Latest Entries »

TRIVIA 0047: ABOUT CUBA

TRIVIA 0047: ABOUT CUBA

 

Cuba, Castro, Philippines

 

By: Michael L. Tan@inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 01:09 AM November 30, 2016

 

To understand Cuba’s history and Fidel Castro is to better understand our own history, and especially what our future might be. Both countries share a history of Spanish and American colonialism, and many other historical circumstances.  Both countries have been crucial in American geopolitics: Cuba just 150 kilometers away from Florida, the Philippines a gateway to Asia.

 

Spanish colonialism

 

Cuba’s occupation by Spain started in 1492, earlier than the Philippines,’ but converging with the latter in the 19th century. Spain lost many of its Latin American territories during the 19th century, with Cuba and the Philippines remaining as their most prized possessions. When unrest broke out toward the end of the century, Spain responded with full force. It was much worse in Cuba, where people were herded into reconcentrados, said to be the predecessors of concentration camps. Some 200,000 to 400,000 Cubans died in these camps.

 

 

As unrest in Cuba spread, the United States, its giant Big Brother, began to worry about its economic interests on the island. (Don’t think of some tiny atoll; Cuba is about a third of the size of the Philippines, still sizeable.)

 

The United States sent in a ship, the Maine; but on Feb. 15, 1898, the ship exploded while docked in Havana’s harbor. Spain was blamed and the Spanish-American war broke out in April. Among the battles fought between Spain and the Philippines was that of Manila Bay on May 1, 1898, an almost farcicial encounter between Spain’s obsolete naval vessels and the more modern US fleet.

 

A debilitated Spain agreed to meet with the United States to hammer out a peace treaty. US President William McKinley instructed his negotiators to go for the entire Philippines, not just Mindanao, which was what Spain had intended to give up. America got its way in the Treaty of Paris, where they got Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines; it paid $20 million for our islands, never mind that Filipino revolutionaries had declared Asia’s first republic. The Philippine-American War broke out shortly after the US Senate ratified that treaty; it was a war that saw some 200,000 Filipino casualties, mostly civilians.

 

Spain agreed to Cuban independence, but the United States, through a Platt amendment to the Treaty of Paris, retained the right to intervene in Cuban affairs, particularly in finances and foreign relations. It also obtained a lease on Guantanamo Bay, where it built a naval base.

 

Cuban independence was declared in 1902, but in the decades that followed, the United States intervened repeatedly in Cuban affairs, including actual occupation of the country in 1906. The occupation was brief, but America did not have to worry about its control over Cuba, with its hold on the economy and its politicians.

 

Starting in 1934, Cuban politics was dominated by Gen. Fulgencio Batista, who was president from 1940 to 1944 and then from 1952 until 1959. Cuba actually became fairly advanced economically in the 1950s, but marred with its gross neglect of rural areas and rampant corruption. Fidel Castro, a young lawyer, launched a long rebellion that ended in victory in January 1959.

 

The United States was initially pleased with, but wary of the new government, with suspicions that Castro was a communist. As early as March 1960, US President Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan of covert action against Cuba.  Castro in turn became more openly Left, declaring himself a socialist then a communist.  (It turns out though he had been a communist as early as 1947, while in law school.)

 

This was the height of the Cold War and the United States was worried about a communist neighbor so close to its border. It went all out against Fidel Castro, imposing sanctions and financing Cuban exiles to launch a Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961. Castro in turn drifted toward the Soviet Union. In October 1962, the entire world was plunged into a Cuban missile crisis when the United States  discovered that the Soviets had been installing nuclear missiles in Cuba; the world never came so close to a nuclear war. The Soviets finally agreed to withdraw the missiles in exchange for the United States’ withdrawing similar warheads in Italy and Turkey.

 

Human rights

 

At home, from 1959 to 1966, Castro had to deal with a rebellion waged by the old regime and anticommunist forces. Some 3,200 Cubans were executed during this period, mainly politicians, police and informers from the former regime. Reports of torture and detention were to continue throughout Castro’s regime, and history will have to judge this record against the backdrop of continuing US pressure on Cuba, including several assassination attempts on Castro.

 

After the Soviet Union fell in 1991, support for Cuba came to a standstill. With the US embargo forbidding any kind of trade and assistance to the island nation, Cuba had to find ways to sustain its economy. China later came in, and in recent years, two leftist governments—in Venezuela (itself now in crisis) and Ecuador.

 

Cuba did develop into a model for health, education and social services, as well as for biotechnology, and it is classified “high” in terms of UNDP’s Human Development Index even if its economic indicators are low. (Our own health secretary visited Cuba shortly after assuming office and returned convinced that we should learn from the Cuban model, which emphasizes primary health care services at the level of communities.)

 

In 2008, Castro turned power over to his brother Raul, and as Cuba moved to more liberal policies, relations with the United States have thawed, with President Obama visiting earlier this year. There are concerns now that US president-elect Donald Trump will be less friendly to Cuba.

 

While Castro has been vilified as a dictator and a human rights violator (his death was welcomed with celebrations in Florida by Cuban exiles), the response inside Cuba has been one of massive grief and mourning for a leader known for his dedication to the nation and a simple life, and untainted with corruption despite 50 years of power. Outside of Cuba, he has been eulogized by politicians—communist and noncommunist alike—for standing up against his giant neighbor.

 

Castro has been cremated, his ashes now making a long journey across the country before interment. It should be a time for Filipinos to reflect as well the sharp similarities and contrasts between Cuba and the Philippines, such as Castro’s burial and Marcos’.

 

We should be thinking, too, of our current government and its drift away from the United States. The Cold War may have ended, but the Philippines definitely faces foreign policy challenges similar to those confronted by Cuba in the 1960s. Will Duterte be deft enough to maneuver around the superpowers?

 

mtan@inquirer.com.ph

 

CASE 2016-0081: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JEHAR REYES (G.R. No. 199271, 19 OCT 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (SUBJECT/S: GROUNDS FOR REVERSING  DRUG CONVICTION; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE VIS A VI PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS J. REYES).

 

DISPOSITIVE:


“WHEREFORE the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on June 13, 2011 by the Court  of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-H.C. No. 00792 entitled People v. Jehar Reyes; ACQUITS accused-appellant JEHAR REYES of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his immediate release from detention at the National Penitentiary, unless there are other lawful causes warranting his •continued detention.

 

The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to forthwith implement this decision, and to report his action hereon to this Court within ten ( l 0) days from receipt.

 

No pronouncement on costs of suit.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“Was the chain of custody preserved in this case?

 

It appears clear to us as a reviewing court that the chain of custody was not preserved in the manner required by the aforementioned guidelines fixed by law. . . .”

 

First of all, the confiscated items were not marked immediately after the seizure. . . .

 

Secondly, the law specifically required that the marking must  be witnessed by the accused, but there was no credible showing by the State that the accused had actually witnessed the process of marking. . . .”

 

Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain of custody concerned the absence of any representative of the media or of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and of the elected public official during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused in the area of operation. . . .”

 

And, lastly, the arresting officers did not prepare any inventory of the confiscated items, and did not take photographs of the items. . . . .”

 

The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty in favor of the arresting officers did not prevail over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused . . . .

 

The accused charged with a violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002 is always presumed innocent of the crime charged against him. This presumption of his innocence, which has been enshrined in Section 14, Article III (The Bill of Rights) of the Constitution, ensures that: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.” It underlies our system of criminal justice, and far outweighs any other presumption, particularly one that is essentially a rule of evidence. . . .

 

The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. . . .

 

Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out from thin air. . . .”


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

 

 scd-2016-0081-people-of-the-philippines-vs-jehar-reyes

 

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”.

 

 

CASE 2016-0080: ERROL RAMIREZ, JULITO APAS, RICKY ROSELO AND ESTEBAN MISSION, JR. VS. POLYSON INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WILSON S. YU (GR NO. 207898, 19 OCTOBER 2016, PERALTA, J.) (ILLEGAL STRIKE) (BRIEF TITLE: RAMIREZ ET AL VS POLYSON INDUSTRIES ET AL)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated January 23, 2013 and June 17, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 125091 are AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“The Court is not persuaded by petitioners’ contention that they are not guilty of “illegal concerted activity” as they claim that this term contemplates a “careful planning of a considerable number of participants to insure that the desired result is attained.” Nothing in the law requires that a slowdown be carefully planned and that it be participated in by a large number of workers. The essence of this kind of strike is that the workers do not quit their work but simply reduce the rate of work in order to restrict the output or delay the production of the employer. It has been held that while a cessation of work by the concerted action of a large number of employees may more easily accomplish the object of the work stoppage than if it is by one person, there is, in fact no fundamental difference in the principle involved as far as the number of persons involved is concerned, and thus, if the act is the same, and the purpose to be accomplished is the same, there is a strike, whether one or more than one have ceased to work. 35 Furthermore, it is not necessary that any fixed number of employees should quit their work in order to constitute the stoppage a strike, and the number of persons necessary depends in each case on the peculiar facts in the case and no definite rule can be laid down. 36 As discussed above, petitioners engaged in slowdown when they induced two of their co-workers to quit their scheduled overtime work and they accomplished their purpose when the slowdown resulted in the delay and restriction in the output of Polyson on June 8, 2011.

 

With respect to procedural due process, it is settled that in termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing.37 The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.38 The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. 39 In the present case, Polyson was able to establish that these requirements were sufficiently complied with.

 

As to petitioners’ liability, the second paragraph of Article 264(a) of the Labor Code provides:


x x x Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike.40

 

Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that strike, as the most preeminent economic weapon of the workers to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and capital, exert some disquieting effects not only on the relationship between labor and management, but also on the general peace and progress of society and economic well-being of the State.41 This weapon is so critical that the law imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal on union officers who irresponsibly participate in an illegal strike and union members who commit unlawful acts during a strike.42 The responsibility of the union officers, as main players in an illegal strike, is greater than that of the members as the union officers have the duty to guide their members to respect the law. 43 The policy of the State is not to tolerate actions directed at the destabilization of the social order, where the relationship between labor and management has been endangered by abuse of one party’s bargaining prerogative, to the extent of disregarding not only the direct order of the government to maintain the status quo, but the welfare of the entire workforce though they may not be involved in the dispute. 44 The grave penalty of dismissal imposed on the guilty parties is a natural consequence, considering the interest of public welfare.”

 

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

 

scd-2016-0080-errol-ramirez-et-al-vs-polyson-industries-inc-and-wilson-s-yu

 

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”.