The Department of Finance issued Department Order No. 11-08 on 31 March 2008 clarifying that the last day to avail the benefits and immunities of Republic Act No. 9480 also known as “The Tax Amnesty Act of 2007” is on 5 May 2008, and not 5 March 2008 as previously declared.
To avail of the tax amnesty, please visit a previous entry in this site by clicking here.
The Supreme Court En Banc, through Administrative Circular 08-2008 dated 25 January 2008 signed by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, approved the guidelines in the observance of a rule of preference in the imposition of penalties in libel cases to be observed by trial court judges citing existing jurisprudence.
For the full text of the circular in PDF format, click HERE.
Good news to all persons whose right to privacy is threatened or violated due to an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing data or information about their persons, family, home and correspondence.
On 22 January 2008, the Supreme Court approved the Rules on the Writ of Habeas Data, to complement the rules on the writ of amparo it promulgated in September 2007.
Through the writ, erroneous data and information stored in files, registers or databases that threaten or violate privacy rights may be ordered deleted, destroyed or rectified by the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or the Supreme Court.
The rules significantly take effect on 2 February 2008, the Philippine Constitution Day.
You may view and read the complete text of the rules in PDF format by clicking HERE.
Let us salute the Supreme Court for this new set of legal processes intended to safeguard individual liberties.
On 14 January 2007, the local license version 3.0 of Creative Commons will be launched at the Pasay City campus of the Arellano University School of Law, the lead public institution of Creative Commons International in the Philippines.
The activities will begin at 1:00 pm with the open sessions on free and open source software, e-learning and free culture. The launch will take place at 4:00 pm. And after the cocktails, there will be a CC-PH concert featuring several rock bands who will perform their original works under a CC license. The Arellano Law Singers will also release their sound track of six (6) original songs: “The Bill of Rights”, “Social Justice”, “Preamble”, “National Territory”, “Citizenship” and “Lawyer’s Oath” under a CC-PH license.
Bloggers, artists, authors, educators, and scientists whose works are published in cyberspace may take advantage of the Creative Commons locally ported license and join the celebration of the launch.
To know more about Creative Commons, click these links - [LEARN MORE] [FAQ]
Click - http://creativecommons.org/international/ph/ - to view the Philippine ported Creative Commons license
Click http://creativecommons.org/license/ - to license your digital work
CC-PH is found at http://www.philippinecommons.org
The author-publisher of this blog is the Legal and Public Lead of Creative Commons International in the Philippines
In an En Banc Resolution denominated as A. M. No. 07-7-12-SC, the Supreme Court approved on 4 December 2007 amendments to pertinent sections of Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court.
Among the salient feature of the amendments on the filing of certiorari petitions under Rule 65 is the potential solidary liability of petitioner and counsel for treble costs with the corresponding disciplinary sanctions or measure against lawyers which the court may impose motu proprio based on the principle of res ipsa loquitor for filing patently dilatory and unmeritorious petitions.
The amendments take effect on 27 December 2007.
To view or download the complete text of the amendements, you may also click HERE.
‘Quarry‘ also means “a person who is the aim of an attack by some hostile person or influence”.
Barely warming his seat as Pampanga governor, Among Ed Panlilio, is once again in the limelight first for the ‘Malacanang cash gift’ scandal and second with his provincial board over-riding his veto of Ordinance No. 176 that imposed a new arrangement on the ‘cash cow’ quarry resources of his province.
Among Ed did what is ought to be done morally and legally in the cash gift scandal. His next quarry test is Ordinance No. 176.
By way of a brief background:
Former President Joseph Estrada vested in 1999 the supervision of the quarry business with the Natural Resources Development Corporation (NRDC). On 4 July 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 224 transferring the quarry operations in Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) through the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB). A task force was created to manage quarry operations and collect quarry taxes. In September 2003, Pampanga successfully obtained a court order enjoining the implementation of Executive Order No. 224, although I am not aware of the current status of this suit.
Subsequently, an order was then issued by former Governor Mark Lapid creating a provincial task force to manage quarry operations and undertake the collection of taxes, fees and other charges thereon.
The provincial government collects P300 per truckload of sand (lahar) broken down as: P150 administrative fee for the province and P150 as sand tax shared by the province, municipalities and barangays on a 30-30-40 basis. The imposition was made sometime in 1999 by the NRDC. The legal basis for such imposition is unclear to me although I can surmise that the basis of the administrative fee is the mandate of the NRDC under Executive Order No. 786 (19 March 1982) or perhaps Section 44 of the 1995 Mining Act while the sand tax is covered by Tax Ordinance No. 1-93 (12 July 1993) of the province.
On 21 September 2007, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga passed Ordinance No. 176. After a veto of the ordinance on 9 October 2007 by Governor Among Ed Panlilio, the provincial board passed Resolution No. 1022 on 22 October 2007 to override the veto.
What is the context of Ordinance No. 176?
1. “Fees/taxes” collected for the extraction of quarry shall be shared 30-30-40 as required by Section 138 of the Local Government Code.
2. The “fees/taxes” shall be based on “not more than ten percent (10%) of the fair market value in the locality per cubic meter”.
3. To determine the fair market value an Evaluation Committee (seemingly under the control of sanggunian members) is created whose majority recommendation on the fair market value is subject to the concurrence of the provincial board.
4. The existing administrative fee of P150 is abolished. And the amount of P300 being collected would be deemed as extraction fee to be shared on a 30-30-40 basis.
5. The Municipal Association of Quarry Operations and Provincial Federation of Quarry Associations would be created, and all municipal quarry association created prior to the ordinance are deemed dissolved.
6. Only the Provincial Federation of Quarry Associations is authorized to purchase official receipts (ORs) for extraction of quarry resources.
7. Among others, the municipal mayors are given the authority to prohibit or stop quarrying. No quarry operator shall be allowed to operate without certification from the municipal mayor.
8. The ordinance provided for a provision on checking, counterchecking and monitoring of quarry operations.
9. The ordinance also repealed all previous ordinances, memoranda, orders and issuances by the province.
Why is the Ordinance Invalid?
1. The ordinance appears to be unconstitutional because - (a) It violates the constitutional admonition against riders in omnibus bills and log-rolling legislations. The title of the ordinance clearly speaks only of the equitable distribution of the fees/taxes collected by the province on quarry resources but it levied or imposed an extraction fee, created juridical entities, the manner of the collection of fees, and the powers of the municipal mayors, among others. The matter of the distribution or sharing is only found in Section 1 of the ordinance. (b) It violates the freedom of quarry operators to form associations under the Constitution, which includes the right not to join any association. (c) The provincial board unconstitutionally arrogated upon itself the power to confer legal personality on juridical entities without any delegated legislative authority, which power being an exclusive and inherent power of Congress. (d) It violates the constitutional prohibition on unfair competition and unlawful combination in restraint of trade with the mandatory requirement on quarry operators to join the association created under the ordinance before being granted the permit to operate.
2. The ordinance is prima facie illegal and contravenes existing laws and jurisprudence when - (a) Apparently on the face of the ordinance, it is unclear if the imposition of the extraction fee is a license fee, a local tax, a quarry fee under Section 44 of 1995 Mining Act or an excise tax under Section 151 (A) of the Tax Reform Act. Such ambiguity makes the imposition of the ordinance unjust under Section 130 of the Local Government Code. [I note the Supreme Court ruling in the Province of Bulacan vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 126232, 27 November 1998, that local taxes on quarry resources cannot be imposed on those extracted from private lands]. (b) If it were a license fee, the 30-30-40 sharing mandated by Section 138 of the Local Government Code would not apply because it pertains to the local tax levied and not to the fees, which inure exclusively to the coffers of the province pursuant to Section 153 of the same Code. Hence, there is no legal sense to speak of sharing on the extraction fee, if it were a license fee. (c) Also if the extraction fee should be considered as a license fee, the amount of 10% of the fair market value would obviously exceed the cost of regulations which would make it unjust, oppressive and confiscatory under Section 186 of the Local Government Code. (d) If the imposition is in the nature of an excise tax, the provincial board has no power to impose the same under Section 133 (h) of the Local Government Code. (e) If the imposition is in the nature of a quarry-fee under the Section 44 of the 1995 Mining Act, the provincial board has no power to impose such a fee because it is a fee or charge imposed by the national government under the said law. (f) The provincial board has no power to repeal or revoke the existing administrative fee assuming it can be deemed as the quarry fees imposed in accordance with Section 44 of the 1995 Mining Act. (g) Setting aside the distinction between a license fee and a tax, the basis of the collection of “not more than ten percent” makes the tax rates flexible, if not undeterminable, which violates the general principles of taxation. [I note that if the extraction fee is a local tax imposition it should have effectively modified or repealed the pertinent part of Tax Ordinance No. 1-93.]. (h) The ordinance also violates Section 138 of the Local Government Code and Sections 43, 45 to 48 of the 1995 Mining Act that the permit to extract quarry resources, and cancel such permit issued, shall be issued exclusively by the provincial governor. (i) The ordinance violates Section 43 of the 1995 Mining Act requiring that applications for quarry permit be filed with the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) and thereupon the permit shall be granted by the provincial governor. (j) The ordinance violates Section 170 of the Local Government Code on the authority local treasurers to collect all local taxes, fees and charges and the principle under Section 130 (c) that taxes, fees, charges and other impositions cannot be let to private persons. (k) The ordinance effectively but illegally modified or repealed Sections 24 and 25 of Republic Act No. 7076 insofar as the province is concerned, or rendered useless and inutile the powers and authority of the PMRB created by virtue of the said law. (l) Other procedural infirmities violated according to, and noted by some, legal minds who may be aware of the factual circumstances that attended the passage of the ordinance, including a defective holding of public hearing, the undue delegation of governmental functions when the ordinance tasked the association to enforce the ordinance and the maintenance and construction of public infrastructures, and violations of the publication and posting requirements of the Local Government Code prior to its effectivity.
Ironically, a careful reading of Section 8 of the ordinance would show that only Ordinance No. 176 exists in the statutes books of Pampanga because it provided for a repealing clause of all existing ordinances, resolutions, memoranda and orders, perhap inadvertently.
Except for the separability clause, every provision of the ordinance is either or both constitutionally or legally defective.
The Quarry Test
By next week the grossly unconstitutional and illegal Ordinance No. 176 would come into full force and effect. If Governor Panlilio does not implement the law, after the provincial board has over-ridden his veto, he could be charged with deriliction of duty and be the subject of administrative proceedings, especially by vested interest groups seeking political vendetta.
On the other hand, when Among Ed took his oath of office as governor of Pampanga, he swore to uphold the Constitution and obey and execute Philippine laws. This places Governor Ed in a precarious situation where he has to implement a local law which is constitutionally infirm and grossly violative or in contravention with national laws. It is neither here nor there for the good governor.
On the strength of his solemn oath, his crusade for moral leadership and the rule of law, and to resolve the novel issue whether or not there exists no other legal remedies available to a local chief executive whose exercise of the veto powers is reversed by the local sanggunian, Governor Among Ed Panlilio should seek judicial relief, perhaps before the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.
In the alternative or simultaneously, the people of Pampanga should also rally behind Governor Among by starting a local initiative calling for the repeal of Ordinance No. 176.
After all, the clamor for good and moral governance would never succeed if, as often said, ‘good men do nothing’.
In A. M. No. 06-11-5-SC, the Supreme Court has approved the Rules on DNA Evidence to apply in civil, criminal and special proceedings whenever DNA is offered or used as evidence.
The rules defined “DNA” (acronym for ”deoxyribonucleic acid“) as the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an individual’s DNA is unique for the individual, except identical twins. “DNA profile” refers to the genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a person, which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person. “DNA evidence”, on the other hand, constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples.
The rules shall take effect on 15 October 2007 but may apply to pending cases at the time of its effectivity.
To read and view the Rules on DNA Evidence in PDF format, click HERE.
On 25 September 2007, the Supreme Court approved the Rules on the Writ of Amparo, defined as “a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity”.
The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. The rules take effect on 24 October 2007. But the remedy is made applicable to cases pending at the time of its effectivity.
You may view and read the complete text of the rules in PDF format by clicking HERE.
Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada was convicted of plunder in Criminal Case No. 26558 while Senator Jose Jinggoy Estrada and Atty. Edward Serapio were acquitted. Erap was however acquitted of the felony of perjury in Criminal Case No. 26905.
The full text of the decision of the Sandiganbayan Special Division in Criminal Case Nos. 26558 for plunder downloaded from the official website of the Sandiganbayan may also be read and viewed by clicking HERE [in PDF file - 1.39 MB]
Feel free to express your comments below on the decision.
“Heroes are stronger than the weapons they carry.” - Patis Soriano (as I was waiting for my turn to get the report card of my daughter in Miriam High School last 31 August 2007, I was reading this quote posted on the classroom board which I thought came from US General George S. Patton Jr. - only to find out later that it was my daugther’s creative quote.)
