Wednesday, March 18, 2015

TEACHING BAD (Yes, a Teacher Can Be Held Liable For Humiliating A Student)

By Siesta-friendly

When teachers are the bullies, it is not bullying, it is ABUSE …
and should not be tolerated!

Recently, a high school senior committed suicide after being allegedly “bullied” by his teacher.

Nothing can match the heartbreak knowing that someone has hurt a child.  The devastation is unspeakable when the hurt child loses his life as a result. 

After reading insensitive and condemnatory online comments against the student and his family for considering filing charges against his teacher, we have to say that “condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance” [unknown origin].  But we digress.

Based on Merriam-Webster online, “bully” is defined as -

Bully    :  [noun] one habitually cruel to others who are weaker
              :[verb] to frighten, hurt, or threaten (a smaller or weaker person)
            : [verb] to cause (someone) to do something by making threats or insults or by using
            force

Thus, a teacher who humiliates, insults, threatens, or hurts a student is a bully; not to mention someone who is acting in abuse of his/her authority.

then we have a COMMON GROUND to establish a LEARNING RELATIONSHIP.
- Dale Knepper

It is distressing that despite the 25th anniversary this year of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), those in society who are given the custody and care of children are still lacking much in awareness, sensitivity and concern that, as the CRC’s Preamble states, children are “entitled to special care and assistance”, should be raised in an “atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding”, and, “by reason of [their] physical and mental immaturity, [need] special safeguards and care”.

And we are not exactly lacking in laws, rules and regulations made especially for the welfare of children and specifically applicable to teachers (and schools) regarding their roles towards their students: the Constitution, the Family Code, the Civil Code, the Anti-Bullying Act, and DepEd Order No. 40 s. 2012.

that others can see their way out of the dark.

 1987 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution specifically provides, under Section 3 (2) of Article XIV (EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS), that all educational institutions shall “foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, … strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline“.

Bullying, as specifically addressed in the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, includes causing emotional damage and distress.


Anti-Bullying Act of 2013


“materially and substantially disrupting the education process or the orderly operation of a school; such as, but not limited to, the following:

xxx

a.      Any act that causes damage to a victim’s psyche and/or emotional well-being;
b.      Any slanderous statement or accusation that causes the victim undue emotional distress like directing foul language or profanity at the target, name-calling, tormenting and commenting negatively on victim’s looks, clothes and body; and

xxx”

Complaints of bullying and other acts shall be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DepEd or the private school and shall not be brought for amicable settlement before the Barangay, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations. Complaints for acts covered by other laws shall be referred to the appropriate authorities. (Section 10.A)

While defining child abuse to include psychological abuse and emotional maltreatment, DepEd Order No. 40 s. 2012 also considers causing mental or emotional suffering as violence committed on a child.


DepEd Child Protection Policy


Under Sec. 3.I, “[C]hild abuse refers to the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes any of the following:

1)      psychological or physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
2)      any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;

xxx”

In addition, Section 3.L states that “[v]iolence against children committed in schools refers to a single act or a series of acts committed by school administrators, academic and non-academic personnel against a child, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or other abuses including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
xxx

3.      Psychological violence refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the child, such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, deduction or threat of deduction from grade or merit as a form of punishment, and repeated verbal abuse.
4.      Other acts of violence of a physical, sexual or psychological nature that are prejudicial to the best interest of the child.“

We note that Sec. 3.P sets the following guidelines for educators -

“Positive and Non-Violent Discipline of Children - is a way of thinking and a holistic, constructive and pro-active approach to teaching that helps children develop appropriate thinking and behavior in the short and long-term and fosters self-discipline.  It is based on the fundamental principle that children are full human beings with basic human rights.  Positive discipline begins with setting the long-term goals or impacts that teachers want to have on their students’ adult lives, and using everyday situations and challenges as opportunities to teach life-long skills and values to students

While Sec. 8 emphasizes the “Duties and Responsibilities of School Personnel” as follows:

“Article 218 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides the following responsibilities of school administrators, teachers, academic and non- academic and other personnel:

  1. Exercise special parental authority and responsibility over the child while under their supervision, instruction and custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.
Articles 220 and 233 of the Family Code of the Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 603, and other related laws enumerated the following duties and responsibilities of the abovementioned persons and personnel over the children under their supervision, instruction and custody:
  1. Keep them in their company and support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example;
  2. Give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding;
  3. Enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their physical and mental health at all times;
  4. Furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals;
  5. Represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
  6. Inculcate the value of respect and obedience;
  7. Practice positive and non-violent discipline, as may be required under the circumstances; provided, that in no case shall corporal punishment be inflicted upon them;
  8. Perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon them, as substitute parents or guardians; and
  9. School personnel shall also strictly comply with the school’s child protection policy.“
Finally, under Section 20, “[a] complaint for child abuse, violence, exploitation or discrimination in a private school shall be filed with the School Head/Chief Executive Officer and shall be acted upon pursuant to the school’s rules of procedures on administrative cases. The penalty shall be that which is provided by the rules of the school, subject to the requirements of due process. The administrative case shall be without prejudice to any civil or criminal case that may be filed.” [emphasis supplied]

The best part of teaching is that it matters.
The hardest part of teaching is that every moment matters, every day.

– Todd Whitaker

Family Code

The Ant-Bullying Act and DepEd Order No. 40 s. 2012 cited above are specifically applicable to primary and secondary school students, regardless of age.

The following Family Code (E.O. 209) provisions on Parental Authority apply to unemancipated minors –

“Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the respect to their unemancipated children on wards the following rights and duties:
(1)   To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means;
(2)   To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding;
(3)   To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;
(4)   To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals;
(5)   To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
(6)   To demand from them respect and obedience;
(7)   To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and
(8)   To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians. (316a)”

Those exercising parental authority include teachers pursuant to Art. 218 and 233 –

“Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a)

xxx

Art. 233. The person exercising substitute parental authority shall have the same authority over the person of the child as the parents.
In no case shall the school administrator, teacher of individual engaged in child care exercising special parental authority inflict corporal punishment upon the child. (n)”
the power to lift someone from the depths of darkness,
or rip them to shreds.
- Kate Walton

Civil Code

But even without legal provisions focused solely on the welfare of students and minors, our laws recognize that there are certain acts, though not deemed criminal, are actionable nonetheless because they have caused damage.  Some of these are acts are called quasi-delicts and are covered by the Civil Code -

“Article 2176.  Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.  Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”


Children have distinct needs and rights; and because of their age and immaturity, children need special protection.  We have the laws to protect children and their human rights.  We need to make sure everyone in society – especially those with parental authority over children – knows and observes them and are appropriately punished for breaking them.  We adults should know better and need to step up.





NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

WHAT IS A CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT FOR? (Respecting the rules under the ceasefire agreement would have prevented the deadly misencounter at Mamasapano)

By Siesta-friendly

Despite the reported Philippine National Police – Special Action Forces’ killing of South East Asia’s most wanted terrorist Zulkifli bin Hir (aka Marwan) on January 25, 2015, the words the Fallen 44 are those that will be etched in our collective consciousness.

On January 30, 2015, in his eulogy during the memorial services for their fallen comrades, PNP-SAF officer-in-charge Chief Supt. Noli TaliƱo asked “Is it worth it? One international terrorist, equivalent to 44 SAF troopers?”

Of course, stated that way, it is.  Marwan, after all, is one of the world’s most wanted terrorists –  a suspected bombmaker for the Jemaah Islamiyah group responsible for the 2002 bombings in Bali which killed 202 people   The FBI has a $5M bounty on his head.   

And Marwan’s killing likely prevented the death of many more innocents.  But were the risks worth it?  By ignoring the mechanisms - agreed upon by the GPH and the MILF - regarding the pursuit and apprehension of criminals, the SAF left the MILF unaware that the dozens of heavily armed SAF men entering their area were not on a warpath while placing innocent civilians in the middle of a possible crossfire.

Oplan Exodus’ cost was thus way beyond the Fallen 44.   News reports indicate that apart from the Fallen 44, there were 12 injured SAF, 4 civilians who died including a 8-year old girl, 3 civilians injured and 6,000 who fled to evacuation centers. The MILF, on the other hand, lost 18 of their men with 14 injured.  All these, on top of the peace process which the operation put on the brink of collapse.

Precious peace


Such was Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) chairman Abul Khayr Alonto’s succinct reminder of the state of affairs between the GPH and the MILF - in a Senate hearing on the constitutionality of the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law a week after the "misencounter".

And because of this war, there is an existing ceasefire agreement - along with operational guidelines - precisely to stop the decades-long hostilities and mounting casualties and pursue the peace process. The historical animosity between the GPH and MILF are reflected in the guidelines’ list of prohibited hostile acts that even certain acts - not necessarily hostile - have been deemed provocative and declared prohibited too.

Pursuant to the ceasefire agreement, mechanics were agreed upon detailing how criminal elements - including high profile targets - were to be pursued and apprehended.  In all instances, the pursuit and apprehension are supposed to be done with close coordination between GPH and MILF authorities.

The ceasefire agreement has existed since 1997.  All agreements relevant to the ceasefire are public documents and can even be easily accessed on the website of the Office of the Presidential Advisor on the Peace Process.  So no one can feign ignorance.  Then, why pursue a police operation as if these agreements didn't exist? Why would any member of either party deem itself exempt from the scope of these agreements?

The Agreement For General Cessation of Hostilities and the Implementing Operational Guidelines of the Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities

On July 18, 1997, the loss and displacement of thousands of lives finally led  the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MILF) to enter into the Agreement For General Cessation of Hostilities  On November 14, 1997, the Implementing Operational Guidelines of the Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities were then signed.

Why did the masterminds of Oplan Exodus ignore the ceasefire agreement meant precisely to  stop the violent, deadly clashes  between muslim rebels and government forces?

Did they not read and understand the Implementing Operational Guidelines which enumerated prohibited hostile acts including the following:

"a.   Terroristic acts such as kidnapping, hijacking, piracy, sabotage, arson, bombings, grenade throwing, robberies, liquidations/assassinations, unjustified arrest, torture, unreasonable search and seizure, summary execution, as well as burning of houses, places of worship and educational institutions, destruction of properties, and abuse of civilians.

b.      Aggressive action such as attacks, raids, ambuscades, landminings, and offensive military actions such as shelling, reconnoitering, and unjustified massing of troops.” (Article I) [emphasis supplied]

xxx

Did they forget that the Guidelines listed prohibited provocative acts including the following:

xxx

"c.    Massive deployment and/or movement of GRP and MILF forces which are not normal administrative functions and activities.”

xxx

e.      Other acts that endanger the safety and security of the people and their properties; and/or that which contribute to the deterioration of peace and order, such as blatant display of firearms. (Article I) [emphasis supplied]


Did they just decide that Guidelines Ground Rules Article III did not matter:

"1.   The GRP and MILF shall desist from committing any prohibited hostile and provocative acts, as described in these Implementing Guidelines and Ground Rules.  (Article III)  [emphasis supplied]

xxx”

And how can they neglect Article II of the Guidelines which says:

“Actions Exempted from Cessation of Hostilities Police and military actions and administrative/logistic activities shall continue to be undertaken by the GRP throughout Mindanao and the entire country. In the pursuit thereof, confrontational situations between the GRP and the MILF forces shall be avoided by prior coordination with the latter...” [emphasis supplied]

Yes, there are allegations of excessive use of force, confiscation of SAF arms and personal effects, and coddling of terrorists, by the MILF.   Pursuant to the Guidelines, those concerns - like the pursuit and apprehension of criminal elements - are for the Coordinating Committees on Cessation of Hostilities to handle .


Pursuing Criminal Elements under the Ceasefire Agreement

Apart from the ceasefire agreement and operational guidelines, there were mechanisms in place to handle the pursuit and apprehension of criminal elements.  On May 6, 2002, the “Joint Communique Between Government of the Philippines and the Moro National liberation Front” was signed for the purpose of the “isolation and interdiction of all criminal syndicates and kidnap-for-ransom groups”.  On February 15, 2012, the “Implementing Guidelines On The Joint Communique of 6 May 2002”    was signed.

Under the Joint Communique, “[t]he MILF and the GRP shall form an Ad Hoc Joint Action Group [AHJAG] against criminal elements in order to pursue and apprehend such criminal elements.  The Group will operate in tandem with their respective Coordinating Committees on the Cessation of Hostilities (CCCH).”” (Paragraph 4)

The Implementing Guidelines defined Criminal Syndicates/Kidnap-For-Ransom Groups as “a group or aggrupation of persons who engage in criminal activities as defined by the AHJAG” and Criminal Elements as “within the purview of AHJAG, refers to a leader/member of a criminal syndicate of kidnap for ransom group as distinguished from common criminals.” (Definition of Terms)

The Mechanics of Implementation are laid down in Paragraph VI of the Implementing Guidelines:

"1.   The AFP/PNP shall convey to the MILF through the AHJAG the Order of Battle … containing the names and identities of the criminal elements …
2.      The MILF through the AHJAG shall validate and subsequently act on the information as contained in the Order of Battle.
3.      The MILF further shall provide information, as available, on other suspected criminal elements in their areas/communities that come to their attention.
4.      The AHJAG shall coordinate with the AFP/PNP and MILF/BIAF [Bangsamoro Islamic Armed Force] to effect the apprehension and arrest of the suspected criminal elements.
5.      To avoid unnecessary armed confrontations, the displacement of communities and damage to properties, the Tactical Operations Center (TOC) or Tactical Command Post (TCP) of the government operating forces and with the MILF forces in the area shall work and coordinate closely with the AHJAG and vide versa.
6.      Except for operations against high priority targets, a list of which shall be provided by the GPH panel to the MILF panel, the AHJAG shall inform the GPH and the MILF CCCH at least 24 hours prior to the conduct of the AFP/PNP operations in order to allow sufficient time for the evacuation of civilians and to avoid armed confrontation between the GPH and MILF forces.

xxx”

Why were these procedures ignored?

Assuming the SAF mistakenly believed that their operations against a high priority target like Marwan did not need the minimum 24-hour notice required under paragraph 6 above, paragraphs 1-5  still required coordination with the AHJAG.  In fact, since it is the AHJAG that is required to give the 24-hour notice, it is the AHJAG that is exempt from giving the 24-hour notice - not the GPH, AFP nor PNP.


“It was a command decision and we had been working on it for a long time and as a commander, I decided that it was best not to inform other units in the police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines about the plan of initiating the actual assault. It was a judgment call and I take full responsibility,” NapeƱas, the SAF commander, told this reporter in an interview on Tuesday evening.

Seriously, what were all these agreements for?


In his eulogy, PNP-SAF OIC Chief Supt. TaliƱo immediately answered his questions “Is it worth it? One international terrorist, equivalent to 44 SAF troopers?” with “I am sure, if you will ask them, it is worth it.”  But who can say that the deaths of the 4 civilians including that of 8-year old Sampulna Panangulon were worth it?  

There is a comprehensive peace process ongoing – a very public, multi-national, decades-long peace process.  Whoever are responsible for Oplan Exodus have betrayed and sacrificed all and sundry - the Fallen 44 SAF, the Fallen 18 MILF, the injured, the innocents who died and their loved ones, the 6,000 evacuees, the peace process, the country and our international partners for peace. 

Within the same day of this tragedy, the doubters, warmongers, peace hindrances came out.  No one said the path to peace is easy.  But we can easily recall history – lost lives, displaced people, hindered progress and development – to remind us the alternative to peace and why we should honor the ceasefire agreement and resume the cessation of hostilities. 

"During the hearing, Alonto criticized those who are calling on the government to abandon the peace negotiations and to restart military operations against the MILF. He pointed out that at least 200,000 people have died in the decades-long conflict in Mindanao, with 2 million rendered homeless and 3 million scattered as refugees.



NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST


Tuesday, January 27, 2015

RETURN FIRE (Some possibilities to address indiscriminate firing)

By Siesta-friendly

Idiots’ Discharge

Idiots do not learn, nor do they care, from other people’s experiences.  This is why idiots are also known as nitwits (with wits the size of lice), peabrained (with brains the size of peas), pinheads (with brains the size of pins), airheads (with not even a brain in their heads), and so on.

Idiots with guns are some of the worst because their mental capacity cannot make the connection between their act of indiscriminately firing dangerous weapons and the harm their acts can bring about.  As evidenced by the continued deaths and injuries from stray bullets (especially by young children) – new year after new year - stray bullets do not make idiots stop and think and refrain from indiscriminately firing guns to celebrate the coming year.

Unfortunately, there is no cure for stupidity.  

But while we cannot cure, it doesn’t mean we cannot prevent.  Or at least try.

Presently, indiscriminate firing is punished under Art. 155 of the Revised Penal Code as follows:

Art. 155. Alarms and scandals. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1.      Any person who within any town or public place, shall discharge any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosives calculated to cause alarm or danger;  
xxx

Imposing a fine of P200 or the penalty of arresto menor (i.e., imprisonment for 1 day to 30 days) for discharging a firearm does seem to indicate any firm desire to stop harmful behavior. 

Ready, Aim, File!

There is a pending bill (House Bill No. 6819) – even citing the 2013 new year’s eve still unsolved death of 7-year old Stephanie Nicole Ella from a stray bullet  – that seeks to increase the penalty from arresto menor to prision correccional in its maximum period (i.e., 4 years to 6 years); and if the perpetrator is a member of the PNP or AFP or a law enforcement officer and the discharge is not in the performance of official duties, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period (i.e., 17 years to 20 years).  The penalties, of course, will change if the facts constitute a crime with a higher imposable penalty.  And if the indiscriminate firing causes death, the penalty is reclusion perpetua (i.e., 30 years).

We only wonder why this is not yet law. 

Rats are most welcome

Apart from pushing for this bill to become law, we can also choose to exercise our civic (if not humanitarian) duties by reporting any indiscriminate firing we witness and by providing any helpful information to prevent indiscriminate firing or in order to nab the perpetrators. 

Gun registration amnesty?

Perhaps we may be able to put more guns in the registry - we assume there is a computerized one - by allowing a one-time free registration for all delinquent gun owners.  Then, spent bullets may be easier to trace.

SOCO and NBI may need CSI upgrade

Maybe our law enforcers can also upgrade their techniques and equipment to be able to check all possible angles and trajectories bullets take to be able to find the source. 

By themselves, guns don’t kill, bullets don’t kill, humans don’t kill.  Combined, they can be lethal.  So we have to do all we can to make humans handle lethal weapons responsibly.  And when they don’t, we must do all we can to make them responsible for the consequences of their acts. 

Were it only possible that all bullets fired so carelessly be returned to sender.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Friday, November 21, 2014

SENIOR’S MOMENT: Mandatory Philhealth Coverage For All Senior Citizens

By Siesta-friendly

This November 2014, the government enacted Republic Act No. 10645 (“An Act Providing For The Mandatory Philhealth Coverage For All Senior Citizens, Amending For The Purpose Republic Act No. 7432, As Amended By Republic Act No. 9994, Otherwise Known As The “Expanded Senior Citizens Act Of 2010″)  thereby providing Philhealth coverage to all our senior citizens.

Prior to the amendment, only indigent seniors were automatically covered by Philhealth.  Now, all seniors are automatically covered.

The new law amends Section 5, sub-paragraph h(2) of RA 7432, as amended by RA 9994, and now reads as follows:

“SEC. 5. Government Assistance. – The government shall provide the following:

x x x

(h) Additional Government Assistance

(1)   xxx

(2) Mandatory PhilHealth Coverage

“All senior citizens shall be covered by the national health insurance program of PhilHealth. Funds necessary to ensure the enrollment of all senior citizens not currently covered by any existing category shall be sourced from the National Health Insurance Fund of PhilHealth from proceeds of Republic Act No. 10351, in accordance with the pertinent laws and regulations.

(3) x x x.”

That’s the only amendment of the new law and so the rest of the rules apply, meaning, the same identification requirements apply. Under Art. 5.5 Rule III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9994,   our seniors need only present any of the following proofs of identification:

“5.5 IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT – refers to any document or proof of being a senior citizen which may be used for the availment of benefits and privileges under the Act and its Rules. It shall be any of the following:

a)      Senior Citizens’ Identification Card issued by the Office of Senior Citizens Affairs (OSCA) in the city or municipality where the elderly resides;
b)      The Philippine passport of the elderly person or senior citizen concerned; and
c)      Other valid documents that establish the senior citizen or elderly person as a citizen of the Republic and at least sixty (60) years of age, which shall include but not be limited to the following government-issued identification documents indicating an elderly’s birthdate or age: driver’s license, voters ID, SSS/GSIS ID, PRC card, postal ID.”

The aged do matter and this is the time when they need coverage the most.

An early Happy Christmas to all Seniors! 
 

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

WHEN CAR MAKERS GIVE YOU LEMONS, YOU’D WISH YOU COULD MAKE LEMONADE: The “Philippine Lemon Law”

By Obiter07

First, we have to mention that prior to this new law, car buyers turned to the Civil Code provisions on warranties against hidden defects (Arts 1561-1581).  Under the Civil Code, car buyers have “6 months, from the delivery of the thing sold” (Art. 1571) to “elect between withdrawing from the contract and demanding a proportionate reduction of the price, with damages in either case” (Art 1567).

Now here comes Republic Act No. 10642, “AN ACT STRENGTHENING CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE PURCHASE OF BRAND NEW MOTOR VEHICLES” has been signed into law and is set to take effect on August 7, 2014 (The Philippine Star, July 20, 2013, p. B-2). This new “Philippine Lemon Law” has laudable objectives as it seeks to “to promote full protection to the rights of consumers in the sale of motor vehicles against business and trade practices which are deceptive, unfair or otherwise inimical to consumers and the public interest.”  In addition, it recognizes that “a motor vehicle is a major consumer purchase or investment and the rights of consumers should be clearly defined, including the means for redress for violations thereof (Section 2)”.

But a law truly aimed to protect consumers from defective products should at the onset already provide the alternative remedies of repair, replacement or refund.  This law does not and actually gives car manufacturers, distributors, dealers or retailers plenty of ways to delay a refund or replacement and even opportunities to earn from the defective product.

Period of Protection:
1 year or 20 kilometers

It should be noted that only brand-new vehicles are covered and provided that a “nonconformity” (non-repairable defect, to the layman) occurs within 12 months from delivery or up to 20,000 kilometers, whichever comes first”:

“SEC. 4. Coverage. – This Act shall cover brand new motor vehicles purchased in the Philippines reported by a consumer to be in nonconformity with the vehicle’s manufacturer or distributor’s standards or specifications within twelve (12) months from the date of original delivery to the consumer, or up to twenty thousand (20,000) kilometers of operation after such delivery, whichever comes first. xxx”

A nonconformity “refers to any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value or safety of a brand new motor vehicle which prevents it from conforming to the manufacturer’s or distributor’s standards or specifications, which cannot be repaired (Section 3 [k]).”  
Unfortunately and inexplicably, only four-wheel passenger vehicles are included. Purchasers of motorcycles, scooters and heavy equipment will just have to seek relief elsewhere. Under the Act -
“Motor vehicle refers to any self-propelled, four (4) wheeled road vehicle designed to carry passengers including, but not limited to, sedans, coupes, station wagons, convertibles, pick-ups, vans, sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and Asian Utility Vehicles (AUVs) but excluding motorcycles, delivery trucks, dump trucks, buses, road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers and heavy equipment such as, but not limited to, bulldozers, payloaders, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, cranes, and vehicles which run only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating (Section 3 [j]);”

There can be no claim if the “nonconformity” arises from: “(a) Noncompliance by the consumer of the obligations under the warranty; (b) Modifications not authorized by the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer; (c) Abuse or neglect of the brand new motor vehicle; and (d) Damage to the vehicle due to accident or force majeure (Section 4).”  A purchaser would be well-advised not to dress up or modify his vehicle lest this void his possible claims under this law. Or he should get written confirmation that it is authorized.

The law may have been initially drafted to protect consumers but we wonder how much influence car manufacturers, distributors, dealers or retailers had in the final result.

3 plus 1 strikes

It could be supposed that for a brand new car, 1 or 2 repair attempts should be enough to correct the problem.  However, 4 attempts is what the law allows.  And having a replacement assembly so early seems doubtful.  And from when will the 12 months for the new assembly be reckoned from? 

What benefits does the law give to the consumer? After four strikes, the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer may be out. There are only four (4) repair attempts allowed.  However, these should be performed by the same entity.  A buyer should be wary of any attempt for the repairs to be passed on to another party.  

“SEC. 5. Repair Attempts. – At any time within the Lemon Law rights period, and after at least four (4) separate repair attempts by the same manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer for the same complaint, and the nonconformity issue remains unresolved, the consumer may invoke his or her rights under this Act. (Emphasis supplied)

The repair may include replacement of parts components, or assemblies.”

Requirement for Notice

            If the 4 repairs prove unavailing, then the consumer should send a written notice, the form of which must be based on what is prescribed in the warranty booklet. Why was discretion both for the manner and form of the notice given to the car sellers in this case?  It is worrying that unduly burdensome requirements may be imposed when a simple e-mail or facsimile should suffice.

“SEC. 6. Notice of Availment of Lemon Law Rights. – Before availing of any remedy under this Act and subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 5 hereof, the consumer shall, in writing, notify the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer of the unresolved complaint, and the consumer’s intention to invoke his or her rights under this Act within the Lemon Law rights period.

The warranty booklet issued by the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer shall clearly state the manner and form of such notice to constitute a valid and legal notice to the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer. It shall also clearly state the responsibility of the consumer under this section.” (Emphasis supplied)

3 plus 1 plus another one!

But wait, after 4 repair opportunities and the buyer having sent the notice, the seller is given one final opportunity to remedy the matter!   Considering how long some repairs might take, a buyer may just about consume almost a year just waiting for his car to be fixed.  And if the car doesn’t run or does not run well or safely, how is he is supposed to bring it in for repairs? If it’s towed, who pays for it?

“SEC. 7. Availment of Lemon Law Rights. – Subsequent to filing the notice of availment referred to in the preceding section, the consumer shall bring the vehicle to the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer from where the vehicle was purchased for a final attempt to address the complaint of the consumer to his or her satisfaction.

It shall be the duty of the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer, upon receipt of the motor vehicle and the notice of nonconformity required under Section 6 hereof, to attend to the complaints of the consumer including, as may be necessary, making the repairs and undertaking such actions to make the vehicle conform to the standards or specifications of the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer for such vehicle.”

One better return the vehicle within 30 days after this “final attempt” or else it is deemed successful and everything can start all over again! Section 7 states that: “if the vehicle is not returned for repair, based on the same complaint, within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of notice of release of the motor vehicle to the consumer following this repair attempt within the Lemon Law rights period, the repair is deemed successful: Provided, finally, That, in the event that the nonconformity issue still exists or persists after the thirty (30)-day period but still within the Lemon Law rights period, the consumer may be allowed to avail of the same remedies under Sections 5 and 6 hereof.”  Woe to you if a different problem manifests itself as only the “same complaint” is covered.

Filing the Complaint

If the conformity persists, the consumer may then file a complaint before the DTI.   But wait, wasn’t this venue open to the consumer even before this law was passed?  Anyway, under the Lemom Law –

“In case the nonconformity issue remains unresolved despite the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer’s efforts to repair the vehicle, pursuant to the consumer’s availment of his or her Lemon Law rights, the consumer may file a complaint before the DTI as provided for under this Act: xxx (Section 7)”.

Transportation Allowance

The new law does give the consumer a transportation allowance during the time of non-usage and while availing of his Lemon law rights.  We trust that the allowance is due as early as when the first repair was made necessary.

“To compensate for the non-usage of the vehicle while under repair and during the period of availment of the Lemon Law rights, the consumer shall be provided a reasonable daily transportation allowance, an amount which covers the transportation of the consumer from his or her residence to his or her regular workplace or destination and vice versa, equivalent to air-conditioned taxi fare, as evidenced by official receipt, or in such amount to be agreed upon by the parties, or a service vehicle at the option of the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer. Any disagreement on this matter shall be resolved by the DTI.
Nothing herein shall be construed to limit or impair the rights and remedies of a consumer under any other law (Section 7).”

While useful, it does not take into account the added hassle of finding a taxi during rush hour.

Dispute Resolution

The consumer will then go before the DTI for mediation with the costs thereof to be borne jointly by the parties (Section 8).  Why not let the winning party recover his losses, costs and expenses?  If this is unsuccessful, then the dispute will be resolved by either arbitration, if voluntarily agreed upon by both parties or an adjudication before the DTI which can be commenced by either party.

SEC. 8. Remedies for Dispute Resolution. – The DTI shall exercise exclusive and original jurisdiction over disputes arising from the provisions of this Act. Thus, car buyers can no longer go straight to court but have to go through dispute resolution first before the DTI. And remember, DTI dispute resolution only happens after 5 repair attempts.  All disputes arising from the provisions of this Act shall be settled by the DTI in accordance with the following dispute resolution mechanisms:

(a) Mediation

(1) The principles of negotiation, conciliation and mediation towards amicable settlement between the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer and the consumer shall be strictly observed;
(2) In the course of its dispute resolution efforts, the DTI shall endeavor to independently establish the validity of the consumer’s outstanding complaint. The DTI shall likewise retain the services of other government agencies or qualified independent private entities in the ascertainment of the validity of the consumer’s complaint. Any cost incurred in establishing the validity of the consumer’s complaint shall be borne jointly by the consumer and the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer;
(3) The complaint shall be deemed valid if it is independently established that the motor vehicle does not conform to the standards or specifications set by the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer (shouldn’t this determination already settle the matter in the consumer’s favor?)  ;
(4) Upon failure of the negotiation or mediation between the manufacturer, distributor, authorized, dealer or retailer and the consumer, the parties shall execute a certificate attesting to such failure; and
(5) At any time during the dispute resolution period, the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer and the consumer shall be encouraged to settle amicably. All disputes that have been submitted for mediation shall be settled not later than ten (10) working days from the date of filing of the complaint with the DTI.

(b) Arbitration

In the event there is a failure to settle the complaint during the mediation proceedings, both parties may voluntarily decide to undertake arbitration proceedings.

(c) Adjudication

(1) In the event that both parties do not undertake arbitration proceedings, at least one of the parties may commence adjudication proceedings, administered by the DTI. The DTI shall rely on the qualified independent findings as to conformity to standards and specifications established herein. In no case shall adjudication proceedings exceed twenty (20) working days;

(2) In case a finding of nonconformity is arrived at, the DTI shall rule in favor of the consumer and direct the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer to grant either of the following remedies to the consumer:
(i) Replace the motor vehicle with a similar or comparable motor vehicle in terms of specifications and values, subject to availability; or
(ii) Accept the return of the motor vehicle and pay the consumer the purchase price plus the collateral charges.

In case the consumer decides to purchase another vehicle with a higher value and specifications from the same manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer, the consumer shall pay the difference in cost.

In both cases of replacement and repurchase, the reasonable allowance for use, as defined in this Act, shall be deducted in determining the value of the nonconforming motor vehicle (Amazing. Charging the consumer for using a defective product which he was not allowed to have replaced or returned and be refunded for in the first place); and

(3) In case a nonconformity of the motor vehicle is not found by the DTI (which nonconformity was already determined upon filing of the complaint), it shall rule in favor of the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer, and direct the consumer to reimburse the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer the costs incurred by the latter in validating the consumer’s complaints.”
The term “reasonable allowance for use” shall be computed at “twenty percent (20%) per annum deduction from the purchase price, or the product of the distance traveled in kilometers and the purchase price divided by one hundred thousand (100,000) kilometers, whichever is lower (Section 9).”   Why does have one to pay 20% for a vehicle which failed to run correctly in the first place and still doesn’t do so after 5 repair attempts? 
Collateral charges are “fees paid’ to the Land Transportation Office (LTO) for the registration of a brand new motor vehicle and other incidental expenses such as, but not limited to, the cost of insurance pertaining to the vehicle, chattel mortgage fees and interest expenses if applicable (Section 3 [b]).” [Italics supplied]

The decision can be appealed to the DTI Secretary on grounds of: “(i) Grave abuse of discretion; (ii) The decision/order is in excess of jurisdiction or authority of the Adjudication Officer; and (iii) The decision/order is not supported by the evidence or there is serious error in the findings of facts.”  This is to be decided within thirty (30) days. If unsatisfied with the decision, a party may only file a case for certiorari with the Court of Appeals under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. (Section 8)

The vehicle in question can still be resold subject to a proper disclosure on certain facts on pain of being held liable for damages in the amount of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) “without prejudice to any civil or criminal liability they and/or the responsible officer may incur under existing laws (Section 11).”  After this disclosure, the “lemon law rights” seem to disappear although it is unclear what “section” is being referred to:

“SEC. 10. Disclosure on Resale. – Should the returned motor vehicle be made available for resale, the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer shall, prior to sale or transfer, disclose in writing to the next purchaser of the same vehicle the following information:
(a) The motor vehicle was returned to the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer;
(b) The nature of the nonconformity which caused the return; and
(c) The condition of the motor vehicle at the time of the transfer to the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer.
The responsibility of the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer under this section shall cease upon the sale of the affected motor vehicle to the first purchaser.” (Emphasis supplied)

The Implementing Rules are still to be issued but, offhand, the law does not seem to add that much in terms of consumer protection except to clarify the possible entitlement to transportation allowance.  Worse, a consumer can be in the hole for the “reasonable allowance for use” of a clearly defective vehicle. What does one do when the legislators give you a law that appears to be a lemon?  Unfortunately, there is no law against that yet and our only remedy is to replace them (the law and maybe the lawmaker).

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST