Tag Archives: Philippines

Sentencing Law

The subject on sentencing law is not really important to the general public, but it’s included in this Forum for reference and discussion. Foreign jurisdictions have a more extensive online record and discussion on sentencing law (for instance, the sentencing project and the sentencing law and policy. Let’s do that here, still with the Plain Language Initiative in mind.

A sentence, in law, is the penalty imposed by the court in a criminal case against a person, known as the “accused”, who is found guilty of committing the crime charged. There is no law known as sentencing law in the Philippines. For our purposes, however, it refers to the collection of laws governing the determination and imposition of the proper penalty in a criminal case. This collection includes:

Continue reading

The Office of the Ombudsman, Mandated as Protector of the People

Today, 2 October 2006, the Ombudsman absolved all respondents involved in the Mega Pacific controversy of all administrative and criminal liabilities. To recall, the Supreme Court threatened to cite the Ombudsman in contempt for its delay in determining the criminal liability, if any, of the public officials (COMELEC) involved in the bungled automation of the 2004 elections (Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines [ITF] vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139 [2004]). The Ombudsman, in the person of the Honorable Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, is now the subject of scathing public criticisms.

Continue reading

Internet/Online Legal Research

The explosive growth of the internet has long caught up with legal research. Back in law school, we had the Lex Libris and PhilJuris, which are electronic compilations of laws and jurisprudence. These convenient research tools, however, didn’t come cheap and must be installed in your computer.

This time, you could do legal research online or through the internet (as an aside, the Supreme Court issued the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which is applicable whenever electronic documents and electronic data messages are offered or used in evidence). Here are some tips:

Continue reading

Philippine Constitution (1987): Full Text

Preamble
Article I. National Territory
Article II. Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Article III. Bill of Rights
Article IV. Citizenship
Article V. Suffrage
Article VI. The Legislative Department
Article VII.The Executive Department
Article VIII.The Judicial Department
Article IX. Constitutional Commissions
Article X. Local Government
Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers
Article XII. National Economy and Patrimony
Article XIII.Social Justice and Human Rights
Article XIV. Education, Science & Technology, Arts, Culture & Sports
Article XV.The Family
Article XVI. General Provisions
Article XVII. Amendments and Revisions
Article XVIII. Transitory Provisions
Continue reading

In Memory of the Death Penalty in the Philippines

As reported in BBC News, the United States Supreme Court stopped the execution of a death convict, pending a determination if the chemicals to be used in the execution would cause pain (based on the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment). The challenge, however, is not based on the argument that the death penalty per se is unconstitutional.

Continue reading

Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (The Case of Executive Order No. 464)

The non-appearance of executive officials in the recent Senate inquiry resurrected the controversy surrounding Executive Order No. 464. With this, let’s revisit the ruling in Senate of the Philippines vs. Eduardo R. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, wherein a unanimous Supreme Court (en banc) struck down Sections 2 (b) and 3 of E.O. 464 as unconstitutional, but upheld the validity of Sections 1 and 2(a).

Continue reading

People’s Initiative: No Sufficient Enabling Law to Amend the Constitution

The recent effort to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative met the same fate as the previous ones. As early as 1997, in the case of Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997), the Supreme Court already decided, although with vigorous dissenting opinions, that the law intended to provide the mechanism for people’s initiative is not sufficient. Let’s take a look at that case.

Continue reading