented his alma mater, the Far
Eastern University-Institute of Law. For other articles of this author, check out his blog JUSTIFIED at http://justifiedmaster.blogspot.com/]
[1]
Taken from the Closing Remarks of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
delivered at the 5th Centenary lecture, “Protecting Civil Liberties
in a State of Continuing Emergency,”
by Madame Justice Dorit Beinisch.
[2]
“The Totality of Reforms for A Transformed Judiciary,” lecture delivered by
Justice Artemio V. Panganiban during the Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide Lecture Series on October 19, 2005, at the Far
Eastern University (FEU) Auditorium.
[3] A
portion of the Closing Remarks delivered by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide at
the Fourth Centenary Lecture, “Life Technologies and the Rule of Law,” by Dr.
Franklin M. Zweig of the Einstein Institute for the Science, Health and the
Courts (EINSHAC).
[4] A
portion of the Closing Remarks delivered by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide at
the 12th Centenary Lecture, “The Paperless Court: Technology and the
Courts in the Region”, by Justice Robert D. Nicholson.
[5] Chapter
5: “Reform Support Systems”, Action Program for Judicial Reforms 2001-2006,
August 2001.
[6] “Judging
the Judges” by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Address delivered during the 5th
Anniversary celebration of Bantay
Katarungan.
[7] Chapter
5: Setting the Standards of the book “Leadership
by Example” by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban
[8]
pp. 17-18, “The Totality of Reforms for A Transformed Judiciary,” lecture
delivered by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban during the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Lecture Series on October 19, 2005,
at the Far Eastern University (FEU) Auditorium.
[9] “Judging
the Judges”, address delivered by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, during the 5th
anniversary celebration of Bantay Katarungan.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Impeachment profiles I: Atty. Tranquil Salvador III
 |
| Atty. Tranquil Salvador III; file photo |
He is presently the Dean of the Law School of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Pasay (PLP); reviewer and professor of law in Ateneo de Manila
University, School of Law (ADMU), the Law School of Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), Far Eastern University (FEU), FEU-La Salle and
San Sebastian College (SSC), University of the East (UE), Juris Law
Center, University Belt Consortium and adviser to the Far Eastern
University Law Review, PLM Law Student Council and PLM-Alternative
Lawyering Center.
interviewed by ANC
In action at the Impeachment trial
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)