Archive for September, 2016


CASE 2016-0061: ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION ET AL VS. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN ET AL (G.R. NO. 217872); CONCEPCION S. NOCHE ET AL VS. HON. JANETTE GARIN ET AL (G.R. NO. 221866) (24 AUGUST 2016, MENDOZA J.)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
September 16, 2016

CASE 2016-0061: ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION ET AL VS. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN ET AL (G.R. NO. 217872); CONCEPCION S. NOCHE ET AL VS. HON. JANETTE GARIN ET AL (G.R. NO. 221866) (24 AUGUST 2016, MENDOZA J.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the case docketed as G.R No. 217872 is hereby REMANDED to the Food and Drugs Administration which is hereby ordered to observe the basic requirements of due process by conducting a hearing, and allowing the petitioners to be heard, on the re-certified, procured and· administered contraceptive dnigs and devices, including lmplanon and Implanon NXT, and to determine whether they are abortifacients or non-abortifacients.

 

Pursuant to the expanded jurisdiction of this Court and its power to issue rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, the Court hereby:

 

  1. DIRECTS the Food and Drug Administration to formulate the rules of procedure in the screening, evaluation and approval of all contraceptive drugs and devices that will be used under Republic Act No. 10354. The rules of procedure shall contain the following minimum. requirements of due process: (a) publication, notice and hearing, (b) interested parties shall be allowed to intervene, (c) the standard laid down in the Constitution, as adopted under Republic Act No. 10354, as to what constitutes allowable contraceptives shall be strictly followed, that is, those which d.o not harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization, (d) in weighing the evidence, all reasonable doubts shall be resolved in favor of the protection and preservation of the right to’ life of the unborn from conception/fertilization, and (e) the other requirements of administrative due process, as summarized in Ang Tibay v. CIR, shall be complied with.

 

  1. DIRECTS the Department of Health in coordination with other concerned agencies to formulate the rules and regulations or guidelines which will govern the purchase and distribution/ dispensation of the products or supplies under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 10354 covered by Jhe certification from the Food and Drug Administration that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it will not be. used as an abortifacient subject to the following minimum due prbcess requirements: (a) publication, notice and hearing, and (b) interested parties shall be allowed to intervene. The rules and regulations or guidelines shall provide sufficient detail as to the manner py which said product and supply shall be strictly regulated in order1that they will not be used as an abortifacient and in order to sufficiently safeguard the right to life of the unborn.

 

  1. DIRECTS the Department of Health to generate the complete and correct list of the government’s reproductive health programs and services under Republic Act No. 10354 which will serve as the template for the complete and correct information standard and, hence, the duty to inform under Section 23(a)(l) of Republic Act No. 10354. The Department of Health is DIRECTED to distribute copies of this template to all health care service providers covered by Republic Act No. 10354.

 

The respondents are hereby also ordered to amend the Implementing Rules and Regulations to conform to the rulings and guidelines in G.R. No. 204819 and related cases.

 

The above foregoing directives notwithstanding, within 30 days from receipt of this disposition, the Food and Drugs Administration should commence to conduct the necessary hearing guided by the cardinal rights of the parties laid down in CIR v. Ang Tibay. 71

 

Pending the resolution of the controversy, the motion to lift the Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.

 

With respect to the contempt petition, docketed as G.R No. 221866, it is hereby DENIED for lack of concrete basis.

 

SO ORDERED.”


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0061-alliance-for-the-family-foundation

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

Comment

CASE 2016-0060: PEOPLE VS. MERCELITA ARENAS (G.R. NO. 23598, 27 JULY 2016, PERALTA J.) (SUBJECT/S: PENALTY WHEN QUANTITY OF SHABU IS NOT STATED IN THE INFORMATION; INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. ARENAS)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment

CASE 2016-0060: PEOPLE VS. MERCELITA ARENAS (G.R. NO. 23598, 27 JULY 2016, PERALTA J.) (SUBJECT/S: PENALTY WHEN QUANTITY OF SHABU IS NOT STATED IN THE INFORMATION; INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. ARENAS)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 22, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05533 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only insofar as to the penalty imposable for the crime of illegal possession so that appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

IN CRIME OF ILLEGAL  POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, HOW WILL THE PENALTY BE DETERMINED?

 

BASED ON THE QUANTITY OF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS POSSESSED.

 

IN THIS CASE THE QUANTIIY OF SHABU FOUND WAS NOT INDICATED IN THE INFORMATION. BUT THE PROSECUTION DURING TRIAL WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE QUANTITY FOUND. CAN THIS QUANTITY FOUND BE USED AS BASIS?

 

NO.

 

APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HER WOULD BE VIOLATED.

 

 IN THIS CASE  WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE RANGE OF PENALTY APPLICABLE?

 

SINCE IT WAS PROVED THAT APPELLANT WAS IN POSSESSION OF SHABU BUT THE QUANTITY WAS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE INFORMATION, THE CORRESPONDING PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED ON HER SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM PENALTY CORRESPONDING TO ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF LESS THAN FIVE GRAMS OF METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE OR SHABU WHICH IS PENALIZED WITH IMPRISONMENT OF TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO TWENTY (20) YEARS AND A FINE RANGING FROM THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300, 000. 00) TO FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).

 

UNDER THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW HOW WILL PENALTY BE IMPOSED?

 

THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY SHALL NOT FALL BELOW THE MINIMUM PERIOD SET BY THE LAW AND THE MAXIMUM PERIOD SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW;


APPLYING THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW WHAT THEN IS THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY IN THIS CASE?

 

THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY SHOULD BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0060-arenas

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “JABBULAO AND THE TOPIC”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “JABBULAO AND FORUM SHOPPING”.

 

 

Comment

TRIVIA 0043: MORO HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH TALES OF ATROCITY

Filed under: TRIVIA — Leave a comment
September 15, 2016

MORO HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH TALES OF ATROCITY 

By: Macabangkit Lanto

PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER – 15 SEPTEMBER 2016

President Duterte did not tell the whole grim truth about the massacre of the Moros by American soldiers.

According to media reports on the recent East Asia Summit in Vientiane, Laos, the President cited in his speech only the massacre of Moros in the great Battle of Bud Dajo in the early 1900s, during the American pacification campaign. Actually, there were about 1,000 proud Tausug Moros who perished in that battle, not 600, as the President narrated. And he failed to highlight the fact that, as history records it, “the attack ended on March 7, 1906, and not one Moro was standing, women and children among them.”

The President was being “diplomatic.” In fact, Moro history is replete with tales of more atrocities of gruesome magnitude, like the epic battle at Bud Bagsak, also in Sulu, where 5,000 Tausug Moros valiantly fought America’s mighty army led by then Maj. Gen. Leonard Wood. About 2,000 Moro lives were sacrificed. This revelation has rubbed salt on the wounds of the Moro psyche, and brought back memories of the gory Moro past.

When the President’s charge of violation of human rights by American soldiers was reported, I remembered the day a Moro activist, Bae Normala Lucman Pacasum (then vice governor of Lanao del Sur), visited my office at the Department of Tourism. She was asking for assistance in a restoration project of whatever remained of Kota (Fort) Padang Karbala in Bayang, Lanao del Sur.

I was then the undersecretary of tourism in charge of promotion and marketing. I had my staff do research on the significance of the Kota. I also rummaged through my dusty files, and what I discovered justified the need to immortalize the valor, gallantry and martyrdom of the Maranaw Moros. Indeed, the Kota needed to be restored, if only to inculcate in the succeeding generations of Filipinos lessons in patriotism and nationalism. I recommended the restoration project, but unfortunately, it was overtaken by events.

The American campaigners had started on the wrong foot in their pacification campaign. Their reputation—that they would subjugate the natives of their newly-acquired colony and impose their language and other ways of life—had preceded their campaign. The natives put up a violent resistance. Among the Maranaw then, the American administration was referred to as “gobierno o mga saruang a tao” (a government of the foreigners). And their campaign to teach the natives the English language was resisted because of the belief that going to school at that time was a form of apostasy and an embrace of the religion of the “Nazrani” (Christians, from Nazareth, the birthplace of Jesus).

So as history records it, on that fateful day of May 2, 1902, after negotiations with Maranaw datus failed, American soldiers mercilessly attacked the 700 Maranaw warriors (not counting the women and children who refused to leave husbands and fathers) who stood their ground at the Kota Padang Karbala, armed only with bolos, krises and spears against the rifles, pistols and grenades of the colonizers.

When the smoke of battle cleared, all 700 Moro warriors were found martyred in the tradition of the epic sieges of Fort Alamo in the United States and the fortress of Masada in Israel.

But was President Duterte correct in raising this human-rights issue? A resounding “Yes!” is heard from us Moros.

Macabangkit Lanto (amb_mac_lanto@yahoo.com), UP Law 1967, was a Fulbright fellow to New York University for his postgraduate studies. He is a former assemblyman and speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Autonomous Region 12, and a former congressman, ambassador to Egypt and Sudan, and undersecretary of tourism and of justice.

Comment