Divorce recognition expanded in PH

It is not correct to say there is an absolute ban on divorce in the Philippines.
Truth is, there are instances where divorce is recognized here.
The trend seems to expand divorce recgonition.
This is contained in Article 26 of the Family Code.
“Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law”.
The family code justifies that if the foreigner is able to procure a divorce abroad, and as a consequence of the divorce the foreigner is allowed to re-marry, then it is only fair that the divorced Filipino spouse left behind should also be allowed to re-marry.
Lately, the Supreme Court has expanded and made this law applicable even to former Filipinos who become naturalized in another country and subsequently procures a divorce.
This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Republic versus Cipriano Orbecido (G.R. 154380)
In that case, Cipriano and Lady Myros, both Filipinos were married in Ozamis City.
Later Lady Myros left for the United States.
While in the United States, Lady Myros became a naturalized American.
Thereafter, as an American, lady Myros procured a divorce from her marriage to Cipriano.
In this case, the Supreme Court said the Family Code provision on divorce can be applicable.
The point of reckoning is the citizenship of the divorcing spouse when the divorce was procured, and not the time of marriage.
Thus, the Supreme Court expanded the application of Article 26 of the Family Code, this time covering former Filipinos who are naturalized abroad.
If you look at the letter of the law, it only applies to foreigners who were such at the time of the marriage.
But the Supreme Court examined the spirit, not the letter of the law.
Let’s tweak the facts a little bit.
What if the divorce was obtained by the Filipino spouse abroad, BEFORE the Filipino spouse became naturalized abroad?
The answer to this question, applying simple logic, is that Article 26 will not apply.
Therefore, the Filipino spouse left behind cannot remarry, even if the Filipino spouse abroad obtained a divorce (before being naturalized), and then re-marries there.
The explanation is that since the divorce was obtained while the Filipino spouse was still a Filipino, then the spouse abroad is still subject to Philippine laws, which does not recognize the divorce.
But what if the Filipino spouse abroad, after obtaining a divorce and then re-marrying, subsequently becomes naturalized (becomes a foreigner) ?
Will the naturalization have a retroactive, and curative effect on the previously obtained divorce, such that the Filipino spouse left behind can also re-marry?
There is no case on this yet.
But if the Filipino spouse left behind is not allowed to re-marry, because the divorce procured by the Filipino spouse abroad cannot be recognized in the Philippines---having procured the divorce while still a Filipino---the same unfairness persists.
The Filipino spouse left behind will suffer eternally and cannot re-marry
It can be suggested that if a Filipino spouse abroad obtains a divorce there, such a divorce should be recognized once that Filipino spouse abroad becomes naturalized.
Otherwise, the Filipino spouse left behind cannot remarry and will be in an unfair situation.
Such unfairness is precisely what the Court has tried to remove.

Hubert Webb: Not guilty verdict is not innocence?

I really pity Hubert Webb.
After the Supreme Court acquitted him of the crime of rape with homicide, he is still vilified by the disgruntled.
Some people, legal observers, maintain that a “not guilty” verdict is not tantamount to innocence.
Some say the supreme court merely declared that the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
This does not mean the accused were innocent, they add.
While the statement is generally true, it is not true in all cases.
In acquitting an accused the supreme court looks at the prosecution’s
evidence to see if the evidence proves the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not for the accused in a criminal case to prove his innocence.
It is for the prosecution to establish with moral certainty, beyond any reasonable doubt, that indeed, the accused committed the crime.
However, the case of Hubert Webb is far different.
In Hubert Webb’s case, the supreme court not only found reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s evidence.
Not only was the court convinced of the unreliability of the prosecution’s star witness Jessica Alfaro.
Apparently, Jessica Alfaro got tangled in a web of lies (No pun intended).
Hubert Webb was also able to prove his innocence.
The Supreme Court said Hubert's alibi impeached Jesicca Alfaro's testimony.
If one reads the supreme court decision closely, it will readily be seen that the supreme court tackled Hubert Webb’s “documented alibi”.
With unassailed, unrebutted authenticated documents (by no less than two U.S. secretaries of state), Hubert Webb was able to establish that he was 8,000 miles away at the time the Vizconde massacre happened on June 30, 1991.
So for people to say that Hubert Webb’s acquittal does not mean he did not commit the crime, the same people must explain how Hubert Webb could have been in two places at the same time on June 30,1991.
The weakness of the prosecutions case, to my mind, is its failure to rebut the “documented alibi” of Hubert Webb.
And it is too late now to be producing rebuttal witnesses.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
Litigation has to have an end.
The prosecution should have proved, on rebuttal evidence during the trial in the lower court, that the alibi documents of Hubert Webb were false, fake, forged, or fabricated.
Alternatively, the prosecution should have proved, on rebuttal evidence, that it is physically possible for a human being to be in two places at the same time.
What the prosecution successfully did, was to offer conjectures, i.e. that it was possible that Hubert Webb could have sneaked into the Philippines on June 30, 1991, rape and kill three persons, and then sneak out of the country thereafter.
Can this scenario be possible without being tracked by the immigration authorities of two countries?
Yet as to how this could be possible, the prosecution did not offer any proof.
But conjecture is not proof.
Conjecture is nothing but a polluted allegation.
For those who maintain that Hubert Webbs acquittal does not mean he did not commit the crime, it would do well if they can provide a rational and convincing explanation to Hubert Webb’s unrebutted, documented alibi that he was in the United States on June 30, 1991.
Otherwise, Hubert Webb is not merely “not guilty”.
He is also innocent.

Speechwriter legally liable

The controversial speech writer of the President, Maria Carmen Mislang (an assistant secretary), can be held liable for violating Republic Act No. 6713, known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials.

While being part of a presidential delegation to Vietnam recently, the presidential speech writer made unsavory, embarrassing comments on her Twitter account by saying the Vietnam “wine sucks”.
As if the presidential visit was also a mate-hunting spree, the speech writer also publicly commented that there are no good looking men in Vietnam.
Worse, as if the Manila traffic is not as bad, Mislang comment that being in the motorcycle-laden streets of Vietnam is one of the easiest ways to die.
As a Filipino, I am very embarrassed because this was made by an official who was part of a high level delegation representing the entire Filipino nation.
When the president goes abroad on official visit, there is no moment that he or any of his officials are on private time.
This is because it is the taxpayers’ money, our hard-earned money, that is being used to fund their trip.

The law’s policy

The statement of policy of the Republic Act No. 6713 is very clear:
“It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.”
The policy is self-explanatory

Norms of conduct

Public officials are held to observe certain norms while in office.

Commitment to public service

Section 4 (a) requires commitment to public service. It states:
“Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.”
While part of the presidential delegation, did the speechwriter uphold public interest?
Did she use government resources (taxpayers’ money) efficiently, effectively?
If the answers are not “yes” then she is liable under this provision.

Professionalism
Section 4(a) of the law requires, utmost professionalism.
“Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.”
While in Vietnam is the speech writer discharge her duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill?
Did she comport herself with utmost devotion and dedication to duty?
Again, if the answers to these questions are not “yes”, then there is a violation of the law.

Justness, sincerity

Section 4© requires public officials to observe justness and sincerity:
“Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.”
While in Vietnam as part of the presidential delegation, and posting humiliating twitter comments in between, did the speech writer remain true to the people?
As a public official, did she act with justness and sincerity?
Was she not discriminating against the Vietnamese people where she said their “wine sucks”
Was she not discriminating when she publicly degraded the physical attributes of Vietnamese males?
Did she respect the rights of the Vietnamese people with her publicly degrading twitter posts?
Was she doing acts in accordance with ‘good morals’ and ‘good customs’ with her Twitter posts?

I think, if we base her acts with the high standards required of public officials under Republic Act 6713, she should be held liable.

Penalties

Under Section 11 the law provides penalties for violations:
“Any public official or employee, …committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. “

How to say "NO" to corruption

After more than forty years in government service, former Senator Nene Pimentel is embarking on a crusade to impart to fellow citizens his core values, his wisdom and experience as a public servant.
He has established the Pimentel Institute of Leadership and Governance (PILG), which serves as his springboard in spreading his crusade all over the country.
The Institute launched its pilot program in the University of Makati, which has hosted and linked with the institute in holding seminars on governance.
The institute is also trying to link with other schools all over the country who are willing to host the Pimentel Institute as a center for academic advancement or enrichment in the field of government leadership and service.
Because the barangay elections are up coming, the Pimentel Institute is holding seminars to prospective and incumbent barangay officials on the affairs of barangay governance.
The seminar aims to give insights and equip participants with the necessary tools to guide them when they embark in a career in public service.
One of the highlights of the seminar was the discussion by former senator Pimentel on the issue of corruption.
The subject of his talk was: As a public official, how do you say “no” to corruption?
Let me relay the main points of his discussion.
If you are a public official, the people who will try to corrupt you are your own family members, relatives, and friends.
You do not expect your political adversaries to attempt to corrupt you because they are not in a position to even come near you.
Pimentel advised that in the beginning one’s term of office, it is best to immediately declare publicly, that you are not going to allow any anomalous, illegal or corrupt transaction from anyone while you are in office.
But even after you have made this declaration, people will still come to you to corrupt you.
How do you say “no” to corruption?
Pimentel advised that to say no to corruption is simply to say it straight, verbally, clearly to persons who attempt to corrupt you.
“Simply say no,” Pimentel says.
And say it clearly.
“Huwag paligoy-ligoy (Do not beat around the bush),” he stressed.
Do not entertain the thought of creating justifications.
Do not give the serpent a window of opportunity, he said.
Never discuss in your mind how you can go around the law.
If you start entertaining these kind of thoughts, tapos na ang istorya.
A corrupt transaction will ensue.
Before the situation becomes complicated, it is best to immediately declare “Ayaw ko” or “Hindi puwede.”
Pimentel also advised that it would be good to accompany your rejection of corruption with a prayer---the Lord’s prayer which says “Lord, lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
Pimentel reminded that corruption is something that is against the law of God, particularly the ten commandments which mandates that “Thou shalt not steal.”
If the corruptor does not believe in the Bible (because God cannot put one to prison) at least remind him (the corruptor) to believe in the revised penal code which imposes jail penalties to people who corrupt public officials.
Pimentel cited the reasons why people should say “no” to corruption.
Corruption is against the law of God and the laws of man.
Corruption destroys your self in manner that you cannot realize right away.
Corruption destroys your dignity as a human being.
Corruption destroys the name that your children carry.
Corruption erodes the confidence people entrust in you when they voted you in office.
We recognize that corruption is very hard to resist because of the material and worldly gains it brings.
But rejecting corruption can be done.
You need not be a saint to do it.
Just say “no” and mean it.

Manny Pacquiao coming to Silliman University

It's good to hear Manny Pacquiao, the country's national boxing pride is going to Silliman University in Dumaguete City.
He is not going to continue his studies there.
He will be guest during the Silliman U's Founder's Day festivities.
According to Marv Dumon in his article in examiner.com Pacquiao, who represents the province of Saranggani in the House of Representatives, will be guest of Silliman Univesity's College of Law founding anniversary on
Auguest 26.
I got this confirmation also from Atty. Lester Nuique, president of the Silliman University College of Law Alumni (SULAW).
On August 26, 2010 at 10 o'clock in the morning, Rep. Manny Pacquiao will be the speaker in the University convocation at the Luce Auritorium.
In the afternoon, Pacquiao will be the inspirational speaker during the Silliman law alumni fellowship at 4:00 p.m. at the Villareal Hall.
Pacquiao is slated to spend the night in Dumaguete.
He visits Silliman before he leaves for the United States, Dumon in his article added.
It's good to hear Pacquiao is coming to Dumaguete City.
He will learn that Duamguete City has a rich boxing history.
Development of young amateur boxing potentials goes a long way back, spearheaded by the Amateur Boxing Association of Negros Oriental (ABANO).
One boxing local has already fought in the international scene, Jimrex Jaca, who hails from Sibulan.
There are quite a number of boxing potentials in Dumaguete City.