#Quo Warranto Against President

[ausetkmt]

The next two years are likely to see a test of what may turn out to be the most legally consequential recommendation—other than the suggestion of criminal charges—made by the January 6 committee in its final report. Namely, the committee’s view that

“those who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and then, on January 6th, engaged in insurrection can appropriately be disqualified and barred from holding government office…pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

While the committee addressed congressional vehicles for enforcing that constitutional provision at the federal level, there are also existing provisions and processes to do so on a state-by-state basis. Those vehicles include states’ quo warranto laws. In this essay and our accompanying survey of those laws, we outline their applicability in all 50 states and four additional jurisdictions.

We come to this topic just over two years after a violent mob, alongside organized militia groups, stormed the Capitol building, the seat of American government. They disrupted the January 6 congressional certification of presidential electoral votes with the aim to overturn the 2020 presidential election. As a result, various institutions—from the Justice Department to Congress to civil society organizations—have been holding actors of all levels of culpability to account for the assault on our democracy. Over 900 individuals have been charged by the Justice Department in connection with the attack on the Capitol. Federal prosecutors have also secured historic, back-to-back seditious conspiracy convictions against leaders of the far-right Oath Keepers militia for helping foment the insurrection. And in December, the House January 6 select committee culminated their months-long investigation and series of public hearings by issuing several criminal referrals to the Justice Department against former President Donald Trump and some of his closest associates based on their involvement in different parts of the multi-prong effort to overturn the election.

But criminal prosecution is not the only means of January 6 accountability.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment can also serve that general purpose. Section 3 provides that no person shall hold any state or federal office “who[] having previously taken an oath…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion…or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” In an initial detailed report published at the Project on Government Oversight, we examined the different avenues for modern-day enforcement of Section 3 with an eye toward holding accountable those who participated in the January 6 attack and in the events that precipitated it. As we discussed in that earlier analysis and an accompanying essay at Just Security, one of the main enforcement mechanisms for a Section 3 disqualification is a quo warranto lawsuit. (Quo warranto is Latin for “by what warrant.”) Through this type of lawsuit, an individual’s right to hold public office can be challenged.

Our purpose is to provide a comprehensive current survey of the nation’s quo warranto laws, and to build on the recent successful use of the doctrine. Despite that fact, the doctrine has been recently used to litigate against a public official who participated in the attack on the Capitol and resulted in his being removed from office. In that landmark ruling last fall, a New Mexico judge removed a state county commissioner from office under Section 3 for his participation in the January 6 attack. Since then, the House select committee in its final report has issued a recommendation that Section 3 disqualification actions be brought against other public officials who engaged in insurrection.

As a continuation of our previous analysis and the work of the House committee, we surveyed the quo warranto procedures in 55 different jurisdictions—the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and nationally, including some limited instances of federal common law. We did so to map the potential for future uses of quo warranto lawsuits to bar public officials from office. Our analysis of these procedures demonstrates that quo warranto lawsuits can be used by a variety of stakeholders—from private parties such as individual citizens to public entities such as state attorneys general, county district attorneys, municipal or county governments, and even U.S. attorneys. What’s more, it shows that quo warranto lawsuits are an accountability tool that is not only widely accessible but also practically meaningful. Such actions hold the potential to disqualify sitting public officials who have violated their oath by engaging in insurrectionist activity. In that way, quo warranto lawsuits can serve as a powerful means of furthering legal accountability against some of the highest-ranking individuals who participated or aided in the assault on January 6.

Our analysis interprets the wide array of state and territorial laws that establish the procedural framework for quo warranto actions by categorizing them according to how they empower different parties, both in bringing actions and in managing them. In some jurisdictions, private parties can supply the government with information to serve as the basis of the government’s quo warranto complaint against a public official. These private parties are often referred to as “relators.” In Texas, for example, prosecuting attorneys may file a motion “at the request of an individual relator.” While such an action is not technically a private action, some jurisdictions also allow relators to manage a case pursuant to the government’s oversight. For instance, Missouri law empowers relators to control a case after obtaining leave from the prosecuting attorney.

In other jurisdictions, private parties can themselves file quo warranto lawsuits against public officials without governmental permission. Some jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, allow parties to do so in their own name. In others like North Carolina, however, the government must be the named party. In the latter scenario, the private party, not the government, manages the case; and, indeed, the government possesses no management authority. For example, should the prosecuting attorney decline to bring a quo warranto case in New Mexico, the relator is afforded full control of the suit despite the government being the named party. We identify both these types of quo warranto procedures as private actions, since both enable private parties to bring the suit.

Some jurisdictions have similarly codified which public authorities may initiate a quo warranto lawsuit. Unlike the regulations that empower private relators to issue broader complaints, many regions specify which authorities can litigate against particular officeholders. For example, in Arkansas, prosecuting attorneys may bring quo warranto suits against county officials, while the state’s attorney general handles cases against all other officers. Other jurisdictions such as Massachusetts and New York place the onus entirely on the attorney general, while others task other officials such as county or U.S. attorneys with bringing quo warranto suits.

Beyond empowering specific parties, quo warranto laws also impose other and highly varied procedures in these kinds of lawsuits. In New Jersey, for example, the attorney general carries the burden of proof. But in Hawaii, the respondent—that is, the public official whose conduct is in question—bears the burden of proof in lawsuits initiated by the attorney general. Other laws establish a duty upon public officials, usually either the local or state prosecutor, to bring a quo warranto action when, as in Arizona, for example, “they have reason to believe there is a cause.” California, Idaho, and Montana, to name a few, impose such a duty upon prosecutors.

Disqualification actions can be brought against public officials who have violated their oath of office by engaging in insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to insurrectionists. The House select committee recognized that in their final recommendations. Our comprehensive survey of quo warranto procedures is intended to serve as a guide to the various private and public stakeholders empowered by state and territorial law to file quo warranto lawsuits so they can continue the House committee’s work—holding public officials whom voters have entrusted to lead their government accountable for their wrongdoing.

[judgementstoday]

Explanation On The Types Of Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court

This article will explore the types of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India is the highest in the country and can exercise original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction. We will discuss the three types of jurisdiction in detail and highlight their importance. Additionally, we will take a look at the scope of their powers and the differences between them. By the end of this blog, you will better understand the various types of the Supreme Court of India jurisdiction and how each type is used. So, read on to find out more!

Introduction to the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India is the highest in the country, charged with upholding the rule of law. It is the apex court of India, taking on the most difficult Supreme Court cases and questions of law, often deciding matters of great public importance. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority of India, as it is the final court of appeal under the Constitution of India.

Overview of the types of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India is the country’s highest court of law and the country's ultimate judicial authority. It is established under the Indian Constitution and is vested with both Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decisions scope can be divided into two broad categories – Original Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction.

Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court of India has the power to issue writs for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights of citizens and the enforcement of the other India legal news conferred by the Constitution of India. Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to issue five types of writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto. 

Advisory jurisdiction: Advisory jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India, which enables the President of India to consult the Court on any legal question. The President is not bound by the opinion or advice of the Supreme Court, but it is considered to be binding on the Court. This jurisdiction is exercised under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. According to this article, the President can refer any matter of public importance or any question of law to the Supreme Court.

Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court of India has a special jurisdiction of hearing appeals against the decisions of the High Courts and the other courts. As per the provisions laid down in Articles 132, 133, and 134 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has the power of appellate jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India is the highest court of appeal for matters of jurisdiction involving the Government of India, individual states and union territories, and other jurisdictions of the country. The court has varying degrees of power, from advisory to appellate, depending on the Latest Supreme Court rulings nature and the Constitution's provisions.

[lifewithne]

ABS-CBN's Franchise Death rings the death knell of Press Freedom?

Ne Alawas Cadiog

JULY 10, 2020 marked the beginning of the death knell of Press Freedom after the House of Representatives tolls the ABS-CBN's franchise application to a dire conclusion. Voting with 70 yes, 11 no, 1 abstain, and 2 inhibits, the House of Representatives denies franchise renewal of the Kapamilya network.

Photo courtesy: PhilStar.com

Photo shows the ABS-CBN compound in Quezon City on May 05, 2020 after the National Telecommunications Commission ordered its shutdown.

The network, which is the largest media conglomerate in the country, faced the threat of a network shut down due to its expired franchise on March 30, 2020.

This was when Solicitor General Jose Calida also filed a Quo Warranto petition in the Supreme Court against ABS-CBN claiming that the corporation is partly-owned by foreigners. ABS-CBN rebutted this claim saying that Philippine Depositary Receipts or PDRs do not refer to ownership, but rather, investments to sustain the corporation's growth.

After ABS-CBN being killed off-air, over 10,000 employees lose their jobs, and subsequent consequences may be feared. With the renewal of their franchise being blocked, organizations and journalists see this as proof of the vindicativeness of the government.

What are the violations of the network as stated in the argument debated over during the span of 12 hearings?

•Critics had accused ABS-CBN of illegal foreign ownership.

➡ Justice Undersecretary Emelline Aglipay-Villar testified in the hearings that ABS-CBN Corporation chairman emeritus Eugenio "Gabby" Lopez III is a Filipino because his parents are Philippine citizens, said Zarate.

DOJ: ABS-CBN's Gabby Lopez Filipino citizen from birth. Lopez earlier told congressmen that he was also a dual American citizen because he was born in the US.

"There’s no distinction made between pure Filipino and dual citizens" when it comes to participation in mass media, said Bayan Muna Party List Representative Carlos Zarate, quoting Justice Assistant Secretary Nicholas Ty.

The Securities and Exchange Commission also testified that "a dual citizen is 100 percent Filipino," Zarate added. SEC agrees, dual citizens are '100 percent Filipino'

• Accusation on the Foreign Ownership

➡SEC Commissioner Ephyro Luis Amatong, noted by Zarate, stated that ABS-CBN's Philippine Depositary Receipts "do not reflect transfer of ownership to foreigners."

PDRs allow foreigners to invest without violating PH laws, says Monsod ABS-CBN PDRs 'compliant' with law.

• On Tax Violation

➡Contrary to allegations of tax irregularities, the Bureau of Internal Revenue testified that the network regularly settled taxes and is one of the country's top taxpayers. In addition, Philippine Economic Zone Authority officials also said the broadcaster has no tax shield. BIR says ABS-CBN has no tax deliquency

•On allegations of election coverage bias

➡The Commission on Elections said the network did not violate any poll law. No complaints vs ABS-CBN on election bias.

ABS-CBN news chief Ging Reyes said that Journalism a 'public service'.

•Violation of Worker's Rights

➡Quoting the labor department, Zarate said that it was typical for any big company to face labor cases and that ABS-CBN complied with standards.

DOLE exec stated that ABS-CBN 'fully compliant' with labor standards.

Before the votation of the House of Representatives happened, the Technical Working Group (TWG) of the Committee on Legislative Franchises after their findings and recommendation which was contained in their 40 pages TWG report, recommends to deny new franchise for ABS-CBN. Consequently, 70 representatives vote "yes" to the denial of their franchise, while 11 representatives stand in favor of ABS-CBN franchise renewal; 2 inhibit, and 1 abstain.

A copy of the TWG Resolution

Here is the list of 70 Representatives who voted for the approval of the TWG recommendation:

1. Rep. Abraham Tolentino

2. Rep. Antonio Albano

3. Rep. Faustino Michael Dy

4. Rep. Jose Antonio Sy-Alvarado

5. Rep. Cyrille Abueg-Zaldivar

6. Rep. Faustino Dy V

7. Rep. Dale Malapitan

8. Rep. Eric Martinez

9. Rep. Divina Grace Yu

10. Rep. Julienne Baronda

11. Rep. Anthony Peter Crisologo

12. Rep. Luis Ferrer IV

13. Rep. John Marvin Nieto

14. Rep. Strike Revilla

15. Rep. Samantha Louise Alfonso

16. Rep. Rolando Valeriano

17. Rep. Joaquin Chipeco Jr.

18. Rep. Eduardo Gullas

19. Rep. Eleandro Jesus Madrona

20. Rep. Frederick Siao

21. Rep. Ian Paul Dy

22. Rep. Gil Acosta

23. Rep. Weslie Gatchalian

24. Rep. Prescious H. Castelo

25. Rep. Alyssa Sheena Tan

26. Rep. Christian Unabia

27. Rep. Raymond Mendoza

28. Rep. Jericho Nograles

29. Rep. Yedda Romualdez

30. Rep. Eric Yap

31. Rep. Claudine Bautista

32. Rep. Esmael Mangudadatu

33. Rep. Enrico Pineda

34. Rep. Dulce Ann Hofer

35. Rep. Sharon Garin

36. Rep. Arnolfo Teves Jr.

37. Rep. Janette Garin (Ex-Officio)

38. Rep. Paulo Duterte

39. Rep. J. F. Nograles (F. Hernandez)

40. Rep. Conrado III Estrella

41. Rep. Sandro Gonzales (Rep. P. Pichay)

42. Rep. Mike Defensor (Rep. R. Puno)

43. Rep. Allan Ty (Rep. A. Gonzales)

44. Rep. F. Matugas (Rep. J. Pimentel)

45. Rep. Luis Villafuerte Jr.

46. Rep. Raneo Abu

47. Rep. Dan Fernandez

48. Rep. Rodante Marcoleta

49. Rep. Henry Oaminal

50. Rep. Pablo John Garcia

51. Rep. Deogracias ‘DV’ Savellano

52. Rep. F. Datol (Rep. M. Romero)

53. Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez

54. Rep. Jesus Crispin Remulla

55. Rep. Juan Miguel Macapagal Arroyo

56. Rep. Cristal Bagatsing

57. Rep. Juan Pablo Bondoc

58. Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr.

59. Rep. Bernadette Herrera-Dy

60. Rep. Xavier Jesus Romualdo

61. Rep. A. Calixto (Rep. J. Lacson-Noel)

62. Rep. Wilter Palma II

63. Rep. Ma. Theresa Collantes

64. Rep. Ria Christina Fariñas

65. Rep. Camille Villar

66. Rep. Roger G. Mercado

67. Rep. Sharee Ann Tan

68. Rep. Joseph Stephen Paduano

69. Rep. Bayani Fernando

70. Rep. Jose Singson Jr.

Names of the 11 Congressman/Congresswomen who voted against the TWG resolution:

1. Rep. Sol Aragones

2. Rep. Christopher de Venecia

3. Rep. Carlos Zarate

4. Rep. Gabriel Bordado Jr.

5. Rep. Vilma Santos-Recto

6. Rep. Lianda Bolilia

7. Rep. Jose Tejada

8. Rep. Bienvenido Abante

9. Rep. Stella Quimbo

10. Rep. Mujiv Hataman

11. Rep. Edward Maceda

Abstain:

1. Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr.

Inhibit:

1. Rep. Alfredo Vargas

2. Rep. Micaela Violago

The House Committe moves to keep ABS-CBN off-air and put a halt on their operation even though BIR, DOLE, COMELEC to name some testified the network to be free of violations. Knowing these facts, do you think this a blow to Press Freedom?

Part 2. 2020 is another 1972: Mirroring the Dark Days of Press Freedom - https://lifewithne.tumblr.com/post/623332805633572864/2020-is-another-1972-mirroring-the-dark-days-of

Part 3. Flipping the Other Side of the Coin: On Abuse of Press Freedom - https://lifewithne.tumblr.com/post/623323812956684288/flipping-the-other-side-of-the-coin-on-abuse-of

(Here are the links where you can view the 40 pages TWG findings and recommendation:

https://lifewithne.tumblr.com/post/623392185550782464/page-1-10-of-the-twg-findings-of-the-abs-cbns

https://lifewithne.tumblr.com/post/623392290268954624/page-11-20-of-the-twg-findings-on-abs-cbns

https://lifewithne.tumblr.com/post/623392375248715776/pages-21-30-of-the-twg-findings-on-abs-cbns

https://lifewithne.tumblr.com/post/623392458452123648/pages-31-40-of-the-twg-findings-on-abs-cbns

Published on July 10, 2020

Sources:

https://www.facebook.com/100002510464970/posts/3142671032493215/?sfnsn=mo

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1197788/ill-see-to-it-that-youre-out-president-tells-abs-cbn?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1594365959

https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/7/10/ABS-CBN-House-franchise-vote.html?fbclid=IwAR3s2_uPsg4rRTIHcUhwYX0z8rFUpze4nHSgUx_L8X1DklrRiCTQqb6AmPA

https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/7/10/abs-cbn-franchise-denied-.html?fbclid=IwAR1bt4n9Jx3DL6zQ8nFJKLvhyTnwQxH1tQ9V2VQ0E3Z94fyOugqt6p9_jL0

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/07/10/2027049/list-lawmakers-who-voted-and-against-abs-cbn-franchise-renewal

[precisedblog]

A timeline of the events leading up to the closure of the ABS-CBN network

If you’re a Filipino, you probably grew up watching shows on the ABS-CBN channel. After all, they are the largest media conglomerate in the country. Numerous television and radio stations are under their umbrella—including ABS-CBN, ANC, Cinema One, Myx, and My Only Radio. They are a fixture of Filipino pop culture, and serve as a source of news and information for millions. It’s no surprise that the decision of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to issue a cease and desist order against the network shocked many Filipinos.

Image source: Patrick Roque, Wikimedia Commons

But even before the network signed off on May 5th at 7:52pm, the media giant was already subject to multiple threats. Their franchise was pending renewal at the House of Representatives since 2014, and three iterations of congress have left these bills untouched.

In November 2018, President Rodrigo Duterte publicly announced his objection against the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise during a ceremony in Boracay. He attributes this to the network’s failure to air his political campaign ads in 2016, as well as the broadcast of Senator Antonio Trillianes’ advertisement. The latter was controversial for criticizing Duterte’s demeanor and remarks. He also called the company “thieves”.

undefined

Known presidential ally and Senator Bong Go reaffirmed Duterte’s stand on the network during a hearing in February 2020. Go stated that while the president is “not vindictive”, the president was hurt by the fact that the political ads did not make it to air. He also showed Trillianes’ clip, which highlighted Duterte’s controversial remarks on rape during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Sen. Bong Go: Hindi po vindictive ang ating Pangulo... Siguro nakahanap lang kayo ng isang pangulong kumakasa talaga. #ABSCBNFranchise | via @michael_delizo pic.twitter.com/zGm6HFZSyn

— ABS-CBN News Channel (@ANCALERTS)

February 24, 2020

The same month, Duterte stated that he will leave the decision of the franchise renewal to the House of Representatives, after ABS-CBN president and CEO Carlo Katigbak issued an apology. Solicitor General Jose Calida then filed a quo warranto petition against ABS-CBN. Calida cites the network’s pay-per-view services as grounds for the petition, and also mentioned the network’s ties with foreign companies. According to the petition, “criminal liability is also imposed on those who violate foreign equity restrictions and evade nationalization laws of the Philippines through various modes of proxy arrangement”.

On February 24, congress finally began tackling the issue of renewing the franchise. Multiple government agencies and offices stated that the network made no violations. This means that the company had no pending tax requirements and that the network’s pay-per-view services are covered by franchise laws. The Senate hearing concluded that no breaches were made against the law.

Image source: Paolo Romero, The STAR

The NTC then stated that they may issue a provisional authority to the company, allowing them to continue operating while congress tackles franchise renewal. Calida then fired back at the NTC on May 3rd, saying that the agency may be prosecuted for the act. Two days later, a cease and desist order was issued by the NTC, and the network went off the air the same evening.

Upon issue of the cease and desist order, social networking sites were filled with posts voicing out support for the network. Universities and organizations issued statements calling out the shutdown of the network as an act against press freedom. On top of that, people express concerns over the 11, 000 people whose jobs are at stake due to the situation.

LOOK: The De La Salle University lit up the St. La Salle Hall in the colors of red, blue, and green in solidarity with ABS-CBN as it goes off-air tonight, May 5, 2020, following a cease and desist order from the National Telecommunications Commission. (📷: DLSU Facebook page) pic.twitter.com/vUwHM6Cltu

— ABS-CBN News (@ABSCBNNews)

May 5, 2020

READ: UST JOURNALISM SOCIETY STATEMENT ON THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO ABS-CBN#DefendPressFreedom#NoToABSCBNShutDown #RedefinedUSTJRN pic.twitter.com/ctx35Ikjpe

— The UST Journalism Society (@ustjrnsoc)

May 5, 2020

At a time like the COVID-19 pandemic, the accessibility of information is crucial. For some parts of the country, ABS-CBN is the sole network whose signals are picked up by local antennas. While the company’s cable networks and online platforms remain standing, being able to broadcast at the local TV channel is important to ensure the wide reach of news and current affairs.

Image source: Patrick Roque, Wikimedia Commons

The closure of the network is a cause of concern for press freedom in the Philippines. As more and more news reports cast a bad light on the government, it remains to be seen if the powers that be will allow media outlets to be “in service of the Filipino people”.

References

Buan, L. (2020, February 18). Calida moves to gag ABS-CBN on quo warranto case. Retrieved from Rappler: https://www.rappler.com/nation/252095-calida-motion-gag-order-supreme-court-abs-cbn-quo-warranto-case

Cabato, R. (2020, May 5). Philippines orders its largest broadcaster off the air as nation fights virus. Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/philippines-orders-its-largest-broadcaster-off-the-air-as-nation-fights-virus/2020/05/05/3d172b60-8eb4-11ea-9322-a29e75effc93_story.html

Cabico, G. K. (2020, February 24). Senators maintain nothing wrong, unconstitutional with ABS-CBN franchise hearing. Retrieved from Philstar: https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/02/24/1995699/senators-maintain-nothing-wrong-unconstitutional-abs-cbn-franchise-hearing

Gomez, J. (2020, May 6). Watchdog Calls Closure of Philippines' Biggest Broadcaster an 'Outrageous Attack' on Media Freedom. Retrieved from Time: https://time.com/5832614/philippines-abs-cbn-shutdown-duterte-press-freedom/

Gregorio, X. (2020, May 5). ABS-CBN goes off air following NTC order. Retrieved from CNN Philippines: https://www.cnn.ph/news/2020/5/5/ABS-CBN-off-air-NTC.html

Ignacio, E. N. (2013). The Challenges of On-Line Diaspora Research. In S. J. Gold, & S. J. Nawyn, Handbook of International Migration (p. 549). London: Routledge.

Placido, D. (2018, November 8). Duterte to 'object' to ABS-CBN franchise renewal. Retrieved from ABS-CBN News: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/11/08/18/duterte-to-object-to-abs-cbn-franchise-renewal

Presidential Communications Operations Office. (2018, November 8). Speech of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte during the ceremonial distribution of the Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to Agrarian Reform beneficiaries. Retrieved from Presidential Communications Operations Office: https://pcoo.gov.ph/presidential-speech/speech-of-president-rodrigo-roa-duterte-during-the-ceremonial-distribution-of-the-certificates-of-land-ownership-award-cloa-to-agrarian-reform-beneficiaries/

Rey, A. (2020, February 24). Bong Go: It's those anti-Duterte ads on ABS-CBN that got the boss’ goat. Retrieved from Rappler: https://www.rappler.com/nation/252558-bong-go-on-anti-duterte-ads-abs-cbn-senate-hearing

Yap, D., Pazzibugan, D. J., Salaverria, L. B., & Gascon, M. (2020, February 2020). Duterte to ABS-CBN: Apology accepted but franchise up to House. Retrieved from Inquirer: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1233949/duterte-to-abs-cbn-apology-accepted-but-franchise-up-to-house

[legalfirmindia]

WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO: Find and identify the Best Lawyers for Quo Warranto filing in Chennai Tamil Nadu India. Choose Top Advocates for Legal Consultation and Guidance to understand and process the case. Advocate Saravvanan Rajendran Law Chamber

Best Lawyers for QUO WARRANTO

Find and identify the Best Lawyers for Quo Warranto filing in Chennai Tamil Nadu India. Choose Top Advocates for Legal Consultation and Guidance to understand and process the case. Advocate Saravvanan Rajendran Law Chamber [askadvocates.com] is one of the Best Law Firm for Quo Warranto.

Writ of Quo Warranto Meaning

Introduction: The term quo warranto…

[southeastasianists]

It’s tough being a Filipino woman these days when no less than the president has been spewing misogynistic remarks.

It’s become such a problem that President Rodrigo Duterte’s recent sexist comments have even led Nathalie Africa Verceles, director of the University of the Philippines’ Women and Gender Studies, to offer him free gender sensitivity training during an interview yesterday.

Addressing the president in an interview with radio station DZMM, Verceles said: “The UP Center for Gender Studies invites you for a gender sensitivity training. We will go to Malacañang for him and for other officials who haven’t undergone such training.”

In the past few weeks, the always-quotable Duterte has been saying a few things that have raised the eyebrows of all feminists in the country.

While identifying the characteristics of the country’s next chief justice earlier this month, Duterte said: “I want people to believe in the person’s integrity. Of course, it can’t be a politician, especially not a woman.”

This comes after the Philippines’ Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the first woman to hold the position, was ousted after a majority of justices voted in favor of a controversial quo warranto petition against her.

There’s also Duterte’s speech at an event on May 20, where he extolled the benefits of having two wives.

“I have a second wife. I have one child with her. So I have two wives. If a vehicle, which is made of metal, would need a spare tire, how much more for us human beings?” he said in Visayan.

The president’s remarks have led to the use of the hashtag #BabaeAko (I am a woman) on social media. Using the hashtag, women have spoken out against Duterte, leading one of his close aides, Bong Go, to call the movement “unfair” and “clearly political.”

In the past, Duterte has also made incendiary comments such as instructing soldiers to shoot female rebels in the vagina.

He also said in a campaign event before assuming office that he should have been the first person to rape Australian missionary Jacqueline Hamill, who was killed when she was held hostage in Davao, Duterte’s hometown, in 1989.

The gender sensitivity training Verceles offered usually takes an entire day but she said it could be cut down to one hour to accommodate Duterte’s busy schedule.

It’s doubtful if the president will take up on the offer, but he should. How often do you get free stuff these days?

[citigov]

The Wrath of the Tyrants

EAMV18

Image by The Varsitarian via https://varsitarian.net/editorial/20181009/duterte-will-meet-marcos-fate

The former Philippine president Ferdinand E. Marcos declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972. It is a law that appertains to the temporary replacement of civil rule by military rule. Martial Law is a must-not for it suppresses liberty, and establishes the supremacy of the head and military, in addition, both are blinded by the absolute power that urged them to exercise heinous crimes against humanity. Intending to discuss sentiments with regards to Martial Law and the Marcos Government, this paper will tackle the following points: 1) the influence of Martial Law to the current democratic situation in the Philippines; 2) the comprehensive state of the country before, and during Martial Law.

Under Martial Law, the entire country was in a tremendously adverse situation. The executives were conferred with preeminent power to subdue various activities and institutions including the press. On account of the censorship and media manipulation, a lot of Filipinos, even the ones who were of proper age that period remain naively maneuvered by the myth that the Marcos regime was a golden era; adhering to the belief that the Marcoses are innocuous. Marcos and the current Philippine president Rodrigo Roa Duterte are perceived to have kindred coercive tactics in regards to the demobilization of opposition by means of police/military force. According to Carmel V. Gabao in her article (2018) Is Rodrigo Duterte a Resurrected Ferdinand Marcos? “Similar developments have taken place: (i) while Duterte has not abolished Congress, he has captured the legislature through a ‘supermajority’ in the House of Representatives and the removal and/or weakening of opponents in the Senate, (ii) Duterte has also tried to “shutter” the media institutions such as Rappler, ABS-CBN and Inquirer, (iii) Senator de Lima has been in jail for one and a half years and Senator Trillianes’ arrest now seems forthcoming, and (iv) Duterte’s intervention in the Judiciary has also been revealed in the ouster of Chief Justice Sereno through a quo warranto. Moreover, just like Marcos, Duterte has been looking to the military and the police as a base of support.” Marcos and Duterte may not necessarily have the same exact style of dictatorship but both of them caused the same detriments to the political development, economic potential, and societal structure of the Philippines. Due to the comparability of the present administration to Marcos', a lot of ignorant are tolerating or worse, patronizing the current president notwithstanding his false competency, blatant obscenity, etc., mistakenly taking forceful dominion or dictatorship as an efficient and ethical strategy to have a refined government. Furthermore, the student-activists most notably, Bobby Dela Paz and Edgardo Gil Mirasol Jopson were killed, tortured, and incarcerated. As Atty. Saguisag said, "We lost an entire generation who would've been natural leaders." The Philippines is currently under a democratic situation yet due to the corrupt and inept "leaders," the said state arguably functions otherwise, as human rights are still violated; the poor are still oppressed; the rich are still receiving special treatment; the economy is still stagnated. Our government in the present is still corrupt, incompetent, anti-poor, vicious and remorseless. If the socio-political advocates were not grievously killed during the Marcos Regimen, we would've had promising leaders—and we wouldn’t even have to settle with the presidential candidates for the 2022 Philippine Election most specifically, Bong-bong Marcos, Isko Moreno, and even Manny Pacquiao. Hence, the Filipinos and the country per se are struggling up until the contemporary era—all because of the Marcoses.

A minuscule hint of "economic growth" unveiled throughout President Marcos' first term of presidency but these "prosperities" were all inaugurated by "debt-driven development," they cleverly used architecture as a pretense for their deep-rooted desire to create an impression that their governance made significant contributions to the Philippine economy. The overall external debt of the country exponentially increased from $8.2 billion to $24.4 billion in just a span of five years. Borrowing funds may escalate the chances of the economy to boom however, the said regime did not successfully fulfill its obligations (Mandrilla, 2016). Moving on to the next point, as previously mentioned, the military gained absolute power—leading to prejudicial executions. Withal, the president assumed capabilities beyond the expected limit; having the ability of suspending the writ of habeas corpus, thus having the public to be holistically vulnerable and unguarded from arbitrary powers of the executive. With that being said, illegal detention and imprisonment became extremely rampant. In deference to the Conference Paper uploaded by Alfred McCoy (2001), there were more than 3,000 extrajudicial killings, about 34,000 were tortured, and 70,000 were imprisoned and/or detained.

Martial Law, in all spheres, is absurd and grotesque for it is both a driver and enabler of serious crimes committed by the supposed leaders and protectors—violating human rights and human dignity. Although Duterte has his own ways of dictating, we still cannot deny that the President is so much more like Ferdinand Marcos when it comes to human lives and human rights; and the resemblance of the Philippine democracy under this administration and the Philippines when it was still under the Martial Law is undeniably uncanny. Martial Law gave rise to innumerable adversities and mishaps, namely, the persistent economic disruption because of Marcos' debts, the physical insecurity of the Filipinos back then, the death of potentially deserving leaders that could have helped our country prosper, Marcos' political opponents and other activists were slaughtered because of the politicized military; thousands were tortured; and thousands were unlawfully detained. A country does not need to be under martial law or other system/law of such to flourish. We need a sincere, competent, compassionate, and a people-person leader that refuses to be blinded and manipulated by power and greed. People must stop romanticizing the dictatorship that happened during the Marcos Regime, and stop looking back with "sentimental longing" as if the aforesaid administration did not scorn the public security, and play havoc with the peace and order in our country. Aside from this, there should be no seat for Marcos’ immediate family in the government. Besides, celebrating Marcos, his family, and his ruling is tantamount to disdaining the sacrifices, struggles, despair, pain, and death of thousands of Filipinos. Ergo, Martial Law is neither beneficial nor promising to the country and the majority of Filipinos, instead, it led to copious misconduct to which only the rich and powerful are in advantage.

References:

Abao, C. (2018, October 9). Is RodrigoDuterte a resurrected Ferdinand Marcos? –Blueboard by Carmel V. Abao. Ateneo deManila University. http://www.ateneo.edu/ls/soss/political-science/news/research/rodrigo-duterteresurrected-ferdinand-marcos-blueboard

Mandrilla, K. (2016, March 5). Marcos years marked “golden age” of PH economy? Look at the data. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/voices/imho/marcos-economy- golden-age-philippines

McCoy, A. (2001, January). Dark Legacy: Human Rights under the Marcos Regime. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311984856_Dark_Legacy_Human_Right s_under_the_Marcos_Regime

[spottingfakenews]

Fake News: A Documentation

During these days, finding factual news is hard because of the existence of fake news which can be found in any sites as long as you have internet access. Fake News is news that is not true and intentionally misinforms the readers. Sometimes fake news creates panic among the readers too. Stories are also made for different wrong purposes. Fake News or stories influence people’s views, push different political agendas, and sometimes confuse the readers that can often be a profitable business for people who publish articles online. Fake news can be spotted in different platforms, may it be political, medical, showbiz, academe, entertainment and sports. 

This blog will be use as a compilation of Philippine-based fake news which gave a huge impact to the country.

Politics

This is an article which circulated again last August 7, 2020 about DILG Secretary Eduardo Año statement about the investigation of tricycle back rides. It circulated the second time wherein it was not the DILG’s current policy. This fake news caused confusion to the citizens whether what guidelines to follow about back rides.

Multiple Facebook postings have been shared with an image attributed to the state-run Philippine News Agency (PNA) that displays a bogus remark from Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. According to the image, Duterte stated that the government has finished delivering cash relief to those impacted by the new coronavirus outbreak. The graphic, however, has been doctored; it has been modified to incorporate the alleged Duterte quotation, and the PNA has disowned it. On April 6, 2020, the graphic was shared on Facebook.

The accusation has been making the rounds on social media, with one post containing an image of Robredo and the caption "Remember her promise." If none of the eight diretso wins the election, she will resign as vice president. Do you believe she will keep her word?” The assertion appears to be based on an article published on May 7, 2019 by The Adobo Chronicles. According to CrowdTangle, the story has been shared by 44 Facebook groups and pages, resulting in 6,945 total interactions from 1,546,053 combined followers. In a tweet on May 15, the Vice-President had already disputed the report.

Medical

The Bureau of Customs (BOC) searched three warehouses in Meycauayan City, Bulacan, allegedly collecting phony cigarettes, bags of raw materials for cigarette production, false Bureau of Internal Revenue tax stamps, shredded plastics, and obsolete cigarette-making machines, according to the story. The article was accompanied by a video titled "P500-M Fake Cigarettes Raided by BOC in Bulacan." The Department of Health has not issued any warnings about the coronavirus being transmitted through fake cigarettes or that it has reached the Philippines.

According to the Department of Health and reports from local government units in Pampanga, the first ever mutated Cov-2 illnesses were discovered in Sta. Rita town on Monday, January 4, 2021, and there are now three verified instances of the new Covid-19 variety. "The DOH stated one is still hospitalized to a certain hospital facility," according to the report.

The footage was shared on April 14 by the Facebook page RUDY Baldwin and the YouTube channel NivLogs TV. Claim Check, a Facebook monitoring program, identified these postings for verification.

“PLS SHARE THE GOOD NEWS,” the Facebook page said in the description of the post. ANTIVIRAL INJECTION FABUNAN APPROVED na (already).” In the meanwhile, the YouTube channel's description reads, "APPROVED NA NI PRES. DUTERTE, , LOCKDOWN ILILIFT NA (FAI authorized by President Duterte). The lockdown has been removed.)

Academe

These are the three top fake news happened in the academe but we will focus more about the issue about DepEd announcing Grade 13. 

The Department of Education, through Education Secretary Leonor Briones, has announced the addition of a Grade 13 course. Kyle Santelices made the allegation on Facebook on April 19, posting what seems to be a screenshot of a news item showing Briones. The snapshot includes the designations "live" and "breaking news," as well as the title "Department of Education announces Grade 13."

The Department of Education has not announced the existence of a Grade 13, and Briones has not said the phrase attributed to her.The watermark on the claimed screenshot of a news article reads "breakyournews.com." The website is a meme generator that allows users to change the headline, ticker, and picture in a news report template.

Sports

Fake news about the Philippine Sports did a great impact last 2019 because the Philippines hosted for the SEA Games 2019. The most trending fake news at that time was the Photo of Philippine flag used as tablecloth 'in SEA Games 2019' event. 

During the Southeast Asian (SEA) Games 2019, a photo of the Philippine flag being used as a tablecloth for catering services was allegedly shot. “But wait, there's more,” reads the description of the post, which is ascribed to journalist Ricky Velasco in the screenshots. This is for all the SEA Games 2019 mishaps. Athletes who are taking part in the competition are fed. But using our flag as a mantle for a tablecloth? It's worth noting that the flag even reaches the ground.”

The photographs were not taken during any of the SEA Games activities. According to Papina, they were taken in 2015 during a "undisclosed occasion." Papina informed Rappler in a Facebook message that the photo was taken from a November 2015 post by a friend. He claimed, "From what I gathered from my friend's post, it happened in 2015 at an unidentified location."

Entertainment/Showbiz

Fake news in showbiz can sometimes be intentional by bashers or people who wants to take down a certain personality. The most recent fake news in showbiz was the act of junk to the ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal. 

According to YouTube channel Showbiz Fanaticz, the Supreme Court (SC) has already thrown out ABS-franchise CBN's renewal. The channel uploaded a video on Wednesday, July 8, titled: “BREAKING NEWS: KORTE IBINASURA NA ang FRANCHISE Renewal ng ABS-CBN| LEAKED VOTE DOCUMENTS INILABAS!!  (Breaking news: ABS-franchise CBN's renewal has been rejected by the court.) Documents from the vote have been leaked!) ”

The renewal of legislative franchises is decided by Congress, not the Supreme Court, under Republic Act No. 7925, or the Public Telecommunications Policy Act. As of this writing, ABS-request CBN's for a temporary restraining order against the National Telecommunications Commission's (NTC) cease and desist order is still ongoing before the High Court. On Monday, July 13, the Supreme Court will begin discussion on the petition.The quo warranto suit brought by Solicitor General Jose Calida against ABS-CBN was also just dismissed by the High Court on June 23. Furthermore, Showbiz Fanaticz's video made no mention of the SC. The video merely mentioned a source from the Manila Times that purportedly included leaked records indicating congressmen's votes on the ABS-CBN franchise renewal issue.

In conclusion, in this world of technology wherein your fate depends on the tip of your fingers, we should be aware of all the things that happens in our surroundings and spotting fake news is one. We should be a critical thinker when finding information and gathering data most especially with important news. We should always fact check and thorough when reading articles online. Let us always think before we click!

[loyallogic]

What powers do the courts have under writ of mandamus

This article is written by Dhawal Srivastava, a student pursuing B.A. LLB. (Hons.) from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. In this article, a detailed analysis of the writ of mandamus and the command of the courts under it has been done. 

Introduction

In pursuance of the Right to Constitutional Remedies for the violation of any of the enlisted fundamental rights under Part III or others that are enshrined in the Constitution of India or otherwise, both the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been vested with the authority of issuing ‘writs’ under Article 32 and 226 respectively. There are five types of writs that are issued in India: Habeas Corpus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Mandamus and Quo Warranto. Out of these, the writ of mandamus, which is a Latin term for ‘we command’, is an authoritative writ issued by a higher court to oblige a lower court or some government official(s) to dispense their sanctioned duties compulsorily and correctly. 

Writ of mandamus

According to the Ninth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, writ of mandamus is one that is issued against an inferior court, a governmental body or officer by a superior court to rectify an action of the past or omission to act along the lines of the responsibility that they are entitled to. Writ of Mandamus can also be issued against public corporations and tribunals. As it is directed to set the indolent authorities to task, it is also described as a “wakening call”, dictating their activity and setting them in action in pursuance of discharging public duty.

Grounds of the writ of mandamus

Mandamus is remedial in nature and cannot be expressed as a writ of right as it is issued only at the discretion of the court after the applicant of the same is able to prove to the Court that some utilitarian or just question would be answered by the writ. The essential grounds necessary for the issuance of Mandamus have been enlisted below: 

There exists a legally sanctioned right of the petitioner or the applicant of the writ and a violation or compromise of this right has been committed.

The infringement of the rights of an applicant can be done by a public authority in the following manners: 

Crossing the limits of the powers and duties vested to their office.

Failure or omission to act responsibly according to the conditions laid down by the law for the exercise of their power.

Denial by an official or authority to perform their statutory duties. 

A complete disregard for or contravention of the principles of natural justice.

Another ground for the legality of issuing the writ of mandamus is the failure to act or perform the legal duty despite being demanded by the applicant for the same. This was also upheld by the Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate v. Union of India.

The writ should be applied for in good faith, without any ulterior motive or intent on the part of the applicant.

Lastly, the writ of mandamus can only be issued when no other recourse, redressal mechanism or legal alternatives have been left at the disposal of the applicant. 

                              Click Above

Mandamus in Indian law prior to the constitution

The Writ of Mandamus was introduced in India by the British in the year 1773 with the establishment of the Supreme Court of Calcutta and all the supreme courts that were situated in the Presidency Towns (Calcutta, Madras and Bombay) were vested with the powers of issuing this writ under the Letters Patent Act. Later on, in the year 1877, the writ of mandamus from the Letters Patent Act was replaced by an order under the then newly introduced Specific Relief Act that required the completion or forbearing of a specific activity within the “local limits of its ordinary civil jurisdiction” by a competent authorised official. 

However, with the institutionalisation of the constitutional regime in India and the introduction of the new Specific Relief Act in 1963, this order incorporated within the 1877’s law was done away with as the provision for writ of mandamus was already enshrined in the Constitution. The latter provision was far more competent and had a wider scope of applicability while the former was pretty restrictive in nature as it applied only to a particular nature of cases. Additionally, the constitutional provision also provided the High Courts with the power of issuing writs, thus including mandamus as well for the enforcement in cases of contravention of fundamental as well as legal rights. 

Framework of law in relation to mandamus

The Supreme Court of India has been authorised with the power of issuing writs under Article 32 of the Constitution. Out of the five categories of writs that are a part of the Indian legal framework, the most appropriate for the enforcement of the rights of the claimant shall be applied by the court. Rightly described as the “very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it” by Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, Right to Constitutional Remedies or Article 32 states that there must be a clear breach of fundamental rights not incorporating contentious factual questions. Under Article 32, the writ cannot be issued for the enforcement of governmental policy and a statute violating a fundamental right can be contended against by mandamus. Any executive or statutory order can be enforced by Mandamus following due process of law. Over the course of years, it has been found that continuous mandamus or the writ of mandamus issued against a prolonged failure to act on the part of state agencies. 

Although the law is pretty clear with regards to the cases or instances where the applicability of the writ of mandamus stands, it has not been an easy decision for the Indian courts and judiciary applying this writ in distinct cases. Thus, it has become a significant question of law in the modern-day legal system of India.

Types of mandamus

There are three types of Mandamus that exist within the Indian jurisprudence and has been developed over the years through case laws and judgements. These have been discussed under the following headings.

Certiorarified mandamus

The basic difference between the two writs of certiorari and mandamus can be explained on the basis of jurisdiction; while former provides for judicial review of an already tried case by a subordinate court and checks whether a jurisdiction has been exceeded, the latter takes into account whether a jurisdiction has been refused from getting exercise. If Certiorari stands, the order of the subordinate court or tribunal stands quashed and void. In certain cases with peculiar facts and moot issues, both the writs of certiorari and mandamus complement each other provided the issuance of both are warranted by the circumstances of the case in hand and do not end up discharging the issue altogether. A case might be rescinded due to application of certiorari and may end up getting decided by following the due process of law because of a subsequent issuance of mandamus. This kind of writ is known as certiorarified mandamus. 

In Y. Mahaboob Sheriff & others v. Mysore State Transport Authority, the renewal of a permit, despite getting sanctioned for three years, was only granted for a year. In pursuance of the writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court of India invalidated the previous judicial order of the subordinate court and in the effect of the writ of mandamus, directed the concerned authority for the renewal of three years. This is an instance of certiorarified mandamus.

Anticipatory mandamus

In Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, the group of petitioners issued a writ of anticipatory mandamus in order to restrain the Government of India from sanctioning certain areas lying in Rann of Kutch to Pakistan as a part of the award. The Court held that the mandamus shall not be granted merely on the suspicion of the violation of rights unless some actual damage or infringement has happened. 

In plenty of other cases, both in India and other countries, it has been held by the courts of law that on the mere basis of perturbation of getting one’s statutory or fundamental rights violated or an anticipatory omission of the duties or responsibilities of a public authority are not sufficient grounds for granting the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

Continuing mandamus

In certain cases, it shall be deemed fit by the court of law that mere issuing of the writ of mandamus will not be sufficient for exacting the task from the public authority and that continuous supervision of the situation needs to be conducted in order to ensure the proper following of the verdict. This is done by the courts by providing for court visits and presenting a report of compliance of their verdict on behalf of the public authority. This legalese has developed and become a part of the jurisprudence after much judicial activism and several public interest litigations. The Supreme Court, in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, held that besides ensuring the adequate enforcement of the fundamental rights, it is also the Court’s responsibility to ascertain the prevention of misuse of authoritative power and full adherence of the order.

Limitations

Writ of mandamus is basically a public law remedy of the common law system that, though can be rightfully applied for by any citizen whose rights have been violated by governmental or judicial bodies, is not sanctioned to be availed in cases of private wrongs. The writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the following: 

Private persons, institutions or organizations, if default, cannot be held accountable for their inaction by the issuance of mandamus.

If the duty or the activity that is in the question of the public authority is not mandated by a compulsory obligation but is discretionary in nature, the writ of mandamus cannot be issued for the enforcement of such duties.

The writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the Head of the State, that is, the President on a national level or Governor at the state level.

The incumbent Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and distinct high courts are also exempted from being held accountable by the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

For the enforcement of a contractual relationship that is private in nature, writ of mandamus cannot be issued for its enforcement.

A writ of mandamus cannot be issued against any Member of Parliament (MP of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) and any Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of any state for the purpose of providing a smooth functioning and conduct of the parliamentary deliberations. 

Mandamus cannot be issued against any legislative institution which is passing such a law that is in contravention of the fundamental rights promised under Part III of the Constitution. This was subsequently upheld by the apex court in Chotey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. The petitioner had moved a writ petition against the State of Uttar Pradesh as the state legislature had passed Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Bill in 1951 which was considered to be unconstitutional according to the applicant.

Electoral matters have been kept away from the purview of the writ of Mandamus and those officials that are engaged in different levels of the electoral process cannot be directed by mandamus. However, this is applicable only for elections to Union and state parliament. Mandamus can be issued in matters of contention relating to Municipal level elections.

Thus, the major legal requirements for the issuance of the writ is the public nature of the body, person or authority against whom the writ is getting applied for and a valid, justified rationale of the claims on the part of the petitioner. 

Interpretation of public right and mandamus

Writs of mandamus are to be issued in the following situations and for the same, a comprehension of public rights is a necessity: 

There must exist a legal right of the petitioner for getting a legal duty of the public authority to be discharged, provided that legal duty is compulsory and not discretionary in nature. Moreover, mandamus cannot be utilised for enforcing department specific rules or instructions which have got no statutory backing with regards to provisioning for legal rights of the petitioner(s). An exception to this rule is that statutory void is filled with executive orders. 

The legal responsibility of the authority or body should be of a public nature. The apex court, however, held in the Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Imanual that a writ of mandamus shall also be granted against a private entity or individual provided there has been a third-party involvement of the state authorities. The same principle is used with regards to a private contractual relationship where there is a state interference. 

The right that is sought to be enforced or implemented by the petitioner must remain in force or effect on the date of issuance of the petition. If there has been a lawful expiration of the interest of the applicant before the date of the petition, he loses his entitlement to the writ.

Issuance of anticipatory writs of mandamus is not encouraged by the Indian courts. However, there can exist exceptions to this rule. Provided an authority acts contrary to its statutory duty, anyone who is likely to be affected by any such order of that public officer or body. For instance, in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, an unlawful order against the spirit of the Constitution was issued against an individual who sought a writ petition of mandamus even before the passage of the order. The Court held in this case that the issue of such an order implied an immediate infringement on the rights of the petitioner and was thus empowered to seek the redressal interference of the court on this matter.

Writ of mandamus exercised In various countries

The writ of mandamus is an integral part of both Parliamentary and Presidential setups. Examples of some parliamentary democracies that have the writ of mandamus as a part of their legal regimes are Australia, England and Wales. In Australia, the writ of mandamus is a constitutional provision and is under section 75(v) of their Constitution. In England Wales, mandamus exists as a mandatory order and not a writ.

The United States of America is an important example of a presidential democracy that has got a provision of mandamus in its legal system across federal and state-level courts. Acts of administrative institutions have been held to be subject to mandamus in various states across their country through amendments of statutes or judicial expansions.

Conclusion

Therefore, the writ of mandamus can be rightly described as a legal instrument of ensuring general public interest, safeguarding their rights promised to them in the Constitution and other laws of the land. It is also an effective mechanism for maintaining accountability of the state or public authorities and mandating them to comply with their constitutional and statutory obligations. Thus, writ of mandamus is essentially a pro-democratic mechanism which empowers the common people to get their rights enforced by the administrative bodies.

References

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314384185_Writ_of_Mandamus

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/592/Analysis-Of-Writ-Of-Mandamus.html

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

The post What powers do the courts have under writ of mandamus appeared first on iPleaders.

What powers do the courts have under writ of mandamus published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

[dababoii]

Uncertainty in Uncertain Times

In these days where the world is rife with problems, the biggest of them all being the Covid 19 global health crisis, at times our way of life is uncertain. During such times, a reprieve from this uncertainty would be most welcome, through whatever means it may be. Certainly the easiest way to do this would be to just plop down on the couch, palm the remote, and then turn on the TV to just unwind and take our mind away from the stresses plaguing our lives at the moment. This would certainly be ideal to do especially with the lockdowns in place then and even now. However, if you were a Filipino like me and if you were to it now, you would notice easily that something is not quite right. The way things are looking it certainly isn’t looking quite right.

Now in these times of uncertainty, another thing has been found to also be uncertain in its existence, that of ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal. I, not being a very avid watcher of TV in general and with no particular invested interest in the case, did not keep up with all the hubbub concerning the situation but by process of diffusion through social media I was still privy to some details concerning it.

I’ll try to present  the facts of the case the way I know it. In essence this issue was already a long standing one dating back years to 2014 and 2015. At the time ABS-CBN was already seeking the early consideration of the 16th Congress as to the renewal of its franchise six years before its slated franchise renewal in 2020. This was according to the different media sources allegedly because they did not want to do it under an “unfriendly” administration. From how I understand it, the case boils down to ABS-CBN having allegedly breached its franchise with the operation of their pay-per-view service, foreign ownership, and non-compliance with tax requirements.

Starting on the 10th of Feburary 2020, a quo warranto petition was filed by Solicitor General of the Philippines Jose Calida before the Supreme Court of the Philippines asking to revoke ABS-CBNs franchise and that of its subsidiary ABS-CBN Convergence over alleged beaches of its fanchise, this includes the operation of its pay-per-view service Kapamilya Box Office and also the unconstitutional foreign ownership of mass media. This was eventually dismissed on June 23, 2020, by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, stating that this was unnecessary as the franchise by then had already expired, therefore there would not be any changes if the franchise were voided then. At the same time however, the quo warranto petition against its subsidiary ABS-CBN Convergence for the alleged illegal operation of its pay-per-view service KBO is still pending. On February 24,2020 the Congress tackled the franchises renewal. In the end it was concluded that there was no breach of laws or franchise terms.

Then on May 5, 2020 the NTC serves a cease and desist order to ABS-CBN due to its expired franchise, later that same day in the evening ABS-CBN went off air. Since then it has been mostly hearings on the possible renewed franchise of ABS-CBN or the possibility of letting the network resume operations albeit provisionally. Then on July 10, members of the House of Representatives, particularly the Committee on Legislative Franchises, voted 70–11 to deny the application of ABS-CBN for its new franchise.

As of now the sides supporting the franchise renewal and its removal are waiting for new developments on the case, meanwhile ABS has resumed the airing of some of its programs through alternate means such as Youtube. Many have decried this situation as a threat to democracy, freedom of speech and or of the press. Personally I think that I need to see more developments to be able to decide for myself. As for other people I hope they do too, before doing rash things.

Sources:

Cervantes, Filane Mikee (July 10, 2020). "Several issues led to denial of ABS-CBN franchise bid: House body". Philippine News Agency. Archived from the original on July 10, 2020. Retrieved July 10, 2020.

Cervantes, Filane Mikee (May 26, 2020). "ABS-CBN didn't comply with franchise terms, laws: House leader". Philippine News Agency. Archived from the original on June 11, 2020. Retrieved July 16, 2020.

Pulta, Benjamin (February 12, 2020). "Calida details ABS-CBN 'monopoly' practices in quo warranto suit". Philippine News Agency. Archived from the original on February 14, 2020. Retrieved July 16, 2020. 

Cabato, Regine (May 5, 2020). "Philippines orders its largest broadcaster off the air as nation fights virus". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 5, 2020. Retrieved May 6, 2020.

Gomez, Jim (May 5, 2020). "Philippines Orders Leading TV Network to Shut Down as Watchdogs Accuse President of Muzzling Independent Media". Time. Archivedfrom the original on May 6, 2020. Retrieved May 7, 2020.

Gregorio, Xave (May 6, 2020). "ABS-CBN goes off air following NTC order". CNN Philippines. Retrieved May 5, 2020.

[abscbnstruggle-blog]

The Struggle

Manila (July 11) - Philippine lawmakers on Friday denied the application for an establishment of media monster ABS-CBN Corp.

ABS-CBN stopped activities of its free TV and radio channels by government request after its 25-year establishment lapsed in May. ABS-CBN still works a link channel and web locales, yet the organization has told its 11,000 representatives that they could be given up by August if it's communicated establishment was not renewed.

The choice was made with a larger part of 70 confirmed votes for the “Resolution Denying the Franchise Application of ABS-CBN Corporation to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate, and Maintain Radio and Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines.”

Rep. Joseph Paduano (Abang Lingkod Party-list) says the organization is "dodging allegations" on charge evasion and pulls back his co-authored for one of the bills looking for an establishment reestablishment for the beleaguered organization. He is sorry and requests for people in general's and his associates' understanding.

Solicitor General Jose Calida, who had previously filed a quo warranto petition against ABS-CBN, applauded the House of Representatives for its choice to deny an establishment renewing to the media giant.

Calida described the hearings as "fair, impartial, comprehensive and thorough".

"Justice has been served," he said in a statement.

A total of 85 voting members were in the hearing, including 46 regular members , 39 ex-officio members or House leaders.

In excess of 500 writers and media laborers express solidarity with a huge number of ABS-CBN laborers who hazard losing their positions after a House board denied the media goliath another establishment.

The president’s spokesman, Harry Roque, sought to distance Mr. Duterte from the decision.

“The palace has maintained a neutral stance on the issue as it respects the separation of powers between the two coequal branches of government,” he said. “Much as we want to work with the aforesaid media network, we have to abide by the resolution of the House committee.”

Ralph Recto recently stated, "ABS-CBN does not deserve the death penalty. If it erred, penalize it. Because if corporate misdeed is punishable with extinction, no business will be left standing in this land,"

It seems that there are some skewed priorities? Recto also questioned the priorities of the Philippine government, which is currently struggling to respond to the coronavirus pandemic and its damage to the economy.

Pres. Duterte has accused ABS-CBN of bias, including favoring a political opponent in the 2016 election, and had earlier warned that he would not allow the renewal of its franchise.

After 13 hearings, a committee of the House of Representatives — voted by an overwhelming majority to deny ABS-CBN’s application for renewal of its broadcast franchise. The network had been shut down in May, after the franchise expired. 

The legislature has blamed ABS-CBN for illegally operating a cable channel, just as taking cover behind what it called a "corporate veil" that permitted remote foreign investors to claim some portion of the firm. ABS-CBN has denied the charges.

The congressional hearings did shine a light on some shortcomings of big media networks, including unfair labor practices and a lack of self-regulation, analysts said.

After the network went off the air, there was a backlash from millions of Filipinos who rely on it for news, forcing the lower house of Congress to rush hearings on the franchise renewal.  

[itsmeathan]

ABS-CBN's media personalities unbent by Calida's new gag order

ABS-CBN's media personalities unbent by Calida's new gag order

Solicitor General Jose Calida with suspended lawyer Eligio Mallari and Volunteers against Crime and Corruption president Dante Jimenez on March 5, 2018Several media personalities of ABS-CBN Corporation reinforced their stance to support their home network following the new gag order against statements on the quo warranto petition to nullify its franchise.

A week after he filed the petition,…

[aaverell]

QW and I

The Supreme Court just rendered a decision last Friday, May 11, granting the petition for quo warranto filed by the Office of Solicitor General to oust Chief Justice Sereno. 

I’m not super bright or anything, i’m just a nobody who happens to be studying law but as a law student that I am, I’m very curious and excited to read the full text of the decision of the Supreme Court (not anymore when i found it’s 153 pages lol). It really answered some of my questions.

Now, people all over the internet were outraged by the decision. Claiming that judicial independence is dead and that 1987 Constitution itself has been blatanly disregarded for the sake of catering the interests of the current administration. Of course I cannot blame them.. But you know what I suddenly realized? The judiciary has long been dead when former Chief Justice Corona was impeached. 

After I have read the full text of the decision, there was this particular portion which could’ve somehow calmed down the anger of the many people. I thought to myself, maybe the 1987 Constitution wasn’t actually violated at all, the people who wanted CJS to be removed were just too smart. But then, ok wait, you’re at it again, that’s a stupid thought, self. 

Ok, hear me out. I just found this in twitter as well. Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution specifically provides:

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

I highlighted the phrases “may be removed”. One of our subjects, which is Statutory Construction, taught us that “may” and “must” are completely different from one another. “Must” implies that it is a mandatory that one thing should be done and there is no other way to do it, meanwhile, “may” implies that a particular thing or remedy may be done but it is merely one of the options to do it. The Consitutition has provided it itself. Surely people would understand that, right? And then I thought to myself, maybe their anger dwells much deeper than that to which I cannot fully fathom yet. 

Anyway, here are some of the questions that have been bothering me:

1.) What is the difference between quo warranto and impeachment?

While both impeachment and quo warranto may result in the ouster of the public official, the two proceedings materially differ. At its most basic, impeachment proceedings are political in nature, while an action for quo warranto is judicial or a proceeding traditionally lodged in the courts.

In addition, it appears that impeachment is a proceeding exercised by the legislative, as representatives of the sovereign, to vindicate the breach of the trust reposed by the people in the hands of the public officer by determining the public officer's fitness to stay in the office. Meanwhile, an action for quo warranto, involves a judicial determination of the eligibility or validity of the election or appointment of a public official based on predetermined rules.

Impeachment means that it is essentially a political process meant to vindicate the violation of the public's trust. The grounds for impeachment include treason, conspiracy against the democracy, betrayal of strategic posts or expeditionary forces and corruption and deception.

Meanwhile, the term "Quo Warranto" is Latin for "by what authority.” Therefore, as the name suggests, quo warranto is a writ of inquiry. It determines whether an individual has the legal right to hold the public office he or she occupies. 

Aside from the difference in their origin and nature, quo warranto and impeachment may proceed independently of each other as these remedies are distinct as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds, (3) applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal, and (4) limitations.

Basically, their differences lie in that the quo warranto is judiciary in nature while impeachment is legislative in nature. While both are remedies to oust a public officer, both differs from one another in a sense that the two remedies are lodged in a different branch. (huh unsa daw balik-balik dai. -5 kaayo ka)

2.) Why quo warranto instead of impeachment? (I mean, besides politics lol) in relation to this question is that to bring up quo warranto, there is a one-year limitation, why was it not dismissed then?

The causes of action in the two proceedings are unequivocally different. In quo warranto, the cause of action lies on the usurping, intruding, or unlawfully holding or exercising of a public office, while in impeachment, it is the commission of an impeachable offense. Stated in a different manner, the crux of the controversy in this quo warranto proceedings is the determination of whether or not respondent legally holds the Chief Justice position to be considered as an impeachable officer in the first place. On the other hand, impeachment is for respondent's prosecution for certain impeachable offenses. To be sure, respondent is not being prosecuted herein for such impeachable offenses enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment. Instead, the resolution of this case shall be based on established facts and related laws. Simply put, while respondent's title to hold a public office is the issue in quo warranto proceedings, impeachment necessarily presupposes that respondent legally holds the public office and thus, is an impeachable officer, the only issue being whether or not she committed impeachable offenses to warrant her removal from office. 

In relation to my subquestion, here is the answer:

The rules on quo warranto, specifically Section 11, Rule 66, provides: Limitations. - Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose xxx

The Supreme Court clearly stated that prescription does not lie against the State. 

In this case, the Republic cannot be faulted for questioning respondent's qualification· for office only upon discovery of the cause of ouster. To conclude everything, there can be no acquiescence or inaction, in this case, on the part of the Republic as would amount to an abandonment of its right to seek redress against a public wrong and vindicate public interest. Neither can delay be attributed to the Republic in commencing the action since respondent deliberately concealed the fact of her disqualification to the position. Prescription, therefore, cannot be pleaded against the Republic. 

How was it established that CJS is unlawfully holding or exercising a public office which led the SC to believe that petition for quo warranto is proper remedy? For short, why did the SC conclude that CJS appointment as a Chief Justice is void ab initio? That’s my third question.

3.) What does it mean then when CJS failed to comply with the requirement of filiing of SALN? I mean so what?? What does have to do with anything?

Truthfully, in this part, I liked how the Supreme Court made an elaborate and wonderful explanation as to the effect of a non-compliance a constitutional and statutory requirement of filing of SALN.

The JBC required the submission of at least ten SALNs from those applicants who are incumbent Associate Justices, absent which, the applicant ought not to have been interviewed, much less been considered for nomination -- however, respondent failed to submit the required SALNs as to qualify for nomination pursuant to the JBC rules -- which leads to a conclusion that -- respondent's failure to submit to the JBC her SALNs for several years means that her integrity was not established at the time of her application.

To sum it all up, records clearly show that the only remaining applicant-incumbent Justice who was not determined by the JBC En Banc to have substantially complied was respondent, who submitted only 3 SALNs, i.e., 2009, 2010 and 2011, even after extensions of the deadline for the submission to do so.

The filing a SALN is an essential requirement to one's assumption of a public post. It has Constitutional, legal and jurisprudential bases.

Verily, the filing of the SALN is a Constituional requirement, and the transgression of which may, in the wisdom of the impeachment court, be interpreted as constituting culpable violation·of the Constitution. 

Additionally, the Supreme Court also stated that, respondent's failure to file her SALNs and to submit the same to the JBC go into the very qualification of integrity. In other words, when a Member of the Supreme Court transgresses the SALN requirement prior to his or her appointment as such, he or she commits a violation of the Constitution and belies his or her qualification to hold the office.

As the Supreme Court said, the filing of SALN is intimately related to a public officer’s integrity, in which the failure to comply such violates the Constitution itself and if one violates the Constitution, he or she is then incapable to rightfully claim that he or she is a person with integrity. 

[juudgeblog]

All you need to know about Clubbing of petitions

In this article, Funnisha Garg pursuing M.A, in Business Law from NUJS, Kolkata discusses Clubbing of petitions.

Introduction

Article 32 of the Constitution gives Supreme Court of India the power to issue orders or issue writs. Five writs provided by the Indian Constitution are habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, Quo Warranto and certiorari, as appropriate for any application of rights.

The Constitution also gives the High Court the power to issue writs too. Article 226 of the Constitution states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 32, each High court shall have the power, in the territories for which it exercises its jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, even in the appropriate cases, habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, warrant and certiorari, or one of them, for the application of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for other purposes.”

Types of Writs

Habeas Corpus

A judicial writ of Habeas Corpus is employed by the courts to search out if an individual has been illicitly detained. If the solution is affirmative, the court will order for his unharness. If an individual has been illicitly detained, he himself, an acquaintance or perhaps a relative can file a judicial writ of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus is Latin for ‘Let North American country have the body’ (or, allow us to see the one that has been illicitly detained). Through Habeas Corpus, the court will so conjointly summon the person detained or captive to the court.

To file a Habeas Corpus petition. Although typically a petition is to be filed by the person being detained or in remission, as per Habeas Corpus, the other person will have a go at it on behalf of the detained individual. This written petition will be issued by a public authority or any specific individual.

Mandamus

A judicial writ of mandamus is issued by a better court to a court, assembly or a public authority to perform an act that such a court is sure to perform. If a public official isn’t performing his duty, the court will order it or him/her to try to do that. Writ of mandamus suggests that we have a tendency to command.[2]

To file a Mandamus petition

The writ will be issued against anyone, as well as the president or governor of the state, a personal person or a judge. Anyone or a personal body will file a judicial writ petition for writ of mandamus, subject to the person/persons having legal rights to try to, therefore, within the matter involved.

Prohibition

A judicial writ of prohibition, referred to as a ‘stay order’, is issued to lower court or a body to prevent acting on the far side its powers.

While the writ of mandamus is issued for any activity that’s not legal, the writ petition is issued against the lower courts, like magistrates and commissions, for inactivity within the matter of concern. The High Court and Supreme Court will issue the judicial writ of Prohibition.

Writ of Certiorari

The writ is issued by the Supreme Court to a lower court or the other body to transfer a selected issue to the upper courts than itself. The writ is issued by the high court to the lower courts or the Tribunal, once a slip-up of jurisdiction or law is believed to be committed then the writ could be a curative writ.

Quo Warranto

The writ of hearing (by what warrant) is issued to inquire regarding the lawfulness of a claim by a person or authority to in a Public Office, that he or she isn’t entitled to. The writ is merely for the public offices and doesn’t embrace private institutions/offices.

The writ will be filed providing your basic rights are being violated. Generally, you’ll be able to file a writ petition against state and government agencies. However, a writ Petition may be issued against private authorities after they are discharging public functions.

Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

1) Appellate Jurisdiction 2) Original Jurisdiction  3) Advisory Jurisdiction[3]

Appellate Jurisdiction

Appeals permitted under the Constitution, Article 132[4] – It provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court of any court, civil court, court or tribunal, order or decree, even if the Supreme Court certifies that the case raises a question of considerable law on the interpretation of the Constitution

Article 133 provides for an Appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order during a civil proceeding of a High Court if it certifies that the case involves a considerable question of law of general importance and in its opinion, the same question must be determined by the Supreme Court.[5]

Article 134 provides for an Appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of the High Court if, [6]

Appeal Reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and Sentenced him to death or

It Certifies that the case is a fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.

Appeal by Special Leave

Article 136 provides that the Supreme Court could in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any case or matter passed or created by any Court or assembly within the territory of India except the Court or tribunal accepted by constituted by or under any law relating to armed forces.[7]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writs Article 32 – Guarantees the proper to manoeuvre the Supreme Court for social control of basic rights. Supreme Court has power to issue directions or orders or writs as well as the writs within the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, hearing and judicial writ, whichever could also be acceptable, for social control of those rights.[8]

Original Suits

Article 131 grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in any dispute between, [9]

Government of India and one or a more of States or

Between Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or a more of the different States on the opposite side

Between 2 or a more of States, in so far as such disputes involve any question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends

Transfer of cases

Article 139A(1)[10] provides that wherever cases involving constant or well constant queries of law ar unfinished before the Supreme Court and one or a more of High Courts or before 2 or more of High Courts, and also the Supreme Court is glad, on its own motion, or an  application created by the Attorney-General for India or by a party to any such case, that such question is substantial question of general importance, the SupremeCourt could withdraw the case or cases unfinished before the tribunal or the High Courts and get rid of all the cases itself.

Article 139A(2)[11] It states that the Supreme Court may, if it deems it appropriate, with respect to the ends of justice, transfer to any other High Court any case, proceeding or other pending proceedings before any High Court.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[12] provides that the Supreme Court could transfer any suit, appeal or different proceedings from a High Court or different civil court in one State to a High Court or different civil court in the other State.

Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that the Supreme Court could transfer any specific case or charm from one tribunal to a different tribunal or from a court subordinate to at least one tribunal to a different court of equal or superior jurisdiction, subordinate to a different tribunal.

Election disputes

Article 71[13] provides that each and every doubt and disputes about the election of a President or Vice- President are needed to be inquired into and determined by the Supreme Court.

ADVISORY JURISDICTION

Article 143(1)[14] provides that if at any time it seems to the President that an issue of law or truth has arisen, or is probably going to rise, that is of such a nature and of such public importance that it’s expedient to get the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he could refer the question to its Court for thought and also the Court could, once such hearing because it thinks work, report back to the President, its opinion on it.

Article 317[15] provides that the Chairman or the other member of a Public Service Commission can be removed from his workplace by order of the President, on the ground of wrongful conduct, once the Supreme Court on a reference being created by the President, has on inquiry reported that he ought, on such ground, To be far removed from his workplace.

Section 53K[16] provides for removal and suspension of chairman and Members of the legal proceeding assembly in consultation with the judge of India on any of the grounds laid out in clauses (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of Section 53K once a search by a judge of the Supreme Court.

REVIEW

Article 137[17] provides that, subject to the provisions of any law and rules created under Article 145, the Supreme Court has the facility to review any judgment pronounced or order created by it. Under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 such a petition is to be filed among 30 days from the date of judgment or order and, as so much as practicable, it’s to be circulated, while not oral arguments, to the same Bench of Judges who delivered the judgment or order sought-after to be reviewed.

CURATIVE PETITION

As laid down by this Court within the case of Rupa Ashok Hurrah vs. Ashok Hurrah[18] even once dismissal of a review petition under the Constitution of India[19] Supreme Court, could entertain a curative petition and rethink its judgment/order, in the exercise of its inherent powers so as to stop abuse of its method, to cure gross miscarriage of justice and such a petition will be filed providing a Senior Advocate certifies that it meets the necessities of this case. Such a petition is to be initially circulated, in chambers, before a Bench comprising of 3 senior most judges and such serving judges who were members of the Bench that passed the judgment/order, subject material of the petition.

Clubbing of petitions on Gujarat incidents

The Supreme Court these days directed symptom of all public interest petitions for a joint hearing by a Bench headed by the judge, already hearing petitions about the simplest bakeshop case.[20]

A Bench, comprising Justice S. Rajendra man and Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, directed that the petitions filed by social activists Mallika Sarabhai and Digant Oza and journalist Indukumar Jani. Seeking appointment of an impartial inquiry into the communal violence within the State by a special investigation team be heard together. The court had, in April last, issued notice on the petitions to the Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bharatiya Janata Party, the State Director General of Police and different senior police officers.

During the resumed hearing those days, the Bench felt that each one the connected matters could be heard along and directed listing of these petitions before the judge Bench. In their petitions, Mallika Sarabhai and the others also had submitted that within the communal riots that followed the Godhra train carnage, there was total chaos, widespread violence and destruction of property belonging to the minorities, apart from the killings of quite 1,000 persons in Gujarat.

They said the resultant impact of the month-long incidents were that 20 lakh persons had lost their homes and properties and many of them had taken shelter within the relief camps, whose condition was miserable and unsanitary. The petitioners contended that visible of the actual fact that there was alleged connivance or deliberate inaction on the part of the Chief Minister, there would be no impartial inquiry in the slightest degree and no truth would kick off nor the guilty would be punished.

Clubbing of two suits – Case Study

Depends on the facts of the cases. If similar then yes. But as one is criminal and other is civil the possibility of clubbing both in my opinion is far remote. If the Grievances of the petitions are co-associated with one another the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High court will allow the case to a single judge to take up 2 distinct matters under 2 different Laws along for better administration of justice.

MouthShut.com v. Union of India [21]Presented by the company Mouthshut.com to protect the freedom of speech and expression on the Internet. He argued against Section 66A and prayed for the modification or deletion of the IT Regulation of the Indian Technology Act. The Supreme Court, in a benchmark trial on March 24, 2015, has decided in ffavourof the candidate and the reversed section. 66A, declaring it unconstitutional and ordering the reading of the various sections of the law of IT Act. As a result, users are free to publish anything online, and publishers cannot be required to reduce content without a court order. This applies to all content generated by online users

Contents

Significance

Background

Significance

The cause and its proceedings were monitored by on-line Intermediaries, ISPs, medium service suppliers and social media corporations in India as well as overseas. According to the center for Communication, Governance, “this is one of the case under which India’s Supreme Court can outline contours of free speech online.” The case was clubbed along with a petition filed by Shreya Singhal a Law Student, challenging India’s IT Act’s section 66A. As a result of the hearing of all the petitions challenging the IT Act was clubbed along by a Supreme writ, the matter is usually conjointly referred as a Shreya Singhal case. Before the decision, CNN reportable that “…Mouthshut.com has taken its case to the country’s Supreme Court to guard what it says are the rights of Indian citizens and customers enshrined by the Indian constitution.”

Background

MouthShut.com approached the India’s highest court- the Supreme Court of India disputation regarding the Draconian impact of Sec. 66A. It conjointly prayed that India’s info Technology Rules 2011 be invalid or changed. These petitions were filed in April 2013. The writ petition was filed by MouthShut.com under Article 32 of the Constitution because the IT Rules were violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Mouthshut.com He argued that people who post comments on the site are denied the fundamental right to freedom of expression because of the provisions of Section 66A. In addition, the same as the rules of creating an IT burden, forcing them to detect content and practice censorship online. While a private party can claim that related content is degenerating or violating copyright, such determinations are generally created by the judges and involve a factual and attentive investigation of the interests and competing factors that the signatories are unwilling to create. Signatories receive communications and phone calls from cybercars and police stations, asking them to remove content and provide information to the user, which hinders the operation of their business[22]

Writ petition On April 29, 2013, Mr. Harish Salve attorney had defended the applicant. Accepting the petition, Supreme Court Judge TS Thakur and Sudhansho Mukhopadhya ordered that the petition would require a simultaneous hearing with “Shreya Singhal against Union of India[23].

Later, several different civil liberty organizations, NGOs, people and also the internet and Mobile Association of India filed their own petitions that are labelled along with the main petitions.

Delhi High Court Junks Pleas Against clubbing End-Use Of Mines

Delhi HC laid-off the pleas of some private corporations challenging the decision of the Ministry of Coal to club all sectors, barring power, under one class for coal block auctions.[24]

“The writ petitions are laid-off,” a bench of justices BD Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva said.

The decision comes after almost 18 months once it had been reserved on April 13, 2015 on the pleas of 4 corporations — Utkal Coal Ltd, Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd, Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd and Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.

The companies had previously argued that due to the “wrong” classification, the basic sectors such as iron and steel, which art is protected under the coal charter 2014, were losing out to aluminium companies at the auction. They had argued that the government’s decision to club all end-uses, except power, under ‘non-regulated sector’ has led to a “skewed” bidding method during which unequal were competing with one another for mines.

The question raised during this petition is whether or not the provisions of Section 220[26] would apply to an individual who has been defendant of committing 3 offenses of a same kind within one year, however, the place of incident, Police Station/ Station Division and witnesses being different’

Petitioner is facing trial within the following 3 cases:-

a) FIR No.376/07 underSection 328/379/420/468/471/ 411/34 of the Indian Penal code registered on 23.10.2007 in police office city;

b) FIR No.396/07under Section 328/379/411/34 of the Indian Penal code registered on 19.11.2007 in police office Mandir Marg, New Delhi;

c) FIR No.12/08 under Section 328/379/411/34 of the Indian legal code registered on 08.01.2008 in Police Station city Cantt. 

Within the said 3 cases, Petitioner has been charged sheeted for committing Associate in Nursing offense punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal code, i.e., for the offense of buying stolen articles.

Joint trial of the above than same 3 cases was sought-after by the Petitioner by moving an application under Section 408 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Session decide and also the same stood declined by holding as under:- ‘It so, emerges that each one the cases relate to totally different incidents and thus the judgment within the case of Sudhir and others (Supra) is of no facilitate to the applicant/accused as 3 criminal cases that ar sought-after to be transferred by the applicant/accused to at least one court, relate totally different incidents, distinct police stations and whereby witnesses also are totally different. Within the circumstances, there’s no justification to permit the prayer of the (Sunil Gaur, Jan 2009)applicant/accused. The application is hereby dismissed.

Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was invoked by the applicant to request for clubbing of the 3 cases pending against him for the offense punishable under Article 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 220 Cr. P.C. It is expected that, if a series of acts, therefore, relate to one another to form the same transaction, more crimes than the one committed by the same person, it can be charged and prosecuted in court for each of these offenses

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon case of ‘Adnan Bilal Mulla vs. State of Maharashtra[27]’, wherever it had been found that the common thread was running through the different incidents of blast at different places in metropolis and also the trial of metropolis blast cases was clubbed along within the peculiar facts of the same case by holding that the affiliation between the series of acts is a vital ingredient for those acts to constitute the same transaction.

Reliance has been placed by the Petitioner upon the case of ‘Smarty Machra and Another vs. State’[28],whereby defendant persons were found to possess conjointly committed totally different offences of theft of car stereos and it had been command that it’s necessary that the defendant persons need to have been defendant of conjointly committing different offences of same kind to attract section 223 of the Cr. P.C.

The quantitative relation of the author cited judgments doesn’t apply to the case of Petitioner as he’s facing trial in these 3 totally different cases along with his co-defendant, not for the main offense of possessing stolen articles. Moreover, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 220 of the Cr. P.C. is discretionary one. The learned Session Judge, Delhi justly refuses to exercise it within the present case to the club along with these 3 cases as FIR No. 396/07 pertains to the totally different session division. However, it’s found that the opposite 2 FIRs, i.e., FIR Nos.376/07 and 12/08 pertain to the police office in Delhi Cantt. And thus to at least one Session Division; and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial of said 2 FIRs same to be pending before 2 totally different Additional Sessions Judges, at Dwarka Courts, New Delhi can be conveniently assigned to one court.

It has been expressed within the present petition that the trial of FIR No. 376/07 is pending before the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts at the stage of arguments on the purpose of charge and also the trial of FIR No. 12/08 is additionally pending before Sh. N.K. Kaushik, learned Additional Session Judge, Dwarka Courts, at the stage of arguments for the purpose of charging.

In reading about the preceding position, this petition is part accepted to the extent that the learned Sessions judge Delhi is directed to assign the trial of FIR No. 376/07 registered at police office Delhi Cantt., and also the trial of FIR No. 12/08 registered at police office delhi Cantt., to at least one court, to enable the Petitioner to move application under Section 220 of Cr. P.C. For clubbing the trial of the said 2 FIRs, if therefore suggested. The prayer of the Petitioner for transferring FIR No. 396/07 registered at police office Mandir Marg, Delhi to a court of various session division, wherever the opposite 2 FIRs are pending, is herewith declined.

 With said directions, this petition and pending applications stand disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR[29]

Two or more claim cases arising out of the same accident, ought to be clubbed along for a trial.

APPEAL under SECTION 173 Of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. JUDGMENT 

 Invoking the legal proceeding jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the motor vehicle Act, 1988, appellant/claimant herein has challenged the award dated 16/01/2001, gone the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Bilaspur (in short ‘the claims Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Case No 05/1992, by that the Claims Tribunal has rejected her claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:

The appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 pleading inter alia, that on 20/08/1991 at Chandrapur (Dabhra), Tahsil Sakti, on account of collusion of 2 vehicles i.e Truck and motorcar, she suffered injuries. It had been pleaded that the Truck was owned by the non applicant/respondent No. 2 & insured with non-applicant/respondent No. 3 and motorcar was owned by a non-applicant/respondent No. 4 & insured with non-applicant/respondent No. 5 and claimed compensation to the extent of 54,450.

Learned claims Tribunal to shut scrutiny of oral and documentary proof on record held that the appellant/claimant isn’t established the actual fact of accident on 20/08/1991 and any did not prove negligence on the part of the respondent/driver and consequently, the appellant/claimant isn’t entitled to any compensation and rejected the appliance under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Mr. Sachin Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel showing as an acquaintance of the Court submits that the appellant/claimant has filed a copy of the award passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01/1992 (Chetan & another v. Tej Singh & others) selected 16/01/2001 and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02/1992 (Banarsi Sahu et al.v. Tej Singh & others) selected 16/01/2001, arising out of the same accident, in which, the appellant/claimant has conjointly suffered injury. He submits the actual fact of the accident has proved to be within the same claim cases Chetan & another v. Tej Singh & others and Banarsi Sahu and other v. Tej Singh & others and Banarsi Sahu and other. v. Tej Singh & Others (supra), and compensation has been awarded to appellant/claimant by the Claims assembly in those cases; whereas the appellant’s/claimant’s claim petition has been rejected, holding that accident has not been proven.

He any submits that the finding recorded by the Claims assembly during this regard is perverse. He last submits that the Claims assembly need to have detected all the claim cases along and need to have determined all the claim cases by common award, so as to avoid conflicting award in connecting claim cases.

Per contra Mr. H.B. Agrawal Sr. Counsel, showing with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, counsel appearing for the for the respective Insurance Company supported the award stating inter alia that the impugned award is strictly in accordance with law and no interference is called for in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The court held that,

The court held that the Claims in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01/1992 (Chetan & another v. Tej Singh & others) selected 16/1/2001 and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02/1992 (Banarsi Sahu and another v. Tej Singh & others) decided on 16/1/2001.

Claim Case No. 01/1992 (Chetan & another v Tej Singh & others) selected 16/01/2001.

Claim Case No. 02/1992 (Banarsi Sahu & others v. Tej Singh & others) selected 16/01/2001.

Claim Case No. 05/1992 (Kamla Tibeto-Burman v. Tej Singh & others) selected 16/01/2001.

All 3 claim cases are arising out of 1 accident occurred on 20/08/1991, on account of collusion between 2 vehicles i.e. Truck No.

BR-14/A/2473 and Jeep B.P.T.-266; resulting in passing of 2 conflicting awards by the Claims Tribunal.

The M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1994’) has been enacted. Rule 237 of the Rules of 1994 prescribes the procedure in connecting cases.

Procedure in connecting cases ;- (1) wherever 2 or a more of cases pending before a Claims Tribunal arise out of Same accident, and any issue concerned is common to 2 or a lot of cases, such cases, may, so far as the evidence bearing on such issue is concerned, be held simultaneously

Whereas action is taken under sub-rule (1) the proof pertaining to the common issue or problems shall be recorded on the record of 1 case and also the Claims Tribunal shall certify under its hand on the records of any such different case, the extent to that proof, therefore, recorded applies to such different case and also the indisputable fact that the parties to such different case had the chance of being present, and, if they were present, of cross-examining the witnesses.

Within the instant case, Rule 237 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 has not been followed in its letter and spirit and also the 3 claim cases arising out of same accident dated 20/08/1991, are tried on an individual basis while not following the procedure laid down in Rule 237 of the principles of 1994; resulted the passing of conflicting awards by the claims Tribunal. By the impugned award, i.e. Motor Accident Claim Case No. 05/1992 (Kamla Tibeto-Burman Tej Singh & others) has been rejected holding that the accident isn’t proven, whereas, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01/1992 (Chetan & another v. Tej Singh &others) and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02/1992 (Banarsi Sahu and other. v. Tej Singh & others) arising out of same accident, the accident has commanded to be proven by the Claims tribunal in its award dated 16/01/2001 and also the award directional the compensation has been passed, that might be avoided following the mandate of Rule 237 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994.

The Division Bench of M.P. HC had once in a while to contemplate the impact of Rule 237 of the M.P. Rules 1994 in Capital Roadways and Finance (Pvt.) Ltd., Bhopal v. Mohan Bai wd/o Mehtab Singh and others[30], para-6 as beow:

Within the instant case, the photocopy of the policy was on record in each of the case. The 2 Claim cases arising out of same accident are determined in 2 separate cases by two separate Judges. In one in every of the cases, the actual fact of policy is held to be proved, however the liability of the insurer is restricted to Rs. 50,000/-whereas within the differential case, the Claims Tribunal command that the insurance itself isn’t proven though in one of the 2 cases the actual fact of pendency of the connected case in another Court was delivered to the notice of the learned member. Such eventualities giving rise to conflicting findings will be avoided if claims arising out of same accidents between the same parties are clubbed along for a trial and call. See- Rule 237 of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 that on principle will be created applicable by getting orders for clubbing the cases for trial that arise from the same accident:

Thus, for the explanations aforesaid the award gone the learned claims Tribunal rejecting the claim petition filed by this appellant/claimant holding that the accident isn’t proven cannot be sustained and is herewith reserved. The matter is remitted to the learned Claims Tribunal to contemplate a new, once giving chance to steer proof to the parties and shall conjointly confine the mind the award passed within the Motor vehicle Claim Case No. 01/1992 (Chetan & another v. Tej Singh & others) and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02/1992 (Banarsi Sahu and other. v. Tej Singh & others). The Claims assembly can pass the award ideally within a period of four months. Since the appellant/claimant has not appeared before this Court, the Claims Tribunal can decide the claim case once noticing the parties, strictly in accordance with law.

This Court appreciates the valuable help rendered by Mr. Rajput, Learned counsel, Who appeared as a friend of Court

[1] Shah, V. (2016, December 13). What is a Writ and What is a Writ Petition? Retrieved August 16, 2017, from http://ift.tt/2gfBw4h

[2] http://ift.tt/2ynf9op

[3] Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. Advocate in Delhi, Supreme Court, High Court, DRT, CAT, BIFR, CLB, India. N.p., 26 June 2012. Web. 16 Aug. 2017.

[4] Article 132 of the Constitution of India, 1950

[5] Article 133 of the Constitution of India, 1950

[6] Article 134 of the Constitution of India, 1950

[7] Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950

[8] Article 32 of Constitution of India, 1950

[9] Article 131 of Constitution of India, 1950

[10] Article 139(1) of Constitution of India, 1950

[11] Article 139A(2) of Constitution of India, 1950

[12] Section 25 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[13] Article 71 of the Constitution of India, 1950

[14] Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950

[15] Article 317 of the Constitution Of India, 1950

[16] Section 53K of the Competition Act, 2002

[17] Article 137 of the Constitution of India, 1950

[18] 2002 (4) SCC 388

[19] Article 137 of Constitution of India, 1950

[20] The Hindu : Clubbing of Petitions on Gujarat Incidents Ordered. Group Publication, 26 Sept. 2003. Web. 16 Aug. 2017.

[21] “Mouthshut.com v. Union of India.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Apr. 2017. Web. 16 Aug. 2017.

[22] http://ift.tt/2ynf9Vr

[23] http://ift.tt/2gf1tkH

[24] India, Press Trust of. “Delhi High Court Junks Pleas Against Clubbing End-Use Of Mines.”NDTV.com. N.p., 05 Oct. 2016. Web. 16 Aug. 2017

[25] http://ift.tt/2ynfaIZ

[26] Sec 220 of code of Criminal Procedure

[27] 2006 Crl.LJ 564

[28] 2007 (2) JCC 1570

[29] http://ift.tt/2gh9JjU

[30] (1999(2) M.P.L.J. 554

  The post All you need to know about Clubbing of petitions appeared first on iPleaders.

All you need to know about Clubbing of petitions syndicated from http://ift.tt/2vKNZDn

[phgq]

Palace respects SC ruling on quo warranto vs. ABS-CBN

#PHnews: Palace respects SC ruling on quo warranto vs. ABS-CBN

MANILA – Malacañang on Tuesday said it respects the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the quo warranto plea filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida against broadcasting firm ABS-CBN Corp.

“We respect the decision of the High Court, a separate and co-equal branch of government, on the quo warranto case filed against ABS-CBN Corporation,” Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said in a press statement.

Roque issued the statement the same day the SC en banc junked Calida’s request to revoke ABS-CBN’s franchise, as it ruled that the issue was already “moot” because the franchise already expired on May 4.

In February, Calida filed a petition for quo warranto, asking the SC to nullify ABS-CBN’s franchise due to the networks’ supposed violations of conditions set by Congress for the 25-year operation of its television and radio broadcasting stations.

Calida alleged that ABS-CBN allowed foreign entities to take part in the ownership of a Philippine mass media entity, which is a violation of the 1987 Constitution.

He also accused the network of launching the TV Plus subscription service and the KBO Channel without the National Telecommunications Communications’ (NTC) approval.

Roque said the Palace would let Calida take appropriate legal actions following the SC’s latest ruling.

“We leave it to the Solicitor-General as the Petitioner to decide on his next legal steps,” he said.

ABS-CBN’s franchise already expired on May 4 after Congress failed to give the network a new franchise.

ABS-CBN went off the air on May 5 after the NTC issued a cease and desist order against the local media giant following the expiration of its franchise.

ABS-CBN has repeatedly maintained that it did not commit any violation.

On May 7, ABS-CBN asked SC to nullify and set aside the NTCs cease and desist order, claiming that the state commission “gravely abused its discretion” when it made the ruling.

Roque reiterated that the executive branch would let Congress decide on the fate of ABS-CBN’s franchise.

“Meanwhile on the issue of renewal of ABS-CBN franchise, we consider this a prerogative of Congress, which is presently deliberating on the matter,” he said.

The bills granting a fresh franchise to ABS-CBN remain pending before the House of Representatives.

Malacañang earlier guaranteed that President Rodrigo Duterte would not veto the franchise bill that would be approved by lawmakers once it reaches his table and if there is no constitutional infirmity. (PNA)

***

References:

* Philippine News Agency. "Palace respects SC ruling on quo warranto vs. ABS-CBN." Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1106785 (accessed June 24, 2020 at 02:52AM UTC+14).

* Philippine News Agency. "Palace respects SC ruling on quo warranto vs. ABS-CBN." Archive Today. https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1106785 (archived).

[theaxtorres]

The Fall of Justice

Right at the genesis of Duterte’s presidency, democracy has been on a gradual state of danger and has ultimately reached its threshold with the recent breach in the country’s judicial system. 

With the recent impeachment of former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the Philippine judicial system shows itself to be an easily manipulated aspect of our government. With democracy seemingly shattering right in front of us, the government seems to be threatening those who are in opposition by gradually stripping them off their positions—spearheaded by no less than President Rodrigo Duterte himself. Evidently enough, this proves to be an evident struggle for Filipinos as dictatorship looms nearby.

In August 2017, lawyer Larry Gadon filed an impeachment complaint against Sereno under the grounds of “culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.” Gadon’s accusations also included Sereno’s alleged noncompliance in passing the Sworn Statements of Assets and Liabilities (SALN). With these, the House Committee on Justice voted 38-2, declaring all allegations against Sereno to have legitimate bases. On May 12 of this year, a quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida to impeach Sereno earned the vote of 8-6 from the Supreme Court, officially securing the chief justice’s exodus from the country’s judicial system.

Sereno’s removal was a blatant disregard for the official and just processes of the government. As promulgated by the Constitution, an impeachment of a member of the Supreme Court can only be done through a full impeachment trial headed by the Senate. With this unjust action instigated by our very own government, the true colors of our country’s politicians became even more vivid–signs of dictatorship, injustice, and tyranny reek through the power given to them under the presidency of Duterte. Instead of a government that sets an example of integrity to its citizens, the Philippine government is doing the opposite, thriving in the upper hand they’ve ceased as the Filipino people hang on by a thread.

 The decision to impeach Sereno through quo warranto shows the imprudence of the government and strengthens the possibility of the Duterte administration to tie their puppet strings around the country’s politicians and one by one cut off anyone in opposition. Widely portraying the telltale signs of tyranny, it would be no surprise if the Philippine government becomes a party of Duterte cronies. With Duterte’s previous deceptions and attacks against the legislative branch and press freedom, added to the violent rampancy of extrajudicial killings, Filipinos are witnessing the consistent rise of authoritarian powers.

 In addition, by having a super-majority in both the upper and lower house on Duterte’s side, which will allow the President to get away with his wants through manipulative means, the essence of the government being “independent and co-equal” is being tarnished.

Sereno’s impeachment emphasized the easily penetrable state of our government by unlawful politicians, Filipinos are left to bask in the aftermath of these declarations. When justice in the highest branch of the government itself cannot be attained, what’s left for the average Filipino citizen to hold on to when a need for fair and righteous judgment has to be addressed?

 Therefore, it is during these attacks on democracy that the Filipinos must finally heed this wake-up call for to truly unite to secure a free country guided by a just democracy for the future generations to experience.

Be it through journalism, protests, or simple actions that call for justice, Filipinos must extend the power of the masses in letting the truth be heard, freedom be protected, and judicial independence be secured.

In the face of dictatorship, the fight for freedom must stand firmer than ever. 

This article was originally published in The Benildean website.