HIGHEST OF HIGH, LOWEST OF LOW: 24 hour ride beginning with CNN hero Efren Peñaflorida and ending with the massacre of 40 people in Maguindanao

By Siesta-friendly

One event bringing pride, the other infamy. Yet both reveal the failure of government to govern.

There would be no need for Efren Peñaflorida’s pushcart education if the economy were stable enough to open up job opportunities providing the ordinary person a decent income, or if funds for education went to the intended beneficiaries, thus preventing millions of aimless street children.

Lawlessness, especially in Maguindanao, would not be widespread if the government even just flexed its muscles in putting people in jail - and letting them stay there - regardless of money, power or influence. Just being strict on firearms could have made a difference.

The Philippines does not want for laws and policies on most anything especially education, and even on political dynasties and private armies. The Philippine Constitution alone provides enough guidelines.

Constitutional Provisions on Education

The word education is probably one of the most-used words in the 1987 Constitution making it probably the most abandoned ideal.

There is even a whole article devoted to education, science and technology, arts, culture and sports beginning with -

“[t]he State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” (Article XIV, Section 1)

Right. Tell that to Efren Peñaflorida’s and his students.

The section on education in fact ends with the provision stating that

“The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education”.

So why are national funds used to pay for debt more than anything else?

With Constitutional support and protection for education, why is there a need – and much acclaim – for Efren Peñaflorida’s pushcart education for street kids?

Constitutional Provisions on Political Dynasties and Private Armies

It is of common knowledge that the Maguindanao massacre was a product of warring political clans. Reports speak of 100 armed men stopping, kidnapping and eventually murdering about 40 people including Vice Mayor Mangudadatu’s clan and lawyers plus about a dozen journalists on a multiple vehicle convoy on their way to the filing of Vice Mayor Mangudadatu’s certificate of candidacy for governor of Maguindanao.

The Mangudadatu’s political rivals are the Ampatuans who control much of Maguindanao. The Ampatuan patriarch is 3-term governor of Maguindanao and his son was poised to replace him in the coming elections. It is the son whom Vice Mayor Mangudadatu was set to challenge.

Political clans such as the Ampatuans and Mangudadatus are allowed to proliferate by the national government because they deliver votes – legitimate or otherwise. Candidates opposing President Arroyo and her ticket have famously gotten 0 votes in many Maguindanao towns during elections.

Yet, the Constitution’s Article II (Declaration Of Principles And State Policies Principles) memorably states that

“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” (Section 26).

It is more telling that no law implementing this provision has ever been passed (maybe even drafted).

President Arroyo’s political debt for the support of political clans (like the Ampatuans’) is reflected on the impunity given to such clans regardless of their actions, mostly questionably if not downright criminal.

Even as Section 24 of Article XVIII of the Constitution provides that:

“Private armies and other armed groups not recognized by duly constituted authority shall be dismantled. All paramilitary forces including Civilian Home Defense Forces not consistent with the citizen armed force established in this Constitution, shall be dissolved or, where appropriate, converted into the regular force”,

she issued Executive Order 546 (dated July 14, 2006) providing that:

“In the exercise of its responsibility, subject to the concurrence of the appropriate Local Chief Executive through the Local Peace and Order Council, the PNP is hereby authorized to deputize the barangay tanods as force multipliers in the implementation of the peace and order plan in the area.” (Section 2)

How can you prevent local leaders from amassing private armies when you authorize them to do so at the same time?

We can’t wait for Arroyo to leave but she sure makes it hard for us endure our wait. This time, the blood of innocents is on her hands.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Pinoy ka na ba? (Acquiring and choosing Philippine citizenship)

By Siesta-friendly

Newly announced candidate for Vice President, sometime-actor-and-sometime-politician Edu Manzano, was born in California, U.S.A. Although the Philippine Constitution requires that the Vice President, like the President, must be a natural-born citizen, there is no issue re Manzano’s citizenship qualification.

Why is that? Because Manzano had Philippine parents when he was born. And under Philippine law, that is enough to make him a natural-born Philippine citizen regardless of his birthplace.

Although under U.S. law he was also a natural-born U.S. citizen, the Supreme Court held that dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification in running for elective office. It being beyond one’s control to determine one’s citizenship at birth.[1] Hmmm, birth and control, now that’s one major issue. But, let’s not digress.

Jus Soli vs. Jus Sanguinis

So why was Manzano deemed a natural-born Philippine and U.S. citizen in the first place?

It’s like this. The Philippine Constitution follows the principle of jus sanguinis (“right of blood”) or blood relationship in determining citizenship. Manzano’s parents being Philippine citizens at the time of his birth, he became a Philippine citizen by virtue of his immediate ancestry.

Thus, the current citizenship rules are as follows:

“Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;

(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;

(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and

(4) Those who are naturalized in the accordance with law.

Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship...”[2]

On the other hand, the U.S. follows the principle of jus soli (“right of soil”) or place of birth in determining citizenship. Manzano having been born on U.S. soil, he was a natural-born U.S. citizen as well. And so the exodus to the U.S. of expecting mothers continues in observance of that one policy.

Filing the certificate of candidacy as a way of electing Philippine citizenship[3]

Dual citizenship notwithstanding, Manzano was deemed to have eventually elected Philippine citizenship when he ran for Vice Mayor since his certificate of candidacy contained the following statements made under oath:

"6. I AM A FILIPINO CITIZEN (STATE IF "NATURAL-BORN" OR "NATURALIZED") NATURAL-BORN

xxx xxx xxx

10. I AM A REGISTERED VOTER OF PRECINCT NO. 747-A, BARANGAY SAN LORENZO, CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, PROVINCE OF NCR.

11. I AM NOT A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF, OR IMMIGRANT TO, A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

12. I AM ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED. I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILL MAINTAIN TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE THERETO; THAT I WILL OBEY THE LAWS, LEGAL ORDERS AND DECREES PROMULGATED BY THE DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND THAT I IMPOSE THIS OBLIGATION UPON MYSELF VOLUNTARILY, WITHOUT MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS STATED HEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT OF MY OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.”

The Supreme Court thus held that Manzano’s “filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.”

Said Court summarized that –

“by declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, [Manzano], as far as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen.”

Of course, with Edu Manzano’s candidacy, qualifications beyond citizenship would provide a more compelling discussion but that’s for another day or maybe another writer.

By the way, in case you’re interested in regaining your lost Philippine citizenship, check out our post Balik-Pinoy (How to re-acquire your Philippine citizenship.

---

[1] Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999

[2] Article IV, 1987 Constitution

[3] Ibid.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Hopenhagen

In 30 days, or on December 7 (and until December 18, 2009), leaders from 192 countries will gather at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to determine the fate of our planet. Let's turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen.

Hopenhagen is a movement, a moment and a chance at a new beginning. The hope that we can create a global community that will lead our leaders into making the right decisions. The hope that by solving our environmental crisis, we can solve our economic crisis at the same time. Hopenhagen is change - and that change will be powered by all of us.

Help lead the leaders by visiting hopenhagen.org today. Sign the petition. Become a citizen of Hopenhagen. Fuel the movement. More important, pass on the story of Hopenhagen to your friends and family. Encourage everyone you can to get involved and sign the petition. Because the more of us who do, the more our leaders will recognize the world is serious about change.

Let's turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

INN AND OUT: Liabilities of Hotels and Inns

By Obiter07

One checks in to hotels, on vacation or on a business trips or on some other less than legal reason. How safe are you and your belongings while you are there? There have been occasions where a guest returns to a room only to have items missing. You may not be aware of it, but there are specific provisions of law governing the liabilities of hotels.

Personal Effects

Under the New Civil Code, hotels are supposed to be responsible for all personal effects brought in by their guests. However, the guest should give notice of the effects, and take the precautions that may be advised:

“ARTICLE 1998. The deposit of effects made by travellers in hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as depositaries[1], provided that notice was given to them, or to their employees, of the effects brought by the guests and that, on the part of the latter, they take the precautions which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects. (1783)”

There is no need for an actual “deposit” as the responsibility covers all effects brought into the hotel [Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, Vol. VI, (1987), p. 604 citing De los Santos vs. Tan Khey].

Apart from your personal effects, vehicles, articles and even animals are supposed to be kept safe. The lone ranger’s horse, if he’s a hotel guest, should be safe as well too. The law seems dated and looks back to a bygone era of horse-drawn carriages and buggies (or perhaps merely lifted from US law):

“ARTICLE 1999. The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and articles which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel. (n)”

The hotel’s responsibility extends to losses caused by its personnel and even by third parties but stops at force majeure.

“ARTICLE 2000. The responsibility referred to in the two preceding articles shall include the loss of, or injury to the personal property of the guests caused by the servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as strangers; but not that which may proceed from any force majeure. The fact that travellers are constrained to rely on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or inns shall be considered in determining the degree of care required of him. (1784a)”

However, there is a distinction between a robber who uses force or who surreptitiously commits robbery. The former is to be deemed force majeure and the hotel is freed from liability.

“ARTICLE 2001. The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force. (n)”

But if the guest himself, his servants or his own visitors or the character of thing causes the loss, then the hotel has no liability.

“ARTICLE 2002. The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensation if the loss is due to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or visitors, or if the loss arises from the character of the things brought into the hotel. (n)”

And if some clever hotel owner posts notices that it is not responsible for losses or incorporates this in the agreement for your stay, this will not be effective.

“ARTICLE 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in Articles 1998 to 2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void. (n)”

But if you don’t pay your hotel bill, they can keep your things as security.

“ARTICLE 2004. The hotel-keeper has a right to retain the things brought into the hotel by the guest, as a security for credits on account of lodging, and supplies usually furnished to hotel guests. (n)”

It may be hard to imagine, but the necessity of having carpets at a hotel was the subject of an actual case. And the court ruled that the hotel can wax and polish floors without having to install rugs or carpets for the safety of guests while this is ongoing. It took notice that these are “luxurious innovations” that at the time were rarely, if ever used in Philippine houses and buildings [Ibid. p. 603-603 citing Evans vs. Manila Hotel Co., et al., 10 CAR (2s) 878.]. This may not hold true now.

Personal Safety and Security

With respect to your personal safety, what could be the rule? While the law covers effects, the person of the guest is not given similar express protection.

In a more recent case, a hotel has been made to answer for the harm that befell its guest. Court of Appeals held the hotel is responsible for the murder of a guest in his hotel room, on the finding that “it would not have occurred if the hotel had provided adequate security." The hotel was made liable to pay P52M in damages to the heirs of the deceased “who was found dead after being bound, gagged and then robbed in his hotel room xxx.”[2]

There is no hotel room, no matter how luxurious, where one can lose everything or is to die for.

---

[1] ARTICLE 1972. The depositary is obliged to keep the thing safely and to return it, when required, to the depositor, or to his heirs and successors, or to the person who may have been designated in the contract. His responsibility, with regard to the safekeeping and the loss of the thing, shall be governed by the provisions of Title I of this Book.

If the deposit is gratuitous, this fact shall be taken into account in determining the degree of care that the depositary must observe. (1766a)

[2] Luxury Philippine hotel must pay over guest's murder: court By Agence France-Presse, Updated: 10/27/2009, http://news.ph.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3671553

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST