SC: Congress only has one seat in JBC

BAGUIO City, Philippines - The Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 6, upheld an earlier ruling limiting the number of congressional representative in the Judicial and Bar Council to one. 

The SC, voting 9-3-3, junked the motion for reconsideration filed by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas and Sen. Francis Escudero. The SC earlier ruled in July 2012 that the JBC - the body that vets and screens aspirants to the judiciary - should only have 7 members instead of 8. Congress should then be represented by one lawmaker and not by two, with one each from the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Concurring with the majority opinion were Justices Antonio Carpio, Bienvenido Reyes, Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Jose Mendoza, Jose Perez, Martin Villarama, Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin.

Dissenting were Justices Mariano del Castillo, Roberto Abad and Marvic Leonen. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno inhibited from the voting because she chairs the JBC; Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr also inhibited from the case because he is a consultant to the body. Justice Arturo Brion also took no part.

Leonen said both the Senate and the House of Representatives must be represented in the JBC because, "This is the Constitution’s mandate read as a whole...Any other interpretation diminishes Congress and negates the effectivity of its representation in the Judicial and Bar Council.”

The JBC presently has 8 members: Tupas, Escudero, retired Court of Appeals Justice Aurora Lagman, retired SC Justice Regino Hermosisima, lawyer Jose Mejia, Integrated Bar of the Philippines officer Milagros Fernan-Cayosa, Justice Secretary Leila de Lim and Sereno.

With the ruiing, the JBC must decide who would they retain in the body - Tupas or Escudero.

It was former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez who questioned the 8-member composition before the SC in July.

One of the candidates then for the post of chief justice, Chavez said he could not submit himself to the deliberations of a body whose composition is unconstitutional.

The SC ruled in his favor, saying that the 1987 Constitution clearly specified in Sec.8 Article VIII that "a representative of Congress" shall be one of its ex-oficio members. Representatives from the Senate and House of Representatives sat on the JBC alternately then.

History
The SC said that that this was altered in 1994, however, when an 8th member was added, as two representatives from Congress sat simultaneously in the JBC, casting a vote of 1/2 each. In 2001, each representative was allowed to cast one full vote.

The SC said though that there is no need to have two representatives from Congress in the JBC because the reference to it as a bicameral body "refers to its primary function in government which is legislation."

Congress should also act as a bicameral body when exercising its powers of appropriation, declaration of the existence of a state of war, canvassing of electoral returns for the President and Vice President and impeachment. 

"An inter-play between the two houses is necessary in the realization of these powers causing a vivid dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount," the High Court said.

The SC said the same does not apply in Congress' functions in the JBC, however.

"There is clearly no interaction between the two houses in their participation in the JBC. No mechanism is required between the Senate and the House of Representatives in the screening and nomination of judicial officers," the SC said.

"Hence, the term ‘Congress’ must be taken to mean the entire legislative department."

source:  Rappler

SC decision on party-list groups reflects true intent of Constitution–Monsod

Business Mirror - A FORMER Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman on Monday said the decision of the Supreme Court to abandon its ruling in the Ang Bagong Bayani case reflects the true intent of the Constitution and adheres to the principle of the party-list system that the elections were not exclusively for marginalized and underrepresented sectors.

“The Supreme Court ruling has clearly defined the parameters that reflected the intent of the Constitution and the principles behind the party-list system,” former Comelec Chairman Christian Monsod said, adding that “The party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation. It is not exclusive to a particular sector.”

Monsod, a member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, and principal proponent of the party-list system provision, played down critics’ assertions that the Supreme Court’s setting the parameters of the party-list system, allowing even the national political parties and non-sectoral groups to participate in the party-list elections, has “bastardized” the party-list system law and could render the marginalized sector even more marginalized.

Monsod also allayed fears that the new parameters would breed and revive political dynasties and moneyed individuals to gobble up the small groups and dominate the seats in Congress.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who penned the ruling, quoted Monsod in explaining that the party-list election was not limited to a particular sector.

‘Marginalized’ should not be equated with being ‘poor’

 ELECTION experts support the ruling of the Supreme Court that party-list groups do not need to represent marginalized sectors, and that the term marginalized should not be equated with being poor.

Louie Guia, executive director of the Legal Network for Truthful Elections, said the new ruling is more faithful to the intent of the Constitution that the party-list system is for proportional and not sectoral representation.

“This new ruling is more in line with the 1987 Constitution. If the intent of the Constitution was for the party-list system to be sectoral representation, it should have said so. Instead, the Constitution says the party-list system is for proportional representation,” Guia said.

“The Supreme Court decision, in fact, strengthens the party-list system and it is more faithful to the intent of the 1987 Constitution,” he added.

Election lawyer George Garcia, for his part, said the new ruling is “a welcome development.”

However, Garcia said the party-list law, or Republic Act 9741, “remains problematic” and must be amended or revised.

“Because the law is so vague, it became subject to several interpretations. The Commission on Elections, for one, made a wrong interpretation, and the Supreme Court had no choice but to follow the law and the Constitution,” he said.

“One can say the ruling was a ‘band-aid’ solution, and a surgical and permanent solution by amending or revising the law is in order,” Garcia added.

Earlier, retired Supreme Court Justice and well-known constitutionalist Vicente Mendoza said militant party-list groups have nothing to complain about the ruling since they already enjoyed a nine-year period where party-list seats were reserved exclusively for them.

“They were given three terms or nine years where half of the party-list seats had been reserved exclusively for them. That three terms already ended, and the intention of the Constitution is that it will be opened up after that nine years,” Mendoza said.

Senator to seek fine-tuning of party-list law

THE chairman of the Senate Committee on Electoral Reforms and People’s Participation said on Monday that he will work to reconcile opposing views on the party-list system if given a chance to serve in the 16th Congress.

Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III made the statement in response to the Supreme Court ruling that allows the participation of groups not representing marginalized and unrepresented sectors in party-list elections.

“With all due respect to the Supreme Court justices, I believe they have unnecessarily deprived the marginalized and underrepresented sectors from having a voice in the legislature,” he said.

Pimentel said the “spirit and letter of the party-list law is to give the poor sections of Philippine society the chance to take part in law-making, but the Supreme Court ruling practically closes the door for them to do so.”

“I believe that the party-list system was intended by the framers of the 1987 Constitution as a social justice tool, to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and give the latter the opportunity to craft laws that would benefit them,” he said.

Pimentel feared that the Court ruling would allow rich and influential groups to dominate proceedings in Congress.

He plans to consult with party-list groups and use their inputs to fine-tune and amend the party-list law.                         

The new party-list decision - Bernas

INQUIRER - Sounding Board By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.

If I approached the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the party-list system by way merely of a mechanical exercise in statutory construction, I might conclude that the Court has stripped the party-list system of its soul. The party-list system is not merely a restructuring of the membership of the House of Representatives. It is a peaceful revolutionary measure that introduces social justice into the structure of the House. The constitutional framers intended social justice to be the soul of the system and the latest decision has preserved that soul, although giving it a reading slightly differently from the way the earlier Ang Bagong Bayani decision read it.

The Court’s new decision begins by saying that the party-list system has three component parts: (1) national organizations, (2) regional organizations and (3) sectoral organizations consisting of “labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law.” This enumeration is lifted out of the text of the Constitution.

When the framers were deliberating on the Constitution, they saw the generally marginalized condition of the third component of the system.  But the framers also saw that the economic sectors were not the only groups suffering marginalization and underrepresentation. They also saw some national and regional parties suffering this disadvantage. Hence what they created was “a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.” But since the original inspiration for the party-list system was the economically disadvantaged sectors, the national and regional parties, when included in the system, must, under the rule of  eiusdem  generis, also have the disadvantage of being “marginalized and underrepresented”—but not necessarily in the sense of being economically disadvantaged.

In the language of the ponencia itself, “The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that they cannot expect to win in legislative district elections but they can garner, in nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes that winning candidates can garner in legislative district elections. The party-list system will be the entry point to membership in the House of Representatives for both these non-traditional parties that could not compete in legislative district elections.”

I do not know if we are only playing with words here, but I find this citation from the ponencia to be a good inclusive definition of the phrase “marginalized and underrepresented.”

But whence did the quality of being “marginalized and underrepresented” come from when nowhere does the phrase appear in the text of the Constitution? It comes from the general concept of social justice under Article II of the Constitution. The current accepted meaning of social justice in jurisprudence is that those who have less in life, either economically or politically, should be given more in law. That is what the party-list system tries to do.

The  ponencia, however, also notes that, while Republic Act No. 7941 mentions “marginalized and underrepresented” in its Declaration of Policy, the body of the law itself does not explicitly require that party-list participants must all be marginalized and underrepresented. But, to my mind, that is because making such an explicit requirement would be a superfluity considering that the party-list system was conceived precisely for the benefit of the marginalized and underrepresented.

The ponencia also says that the phrase marginalized and underrepresented should refer only to those that by nature are economically marginalized. I take this to mean that the requirement of marginalization, understood in the economic sense, remains applicable to the economic sectors. But it does not mean that national and regional parties that are not economically marginalized may not participate even if they are also otherwise marginalized, for example, ideologically. That would be true if the Constitution limited social justice, the soul of the party-list system, to economic social justice, as the 1973 Constitution did. But the 1987 Constitution has expanded the meaning of social justice to include political justice. It can cover not just the economically marginalized but also the politically or ideologically marginalized. In the ponencia’s own language, “The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that they cannot expect to win in legislative district elections.”

When reports came out about the latest Supreme Court decision on the party-list system, the immediate concern of some was that it had stripped the party-list system of its social justice soul. What caused the concern were reports that being “marginalized and underrepresented” was no longer a requirement for participation in the party-list system. Partly true and partly untrue. What I understand from the Supreme Court decision in its entirety is that economic marginalization remains a requirement for the economic sectors because that is the source of their weakness, but not necessarily for the national and regional parties. For these latter parties, what is sufficient is political or ideological marginalization, even if the ponencia prefers to limit the word  marginalization. In this sense, the new decision is a partial departure from the decision in Ang Bagong Bayani. Thus, social justice as the soul of the system remains intact.

More need be said, but I have run out of space.

Naturalization: Native-born aliens mandated to renew ACR I-cards

Dear PAO,
My father is Chinese but he was born here in the Philippines. He has an ACR I-card he has not renewed for almost 20 years. He has not been paying his annual report as well. He was forced to retire from work and he has no funds to answer for his financial obligations. I am concerned with his status and I do not want to compromise him and have him deported.

Is deportation even possible? Would you also know what the requirements are in processing the renewal of his ACR I-card as well as the charges for such application? Who is the proper person to talk to without compromising his situation? I am also thinking of applying Philippine citizenship for him but I am afraid it might be costly.
Diana

Dear Diana,
You failed to mention in your letter the visa type which your father is holding. However, from the tenor of your letter and based on your statement that he was born here in the Philippines, we would assume that your father is a native–born visa holder.

While native-born visa holders are allowed to permanently reside in the Philippines, they are subject to certain conditions and obligations. One of which is personally reporting before the Bureau of Immigration (B.I.) every first sixty days of each calendar year. This is pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 562, otherwise known as the “Alien Registration Act of 1950.” As provided therein, every alien subject to the provisions thereof must report in person to the B.I., if residing in the City of Manila, within the first sixty days of every calendar year. For those residing in the provinces, they may report to the respective B.I. satellite offices. For aliens who are below fourteen (14) years of age or sixty-five (65) years old and above, their parents, legal guardians or authorized representatives may make the report on their behalf. The Bureau of Immigration imposes an annual report fee of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) and a legal research fee of Ten Pesos (10.00).

Registered aliens, such as native-borns, are likewise mandated to have valid ACR I-cards. An ACR I-card is a microchip-based identification card which is valid only for a given period. Failure to renew the same after its expiration may constitute a violation of pertinent Immigration rules and regulations.

If your father desires to renew his ACR I-card, he must submit to the Alien Registration Division of the Bureau of Immigration a duly-accomplished application form, his original ACR I-card, NSO authenticated copy of his birth certificate with its official receipt, certified true copy of his alien registration certificate and native-born certificate of registration or immigrant certificate of residency, travel records, certificate of residency from the barangay captain which has jurisdiction over his barangay, and such other documents which may be required by the Bureau.

Please be advised that any alien who fails to comply with the annual report, who fails to pay the annual report fee, and who fails to update his ACR I-card will be meted with administrative fines and penalties, and further runs the risk of deportation.

Should your father wish to apply for administrative naturalization, he must possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications mentioned under Republic Act No. 9139, otherwise known as the Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000. But he must consider his financial capacity before filing the petition because the naturalization fee amounts to One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) payable as follows: Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon the approval of the petition and Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon the taking of the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines (Section 9, id).

source:  Manila Times' Column by Atty. Persida Acosta