The UP Institute of International Legal Studies (IILS), in cooperation with the School of Economics, is inviting everyone to a forum entitled “Philippine Legal Compliance to the 2015 ASEAN Economic Community: Solutions to Legal Challenges” on Tuesday, March 25, 2014, at 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. at the Malcolm Theater, University of the Philippines College of Law, Diliman, Quezon City.
The UP College of Law topped anew the 2014 Bar examinations with my student, Nielsen Pangan, placing first. His schoolmate, Mark Oyales, bagged the second place. Three other students from UP Law landed in the top 10: Eden Mopia was fourth, Michael Tiu was eighth and Cyril Arnesto was tenth.
This was the first time for UP Law to top the Bar Examinations since Joanne de Venecia placed first in 2005. In 2011, no one from UP placed in the top 10 of the Bar.
I am, of course, together with the entire UP community, ecstatic about the results. This is not just because I am a product and a professor of UP Law. It is more because every UP graduate’s success is a toast to the poor and the middle class in this country. The UP dream is the stuff that is written about in telenovelas: poor children dreaming of climbing the economic ladder through a world-class education.
That’s why more people celebrate when UP students top not just the Bar -but the other Board exams as well. While private school graduates should also be honored when they reach similar success, the joy of topping the exams for a rich kid is simply not the same when poor or middle class students achieve the same fete. This explains why when the likes of Nielsen, the son of a Meralco engineer and a housewife; and Mark, son of a security employee and a bakery worker from Tacloban, top the bar, the entire nation celebrates with them. This is because their success is the success of every middle-class and poor family in this country. Rich people, when they achieve the same feat, celebrate only amongst themselves in their gated enclaves. The poor and the middle class, on the other hand, live their dreams through students like Pangan and Oyales. This is the UP fairy tale.
Be that as it may, this country really ought to reconsider the prestige and importance that it bestows on the Bar top notchers. Having been a Bar examiner in 2010, I have probably earned the right to say that given the very limited time given to Bar examiners to check almost 6,000 booklets of essay questions, the Bar exams could not be a reliable measure of one’s preparedness to be a member of the Bar. Moreover, one’s success as a lawyer is not measured by how well one does in the Bar examinations. Here, it’s the successful barristers’ future conduct as lawyers that will determine his or her greatness as a lawyer. Case in point is that of the former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who despite having been a bar top notcher, earned notoriety for infringing on rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Here you have an instance when a topnotcher earned notoriety because of what he did with his title later on in his life. If the bar exam results were indeed the ultimate measure of one’s preparedness to be a lawyer, then the remains of Marcos should today be at the Libingan ng mga Bayani and not in an air-conditioned crypt awaiting a funeral.
But an even more fundamental consideration is: what kind of lawyers are we producing with the obsession we have with topping the Bar examinations? Responding to the debacle of 2011 when no student from UP landed in the top 10 of the Bar, UP Law has since required its students to enroll in bar review subjects as electives instead of those that will enrich them as lawyers in an increasingly internationalized profession. For instance, I no longer teach electives on International Humanitarian Law and UNCLOS that have enabled at least two of our graduates, Raymond Sandoval and Suzette Suarez, to land appointments in the International Criminal Court and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, respectively. Likewise, we have done away with the elective on International Trade Law that enabled the likes of Dr. Diane Desierto and Ana Ramos to land careers as a tenured faculty teaching trade law at the University of Hawaii and the World Trade Organization, respectively. Likewise, we have done away with the elective on project financing which has proven to be the country’s monopoly in terms of cross border legal practice.
Worse, this giant step backward—just to satisfy the country’s obsession with Bar top notchers—is still happening when we only have a year before the borderless Asean Economic Community comes into being in 2015. This will usher in not only free cross border trade in goods, but also in services, including the practice of professions.
There is hence an apparent contradiction with UP Law’s decision to revert to being a bar review institute with the decision of the University itself, for instance, to change its academic calendar to begin in August, to be in synch with the rest of Asean. Simply put, we are retreating to the Jurassic past when we seek to produce Bar topnotchers instead of preparing grand lawyers for an increasingly interdependent world.
But what the heck: the public wants the topnotchers and for now, UP played well to the gallery. I hope though that for the country’s sake, this obsession will soon be a thing of the past. For otherwise, while we continue to heap praises on the topnotchers of an archaic exam, the country, meanwhile, may be left behind in the race for modernity.
The news reported that China had recently blocked delivery of food supplies to our troops holed up in a derelict US ship in Ayungin shoal. To many, this is another first since it is the very first concrete step taken by China to take possession of the disputed shoal from us. In reality, though, this recent act is but another manifestation of China’s long-term overall maritime policy in relation to the West Philippine Sea and the rest of the world.
China’s defense and maritime policies are contained in several printed policy papers beginning in 1998. This was updated in April 2013 and is entitled “The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed Forces.” According to this document, the Chinese policy is to “safeguard its border and promote its coastal security.” The document states that the role of Chinese armed forces is “to defend and exercise jurisdiction over China’s land borders and sea areas.” In the same paper, China regards the West Philippine seas as its coastal waters, the defense of which enjoys the same priority as quashing any attempt at achieving independence of Taiwan and opposing calls for the right to self-determination of Tibet.
Unlike the Philippines, China has a printed policy paper on its short-, medium- and long-term maritime policy. Its overall objective is to resurrect China’s old glory of being a world maritime power by 2050. Meanwhile, it is pursuing two short- and medium-term goals: during the first phase concluding in 2000, the People’s Liberation Army shall have acquired sea-control power within its coastal waters. During the second phase, which is from 2010-2020, the PLA shall have achieved a kind of sea-denial capability within its first island chain in the West Pacific, the West Philippine Sea. It is precisely this second goal which explains China’s recent actions in Ayungin. If the printed maritime policies are to be followed, this means in fact that China will not only take control and possession of Ayungin, it aims also to occupy all other disputed islands, shoals and reef, even the biggest island under our occupation, Kalayaan. The issue is not if, but when it will actually do so.
It is precisely this maritime defense policy that gives urgency to an early resolution of our arbitral claims now pending with the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Unless the tribunal rules on the validity of China’s nine-dash lines, China will implement its 50-year maritime policy in a manner that treats the entirety of the West Philippines Sea encompassed by these lines as its internal and territorial waters. For what it’s worth, the initiation of the arbitration will be remembered forever as PNoy’s best foreign policy initiative.
* * *
I have been to the island of Marinduque twice in a time span of a month, The reason is to explain the $20-million dollar offer made by Barrick Gold, the biggest gold mining company in the world, to settle the suit of the province filed against it in 2005 currently pending in a Federal Court of Nevada.
Since I am not qualified to practice in the United States, my participation in the lawsuit was only as an expert witness on the binding nature of international environmental law to the United States. One of the cornerstones of environmental law is the so-called “polluter pays principle”, which mandates that entities that cause pollution must pay for the clean-up.
The US Coast Guard has estimated that no less than 100 million dollars is required to clean up the 200 million tons of mine tailings dumped into the island’s rivers and waters. The problem though is that meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Kiobel vs., Shell that henceforth US courts should not exercise jurisdiction over claims against foreign corporation for acts which did not take place in the territory of the United States. Kiobel was s a case under the Alien Tort Claims act that authorizes US courts to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction against respondents found in the US for violations of International Law. This statute has been utilized since the 1980s as a means to hold despots responsible for their acts of extralegal killings, torture and enforced disappearances since the case of Filartiga involving a former Panamanian despot. This was also the cause of action of the martial law victims against the estate of Marcos.
In 2013, the US Supreme Court in Kiobel held that henceforth, US courts cannot exercise jurisdiction versus foreign corporations for torts committed overseas solely because these foreign corporations’ shares are listed in the stock market in the US or because they have a commercial presence in the US. Today, the US Supreme Court requires the following as the test for the exercise of US jurisdiction: Do they “touch and concern the territory of the United States . . . with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application?”
Unfortunately, much as I would want a higher settlement for Marinduque, the pending case against Barrick appears to be barred by the test of Kiobel. This is because Barrick is a Canadian company and the acts that led to the environmental damage were done in the Philippines. Sad to say, the province has become of the many victims of the Kiobel test. But hey, $20 million dollars is still about a billion pesos. This is hardly a sum of money that can be considered peanuts to to a province that earns only P200 million annually.
Radio broadcaster Alexander Adonis, represented by Centerlaw, will lead petitioners in filing a Motion for Partial Reconsideration at the Supreme Court, tomorrow, March 13, 2014 at 1:00 pm, re: Cybercrime Law of 2012.
Reference Prof. Harry L. Roque 09175398096
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlights how some countries can so easily breach the United Nations Charter provision on the prohibition on the use of force. Imperfect as the Charter may be, it has still achieved a tenuous peace since World War II by prohibiting resort to force except in two very well defined exceptions: self-defense, and when so authorized by the UN Security Council. Contemporaneous with the UN Charter is the international community’s resolve to penalize individuals who may start wars for the international crime of aggression. In fact, the first prosecution for this crime was against the Nazis for their act of waging war during World War II. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and even President George Bush II continue to be accused of this crime of aggression in Germany and Belgium.
Note though that when strong countries violate the prohibition against the use of force, they will argue that despite their action that they have complied with the normative rule against the waging of wars. For instance, the United States, when it invaded Iraq a second time around—this was after Iraq had already been driven out of Kuwait—argued that despite the absence of a fresh mandate from the Security Council, its acts were nonetheless covered by the earlier Security Council Resolution authorizing the ejection of Iraq from Kuwait. In Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that his action was to protect the millions of Russians living in Ukraine after an incredibly corrupt pro-Russian Ukrainian President was deposed in a bloodless people power reminiscent of ours in 1986. It was therefore the exercise of jurisdiction to defend millions of its ethnic Russians living in Ukraine.
But superpower rhetoric, more often than not, is farthest from the truth. In both Iraq and Ukraine, it was economic interest that propelled superpowers to breach international law. In Iraq, it was to enable Bush’s campaign contributors form Texas, notably oil and gas companies, to take over the lucrative oil and gas fields of Iraq. In Ukraine, it is similarly, to enable Russia to control recent oil and gas deposits discovered found in the area, specifically in Romania. In fact, Ukraine, after gas was discovered in Romania, was about to sign an exploration agreement with oil giant Exxon. I do not think this is forthcoming anymore. Moreover, like the Americans who want to use out military installations through the Increased Rotational Agreement, the entire Russian naval fleet is stationed in Ukraine, particularly in Crimea, pursuant to what many believe is a one-sided treaty.
Of course President Obama has come under fire from his Republican critics for allowing Russia to act with impunity. What these critics do not tell the public is that the US cannot question the acts of Russia because it has unclean hands. By invading and still occupying Iraq today, it is equally guilty of violating the prohibition on the use of force. It therefore has no moral and legal standing to question Russia’s acts because of the “unclean hands doctrine”—a state cannot come to court with unclean hands.
So should Filipinos stand idly by and accept the realities of power politics i.e., that might is right?
Far from it. Imperfect as the world may be, weak countries like the Philippines can only rely on the rule of law to achieve a semblance of equality with its mighty neighbors. The Philippines should be at the forefront of protesting any resort to the unlawful use of force because our own powerful neighbor, China, may just follow suit and eject all our troops from the islands that we currently occupy in the disputed Spratly group of islands. They have done this in the past when they took control of Mischief Reef and Panatag. They have been threatening to drive our boys away from the derelict warship that is our basis of our occupation of Ayungin shoal. They certainly could very well invade Kalayaan and eject all nationals from there. If the US and Russia could invade the mainland’s of Iraq and Ukraine, China could certainly invade remote and uninhabited islands in the West Philippine Sea.
Which leads me back to the normative value of the United Nations Charter. Yes, Chapter VII of the Charter, which is the section on collective security measures, the means envisioned to prevent another “scourge of war”, is far from perfect. But its literal provisions give weak countries such as the Philippines comfort that despite inequity in power politics, international law seeks still to achieve equality before the law.
Let’s condemn both the continuing US occupation of Iraq and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine!
The recent Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of libel under the Revised Penal Code and under Section 4 C (4) of the cybercrime prevention law but declaring the crimes of aiding and abetting cyberlibel unconstitutional are contradictory rulings, which can only be because of the court’s misappreciation of the doctrine of “overbreadth.”
There is overbreadth where the language of a statute that proscribes speech is so broadly tailored that it could encompass even protected speech.
Its application has been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence in the case of Estrada v. Desierto: “When statutes regulate or proscribe speech and x x x the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression x x x justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes (Broadrick v. Oklahoma).
In this same case, “a court’s first task is to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. Those that make unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct may be held facially invalid.”
Courts in the United States have struck down criminal statutes in at least half of the states in the union because first, only falsities made knowing they were false or in utter disregard of its truth should be actionable. This was the ruling of the court in the seminal case of New York Times v. Sullivan.
We have incorporated Sullivan in our jurisprudence in Borjal v. CA and Guingging v. CA. The rationale for this is that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and … may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
In Garrison v. Louisiana, the court ruled that a definition of actual malice including ill will and hatred would still inhibit public debate on public issues: “Even where the utterance is false, the x x Constitution x x x preclude attaching adverse consequences to any except the knowing or reckless falsehood …. even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.”
Under the foregoing rulings, criminal libel was struck down in the United States because as worded, it would encompass at least two types of protected speech:
First, false statements regarding public figures made without knowledge or recklessness outside of fair and true report of any act performed by public officials in the exercise of their functions; and second, true statements regarding public figures not covered by qualified privilege.
In Disini Jr. v. The Secretary of Justice, the Supreme Court upheld criminal libel on the basis that in its latest pronouncement on libel involving Cristy Fermin, the court found that “verily, not only was there malice in law, the article being malicious in itself, but there was also malice in fact, as there was motive to talk ill against complainants.”
Perhaps, unknown to the court, this was precisely why criminal malice suffers from overbreadth because it defines malice as including ill will and not just knowledge of falsity or in utter disregard thereof.
And yet, despite its ruling that criminal libel is constitutional, it held aiding and abetting libel as unconstitutional because of overbreadth: The terms “aiding or abetting” constitute [a] broad sweep that generates [a] chilling effect on those who express themselves through cyberspace posts, comments and other messages.
Hence, Section 5 of the cybercrime prevention law that punishes aiding or abetting libel on the cyberspace is a nullity.
Apparently, the court applied overbreadth where it is uncertain as to who should be held liable for aiding and abetting criminal libel but not for those who will actually be accused of libel using the wrong definition of malice in fact.
There is no basis for this distinction given that facial challenges on overbreadth are allowed precisely because of our constitutional commitment to freedom of expression as a means of ascertaining the truth and the value of a free marketplace of ideas in a democracy.
To say that only an uncertainty of who may be accused of aiding and abetting cyberlibel will lead to a chilling of rights is absurd. As held in Garrison: “Debate on public issues will be inhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred.”
We have in the Disini case a serious misappreciation of overbreadth, which will now certainly cause a chilling of the exercise of the right to free expression.
(Harry Roque is associate professor at the UP College of Law and is petitioner in Adonis et al., v. The Executive Secretary. He argued the issues of libel and cybersex in the oral arguments of the Disini Jr. v. The Secretary of Justice.)
We commemorated the 28th anniversary of the first People Power Revolution this week. As is customary, we ask the question: are we better off today, 28 years after the dictatorship?
In fairness to everybody, we are definitely better off living in today’s nominal democracy compared to the absolute dictatorship of the past. For one, we have at least a semblance of freedom of expression which was the first liberty infringed upon by the dictatorship.
Of course, despots despise free speech. This is because they fear the truth. Once people know what the truth is, they can form their own opinion. When taken collectively, public opinion can make or unmake governments, even dictatorships. This is exactly what happened to the Marcos dictatorship.
I was fortunate to have been raised in a family of activists. In my grandfather’s farmhouse, noted journalists would gather and whisper at the latest misdeed of the dictatorship. They would talk about Imelda’s avarice, Dovie Beams, Alfie Anido, and other taboos that the dictatorship kept from the public. Their informants were other journalists in the know but could not write the truth. Later in the day, an obscure publication, known as the “mosquito press” would surface. This was the WE forum. My Grandpa’s group would then converge late at night to read with eagerness back and current issues of the outlawed tabloid.
Peaceful assemblies were also prohibited. One of my fondest memories is how as children, we would defy the ban by walking and chanting anti-Marcos slogans in the rice fields behind my grandfather’s subversive farm house. That experience, needless to say, shaped the kind of person that I became today.
The dictatorship of course suppressed freedom of expression because it had closets upon closets full of skeletons. There was the fact that the dictatorship was downright corrupt. There was the fact that Marcos, the despot was megalomaniac and the wife, delusional. There too was the fact that despite systematic violations of human rights, the dictatorship survived because of Uncle Sam’s support in a region which became a battleground for the Cold War. There too was the fact that bereft of a popular mandate, Marcos had to invent himself as some kind of a demi-God with a divine mandate to rule. These were some of the reasons why he was averse to freedom of expression. Simply put, behind the lyrics of the “Bagong Lipunan” propaganda song lies the ugly truth that the dictatorship was in power only for itself.
Twenty-eight years later, we find that many of the ailments that afflicted our society during Martial Law are still prevalent. There’s still the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. And while President Aquino has not himself forced our children to sing his counterpart of the “Bagong Lipunan”, he has been peddling an equally pernicious lie that we’re now on the “Daang Matuwid”. Worse, while we have a thriving media industry that will not be cowed by the presidential bad mouths, we have a worse form of censorship that we did not see during martial law: the systematic and pernicious killing of journalists. In fact, the impunity against journalists has earned us the notoriety of being either the most or the second-most murderous country for journalists worldwide.
So are we better off today?
I submit that yes, we are better off today. While our journalists continue to die heroes’ deaths, at least our media has been persistent and untiring in exposing the scams in government that led to the public contempt and indignation for the PDAF, the DAP and the Malampaya scams. While the presidential bad mouths of Edwin Lacierda and Abigail Valte continue to wreak havoc, PNoy at least has taken steps to have a more palatable spokesman in the person of Sonny Coloma. And while scandals continue to hound the administration with the likes of Dinky “when he hold on together” Soliman’s election fund raising dubbed as poverty alleviation, Ging Deles’s bloody peace pact with the MILF, and Butch Abad’s DAP, the reality is PNoy himself remains untainted with corruption. Thus he continues to honor the memory of his parents.
Yes, we’re not in heaven. But because we’ve been to hell during the days of the dictatorship, we would be damned if we allowed it to happen again. This is why PNoy and his cohorts better watch out. For unless they do better in the next two years, he may not have a legacy to speak of and may very well be equally notorious—if not because of kleptocracy, then because of sheer incompetence.
Shape up, PNoy!