J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2015-03: BISHOP BRODERICK S. PABILLO, DD, PABLO R. MANALASTAS, JR., PHD, MARIA CORAZON AKOL, CONCEPCION B. REGALADO, HECTOR A. BARRIOS, LEO Y. QUERUBIN, AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, FELIX P. MUGA, II, PHD, ATTY. GREGORIO T. FABROS, EVITA L. JIMENEZ, AND JAIME DL CARO, PHD, PETITIONERS, – VERSUS – COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, EN BANC, REPRESENTED BY ACTING CHAIRPERSON CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, AND SMARTMATIC-TIM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY SMARTMATIC ASIA-PACIFIC PRESIDENT CESAR FLORES, RESPONDENTS. (G.R. NO. 216098, G.R. NO. 216562, 21 APR 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) BRIEF TITLE: BISHOP PABILLO ET AL VS. COMELEC.

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Accordingly, COMELEC Resolution No. 9922 and the Extended Warranty Contract (Program 1) are hereby declared NULL and VOID. This Decision is immediately executory in view of the time considerations attendant herein.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“There are no qualms about the task of having the PCOS machines repaired and refurbished. However, there are serious and unignorable legal flaws about how the COMELEC intends to pursue this undertaking. Bluntly, the COMELEC has failed to justify its reasons for directly contracting with Smartmatic-TIM: it had not shown that any of the conditions under Section 50, Article XVI of the GPRA exists; its claims of impracticality were not   supported by independently verified and competent data; and lastly, its perceived “warranty extension” is, in reality, just a circumvention of the procurement law. For all these counts, the conclusion thus reached is that the COMELEC had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.210 As a result, its Resolution No. 9922 and the Extended Warranty Contract (Program 1) should be stricken down, and necessarily, all amounts paid to Smartmatic-TIM pursuant to the said contract, if any, being public funds sourced from taxpayers’ money, should be returned to the government in accordance with the procedures contained in existing rules and regulations. Note that the disposition of these cases does not prohibit the COMELEC from resorting to direct contracting anew or other alternative method of procurement with any service contractor, subject to compliance with the conditions provided in the GPRA and all the pertinent rules and procedures.

While this Court recognizes that the COMELEC should be given sufficient leeway in exercising its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all election laws, it demands equal recognition that it is the Court’s constitutional duty to see to it that all governmental actions are legally permissible. In so doing, the Court decides not only with pragmatism in mind, but pragmatism within the fair bounds of law. Such is the case in examining the COMELEC’s apprehensions under the lens of the procurement law, with heightened considerations of public accountability and transparency put to the fore. With due deference to the COMELEC, it should be made to understand that this Court does not stand to thwart the conduct of automated elections; but only steps in to preserve its sanctity. After all, in a democracy, nothing is more vital than an unimpaired vote.”

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

 SCD-2015-0003-MAR-2015-COMELEC

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 2015-0001: SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS- ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENT; JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P. BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, MINORS MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B. TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR PARENTS RICHARD AND MARITES TARAN, MINORS CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, AND CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER DONNA C. RAMOS, MINORS JAZMIN SYLLITA T. VILA AND ANTONIO T. CRUZ IV, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS- MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA, MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C. NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D. V ALBUENA, JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ, ERNESTO F. RIVERA,1 DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA, JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNA-PANGAN, ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. AND ERICK IAN 0. NIEVA, RESPONDENTS; CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, INTERVENORS (10 MARCH 2015, G.R. NO. 187836, G.R. NO. 187916, G.R. NOS. 187836 & 187916, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECT/S: IMPORT OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; THE VERY NATURE OF DEPOTS HAS NO PLACE IN A DENSELY POPULATED AREA; THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO ORDINANCES IS MORE APPARENT THAN REAL. THE TWO ORDINANCES CAN BE RECONCILED. ORDINANCE NO. 8027 IS APPLICABLE TO THE AREA PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED THEREIN WHEREAS ORDINANCE NO. 8119 IS APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE CITY OF MANILA, (BRIEF TITLE: SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. LIM)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves to:

1. DENY Shell’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 25 November 2014;

2. DENY the prayers in the Motion for Clarification of Chevron that: a) the wordings “the very nature of the depots where millions of liter[s] of highly flammable and highly volatile products x x x [have] no place in a densely populated area” be removed from the Decision dated 25 November 2014; and b) the submission of an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule, including the period for relocation, be deferred until after the Motion is resolved with finality;

3. CLARIFY that the relocation and transfer necessarily include the complete removal of the facilities from the Pandacan terminals and should be made part of the required comprehensive plan and relocation schedule; and

4. REMIND Petron that the Court did not, by noting its “Manifestation” dated 30 November 2010, consent to consider January 2016 as a separate deadline for compliance with our Decision, which, to repeat, · includes the removal of facilities after cessation of operations. The time lines prescribed in the assailed Decision shall be observed to the letter.

In anticipation of further attempts to delay the enforcement of this Court’s Decision dated 25 November 2014, the parties to these cases are hereby REMINDED of the pronouncements in Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco23 on the import of the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Thus:

The denial of a motion for reconsideration signifies that the grounds relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, as not being of sufficient weight to warrant a modification of the judgment or final order. It means not only that the grounds relied upon are lacking in merit but also that any other, not so raised, is deemed waived and may no longer be set up in a subsequent motion or application to overturn the judgment; and this is true, whatever may be the title given to such motion or application, whether it be “second motion for reconsideration” or “motion for clarification” or “plea for due process” or “prayer for a second look,” or “motion to defer, or set aside, entry of judgment,” or x xx, etc .. 24 (Emphasis supplied).

This Resolution is final. Under pain of contempt, no further pleadings, motions or papers in the guise of the above-enumerated submissions shall, thus, be entertained in these cases.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE IMPORT OF THE DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION?

The denial of a motion for reconsideration signifies that the grounds relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, as not being of sufficient weight to warrant a modification of the judgment or final order. It means not only that the grounds relied upon are lacking in merit but also that any other, not so raised, is deemed waived and may no longer be set up in a subsequent motion or application to overturn the judgment; and this is true, whatever may be the title given to such motion or application, whether it be “second motion for reconsideration” or “motion for clarification” or “plea for due process” or “prayer for a second look,” or “motion to defer, or set aside, entry of judgment,” or x xx, etc ..

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

 SCD-2015-0002-MAR-2015-SJS

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”.

HOUSE BILL NO. 4994: THE PROPOSED BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW.

BASIC NOTES

ON THE PREAMBLE:

WHO ARE  SPEAKING IN THIS PREAMBLE?

THE BANGSAMORO PEOPLE AND OTHER INHABITANTS OF THE BANGSAMORO. THE OPENING STATEMENT READS: “WE, THE BANGSAMORO PEOPLE AND OTHER INHABITANTS OF THE BANSAMORO”.

WHAT COULD BE THE LOGICAL IMPRESSION UPON READING THE CLAUSE “WE, THE BANGSAMORO PEOPLE AND OTHER INHABITANTS OF THE BANGSAMORO”?

IT IS AS IF THIS LAW IS A CONSTITUTION OF THE BANGSAMORO PEOPLE JUST PRESENTED TO CONGRESS FOR APPROVAL.

WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS IMPRESSION?

IF SO, LOGICALLY THE LAW MUST BE APPROVED FIRST BY THE BANGSAMORO PEOPLE AND OTHER INHABITANTS OF THE BANGSAMORO. OTHERWISE THEY CANNOT HONESLTY SAY “WE, THE BANGSAMORO PEOPLE. . . .”

SECOND, CONGRESS CANNOT IMPOSE THEIR TERMS ON THIS DOCUMENT OTHERWISE, IT IS NO LONGER A DOCUMENT BY THE BANGSAMORO PEOPLE AND THE OTHER INHABITANTS OF THE BANGSAMORO PEOPLE. IT WILL APPEAR THAT THE ROLE OF CONGRESS WILL JUST BE EITHER TO APPROVE THIS DOCUMENT OR TO DISAPPROVE IT.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO AVOID THIS IMPRESSION?

THE BASIC LAW SHOULD READ LIKE OTHER LAWS. IT SHOULD START WITH “WHEREAS CLAUSES”. FIRST WHEREAS CLAUSE MIGHT READ:

“WHEREAS, the Bangsamoro people aspires to establish an enduring peace on the basis of justice in their communities and a justly balanced society. . . . .”

TO BE CONTINTUED.

TO READ HOUSE BILL NO. 4994, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

NOTES-2015-0001-JAN-2015-BANGSAMORO
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”.