For two days, I have been watching the Senate Hearing Blue Ribbon Committee for its expose on the activities of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO). This was stemmed from a media exposition of the donations of SUVs to the Philippine bishops by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, allegedly in violation of the PCSO Charter. I could not help but make the following observations about the Senators conducting the investigation. This is where one should think of who should be at the Senate, whether such person deserve to be voted or not.
1) Senator Miriam Santiago -- I have been previously working 8:00 am to 5:00 pm in an office day job which prevented me from watching live telecasts of Senate Hearings. I am left with watching news and comments from journalists of what really transpired during the Senate Hearings ever since. But now that I have been at home considering my other life as a housewife, I was given the honor of watching the Honorable Senator Santiago give her legal opinion about the PCSO fiasco.
Initially, Senator Santiago was tasked to give a legal opinion on the validity of the donations to the bishops by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. She initially gave an introduction that only the Supreme Court can properly interpret the law, including the PCSO charter. Such interpretation should not be left to any government agency, including the Commission on Audit. She also cited the case of Aglipay vs. Ruiz (64 Phil. 201) that can be applicable to the validity of the donations given to the bishops by the PCSO. Her opinions before the Blue Ribbon Committee was exhaustive and well researched..... she had definitely done her homework and served the Filipino people very well. Although the applause after her presentation was initially commented as inappropriate, she definitely deserve the applause. And as I post this article, I will remember this day so that I can remember who are the hard working Senators that deserve to be voted.
2) Senator Jinggoy Estrada -- His questions were usually off key as they do not relate to the case at hand. He asks questions that could probably be left unanswered as it can no longer be recalled. There was an instance that he had to ask a question to a bishop that would emphasize the good deed that his father (former President Joseph Estrada) has personally made to the bishop being questioned. Can you consider that line of questioning as appropriate?
Nevertheless, I saw how Sen. Estrada conducted the examination and they were all intended to paint a good impression on what was achieved by the Estrada Administration. Is that being professional at all?
3) Senator Juan Ponce Enrile --- I am curious if Senator Enrile has been doing his homework when he initially prepared for the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing. All I can conclude is that he wanted to grill Manoling Morato all throughout the hearing. It was a good thing that Mr. Morato was honorable and such a gentlemen in answering all the sensitive questions of Senator Enrile. My point is that Senator Enrile was the former legal counsel of a party in interest in a lease agreement that previously handled a case that involved PCSO; that despite that conflict of interest, Sen. Enrile had the temerity to ask Mr. Morato about the lease agreement to paint a picture that Mr. Morato is "misleading the Committee". So I ask this question: Is Senator Enrile committing a conflict of interest when investigating the PCSO?
4) Senator Franklin Drilon -- Sen. Drilon's questions were all related to the case at bar. His demeanor during the Senate Hearing would make me doubt my previous choices. He was not off key; he was doing his job. His questions are related and not personal in nature. He wanted to ask questions on the Intelligence Fund being allocated to government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), national governments and local government units. To me, the line of questioning were all related as this involved release of funds to provide SUVs to bishops through the Intelligence Fund of the PCSO.
With the above being said, I am reconsidering my choices on who deserves to sit at the Senate. I will keep this post preserved.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Davao Mayor-Sarah Duterte's feat of punching a sheriff
As I watched Davao Mayor Sarah Duterte's act of punching a Sheriff in front of TV cameras, I cannot help but analyze what could be her possible defenses.
In my personal experience as a lawyer and as a practitioner, I have had a negative experience in dealing with sheriffs, especially in execution of judgments. But that being said, let us deal and analyze the possible defense of the Honorable Mayor Sarah Duterte.
One has to look whether or not the element of "mens rea" is present in the case. By its concept, "mens rea" means criminal intent. I cannot help but observe that before Mayor Duterte punched the Sheriff, she has been talking and pleading to the officers explaining that she wanted to defer the execution of the judgment for two measly hours so that bloodshed among her affected constituents can be minimized. All throughout the conversation, all she had been voicing out (in Davao dialect) is that she wanted to minimize chaos and bloodshed..... an indicia that she had been thinking about the interest of her people. Initially, she had no intention of causing harm or committing a malicious act at all.
Were it not for the insistence that it was the Sheriff's order for the immediate execution that probably made Mayor Duterte desperate to save her people; and so Mayor Duterte had no choice during that time but to punch the Sheriff so that her voice can be heard and to insist on her pleads.
It is my analysis that the element of "mens rea" at that initial moment of pleading to stop the execution should be considered and taken into account. There was no criminal intention to commit an act, therefore, there is no criminal liability.
Mayor Duterte is "a person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty," therefore, her actions should be considered a justifying circumstance under Article 11 No. 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
Reference:
Ombudsman moves to investigate Sarah Duterte
Philippines Female Mayor Punches Out Sheriff
In my personal experience as a lawyer and as a practitioner, I have had a negative experience in dealing with sheriffs, especially in execution of judgments. But that being said, let us deal and analyze the possible defense of the Honorable Mayor Sarah Duterte.
One has to look whether or not the element of "mens rea" is present in the case. By its concept, "mens rea" means criminal intent. I cannot help but observe that before Mayor Duterte punched the Sheriff, she has been talking and pleading to the officers explaining that she wanted to defer the execution of the judgment for two measly hours so that bloodshed among her affected constituents can be minimized. All throughout the conversation, all she had been voicing out (in Davao dialect) is that she wanted to minimize chaos and bloodshed..... an indicia that she had been thinking about the interest of her people. Initially, she had no intention of causing harm or committing a malicious act at all.
Were it not for the insistence that it was the Sheriff's order for the immediate execution that probably made Mayor Duterte desperate to save her people; and so Mayor Duterte had no choice during that time but to punch the Sheriff so that her voice can be heard and to insist on her pleads.
It is my analysis that the element of "mens rea" at that initial moment of pleading to stop the execution should be considered and taken into account. There was no criminal intention to commit an act, therefore, there is no criminal liability.
Mayor Duterte is "a person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty," therefore, her actions should be considered a justifying circumstance under Article 11 No. 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
Reference:
Ombudsman moves to investigate Sarah Duterte
Philippines Female Mayor Punches Out Sheriff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)