But did he actually copy the words of an article written by Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association, and passed them off as his own ? Mr. Ellis’ article, entitled “Breaking the Silence on Rape as an International Crime”, was published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law and makes the case for considering rape as a crime against humanity, like piracy, genocide and other heinous offenses, and therefore “ subject to universal jurisdictions under customary international law”.

The Viduya ruling, in disposing of the claims of Filipino victims of Japan’s wartime policy of forcing women to work as sex slaves serving Japanese soldiers, held that the Philippines is under no obligation to assist in pursuing the comfort women’s claims. It essentially becomes a diplomatic issue. According to the Court, since “ The Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners’ cause would be inimical to our country’s foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region”, the Court cannot compel the government to take up the cudgels for the victims. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Although it may appear from a quick and superficial reading of the Ellis article and the Viduya ruling that they espouse differing views on how rape should be treated under international law, they are actually on the same page. Both seem to “ fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as legally prohibited under contemporary international law”. But it was precisely in explaining the immediately preceding quote that Justice Del Castillo might have sailed into intellectually dishonest waters.

In the decision’s footnote (no. 65) to the quoted sentence, Mr. Ellis noticed uncanny similarities with the words and structure of his article and was understandably concerned. Here he was, presenting his best arguments for rape to be considered as a crime against the whole world, and it was being used in a judicial decision which says that this just isn’t yet so. Both are correct, from each one’s perspective, but it was unfair for Mr. Ellis’ that his ideas would be so utilized. Not only was there no proper acknowledgment or attribution, his words were used to bolster a position which he was opposing. A bit like being “fried in your own lard”, to use a popular Filipino saying.

What is plagiarism ? A good working definition is provided by uslegal.com, as follows:

Intentional or unintentional use of another’s words or ideas without acknowledging this use constitutes plagiarism: There are four common forms of plagiarism:

• The duplication of an author’s words without quotation marks and accurate references or footnotes.
• The duplication of author’s words or phrases with footnotes or accurate references, but without quotation marks.
• The use of an author’s ideas in paraphrase without accurate references or footnotes.
• Submitting a paper in which exact words are merely rearranged even though footnoted.

But did Mr. Justice Del Castillo really lift words and phrases from Ellis’ work and pass them off as his own ? From where I sit, it looks like he did. It’s doesn’t jump out at you and one had best read the Ellis article and the Vinuya decision in full before deciding, but it seems Mr. Ellis has a point. Apart from verbatim phrases lifted from the article, the flow of Mr. Ellis’ ideas, or at least a significant part of them, appears to have been duplicated in the Vinuya decision.

We may grant that, as Justice Del Castillo said in his defense, there was no malicious intent in his inclusion of Mr. Ellis’ work and that these were mere “appendages” which would not have affected the final outcome even if they were removed. But the fact remains that he may have copied Ellis’ words without attribution and this is more than sufficiently damning. It all comes down to a question of integrity. If the Supreme Court can be dishonest in seemingly minor things, how can we expect it to be truthful and forthright on the bigger issues ?

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

To be sure, there is nothing in the Constitution or the law which would compel Noynoy to take his oath of office before the Chief Justice. All that is required is that the person be authorized to administer oaths. For this purpose, a barangay head would be as good as any justice.

But tradition is sometimes weightier than the the letter (or non-letter) of the law. Only two past Philippine presidents (Quezon and Osmena) were not sworn into office by the Philippine C.J., during the commonwealth and war periods. All post-independence presidents took their office of office before the Chief Justice. The reason is simple: this is a recognition of the separation of powers between the three main branches of government and an acknowledgment of the respect and deference due the leader of a supposedly co-equal branch. Although in reality, an imperial presidency trumps both the legislature and judiciary in terms of actual power and prestige.

What then does Chief Justice Puno mean about adhering to the rule of law, when no statute would be violated by Noynoy’s refusal to be sworn in by Corona ? In the consolidated cases of De Castro et. al. vs. the Judicial and Bar Council and Gloria Arroyo, the Supreme Court decreed that the prohibition against midnight appointments is confined to the executive branch and does not include the judiciary. In resolving the motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners De Castro et. al., the Court even more emphatically declared:

The Members of the Court vote on the sole basis of their conscience and the merits of the issues. Any claim to the contrary proceeds from malice and condescension. Neither the outgoing President nor the present Members of the Court had arranged the current situation to happen and to evolve as it has. None of the Members of the Court could have prevented the Members composing the Court when she assumed the Presidency about a decade ago from retiring during her prolonged term and tenure, for their retirements were mandatory. Yet, she is now left with an imperative duty under the Constitution to fill up the vacancies created by such inexorable retirements within 90 days from their occurrence. Her official duty she must comply with. So must we ours who are tasked by the Constitution to settle the controversy.

Simply stated, the Supreme Court gave the green light for GMA to appoint the next Chief Justice and therefore, her appointment of Mr. Justice Corona is valid and legal. Since settled jurisprudence forms part of the law of the land, the De Castro ruling is binding on us all, even presidents-elect. For Noynoy to brush aside the practical effects of settled case law, no matter how distasteful, is to send the message that he considers himself above the law. Like it or not, Corona is the C.J. by virtue of the De Castro ruling.

Of course, all these complications would not have arisen if GMA had the propriety to demur from appointing the next Chief Justice. Or if Corona had the rectitude to refuse the appointment. But things being what they are, we have the unseemly situation of one branch of government openly hostile to another over what is essentially a matter that can be easily resolved.

I am personally puzzled why Noynoy Aquino would make a big fuss over this. It makes for an inauspicious start. This is a chance for Aquino to be gracious and magnanimous in victory. He might even be able to convert Corona into an ally. His petulance is unnecessarily decisive. Worse, it indicates a certain narrow-mindedness and a knee-jerk tendency to portray anything or anyone associated with GMA as inherently evil and threatening, without putting the matter into proper perspective.

To take the oath of office before Corona may be a political gesture but it is hardly meaningless or empty. It shows that the new president has the requisite humility and understanding of how the government works by making his first official act a formal cognizance of the fact that he does not wield absolute power.

The newly elected president ought not, like Napoleon, crown himself, which is what he would be doing if he requires a barangay captain to swear him in. They both belong to the executive branch and it’s a safe bet that he/she supported Noynoy in the elections. What follower would pass up the opportunity to induct his sovereign into office ? Mr. Aquino understandably feels safe with those who idolize him. But it would not be the same as Noynoy reaching out to those he perceives to be his enemies and showing the country that he is big enough to fill his late mother’s shoes.
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

But under the present state of the law, they cannot be charged with rebellion and still stand trial for murder. Murder, and all other incidental crimes related to rebellion, will be subsumed in the latter charge. And while the Penal Code allows separate prosecutions for either murder or rebellion, rebels cannot be charged for both where the indictment alleges that the former has been committed in furtherance of or in connection with the latter.

The Ampatuans can literally get away with murder if they know how.

However, most people know them to be just plain murderous cutthroats.

So what happens now ?

My guess is that the Department of Justice will later on withdraw the charge of rebellion and charge them with murder and other crimes. After all, the cases are still in the pre-arraignment or pre-trail investigation stage. The public prosecutors have the option of determining which prosecutions should be initiated on the basis of the evidence on hand.

Why charge them with rebellion if eventually this would be dropped ? The purported state of rebellion was the main justification for declaring martial law and rounding up the Ampataun forces without setting off a bloodbath.

The danger of this strategy is that the government has, intentionally or not, given a way out for the Ampatuans. They will now claim to be rebels. It is easier (given the clear-cut evidence) and much more serious for them to be convicted of murder than rebellion. As rebels, they will not only claim the right to bail but will have more than an even chance of walking away scot-free, as numerous examples, from Gringo Honasan to Nur Misuari, will show. Andal Ampatuan, Sr. might even run for the Senate and win.

Of course, the Ampatuans have the burden of proving that the political (meaning ideological) purpose or motive for the mass killings were in pursuit of rebellion. And given the overwhelming proof against them, they will have a hell of a time trying to prove their innocence. And rebellion is not the escape hatch it once was for criminals. As noted in Enrile v. Salazar (186 SCRA 217 ):

It may be that in the light of contemporary events, the act of rebellion has lost that quintessentially quixotic quality that justifies the relative leniency with which it is regarded and punished by law, that present-day rebels are less impelled by love of country than by lust for power and have become no better than mere terrorists to whom nothing, not even the sancity of human life, is allowed to stand in the way of their ambitions. Nothing so chronicles this aberration as the rash of seemingly senseless killings, bombings, kidnappings and assorted mayhem so much in the news these days, as often perpetrated against innocent civilians as against the military, but by and large attributable to, or even claimed by so called rebels to be part of, an ongoing rebellion.

I just hope that our prosecutors will show sufficent courage, vigor and thoroughness in nailing the killers. This would be a hard case to lose, but stranger things have happened. And the Ampatuans will be fighting for their lives and the very survival of their clan. As of last count, they had some 40 lawyers, including some heavy hitters, signed up.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Cartoon from The New Yorker.
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Eight years after the abduction and gruesome murders of publicist Bubby Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito in November 2000, Dacer’s children sought yesterday the indictment of Sen. Lacson for the murders.

In a nine-page affidavit of complaint filed before the Department of Justice, Dacer daughters Carina, Sabina, Emily and Amparo said it was Lacson who “ordered the killing of our father” based on a recent affidavit executed by another principal suspect and alleged co-conspirator, former Police Senior Superintendent Cezar Mancao II, who is expected to be extradited from the United States on March 31. At the time of the killings, Mancao was working under Lacson in the defunct Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF), a special law enforcement unit then reporting directly to deposed President Joseph “Erap” Estrada. According to Mancao’s testimony given in in Broward County, Florida, where he is detained pending repatriation to the Philippines, he personally heard Lacson order former Police Superintendent Michael Ray Aquino, then operations chief of the PAOCTF, to kill Dacer sometime in October 2000. Aquino fled to the U.S. after things got too hot and is also presently facing extradition charges.

Lacson says the charges are “politically motivated”. But as Conrado De Quiros points out, everything and everyone in this country is motivated by politics.

If there’s evidence implicating him in the murders, then he should be prosecuted and, if found guilty, jailed for life. Whether the motive of the prosecutors is revenge, or retaliation, or pure spite doesn’t matter. Where there’s crime, there’s punishment. Or should be.

But is there enough evidence to charge and possibly convict Lacson of the murders ? The settled rule is the testimony of a co-conspirator is sufficient to sustain the filing of murder charges. The Supreme Court has held held that “a conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of a fellow criminal than by any other method” (Salvanera vs. People, G.R. No. 143093, May 21, 2007).

If it is shown that the statements of the testifying co-conspirator are corroborated by other evidence, then there would be convincing proof of guilt. Ordinarily, a single witness can bring about a conviction. But if the prosecution witness is a fellow conspirator, a so-called “polluted source” out to save his own neck, there has to be corroborative proof.

The settled rule is a defendant in a criminal action can not be convicted on the evidence of an accomplice only, and that to sustain such a conviction, there must be other evidence corroborating that of the accomplice, which tend to show the guilt of the defendant. (People vs. Lanas, G.R. No. 5086, May 25, 1953 quoting People vs. Asean, 53 Phil. 59, 67.)

So it’s far from certain whether Lacson will be convicted of the Dacer-Corbito double murders. The prosecution has to have something more in its arsenal than just the say-so of Mancao, although that in itself is damning. But if the Department of Justice runs true to form (which is to say corrupt and inept), Ping Lacson has little to worry about.

But this case is almost sure to go to court, and it will prove to be interesting.

Already the Lacson camp has resorted to delaying tactics. Michael Ray Aquino, who has remained loyal to Lacson, has sought to delay the extradition of Mancao on the ground that the latter has to testify in his (Aquino’s) extradition case pending before the US District Court of New Jersey in Newark.

What is intriguing is that Lacson has hinted that Erap might be involved in the killings. As reported in the Inquirer , Lacson said in a phone interview: “Kung mayroong kinalaman ang mga tao ko, hindi naman ako ang pinakamataas na opisyal.” [If my men were involved, I wasn’t the most senior official.]

Although Earp was implicated in the Mancao affidavit, the allegations against him are hearsay. It would be interesting to see if Lacson would now turn against his former boss.
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Prior restraint is a form of censorship. It is a legal term referring to a government’s actions that prevent materials from being published. Censorship that requires governmental permission in the form of a license or imprimatur before anything is published constitutes prior restraint every time permission is denied. Prior restraint is an official restriction of speech before publication. The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully found it to be “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights“.

But one is hard-pressed to find any provision in Senate Bill 2150 or House Bill 3306 which would have the effect of censoring or restraining what can be printed or aired. Where does it say that government approval will have to be secured before publication or broadcast ? It’s a stretch to read this into either version of the bill. Moreover, this is well-nigh impossible in cyberspace.

What MSM is really afraid of is the ruinous consequences a Right of Reply law will have on its finances. It will hit them where it hurts most, on their bottom line. If this is the case, why not come clean and admit that’s it’s really all about the money ? Instead of attempting to advance all these high-minded constitutional arguments which are full of holes.

And what about our long-standing tradition of so-called “self-regulation”, they ask. Well, how effective has it really been ? There’s little evidence that such self-regulation will guarantee adherence to high journalistic standards. It hasn’t stopped the practice of “envelopmental” journalism. All mass media in this country remains beholden to, if it is not actually owned by, special interests. This fact of itself has a “chilling” effect on what is published or broadcast on a day to day basis.

Senator Chiz Escudero, erstwhile author and proponent of the Right of Reply bill, after making a quick volte face when he realized the tide of popular opinion was turning against him, was quoted as saying that “when one is on the side of truth, one does not need to fear media”. But such reasoning can also be applied to media, that if it is on the side of truth, it need not be afraid of the Right of Reply. Truth will always out. Why then is MSM so fearful of the Right of Reply ?
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Opposition against it is snowballing, and senators who previously endorsed the measure, like Chiz Escudero, the Chair of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights and one of the bill’s authors, are flip-flopping. President Arroyo, never one to miss an opportunity to butter up to the media, is saying she is ready to veto the bill.

Everyone seems to be taking the side of traditional media which, predictably, has draped itself in the Constitution. Just to play devil’s advocate, being of a diabolical bent, allow me to argue for the adoption of the a law which allows the Right of Reply.

The first consideration is the fundmental idea of fairness, which in this context simply means that all sides to the issue shoud be properly presented. What can be objectionable to institutionalizing fairness ? What the bill intends to do is to level the playing field, in FVR’s favorite phrase. If the media can dish it out, it shoud be able to take it. And provide equal access to the platform to do so for those aggrieved.

This is not a totally unknown concept. The U.S. Federal Communication Commission previously introduced a “Fairness Doctine” which required broadcasters to present both sides of controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced. Although eventually abandoned in the face of strident opposition from big media interests, the debate on its desirability goes on. Many parties continue to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation. It may be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press).

Senate Bill 2150 is merely a more expansive variation of the Fairness Doctrine, defining the Right to Reply thus:

All persons natural or juridical who are accused directly of indirectly of committing or having committed or of intending to commit any crime or offense defined by law or are criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in behavior in public or private life shall have the right to reply to the charges published or printed in newspapers, magazines, newsletters or publications circulated commercially or for free, or to criticism aired or broadcast over radio, television, websites or through any electronic evidence.

Hence, the proposed Right of Reply would also cover print media and online publication. Although, in the case of blogs, a simple mechanism has already ensured the Right of Reply in the form of comments to blog posts.

Other related points will be discussed in future posts.
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Recall that in late 2006 and early 2007, Smith was the subject of a diplomatic tug-of-war between Philippine judicial authorities and the U.S. over his detention in a local jail. Bowing to American pressure, he was subsequently handed over to embassy officials by the Arroyo government. He was detained in the U.S. embassy compound while his appeals were pending.

But the decision in the consolidated cases of “Suzette Nicolas y Sombilon (a.ka. “Nicole”) vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs Alberto Romulo et. al. (G.R. No. 175888), Jovito Salonga et. al. vs. L/Cpl. Daniel Smith et. al. (G.R. No. 176051) and BAYAN, GABRIELA et. al. vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo et. al. (G.R. No. 176222)” has some parties in a snit, particlularly those who used the rape case as a vehicle for questioning the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement. Sorry guys, but the S.C., voting 9-4, says that the VFA is constitutional. In the words of the Court: “The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998,is UPHELD as constitutional but the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of Dec. 19 and 22, 2006, are declared not in accordance with the VFA. ” The Romulo-Kenney agreements pertain to the transfer of Smith to the custody of U.S. authorities.

The decision held that the VFA is “self-executing” and need not be ratified by the U.S. Senate to be binding.

The fact that the VFA was not submitted for advice and consent of the United States Senate does not detract from its status as a binding international agreement or treaty recognized by the said State. For this is a matter of internal United States law.

The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions.

The foregoing must especially rankle, as does the declaration that unequal (read: preferential) treatment of foreign nationals is lawful.

The equal protection clause is not violated, because there is a substantial basis for a different treatment of a member of a foreign military armed forces allowed to enter our territory and all other accused.

The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter one’s territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon.

Moreover, there is a lot of room for diplomatic wrangling, as the VFA provision on custody after conviction is worded thus:

Article V, Criminal Jurisdiction

x x x

Sec. 10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance.

Indeed, the Supreme Court took pains to state: “… respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs is hereby ordered to forthwith negotiate with the United States representatives for the appropriate agreement on detention facilities under Philippine authorities as provided in Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA, pending which the status quo shall be maintained until further orders by this Court. ”

There’s the rub. The decision is not yet final and executory, as Smith will likely file a Motion for Reconsideration. Thereafter, negotiations will have to be held and this could take forever, with the U.S. authorities stonewalling. Note that the decision prescribes no timetable. In the meantime, Smith stays in the U.S. embassy and will be credited with time served under detention.

In the event that Smith is indeed tranferred to a Philippine prison, it must be “in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United States authorities“. This practically guarantees that Smith will get favored treatment, at the very least a nice cottage with all the amenities, including hot showers and cable t.v. , like that enjoyed by rich Filipino jailbirds like Claudio Teehankee, Jr. No “Midnight Express” experience for this All-American boy. And, after a decent interval, and passions have cooled, he can be deported as an undesirable alien in exchange for still undetermined diplomatic concessions.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s dissenting opinion decries the “asymmetry in the legal treatment” of the treaty by the U.S. While the Philippines has scrupulously tried to adhere to the letter and spirit of the VFA, the Americans have been considerably more cavalier.

This may be one of those decisions which aims to satisfy everyone and ends up pleasing no one.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Celso De Los Angeles from the website of Sto. Domingo, Albay.

I haven’t blogged in almost two weeks and I miss it. Unfortunately, the demands of adjusting to a new work environment has kept me busy and too mentally exhausted to keep up with the news. I literally haven’t seen a weekday sunset for the past month.

In an effort to catch up, I checked out Manolo Quezon’s blog. The shock of seeing all the crisis situations which unfolded over the past week or so was like a kick in the balls. Between the tanking economy and retrenched jobs, to a spate of bank failures, the perennial problem of corruption in high places, to the specter of narcopolitics, my anxiety level shot through the roof. I wanted to draw the blinds and crawl back to my La-Z-Boy. I get the feeling that the worst is yet to come.

As we lurch from one economic catastrophe to another, we can take cold comfort in the fact that financial scams are not unique to us. In terms of scope, nothing can beat the con perpetuated by Bernard Madoff, until recently a lion in Wall Street, who turned out to be a rat. With apologies to the intrepid New York City rats. In yet another variation on the time-worn Ponzi scheme, Madoff scammed an estimated U.S.$ 50 billion from various institutional and individual investors spanning the globe. Madoff defrauded Jewish charities, European royalty, prominent politicians and celebrities like Steven Spielberg and Larry King, even Arab banks. According to the criminal complaint filed against him, Madoff “deceived investors by operating a securities business in which he traded and lost investor money, and then paid certain investors purported returns on investment with the principal received from other, different investors, which resulted in losses of approximately billions of dollars.” Basically, as he himself admitted, he ran a Ponzi scheme on a large, complicated and transnational scale. But like any Ponzi scheme, it was a fraudulent set-up where investors are paid out of money taken from subsequent investors instead of real business profits. Bamboozling Pedro to pay Juan, and so on. At some point, all Ponzi schemes are bound to collapse like the proverbial house of cards.

Major banks worldwide which were affected include the Spanish bank Grupo Santander SA, at least four French banks including BNP Paribas and Societe Generale, Britain’s HSBC Holdings PLC and Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, and Japan’s Nomura Holdings. Even financial powerhouse J.P. Morgan almost got burned but managed to pull out a few months before Madoff was arrested, under suspicious circumstances and without informing its clients who remained exposed to the risks of Madoff’s spurious hedge funds. Not a few Morgan investors who lost their shirts are now contemplating a lawsuit against the bank.

The breadth of Madoff’s hoax is breathtaking, as is his chutzpah. From reports, he has not shown an iota of remorse. In fact, the talented Mr. Madoff could well be a financial psychopath who may have stolen simply for the fun of it, “a greedy manipulator so hungry to accumulate wealth that he did not care whom he hurt to get what he wanted” in the words of the NYT.

As the global financial crisis comes home to roost, and people seek to recover and hold on to their cash, our local Ponzi schemes have started to implode. Crashing spectacularly was the Legacy Group, owned and headed by Celso De Los Angeles, Ateneo and AIM alumnus, one of Erap Estrada’s jueteng collectors, per Chavit Singson, and orchestrator of one of the bigger Ponzi schemes of recent times. He is similar to Madoff in that he has a veneer of legitimacy, having been able to present a facade of respectability and cultivate influential people. House Speaker Prospero Nograles, according to Ramon Tulfo, is a partner of De Los Angeles in the failed Ponzi hustle and is in deep shit among some of his colleagues in the House of Representatives who he inveigled into investing in Legacy. Nograles was able to pull his money out before the collapse but not so the other congressmen who are now understandably incensed at having been duped.

According to a four-part report which recently appeared in the Inquirer, the banks under the Legacy Group- Rural Bank of Parañaque, Rural Bank of San Jose (Batangas), Rural Bank of Carmen (Cebu), Pilipino Rural Bank, Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Rural Bank of Calatagan (Batangas) [now Dynamic Rural Bank], Rural Bank of DARBCI, Rural Bank of Kananga (Leyte) [now First Interstate Rural Bank], Rural Bank of Bisayas Minglanilla [now Bank of East Asia], San Pablo City Development Bank, Bicol Development Bank, Nation Bank and Rural Bank of Bais – were involved in “fictitious deposits, rotating collateral from one bank to the other, unsafe and unsound banking practices and improper documentation” quoting former Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) chief Ricardo Tan. Legacy was also making double-your-money pitches at incredible interest rates and marketing aggressively, giving away appliances and even cars. In other words, all the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme. Hence, the BSP decision to close the 13 rural banks across the country, now effectively bankrupt, just a few days before the long holiday break of December 2008.

How did the talented Mr. De Los Angeles get away with it for so long ? The same way Madoff did, by deception, manipulation of his public image and being close to government regulators and the powers that be. Amazingly, De Los Angeles was already banned from banking almost 25 years ago, when he was found to be behind a similar machination also involving rural banks.
He was able to return, of course, as many scoundrels do in this country and was allowed to perpetrate an even bigger sting on a long-suffering and unsuspecting public.

De Los Angeles has used his ill-gotten gains to reinvent himself as public servant and is now mayor of Sto. Domingo, Albay. Meanwhile, he has left his thousands of depositors holding the bag. And stuck the rest of us with the bill for making some form of limited restitution to his former clients, to the tune of P14 BILLION, to be paid out by the PDIC. Talk about rubbing salt into our wounds.

Expect more scams to come to light as the worldwide economic recession deepens.

Update: Today’s Inquirer (03 February 2009) carries the headline: “Legacy Head Hit for Fraud”

Sen. Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, chair of the Senate trade committee which conducted a hearing to look into the matter, concluded: “Mr. Angeles is engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud all of these investors.” At the end of the daylong joint hearing, the Senate committees on trade and commerce, and banks, financial institutions and currencies said that they uncovered a “conspiracy” between De los Angeles and government regulators in defrauding pre-need plan holders.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

I have previously written about the legal ramifications of libel on the internet, which can be read here and here.

The Unlawyer has also written a lucid overview on the nature of libel as it relates to the Pangandaman-De la Paz feud. Likewise, the Cebu Daily News previously carried a comprehensive two-part article on libel, it nature, remedies and venue by Judge Gabriel T. Ingles, which can be accessed here and here.

The legal aspects of libel having been covered extensively elsewhere, I need not repeat them here. But to address the question posed by some bloggers on whether there is possibility that they can be sued for libel for something posted online, the answer is yes. There is always the chance that they might publish something (blogging is a form of electronic publication) which will offend some person or institution for which they will be hailed to court.

Will such a complaint prosper ? It depends on the circumstances and whether the elements of libel, i.e (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable, can be duly shown, even prima facie.

As regards the Pangandaman complaint against Bambee, De la Paz lawyer Archie Fortun (he of the bizarre coup plot involving Bono Adaza) has been quoted as saying: “It’s not a big deal. It’s not an unexpected move by the Pangandamans because they have been threatening to file such case two days after the mauling incident.” He also believes that “after weighing the evidence, the court would eventually dismiss the libel charges“.

Is Fortun implying that the City Prosecutor’s Office of Marawi City is sure to find a prima facie case against Bambee and that there’s little chance of the case being thrown out at the prosecutor’s level ? He appears to be hinting that a hometown decision is in the offing, at least as far as the filing of a criminal information for libel is concerned. And that it would be now up to the Regional Trial Court to resolve the issue, which he believes will be in Bambee’s favor. But how can he be sure that the RTC will likewise not appreciate the case from the Pangandamans’ point of view ? Following his line of reasoning, a hometown decision might also be likely at the trial court level.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. The libel case, as Fortun himself indicates, is meant as leverage against Bambee and her family in ongoing negotiations for an amicable settlement. This is just one more chip which the Pangandamans will bring to the table later on.

Even so, the libel complaint is something not to be taken lightly, even assuming that Bambee need not be present herself and can be represented by counsel. A consideration is the huge hassle of litigating in Marawi City for a lawyer based in Manila. One has to fly to Iligan City first, then drive up to Marawi. From anecdotes I’ve heard over the years, a lot of unpleasant things can happen while traveling between the two cities. Unless the De la Paz family can hire a local attorney, although I doubt if anyone in Marawi will be willing to take up the cudgels for the respondent.

Another is the possibility that if the libel case is filed in court, there might be an alias warrant of arrest issued for Bambee, since she will most likely not be around during the scheduled arraignment to personally enter her plea (guilty or not guilty) as she is studying in the U.S. Once she returns, however, the warrant of arrest can be served against her and she will have to appear before the court and post bail. This is a tricky matter, since for Bambee going to Marawi will be like entering the lion’s den.

But there are remedies available to the respondent. The strategy for the defense will most likely involve filing a petition for review of the local prosecutor’s resolution with the Department of Justice and moving for the suspension of arraignment. Should the case still proceed, a motion to quash (extinguish) the complaint may be filed before the court. This may delay the proceedings long enough for the parties to settle. Which, from all indications, is where this entire affair is headed, eventually.

As far as I’m aware, this is the first libel case involving blogging filed in the Philippines. From the perspective of jurisprudence, it would be nice to have a definitive Supreme Court ruling on
libel on the internet. But it looks as if it will not get that far.

Here’s an interesting article on defamation on the internet and the risks of getting sued in distant locations.

PBA095558818
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?