The ASEAN Single VAT Law

I.                   Introduction

A.     Background of the Study

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”

Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Jean Baptiste Le Roy, 13 Nov. 1789

In its broadest sense, taxation is the imposition by the state by virtue of its sovereignty, of a charge or burden either on a person, property or property rights with the end in view of raising needed revenue for the support and operation of government.[1]  

In Panay Electric vs. CIR and CA (G.R. No. L-10574 dated May 28, 1958), the Supreme Court had the occasion to provide a conceptual definition of a tax, it goes on to state that such is a forced charge, imposition or contribution; it operates in invitum, and is no way dependent upon the will or contractual assent, express or implied, of the person taxed.

Clearly, the importance of tax in our daily lives is so profound and unavoidable. The ASEAN Economic Community Integration, which aimed to promote free movement of goods, services, investments and skilled labor as well as capital flows among ten ASEAN countries, has been postponed[2] twice due to challenges encountered in implementing some of its phases, center of these challenges is the uncoordinated and diverse tax policies of the member countries.

Generally, taxes are classified into direct and indirect. Direct tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is liable on the transaction or business it engages in, without transferring the burden to someone else. While an indirect tax is a tax wherein the seller of goods or services may pass the amount of tax paid to the buyer, with the seller acting merely as tax collector. In indirect taxes, the burden of taxation falls on the immediate buyers and ultimately, the end consumers. [3]  Examples of direct taxes in the Philippines are individual and corporate income taxes, transfer taxes and residence taxes, while one widely known example of an indirect tax is the Value Added Tax (VAT), also known as Goods and Services Tax in some countries.

In line with the on-going integration of the countries of the ASEAN Region, it is but just a matter of time that all ten ASEAN countries will adopt a uniform tax system. This fact pattern can be observed upon the emergence of the European Economic Community or commonly known as the European Union.

B.     Significance of the Study

Though not explicitly declared, it is quite convincing that the success of the European Union success of the European Union serves as the inspiration for the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community. Needless to say, the blueprint and integration activities has been patterned with the European Union Integration Checklists.

As far as the Author is concerned, there has been no detailed research output outlining the similarities and difference of the EU Single VAT Law and ASEAN countries’ business tax and VAT laws. Also, a Single VAT Law applicable to all ASEAN countries has never been tried to be formulated.

C.     Scope and Limitation 

This research paper will focus on analyzing the different EU VAT Directives and the different business tax and VAT laws of ten ASEAN countries. Such analysis aimed in identifying similarities and conflicting provisions of tax rules and regulations to facilitate in coming up with a uniform VAT law applicable to the entire ASEAN region.

The social impact on the application of the ASEAN Single VAT Law to each of the ASEAN countries will not be discussed in details. Also, this research paper will not be discussing the effect of the change of tax policies to other type of taxes such as corporate income tax, customs duties, withholding taxes and documentary stamp taxes.

---

[1]  State vs. Thorne, 87 N.W. 797

[2] http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/why-the-asean-economic-community-will-struggle/ (Last accessed on January 16, 2015)

[3]  ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 168056 dated September 1, 2005

The Scope of Legislative Power of Inquiry

     The Republic of the Philippines is ruled by democracy. It is democratic because the government’s existence is for the cause of its people and by the power given by the people through the form of election. Therefore, the public officers and its employees must have the accountability to the public who elects them with their respective position.[1] Their service to the public is not optional but they are mandated by the supreme law of the land, the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In the Constitution the right of the public to information shall be recognized.[2] That is why; the State must have the responsibility to implement the policy of full disclosure with all of its transactions involving public interest which is subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law.[3] But, how can the public ensure that those rights are being enforced? What is their assurance? Article VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution gives the Congress the power of inquiry. Which they are constitutionally governed, to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation with the different public officials, employees and other personalities to preserve the transparency and report the information for public interest.

     Last September 2014 Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay said that he will not attend the Senate inquiry into the alleged overpriced Makati Building II as he intends to challenge the jurisdiction of the upper chamber to conduct an investigation, his camp said in a media conference aired live. They also questioned the authority of the blue ribbon committee to issue a subpoena compelling him to attend the hearing. He said he would not attend, claiming that the proceedings were no longer in pursuit of the truth but in the furtherance of personal agenda. He appealed to the senators to observe proper decorum during the inquiry, which he said has already prejudged him and his family.[4]  In result to that, last January 28, 2015 the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee issued a subpoena to arrest the said mayor because of his refusal to answer the allegations. But he was freed right after the committee, noted that Mayor Binay’s act manifested that he waive his right to be heard together with the other public official in Makati who was also arrested by the senate’s Sergeant-at-arms.[5]   

     The factual news stated above implies that, the Congress’ power of inquiry (which is a constitutional obligation) can be neglected that way (Mayor Binay’s refusal). Now, it gives rise to the questions that; What if in the future there would be an issue involving the public interest and the public figure concern will just neglect or refuse to answer the inquiries in aid of legislation? Can we consider that as a grave abuse of discretion?  Is their blanket that would protect them from the Congress’ power of inquiry? How can these public officials become accountable to the public without full disclosure of the public information? After all, the public office is a public trust.

     This study will focus on the scope of the Congress’ power of inquiry. To further understand and seek the answers being raised by the researcher.  

---

[1] Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

[2] Article III, Section 28 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

[3] Article II, Section 28 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

[4]  http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/640548/mayor-binay-wont-attend-senate-probe-challenges-upper-chambers-jurisdiction#ixzz3QMizp3z9

[5] https://ph.celebrity.yahoo.com/news/mayor-binay-arrested-freed-164446412.html;_ylt=A2oKmKvHRsxUfHAAdjOzRwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTB0dG4wc2c2BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA3NnMwR2dGlkA1BIQzAwMV8x

SBN 29

Senate Bill 29

The Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act 2013

A bill that will prohibit and penalize employers who will decline any application or forcibly lay off a worker on the basis of age and other forms of discrimination, the said act will put an end to what is considered as an emerging type of discrimination in the labor front. The bill was anchored on the Constitutional provision that mandates the state to ensure equality of employment opportunities for all.

This issue does not only affect Senior Citizens but even those who are in their late 20s are already discriminated, the basis of employment should be a person’s knowledge, skills and qualifications which are necessary to perform a job. A person’s age should not be an issue.

Cyberspace: A Right and an Obligation

Privacy is the right that determines the nonintervention of secret surveillance and the protection of an individual's information. In the case Morfe v. Mutoc, the Court recognized that certain constitutional guarantees work together to create zones of privacy. The Court followed the rule in the United States case Griswold v. Connecticut.  The court explained the relevance of these zones in "In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Sabio v. Senator Gordon", thus:

Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process. The meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not only from our conviction that the right to privacy is a "constitutional right" and "the right most valued by civilized men," but also from our adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that, "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy" and "everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

In this age of modern technology, the legislative department of the government is working on how these zones of privacy will be protected. Several bills were passed and became law to adopt in the continuous change of technology. In 2012, the cybercrime law was approved. The law sought to protect the users and penalize offenders in the cyber world.

This paper aims to outline the extent of protection of the citizen's exercise of the right to privacy expected as applied in the cyber world and the limitations in the exercise thereof.

The Constitutionality of arrest and search made by the police officers in the case of People vs. Milado G.R. No. 147677

Zones of privacy are recognized and protected by our laws. [1]  Within these zones, any form of intrusion is impermissible unless spared by law and in accordance with customary legal process. The meticulous regard this Court accord to these zones arises not only from the conviction that the right to privacy is a “constitutional right” and “the right most valued by civilized men,”[2] but also from our adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy” and “everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”[3] To sanction disrespect and disregard for the Constitution in the name of protecting the society from lawbreakers is to make the government itself lawless and to subvert those values upon which our ultimate freedom and liberty depend.[4]

The 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures under Article III, Section 2 which provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. In Sales v. Sandiganbayan, et al.[5] quoting Allado v. Diokno[6], the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights guarantees the preservation of our natural rights, viz: “The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against arbitrary and discriminatory use of political power.  This bundle of rights guarantees the preservation of our natural rights which include personal liberty and security against invasion by the government or any of its branches or instrumentalities.

The sacred right against an arrest, search or seizure without valid warrant is not only ancient. It is also zealously safeguarded. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.[7] Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Indeed, while the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented without contravening the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.[8]

Among deprivation of rights, none is so effective cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart.  Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government.  And one need only briefly to have dwelt and worked among a people possessed of many admirable qualities but deprived of these rights to know that the human personality deteriorates and dignity and self-reliance disappear where homes, persons and possessions are subject at any hour to unheralded search and seizure by the police.[9]

---

[1] Marquez vs Desierto, G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001, 359 SCRA 772

[2] Morfe vs Mutuc No. L-20387, January 31, 1968, 22 SCRA 424

[3] Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See also Article 17 (1) and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[4] Dissenting opinion of Justice Brennan in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067, 1105 [1976]

[5] G.R. No. 143802, November 15, 2001

[6] 232 SCRA 192 (1994)

[7] 1987 CONST., Art. III, Sec. 2

[8] People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868 (1998).

[9] Dissenting Opinion, J. Jackson, in Brinegar vs. United States, 338 U.S. 2084 (1949)

MRT/LRT fare hike increase: Unconstitutional?

Metro Manila is served by 2 metropolitan rail systems, the Manila Light Rail Transit System, popularly known as the LRT, and the Manila Metro Rail Transit System, popularly known as the MRT, Metrostar Express or Metrostar. [1]

Last January 4, 2015, the public was dismayed after the Department of Transportation and Communications (DoTC) implemented a hike increase in MRT/LRT fares using the P 11.00 (base fare) + P 1.00 (per kilometer) formula for fares at the Light Rail Transit Lines 1 and 2 (LRT-1 and LRT-2) and the Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (MRT-3) as evidenced by Department Order No. 2014-14. [2]

As examples of the increased rates, an MRT-3 trip from North Avenue in Quezon City to Taft Avenue in Manila now costs P28 pesos for the original P15; an LRT 1 trip from Roosevelt Avenue in Quezon City to Baclaran in Paranaque City is now P30 from P20; and an LRT 2 trip from C.M. Recto ni Manila to Santolan Road in Pasig City is now P25 from the original P15. [3]

Commuters complain on the sudden increase contending that such action is unjustified and unreasonable considering the poor quality of services that the MRT and LRT offer, such as non-functioning of escalators and elevators, and safety issues such as the recent derailment of the MRT at Taft Avenue.

According to the DOTC, the increase is in line with the 2011-2016 Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan. Currently, LRT and MRT operations are subsidized by government in the amount of approximately P12 billion per year. Since the government subsidizes around 60% of the cost for each LRT-1 and LRT-2 passenger and around 75% of each MRT-3 passenger, an estimated of P2 billion will be freed up for development projects and relief operations. They emphasized that around P10 billion will still go to subsidizing LRT and MRT passengers while the P2 billion will be allotted to those vast majority of Filipinos outside of Metro Manila most especially those whose lives have been severely affected by typhoons and calamities. [4]

However, several petitions in the Supreme Court have been filed by citizens assailing the constitutionality of the LRT/MRT fare hike increase. Among them are Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) led by its secretary-general Renato Reyes, former Congressman Syjuco, Bayan Muna party list Rep. Neri Colmenares and the United Filipino Consumers Commuters, Inc. (UFFC). [5]

Petitioners claimed that Department Order No. 2014-14 or the ‘Implementation of the Uniform Distance based Fare Scheme for three train lines’ is unconstitutional alleging that the DOTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it approved the imposition of the new fare increases which is branded as “arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional”. According to them, “Not a single public hearing or proper discussion was made by herein respondents, that would show the justification, reasoning or proper computation for such abrupt and huge fare increase”. And as such, the said order was also violative of due process as there were no public consultations before the rates were adopted and subsequently implemented. [6]

Lawmakers were also up in arms against the fare hike increase as they were practically deceived by transportation officials by not disclosing any planned fee increase in MRT and LRT lines during deliberations of 2015 national budget. Such an impression given to senators following the decision of the DoTC to adjust the far of the MRT and LRT last month shortly after the two Houses of Congress approved this year’s P2.6 trillion national budget. The DoTC, however, said there was a public hearing that happened in 2011. “If that is their basis for the hike in 2015, I think that is not fair. They will implement the fare hike four years after the public hearing and they will tell us that is the public hearing as required by law? I certainly disagree with that logic,” said Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero. [7]

As pointed out by petitioners, light trail systems are common carriers that are considered public services that are essential to the daily lives of the community. As public services, they are subject to regulation not only as regards to their routes and quality of service but also to the manner of fixing their rate of fees that they impose for the use of their services. As such, they cannot be unilaterally increased without being subjected to prior notice and public hearings before they can be implemented. Thus, the increase violates the due process clause guaranteed by the Constitution.

The public should always be the paramount consideration in implementing laws for they are the foremost subjects who will benefit or suffer from such implemented act. If indeed public officials intend public interest over these anomalous allegations, the increase should have been implemented years ago and that, the public was provided with adequate notice and consultations. The timing of the increase and the nearing of the 2016 national elections, however, create a doubt on the minds of the Filipino citizens as such can be another political tactics of filthy politicians.

 _________________________________

[1] http://www.maps.nfo.ph/manila-lrt-mrt-map/

[2] http://www.dotc.gov.ph/index.php/2014-09-02-05-01-41/2014-09-03-06-43-32/85-lrt-mrt-fares-to-be-increased-on-jan-4

[3] http://www.mb.com.ph/sc-tells-govt-answer-petitions-vs-train-fare-hikes/

[4] id.

[5] id.

[6] http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/398979/economy/companies/sc-asked-to-stop-lrt-mrt-fare-hike

[7] http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/p4-5b-for-mrt-rehab-diverted-to-noy-s-dap

Jail is No Place for a Child

The Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 defines more precisely the term child; a child is any human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. The idea, through this definition and all the texts concerning child welfare, is that the child is a human being with rights and dignity. What characterizes the child; it is his youth and vulnerability. Indeed, the child is growing, a future adult, who has no means to protect himself. So, the child has to be the object of a particular interest and a specific protection. [1]

It is to be recalled that last year 2013, the Philippine Legislature has made a significant move in enhancing the after care and rehabilitation program for Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) through Republic Act 1063, an Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 amending for the purpose Republic Act 9344. The RA 10630 is a huge gateway to the dream of every CICL to pursue their goals for higher education and become a responsible member of society. That childish dream is now being threatened by the current proposed amendment of the DOJ to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility, without giving Republic Act 10630 the opportunity to be effectively implemented, and in further deference to the human rights of children guaranteed not only by the Philippines Constitution but also by the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights treaties that the Philippines have ratified. [2]

Children in poverty fight to traverse a dangerous landscape every day. Children do not select their families. Children are unable to choose where they live and what kind of education they can afford. Children do not have the ability to decide on their socio-economic status. But when they step inside a courtroom, the consequences from all of these variables come weighing down on their shoulders with the swift stroke of a gavel. This is the end result of a life with little-to-no options that many CICLs faced before 2006. [3]

Prison sentences are finite but their effects aren't. Our communities will eventually have to face these broken children when they are released back into society as broken adults. Rehabilitation is not the goal of a prison cell. We need to move forward with the full implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2006 to ensure that the core needs of CICLs are addressed. These children need to be reformed and reintegrated as productive citizens Criminal acts cost the Philippines unknown millions of pesos in incarceration costs, and bring lost human capital, lost talent, lost labor, and losses to victims. Rehabilitative measures for our youth, as established under the original Juvenile Justice Act of 2006, have the potential to restore these millions to the public sphere. Allow this potential to be realized. [4]

[1] http://www.humanium.org/en/child-rights/

[2] https://clrdc.wordpress.com/

[3] http://ccggph.com/2012/02/children-in-conflict-with-the-law/

[4] http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/ispeak/16812-the-filipino-child-is-not-dispensable

Human Trafficking in the Philippines Today

Trafficking is the illegal trade in persons through the means of force, deception, violence, taking advantage of vulnerability, or similar means, for the purpose of exploitation, which includes forced labor sexual exploitation, removal and sale of organs and armed activities.[1]

The crime-fighting office of the United Nations announced that 2.4 million people across the globe are victims of human trafficking at any one time, and 80 percent of them are being exploited as sexual slaves.[2] The illicit trade of human trafficking is a $ 32 billion industry based on a conservative estimate of the United Nations. This is equivalent to PhP 5.68 trillion which is almost twice the 2014 national budget of the entire Philippine government.

As a form of modern-day slavery, trafficking in persons thrive as among the most prevalent and pressing societal injustice proliferating nowadays. The Philippines as a developing country has rapidly become among the countries with the most number of trafficking incidences orchestrated by international and domestic syndicates. The Philippines has been tagged recently by UNICEF with the fourth highest number of sexually exploited children with a conservative estimate of 250,000 street children, many of whom are exposed to sexual exploitation and physical abuse

The State Department of the United States posits that sex trafficking in the Philippines is caused by endemic poverty, high unemployment rate, and cultural propensity toward migration, weak rule-of-law environment and sex tourism. The calamities that damaged several provinces in the country made our people even more susceptible to abuses and taken advantage of by perpetrators banking on their vulnerability.

To respond to the urgency of addressing this issue, the Philippine Congress ratified the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (R.A. 9208) in 2003 which was further strengthened by the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (RA 10364). The law is considered as among the best legislative measures among developing countries imposing strict punishments for acts relevant to the commission of the said crime.

But like any other laws, the aspect of implementation remains the biggest challenge. With the aggravation of trafficking in persons, the need to improve law enforcement capabilities becomes imperative in order to push for crime prevention and to rescue the victims. Addressing the broken public justice systems is also necessary to bring advance for criminal accountability. Equally important is the creation of a holistic approach and interventions for the restoration of the victims and their reintegration back to the community.

Since 2001, a US-based human rights agency called the International Justice Mission operating in key cities in the Philippines (Manila, Cebu and Pampanga) in collaboration with counterparts from government agencies, recorded 351 victims relieved, 347 suspects arrested, 50 convictions and 35 establishments closed. The advocacy is gaining ground. In 2014, a dedicated National Anti-Trafficking Unit under the Philippine National Police’s Women and Children Protection Center has been created. More and more local government units in Metro Manila and Metro Cebu have passed ordinances against human trafficking and child sexual exploitation. Civil society organizations have also significantly shifted its attention and resources in this advocacy.

Upon the passage of the Anti-Trafficking Law, there have been tangible results are very encouraging for the Philippines because they show that there is hope for our public justice system. These successes have increased the public justice system’s credibility in addressing injustice committed against the poor, thus increasing the communities’ trust and confidence in it.[3]

---

[1] International Justice Mission, Manila Field Office

[2] www.humantrafficking.org

[3] Atty. Samson Inocencio in his paper  Situational Overview from NGO Perspective during the 2013 NGO National Summit

Legality of MRT and LRT Fare Hike

Most of the population in the Metro ride in Metro Rail Transit (MRT) and Land Rail Transit (LRT) to their different destination: work, school and etc. It has been an everyday battle for these commuters to ride on the train. They have to ensure that they can ride right away on the train to save time going to their destinations. But they have to spend more time in the line to buy ticket or to ride in a train that they almost can’t fit. They were like sardines in a can. They also suffer the time loss due to the technical issues of the train. Not just that, they also suffer unpleasant smells from the other commuters and sometimes if you are not lucky you become victim of those who take advantage to others such as: pick pockets and girls being sexually harassed. Commuters wished that this kind of system may change. They wanted to ride in a safe and comfortable to this public transportation since they were paying for every ride. They were hoping that the government will do something about this public suffering. They believed that once the MRT and LRT service improved it will be a good indication for a successful nation.   

Last January 4 2015 the DOTC implemented the fare hike on MRT and LRT. The Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda, mentioned that President Benigno Aquino III supports the said increase in order to rehabilitate and improve the MRT and LRT service to its commuters.  Though, the said increase is a burden amongst the Filipino commuters who took the train as primary mode of transportation. It was welcomed with different protest initiated most of the youth sector. There were petitions filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) by different sects but there was no TRO issued. On January 5 2015 the Supreme Court asked the respondents about their side regarding the petition within 10 days. But up to now DOTC Chairman is avoiding in giving his comment on issues raised against its department. Many Politicians on different political parties are subdivided in giving support to the said increase.

On the other hand petitioners questioned the legality of the said increase. It was also observed the fallacies applied to. There were different questions being raised against the fare hike. Such as: Is it right to let the commuters be burdened by the improvement and rehabilitation of MRT and LRT? Was the said fare hike legal? Why TRO cannot be issued? These are the common questions being raised against the DOTC and Aquino Administration. This paper will give its focus in answering those questions and will look more on its legality and hopefully may come up to a recommendation that both government and commuters can benefit. 

House Bill 2080

H.B. 2080 “Death Penalty Act of 2014”

Section 3. The Death Penalty is hereby imposed for heinous crimes specified in Republic Act no. 7659, otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law and all other laws, executive orders and decrees imposing death penalty. Republic Act No. 7659 is thus hereby revived and activated.

R.A. 9346 “An Act Prohibiting The Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”

SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.

Alarmed  by the  influx of heinous crimes,  Senator  Vicente  “Tito” Sotto  III  has sought the revival of Republic Act 7659 or the Death Penalty Law in the country through lethal injection.

In filing Senate Bill 2080 known as “An Act imposing death penalty in the Philippines,” Sotto  sought to repeal Republic Act No. 9346 otherwise known as “An act prohibiting the imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines…

This was consistent , he said, with the rationale of R.A. 7659 or the Death Penalty Law, which provides that death penalty is appropriately necessary “due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but also affected the nation’s efforts towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the same time has undermined the people’s faith in the Government and the latter’s ability to maintain peace and order in the country.”

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/570377/sotto-bill-revives-death-penalty#ixzz3OyPG1Ybg 

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Sex offenders with AIDS: How should they be punished

In 2013, the Philippine National Police Women and Children Protection Center (PNP-WCPC) recorded a total of 5,493 rape incidents involving women and child victims. That’s approximately one reported rape incident every 96 minutes.

But consider this: the PNP-WCPC is just one of several units that report crime data. Its mother unit, the PNP Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management (PNP-DIDM), consolidates crime reports from all reporting units. Last year, the PNP’s annual report based on DIDM data tallied as much as 7,409 reported rape incidents, or one every 72 minutes.[1]

               

In 2008, Nearly 90,000 people reported being raped in the United States in 2008. There is an arrest rate of 25%.[2] According to theNational Crime Victimization Survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 39,590 men and 164,240 women were victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault in 2008.[3] Of those committed by a single offender, 78.1% were committed by men and 18.5% were committed by women, with 3.5% by an unknown attacker. Of those committed by multiple offenders, 75.7% were committed by only men and 24.3% were committed by both men and women.[4]

There are varying data on the percentage of rapes in the United States that are gang rapes. A 2006 report from the National Institute of Justice based on the 1995-1996 National Violence Against Women Survey found that 21.8% of rapes of women and 16.7% of rapes of men in the United States are gang rapes.[5] The National Crime Victimization Survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that only 6.8% of rapes committed in 2008 were gang rapes[6]

Because of this many states have enacted laws that allow individuals accused of sexual offenses to be compelled to submit to HIV testing.[7] These statutes may be divided into two major categories. The first category mandates that upon the request of a victim, a person convicted of particular sexual offenses may be compelled to submit to HIV testing[8] The second category mandates that upon the request of a victim, a person accused but not convicted of a particular sexual offense may be compelled to submit to HIV testing. This Comment examines the latter and most troubling category of laws by studying the constitutionality of testing persons accused of sexual offenses under a Fourth Amendment analysis. When analyzing these laws, courts generally focus on the Fourth Amendment and often dismiss challenges made under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments.' Consequently, this Comment does not scrutinize other constitutional challenges, such as procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This Comment focuses on the growing victim's rights movement, its effect on the enactment of state legislation allowing compulsory HIV testing, and courts' constitutional analysis of mandatory HIV testing laws. As an example, this Comment reviews legislation recently passed in NewJersey and the state court's analysis of this legislation.[9]

               

---

[1]  AGATHA GUIDABEN,GMA News Research August 27, 2014

[2] "Exclusive: Rape in America: Justice Denied". CBS News

[3] "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008 Statistical Tables: Demography of victims". Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[4] "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008 Statistical Tables: Victims and offenders". Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[5] Tjaden, Patricia; Thoennes, Nancy (January 2006)."Extent, nature and consequences of rape victimization"

[6] "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008 Statistical Tables: Victims and offenders". Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

[7] Allison N. Blender, Note, Testing the Fourth Amendment for Infection

[8] Barbara Danko, Comment, The Fourth Amendment's Challenge to Mandatory AIDS Testing

of Convicted Sexual Offenders

[9] THE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT AND COMPULSORY HIV TESTING OF ACCUSED SEX OFFENDERS: A Case Study of State ex rel. J. G., N. S., and J. T.

R.A. 9999 Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010 and the Need of the Poor and Oppressed

The primary purpose of the law is not to convict but to make sure that the justice is served.

 What if the accused is poor ? Opressed? Is there any way that the government can help them to seek justice?  What if they really do not have the means to pay legal fees? What will happen? Are they going to be victims of unserved justice ? These are the questions that are bugging me every time I hear that someone who is poor committed a crime. Maybe, these are also the questions that bugged our legislation, these questions lead them in coming up of a law that will provide the poor and oppressed  free legal assitance. The Republic Act 9999- Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010, AN ACT PROVIDING A MECHANISM FOR FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

The purpose of the act is to value the dignity of every human person and guarantee the rights of every individual, particularly those who cannot afford the services of legal counsel and to promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies and programs that provide adequate social services and improve the quality of life for all.

The State shall guarantee free legal assistance to the poor and ensure that every person who cannot afford the services of a counsel is provided with a competent and independent counsel preferably of his/her own choice, if upon determination it appears that the party cannot afford the services of a counsel, and that services of a counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and protect of the party.

People who are charged with crime that might lead to imprisonment, who cannot afford a lawyer are guaranteed by our constitution.

It is good to know that our government is fully aware of the situation of these people(the poor). I am truly proud that our government has come up with a law that will surely help the oppressed in seeking justice. We are all entitled with the rights that are bestowed by our constitution, life, LIBERTY, and property.

Let us put in our minds that in order to remedy the injustice in our country, we should not only enforce the law, we should also come up with programs that will lessen the struggles against our fundamental rights and freedoms.

[1] http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2010/ra_9999_2010.html

[2]http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/dialogue/1_10/articles/579.html

The Custody of the US Marine accused of crimes in the Philippines

The United States and Philippine relations are based on shared history and commitments of diplomatic principles, as well as on economic and military ties. The historical and cultural links between the Philippines and the United States remain strong. The Philippines modeled its governmental institutions on those of the United States and continues to share a commitment to democracy and human rights. At the most fundamental level of bilateral relations, human links continue to form a strong bridge between two countries.1

In 1951, the Philippines and United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty. Defense and security cooperation is coordinated through the framework of the Mutual Defense Board and the Security Engagement Board. The Mutual Defense Board provides continuing inter-governmental machinery for direct liaison and consultation on military matters of mutual concern to develop and to improve both countries’ common defense. The Security Engagement Board on the other hand, provides the framework and mechanism for continuing liaison and consultation on non-traditional threats to security such as terrorism, transnational crimes, maritime security, and natural and man-made disasters.2

In reaffirming the obligations entered under the Mutual Defense Treaty, the Unted and States and the Philippines once again entered into another agreement on February 10, 1998. The Philippine Senate ratified the Status of Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) to boost military cooperation to thwart maritime terrorism and other security threats. However, the validity of the said agreement was being challenge because the said agreement was allegedly one-sided, prejudicial to the Filipinos and contrary to the sovereignty of the Philippines. The agreement is seen as granting immunity from prosecution to the US military personnel who commit crimes against Filipinos, and is being treated by some as treating Filipinos as second class citizens in own country.

The death of Laude on October 11, 2014 has the potential to damage the US-Philippine relations. In order to address the current issues about VFA, the Philippines must review the contents and provisions provided by the said agreement. The Philippine has to state clearly as to whom custody will prevail over the US Military personnel accused of committing crimes against Filipinos.

1 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/philippines/forrel-us.htm

2http://www.philippineembassy-usa.org/philippines-dc/embassy-dc/ph-us-bilateral-relations-dc/