The Court of Appeals Controversy Part 5: CA says respect our silence

The Inquirer reports that the Court of Appeals has issued a statement that it has referred the controversy to the Supreme Court Office of the Court Administrator. The justices also agreed to leave the ruling on the dispute between the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to the “parties concerned for appropriate action;” and refer the conflict to its standing committee on the internal rules of court.

The Inquirer further reports that the justices also appealed to everyone to respect their silence on the issue and refrain from public discussion of the case.

Commentary:

With the appeal of the Court of Appeals to refrain from public discussion of the case, I don't know where that leaves this blog. I will check the rules on "sub judice" and post about it later.

The Court of Appeals Controversy Part 4: Who is Justice Jose Sabio, Jr.?

The man of the hour is Justice Jose Sabio, Jr., whose letter to Justice Conrado Vasquez has stirred a controversy on how the Court of Appeals handled the resolution of the stockholder fight between GSIS and the Lopezes in the control for MERALCO.

According to the Court of Appeals website,

Justice JOSE L. SABIO, JR. is the third of the five children of the late spouses, Executive Judge Jose P. Sabio, Sr. and Ester Loyola Sabio. Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. finished his bachelor's degree in Commerce, major in Accounting, from Liceo de Cagayan University. He was first employed with Procter and Gamble, in Cebu City. To advance his professional career, he sought transfer to Manila, and then enrolled at the Ateneo de Manila University College of Law. He finished Law in 1967 and was admitted to the Bar in 1968.

Beckoned to public service, he returned home to Cagayan de Oro, worked as Secretary to the Mayor and City Assessor. He ventured in politics, becoming barangay captain of Gusa, president of the Association of Barangay Captains and member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod.

His appointment to the Court of Appeals on May 26, 1999 was preceded by a career in the judiciary that began in March 1990, as RTC Judge of Branch 16, Tangub City, Branch 27 in Gingoog City and Branch 23 in Cagayan de Oro City.

He was conferred the title, Professor Emeritus by Xavier University College of Law where he taught Political Law and Constitutional Law, Law on Public Officers, and Private Corporation for 32 years.

Today he is a professorial lecturer of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), the UP Institute of Judicial Administration (UPIJA), and Pre-bar reviewer in Legal Ethics at the Ateneo School of Law where he also handles, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law I.

Commentary

I really find it amusing that a professor of Legal Ethics at my alma mater, Ateneo de Manila School of Law, is a the center of the present controversy. Even moreso considering that today, July 31, 2008, is the feast day of St. Ignatius de Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus, which owns the Ateneo and Xavier University, where Justice Sabio has found an academic career in law.
It must have been really tough agonizing over the events after the PHP 10 M bribe offer and his decision to write the letter to Justice Conrado Vasquez. Why did he prefer to speak out instead of letting the controversy die down? The easier path would have been to quietly fade into the background. Yet, instead he has chosen to speak out and spend a lot of energy writing the letter to the Court of Appeals presiding justice. Is Justice Sabio for real?

Court of Appeals Controversy Part 3: Who is the Mysterious Businessman?

Justice Sabio's letter to Presiding CA Justice Conrado Vasquez reveals a clear case of bribery. According to Justice Sabio, a Makati businessman waited until the end of his Law School class to see him. The Makati businessman was brokering for MERALCO. The Makati businessman offered PHP 10 M for Justice Sabio to give way to Justice Reyes in the MERALCO case. Justice Sabio's letter states,

Then sometime on July 1, 2008, a Makati businessman whom I knew way back then, called me up and requested for an urgent meeting. Since I had classes from 6 pm to 8 pm that said businessman waited to see me in the Law School after my class. It turned out that he was brokering for MERALCO. He started by explaining to me the problem between Justice Reyes and myself, and who should continue to handle the case. I was surprised why he came to know about this matter considering that it was an internal problem and that it only happened very recently. He then proceeded to explain to me that their lawyers wanted to directly challenge my stand but another lawyer advised them that it might become messy. So, they were talking of a win-win situation, which meant offering P10M for me to give way to Justice Reyes. I politely declined the offer and told the emissary that it was not only a matter of principle but that it will affect the integrity of the Court. Before he left, he told me that they were still hoping that I could see it their way. In their eagerness to succeed on that aspect, the emissary even called up a close family friend in Cagayan de Oro to help them convince me to accept the offer.

Commentary:

it will only be a matter of time before Justice Sabio is forced to reveal the identity of this mysterious businessman. With the Court of Appeals now holding a session en banc, a discussion of the bribe offer and the details surrounding will surely take place and Justice Sabio's story is going to be scrutinized to the last detail. This also brings us to the point: Why did Justice Sabio did not reveal the name of the Makati businessman who made the bribe offer? Why, instead of filing a case for bribery, did Justice Sabio choose instead to write a letter of Complaint to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals? Further, as can be seen from the narration of Justice Sabio there was a clear conspiracy to ease him out of the case. The conspiracy appears to include even the lawyers of MERALCO (Note: I don't know who they are as their names are not revealed in the papers) as shown by the fact that they filed a "Motion for Justice Reyes to Assume Chairmanship". According to Justice Sabio, he found the motion strange and stupid. As a legal practitioner myself, I would say Justice Sabio's comment appears to not unfounded.

The Court of Appeals Controversy Part 2: Justice Sabio's Telling Letter

The Inquirer links to the text of Justice Sabio's letter addressed to Justice Conrado Vasquez, the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals. Scroll down to the middle portion of the letter in which Justice Sabio asked loaded questions, as it were, as follows:

I also told Justice B. Reyes of the P10M offer for me to give way to him. It was then that I confronted Justice B. Reyes with the following questions:

“If you will insist on assuming the chairmanship, after you have been told of the P10M offer, what will I think of you now? Why should MERALCO insist on you assuming the chairmanship and have me ousted?”

“Is it because they are certain of your loyalty and they are uncertain with mine?”

“Can you blame me now if I will think that you are a part of this whole scheme or shenanigan?”

“Does not the timing alone stink of corruption? After they failed to convince me of their offer, now they will use you to oust me?”

“Why did they (MERALCO) actively participate in the hearing on the 23rd and never raised any question regarding the supposed irregularity of my presiding over the hearing?”

“Why do you insist on assuming the case? Are you not aware that several days after the issuance of the TRO, respondents (GSIS) filed a motion for inhibition and motion to lift the TRO? Who then has the right to resolve such motions?” (Sad to say that up to this time, said motions have been left unresolved.)

“Under the circumstances do you expect me to give way to you?”

His feeble reply was “I am afraid that they will file a case of non-feasance against me.”

I told him that this was not a case of non-feasance and explained to him how that could not be possible, having taught the subject for some time.

Commentary

I don't know why Justice Sabio and Justice Reyes were approached by litigants and both appeared to have entertained them. Also, Meralco's lawyers appear to be orchestrating Justice Sabio's removal from the division deciding the case. Indeed, Justice Sabio's question reveals a lot. Why? And as he posits, "“Is it because they are certain of your loyalty and they are uncertain with mine?” “Can you blame me now if I will think that you are a part of this whole scheme or shenanigan?” The answer is written on the question.



-0-


The full text of Justice Sabio's letter is quoted here. Justice Sabio even appended a text message from his daughter cheering him on.

July 26, 2008


HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR.
Presiding Justice
Court of Appeals
Maria Orosa St., Ermita, Manila

RE: C.A. G.R. SP No. 103692
ROSETE et al vs. SEC et al

Dear Presiding Justice Vasquez:

The attendant circumstances, the manner by which the decision in the above case was arrived at, and how the decision was promulgated behooved me to write this urgent complaint. Unless immediate and thorough investigation thereon be undertaken by this Court, both the individual and institutional integrity of the justices and of this Court will undoubtedly be tarnished. If that happens, the public’s confidence in the judicial process will be irreparably undermined and damaged.

The genesis of this complaint:

The above case was raffled to Ponente, Justice Vicente Roxas, who at that time was its Senior member, with Justice Bienvenido Reyes, chairman and Justice Myrna Vidal, Junior member of the Ninth Division. Since Justice Reyes was on leave at that time and considering that a TRO was prayed for, a raffle was made for an acting Third Member, who happened to be Justice Jose Mendoza. However, because Justice Jose Mendoza was formerly connected with Petitioner MERALCO, another raffle was conducted and I took over and acted as chairman.

On May 30, 2008, convinced of the urgency of the matter, and the merit of the prayer for the issuance of a TRO, I signed the TRO prepared by Ponente Justice Roxas who surprisingly personally brought it to my office at that time. Justice Roxas was told that we should schedule the case for hearing on oral arguments which was to be done on June 23 and 24, 2008.

Sometime on June 16 or 17, 2008, Justice Bienvenido Reyes returned from vacation. To my puzzlement, on June 20, 2008, I received a copy of a letter sent by Justice Edgardo Cruz, addressed to Justice Bienvenido Reyes, with an opinion that Justice Reyes should take over the case and for me not to continue.

Thereupon, I called you up and told you that I found it strange that Justice Reyes never told me about the matter in spite of the fact that we were seated together several times on separate occasions. If you recall, I commented then that I smelled something fishy about the move. For one, the alleged opinion was a personal opinion of Justice Edgardo Cruz, who acted in his personal capacity. I conveyed to you that I wondered why the matter was not openly and deliberately discussed with you.

You were informed then that it was my considered opinion that I was still the proper party to hear the case. On the morning of July 23, 2008, just before the scheduled hearing, I went to Justice Martin Villarama Jr., a more senior, experienced and respected member of this Court for consultation and guidance. Justice Villarama advised me that my stand was correct and therefore I should remain in this case.

Thus, the hearing as scheduled on the morning of June 23 proceeded, where I presided and all parties joined in the spirited arguments on the pros and cons of the petition. After the oral arguments, the parties were directed to submit their respective memoranda simultaneously within fifteen (15) days from that date, addressing all the issues directed by the Court. Incidentally, before the hearing, Justice Roxas requested me if he could read a prepared paper. Finding it to be a kind of scripted speech, I told him it was restrictive and not proper for an open hearing.

Then sometime on July 1, 2008, a Makati businessman whom I knew way back then, called me up and requested for an urgent meeting. Since I had classes from 6 pm to 8 pm that said businessman waited to see me in the Law School after my class. It turned out that he was brokering for MERALCO. He started by explaining to me the problem between Justice Reyes and myself, and who should continue to handle the case. I was surprised why he came to know about this matter considering that it was an internal problem and that it only happened very recently. He then proceeded to explain to me that their lawyers wanted to directly challenge my stand but another lawyer advised them that it might become messy. So, they were talking of a win-win situation, which meant offering P10M for me to give way to Justice Reyes. I politely declined the offer and told the emissary that it was not only a matter of principle but that it will affect the integrity of the Court. Before he left, he told me that they were still hoping that I could see it their way. In their eagerness to succeed on that aspect, the emissary even called up a close family friend in Cagayan de Oro to help them convince me to accept the offer.

If you recall, the morning after, I went to see you in your office and informed you of the attempt to have me ousted from the case. Justice Villarama was likewise informed by me of the said disturbing incident.

Again, sometime on July 4, the emissary frantically tried calling me. To put an end to the pestering calls, I told the emissary that to accept the offer would not only bother my conscience forever, but also that I could not possibly face my wife, my two daughters—one a lawyer and the other a Bar candidate, as well as the rest of my family. I already discussed my stand with my family and to suddenly change my stand would have definitely affected them. Besides, I told him: “How can I reconcile my being a member of Philja’s Ethics and Judicial Conduct Department, being MCLE lecturer and Ateneo’s Pre-Bar reviewer in Legal and Judicial Ethics, if I accepted the offer?” His feeble answer was, “we are not doing anything illegal since we do not ask you to decide one way or the other.” I told him, “It is a matter of principle.”

Before we ended the conversation, the emissary said that they will be forced to resort to other means to have Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship. I countered that since that would involve the integrity and reputation of the Court, they will have to contend with me.

On July 4, 2008, Justice Roxas was frantically getting in touch with me to discuss the case while I was on official leave. I told Justice Roxas that I still needed ample time to read the memoranda of the parties to intelligently discuss the case with him. Justice Roxas told me that he will have the memoranda sent to me immediately.

Surprisingly, on Monday, July 7, 2008, an urgent motion for Justice B. Reyes to assume the chairmanship was filed by Petitioner MERALCO. If you again recall, we had a discussion on the matter and you finally advised me to discuss the matter with Justice B. Reyes.

Sometime in the afternoon of July 8, 2008, Justice B. Reyes came to see me in my office, to discuss, among others, the urgent motion. I told Justice Reyes that I found the motion rather strange and even referred to it as stupid. I further told Justice Reyes that in my more than nine years in the Court, I never came across such a kind of pleading; and that the proper pleading to file should have been a motion to have me recuse or inhibit myself.

I also told Justice B. Reyes of the P10M offer for me to give way to him. It was then that I confronted Justice B. Reyes with the following questions:

“If you will insist on assuming the chairmanship, after you have been told of the P10M offer, what will I think of you now? Why should MERALCO insist on you assuming the chairmanship and have me ousted?”

“Is it because they are certain of your loyalty and they are uncertain with mine?”

“Can you blame me now if I will think that you are a part of this whole scheme or shenanigan?”

“Does not the timing alone stink of corruption? After they failed to convince me of their offer, now they will use you to oust me?”

“Why did they (MERALCO) actively participate in the hearing on the 23rd and never raised any question regarding the supposed irregularity of my presiding over the hearing?”

“Why do you insist on assuming the case? Are you not aware that several days after the issuance of the TRO, respondents (GSIS) filed a motion for inhibition and motion to lift the TRO? Who then has the right to resolve such motions?” (Sad to say that up to this time, said motions have been left unresolved.)

“Under the circumstances do you expect me to give way to you?”

His feeble reply was “I am afraid that they will file a case of non-feasance against me.”

I told him that this was not a case of non-feasance and explained to him how that could not be possible, having taught the subject for some time.

The next day, Justice B. Reyes went to see Justice Villarama to seek his advice on the impasse. According to Justice Villarama, he advised Justice Reyes to lay off the case and allow me to continue and to resolve the urgent motion for assumption of Justice Reyes.

In the morning of July 11, I prepared a resolution referring the “Urgent Motion for Justice B. Reyes to Assume the Chairmanship” to the respondents for comment. I forwarded the resolution to the office of Justice Roxas who was in possession of the rollo. Again, sadly, the said resolution died a lonely death in the office of Justice Roxas, for it was never released.

Then on July 14, before the flag-raising ceremony, I requested Justice Roxas for a meeting regarding the case, since I had already read the memoranda submitted. Initially, Justice Roxas agreed, but after our snacks at about nine o’clock he advised me that he cannot attend the meeting because he had another matter to attend to. He also said he could not be available in the afternoon. Since that time, I had been trying to get in touch with Justice Roxas for a meeting, but he could not be reached in his office and neither did he answer my text messages for a meeting. Justice Vidal had also been eagerly awaiting this meeting.

I came to know later that as early as July 11, Justice Myrna Vidal already signed the ponencia only to be advised by Justice Roxas that he needed the decision back and could not forward it to me because he still had to incorporate some 10 pages which he forgot to include in the decision. I was disturbed by the fact that even if only few days have lapsed since the memoranda were submitted, Justice Roxas could already write and prepare a more than 50-page decision.

I also learned that a corrected decision where Justice Vidal was unceremoniously ousted was signed by a new member, Justice A. Bruselas, Jr. on July 17, although promulgated on July 23, when I was on official leave. Again, why was Justice Vidal unceremoniously removed when the case was with the Special Ninth Division of which she was a regular member? A case of one blunder after another.

But the worst was yet to happen in this case. On July 21, 2008, Justice Roxas filed with you, as Presiding Justice (PJ), an interpleader petition. Justice B. Reyes also wrote you a letter on July 22, 2008, requesting you to rule on the impasse. Without waiting for your ruling on the matter—which you did on July 24, 2008—they already promulgated the decision on the 23rd. Was it because they anticipated your opinion to be adverse to their stand that they disrespected your office by promulgating the decision earlier?

Above premises considered, I urge an investigation. At stake is not only the individual integrity of the justices but also the institutional integrity of the Court. Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct clearly provides that “integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of judicial office, but also the personal demeanor of judges.” Section I thereof provides: “Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.” In fact in one case, the Supreme Court said: “In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue. It is a necessity.” (Fernandez vs. Hamoy, 436 SCRA 186)

With the events that transpired as narrated, and in light of the high mandate imposed by the New Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, there is a need for a no-nonsense investigation by this Court, if only to protect and defend its integrity and to encourage public confidence in the dispensation of justice.

Very respectfully yours,

JOSE L. SABIO, JR.

Cc: Justice Martin Villarama, Jr.
Justice Myrna D. Vidal
Justice Apolinario Bruselas, Jr.

*My daughter’s text message after she learned that I rejected the offer: “Pa, if it’s any consolation to you, there’s the knowledge that you are giving so many people the good example of what Christian integrity means, and what it really means to be a man for others. Maybe by this example of yours, you have sown the seed of their own conversion.

I am so proud of you PAPA and grateful to God for giving me a father like you who I can really be proud of in front of God and everybody. Love you so much Pa"

(To be continued)

The Court of Appeals Controversy: PHP 10 Million to inhibit, how much to decide?

The Inquirer today banners a headline on a PHP 10 Million attempt to bribe Justice Sabio of the Court of Appeals. According to Justice Sabio, a Meralco emissary offered him the money in exchange for Justice Sabio's inhibition from the heated Meralco stockholder fight. Justice Sabio's story has the stuff of credibility written into it. The Inquirer relates the story as follows:

The emissary began by explaining the problem of who between Sabio and Reyes should preside over the Meralco case.

Sabio was surprised that the emissary knew about the matter, “an internal problem” that happened only “very recently.”

The emissary said his camp’s lawyers wanted to “directly challenge” Sabio’s insistence on presiding over the case, but that they were told it might “become messy.”

It was then that Sabio was offered P10 million, which he rejected.

“So, they were talking of a win-win situation, which meant offering P10 million for me to give way to Justice Reyes. I politely declined that offer and told the emissary that it was not only a matter of principle but that it will [also] affect the integrity of the court. Before he left, he told me that they were still hoping that I could see it their way,” Sabio said.

“In their eagerness to succeed on that aspect,” Sabio said, the emissary got in touch with a family friend in Cagayan de Oro City to convince him to accept the money.

‘Pestering’ calls

Sabio said that subsequently, he received frantic calls from the emissary.

He continued his account to Presiding Justice Vasquez thus:

In order to put an end to the “pestering” calls, Sabio told the emissary that his conscience would forever be bothered and he would be unable to face his wife and two daughters if he accepted the offer.

He also told the emissary that taking the money would be contrary to his being a member of the Philippine Judicial Academy’s Ethics and Judicial Conduct Department and Ateneo de Manila University’s pre-bar reviewer in legal and judicial ethics.

The emissary’s “feeble response” was: “We are not doing anything illegal since we do not ask you to decide one way or the other.”

His reply was that it was “a matter of principle.”

Before the conversation ended, the emissary told Sabio that his camp would be forced to employ other ways to ensure that Reyes would chair the division that would decide on the case.

Questions to Reyes

On July 7, Meralco filed an urgent motion for Reyes to assume the chairmanship of the 9th Division, which Sabio described as a “strange,” even “stupid,” motion.

Sabio also said in the letter that he had told Reyes of the P10-million offer, and asked the latter certain questions, including:

“If you will insist on assuming the chairmanship, after you have been told of the P10-million offer, what will I think of you now? Why should Meralco insist on you assuming the chairmanship and have me ousted?”

“Is it because they are certain of your loyalty and they are uncertain [of] mine?”

“Why did they (Meralco) actively participate in the hearing on the 23rd and never raised any question regarding the supposed irregularity of my presiding over the hearing?”

Sabio said Reyes’ “feeble” reply to him was: “I am afraid that they will file a case of nonfeasance against me.” (Nonfeasance means “the omission of an act that ought to have been performed.”)

Commentary

If the offer was PHP 10 Million for the justices to inhibit, how much then was the offer for a justice to decide? The question cannot just be ignored, considering that Meralco subsequently won the case and the decision was penned by somebody else other than Justice Sabio, who did not inhibit from the case, yet still removed from the case by some strange circumstance.

The Court of Appeals is holding an en banc session today to resolve Justice sabio's complaint. (to be continued)

The Law/Power Equation (Part 1)

'Truth', French philosopher Michel Foucault, suggests is to be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements.'Truth', he adds, is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it. Foucault calls it a 'regime' of truth.

Laws are statements in the context of power. I say "statement" in the logical sense, where validity, and not the metaphysical truth, is the goal. But I also say laws are statements in the context of power, because in real life legal statements can send people to or save them from jail. Foucault's proposition can be reduced to a simple equation: power = law, law = power. Power sustains law. Law sustains power. We can call this the Law/Power Equation.

In the context of a democracy, power is held by the people and is exercised during elections. The people are supposed to have aspirations and by exercising their power through elections, they are supposed to pursue these aspirations. Thus, power is but a means to an end, which end ultimately is the sum of all the aspirations of the people. In the context of the French Revolution, these aspirations are lIberty, equality and fraternity. Democracy therefor subverts the law/power equation. Law and power are not pursued for their own sake but for the sake of a metaphysical vision of man.

But the democratic subversion of the Law/Power Equation is not an automatic phenomenon. People do not naturally aspire for liberty, equality and fraternity from birth. These are learned aspirations and are handed down from generation to generation. It has happened, as a matter of fact, that instead of a regeneration of aspirations, what happens is a degeneration, and the aspirations of a people are forgotten or even corrupted.

Unfortunately, the systems and institutions that keep the Law/Power Equation subverted by the ends of democracy are often enduring, sometimes more enduring than the forgotten, corrupted, and degenerated aspirations of a people. When this happens, law and power become means and ends in themselves and are subverted by other degenerate aspirations. It is therefore important that measures are put in place to ensure that every generation experiences a repetition of circumstances that brought about the birth of a people's aspirations. A repetition of the experience should help the people remember the urgency and importance of subverting the Law/Power Equation.

How is this experience of repetition possible? That should be the ends and task of of a democratic education.

(To be continued)

The logic of dole-outs

is simply to avoid riots. It is a political solution to an economic problem. Dole-out relief is meant to convince the masses that the economic crunch is not caused by structural or governmental undoing. The economic crisis is an inevitable fate of a third world country bereft of food and oil resources. Dole-out relief is meant to mask the scarcity of management foresight.

The danger of dole-out relief happens when the masses have become dependent on it and there is nothing left to dole-out. For thereafter, rioting, which dole-outs intended to avoid, becomes a serious threat again. And thereafter, the logic of dole-outs will be judged as bad logic to begin with.

Ultimately, the logic of dole-outs is about buying time, time between the threat of the first riot and the second, and hope, that during that period somebody comes up with a logic better than dole-outs.

How about the logic of resignation?

VIVA LA VIDA (lawyer)

Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world.





Coldplay Lyrics
Viva La Vida Lyrics

Our farmers need a new deal.

No more undercutting the farm gate prices of their produce.
No more over-priced fertilizers.
No more high interests on their loans.
No more excuse for bad weather reports.
No more ghost farm-to-market roads.
No more ghost irrigation projects.
No more looking down on his muddy feet and dirty hands.
No more of these.

The farmer is king, or
we all starve.

Rizal to the Law Office Reception

Genius has no country!
Genius bursts forth everywhere!
Genius is like light and air!
Genius is everyone's patrimony!

My wife's family has began distributing personal properties of her maternal great grandfather in their old house in San Juan, Batangas. Her great grandfather from the Salud line is one of the founding fathers of the town. There is family tree that was published along with the 1990 San Juan Centennial publication and I told myself I'd help my kids figure it out for themselves where they are in the tree one of these days. But to go back to the story, my mother-in-law and my wife's cousin visited the old house a couple of times and brought home one afternoon what appears to be a stone bust of Jose Rizal.

The bust is about a foot high, three kilos, and, save for a little chip on the left cheek bone, it still bears a good likeness of Rizal's public image. I'm still trying to find out how old it is. My wife's cousin said he found it in one of the cabinets. He thought he could sell it in Ebay. But when I saw it I pled to him and to my mother-in-law to give it to me instead. I told them I have been a Rizal afficionado for quite some time. I keep a copy of the big volume Rizal In Exelcis, facsimile copies of his two famous novels in Rizal's original handwriting, Soledad Locsin's modern translations of the two novels, and probably two-thirds of Rizal's published letters. Apparently, it worked and my mother-in-law and cousin allowed me to take the Rizal bust to the office.

I asked the partners in the office to allow me to put the Rizal bust in the reception and nobody objected. Thus, for a couple of weeks now, the Rizal bust sits beside the phone and lampshade in our reception area. IN the first few days, the Rizal bust has been sort of an amusement in the office. On its first day in the office, our secretary thought it was the bust of Atty. Red Guerrero, our late founding partner, and she was frightened so to avoid the bust, she chose to use the backdoor instead. I thought that people might think that we are bunch of Rizal-crazed fanatics and was afraid that people would not take us seriously. But there is big Charlie Co painting and an Amorsolo illustration to keep Rizal company in the reception. I suppose people would figure that we are putting Rizal in the reception not for any reason but simply because he fits there. Surprisingly, no clients have yet to make a comment about it.

This brings me to the point: Was there really a time when people had Rizal's bust in their homes? Considering that the Rizal bust we have now was found in an old home in San Juan, it's really quite amusing that indeed there was such a time. Rizal's bust is a statement that we honor Rizal and we cherish his ideals. It also shows he is our universal man, our best bet for the world populated by mediocres and selfish buffoons. This brings me to another point: How come we don't see Rizal's bust in public or private offices or even in homes anymore? Have we forgotten?

Well, I hope the Rizal bust in our law office reception will help us remember.

Explaining with the Explainer

Finally, my first real post for the year, 2008.

I was asked by Manuel L. Quezon III to be the guest explainer in his show "The Explainer" in tonight's show at 6:00 pm. My task was to explain how lawyers determine the credibility of witnesses. I prepared the powerpoint presentation yesterday.

I was a nervous wreck, so I decided to arm myself with a small metal container of cognac, which my wife, Ces, bought. I wae planning to take a sip just a few minutes before showtime to calm my nerves.

When I realized it was time for it, Manolo's executive producer, Twink Macaraig, caught me taking a sip in the dressing room and said,"Do you know what that is?"

"Yes.", I said.

"It's a flask." she said.

I told myself, "Oh so that's what is called."

"People put whiskey in that." she said.

"This is brandy."I said.

"You're going on tv with that?"

I said, "No. I just needed to calm my nerves. But I normally don't get drunk."

"You want us to take that from you?"

"It's not necessary, because I am done." And then she left me with my flask. The only problem is I got more nervous instead because I didn't know it wasn't allowed.




Then, Manolo showed me the script. I realized that I wouldn't go on camera until about twenty minutes in the show, so I decided to look for the washroom.

I saw one down the hall, but it was locked. The guard told me to wait as somebody was using it. I waited for almost ten minutes, but the guy in the washroom seemed to have fallen asleep! I heard Manolo starting the show, so I decided to proceed to the studio and just prayed that I could hold my bladder until the end of the show.

So finally, it was my turn. I blanked out a couple of moments, but thank God for Manolo who helped me recover my wits and finish the show.

Youtube clips to follow later. There will be replays on Saturday, February at 10:00 am and 4:00 pm, channel 26 ABS-CBN News Channel.

Just to repeat what I said earlier in the show. It's really hard to tell if Jun Lozada is credible until the persons he is accusing of committing a crime have been given a chance to cross-examine him in the proper court.


But in the meantime, putting aside my lawyer hat, I love Jun Lozada. I think he is sincere. We should support his crusade.

WE'RE MOVING TO LAVIDALAWYER.BLOGSPOT.COM

Due to server issues, our updated posts will be seen at http://lavidalawyer.blogspot.com until further announcement.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!

REDENDOR N. GUERRERO: WARRIOR OF THE HIGHEST ORDER

Red is somebody you would like to be with in tough times.

Tough times like the day before payday and you barely have any cash for a taxi ride home and a meal of kebabs.

Tough times like when you've resigned from a high paying Makati law firm job and all you have to re-build a career in law with is a two year old computer.

Tough times like when you have no money to meet the payroll of your office and the only chance you have is an advance from a client who doesn't seem to trust you.

Tough times like the biggest deal of your law office is about to fail because a document could not be produced and your only chance was that the lawyer from the other side would loosen up and waive it.

Tough times like when your law partner has not been showing up for work and clients are following up on pending matters.

I first shared those times with Red as a fellow associate in the Picazo Buyco Tan Fider & Santos Law Firm, and then as a partner in our Guerrero & Aceron Law Offices. He is the "G" in AGALAW. But those times only looked tough in hindsight. When we were living those moments I never felt desperate, because Red knew how to carry himself in those occasions. He fought those times with guts and humor. Atty. Mario Lorenzo, a partner in Picazo, even called him the most affable associate in the office. Red was quick with a joke or two to cheer us all up. It was typical of Red to never show signs of surrender. Red never gave up. He lived up to his name, Guerrero, a warrior of the highest order.

Thus, in 1996, we managed to live payday after payday in those days that we were both fresh out of law school and working for a big law firm in Makati. We shared taxi rides and meals of kebabs at two o'clock in the morning.

In December 2003, we decided to put up our own law firm. I agreed that Guerrero should be the first name, because he was better than me in many things. He had more fighting spirit, his money skills were far superior and he wrote pleadings like they were mathematical equations. Our office was not immune to the difficulties of a start-up, but at one point, we had five associates and more than enough computers and clients.

In 2005, we clinched a major deal, the sale of Cagayan de Oro Colleges to Philippine Investments Management, Inc. (PHINMA and Bacnotan Consolidated Inc. (BCI). We had to finance the initial talks between the parties with our own money, including the trips back and forth Cagayan de Oro for almost half a year and we were running out of budget. When our clients were about to sign the Share Purchase Agreement in February 2005, each of us even had to put up our last thousand pesos to pay for the lunch with the clients. And then Red thought of the idea to request for an advance from the leader of the sellers who looked like he was half hearted about the deal. But Red asked him, and miracle of miracles, we got our advance that helped us finish the transaction.

In the same deal, we were caught in a bind as a document couldn't be produced. The night before the closing of the deal, I was negotiating with the other lawyers alone, and I told Red the lawyers from the other side insisted that we produce the document that we couldn’t produce. Red told me to put him on the speakerphone. And he scolded the other lawyers, dished out some expletives and again miracle of miracles, it worked as the other lawyers loosened up, waived the production of the document and recommended the transaction to proceed. We consummated the transaction shortly, got paid, and we didn't have to work for almost half a year after that.

In the final few months, Red didn't tell us he was battling lung cancer. I figured it was simply not Red’s style to be the object of sympathy. Red probably did not want to tell us because he believed that one day he would be back to tell us he had beaten cancer and would be ready to get to work.

The sad part is during that time I was not aware of his situation, I still nagged him about work that was not being done. Yet Red continued to send text messages assuring me that he would deliver. True enough, a week before he died he completed his tasks amidst chemotherapy, shortness of breadth, and all.

Sometime August 2004, after our office had completed the difficult but lucrative task of training Fernando Poe, Jr.’s pollwatchers for the presidential elections, I remember him sharing an insight about lions in the wild and lions in cages. He observed that lions in the wild are not sure about their next meal. Meanwhile, lions in cages are fed regularly. Lions in the wild are always in danger of other animals and the elements, while caged lions are protected from all of that. Thus, because they had to fight to survive lions in the wild are fiercer, their senses more alert, and their minds are always at work.

He said he saw himself as one of those lions in the wild. He enjoyed sailing through the good times but he knows he’s one to thrive in tough times.

But there is probably one more reason why he loved being a lion in the wild. It may also be because in tough times God’s love is most present. In the clutches of failure, destitution and loneliness, God proves to us his existence and love despite it all. Red lavished in the thrill of this love.

In the years that I knew Red, he never showed that he was religious. It could be that, like some of us sometimes, he was foolish not to acknowledge God’s hand in his life.

But Christine, his wife, told me that in the last weeks of his life, Red became religious, he prayed the novena and went to mass regularly.

It’s reassuring to learn that during the difficult moments in his illness he finally acknowledged and embraced God’s love that nurtured him all these years, tough, happy times, and all.

Red never lost hope of recovery for God and his family showered him with all their love. And the hardest days of his life became his most meaningful days in this earth.

I saw Red in his deathbed two nights before he died. He was badly beaten by his disease, but his face was not the face of desperation and defeat, but that of peace, love and reverence for what was to come. It is only in surrendering himself to the great Being that he completed his mission to be a warrior of the highest order.

I certainly will not miss tough times. But I will certainly miss, Redendor N. Guerrero, his guts and sense of humor, a warrior of the highest order. I have been blessed to have met him. Salamat pare. May you rest in peace.

December 8, 2007
Feast of the Immaculate Conception

Gloria beats the system again

If Philippine politics were the NBA play-offs, GMA would be leading three to big fat zero. In 2005, GMA's team did it with a slam dunk in the Congress plenary, thanks to a great assist from perpetual senatoriable Oliver Lozano. In 2006, it was plain seamless teamwork that had the GMA congressional team even winning over to their side congressmen who voted for the impeachment the year before. And this year, 2007, it's a won game by default, as Congress buries the impeachment complaint 184-1.

Frankly, I think the yearly impeachment game is becoming a drag. The opposition is not learning from its mistakes. Maybe they should send for Phil Jackson who has not renewed his basketball coaching contract for next year. Learn from the Zen Master you idiots! Losing is a disease. And the opposition in this country is terminally afflicted with it. It all boils down to who has the stronger motivation to win. For GMA, it's the fear of going to jail. For the opposition, it's just the greed for taking the seat of power. Fear beats greed, 3-0.

See you next year losers!

Mr. Commissioner, what about the commission?

Sun Tzu says, "If you are strong, you attack. If you are weak, you defend."

So far, the case against the scandalous NBN-ZTE deal has been strong. In order for this controversy to bring about a fruitful end, the case must be pushed until the perpetrators of this onerous transaction are impeached, tried, and convicted.

The President has ordered the suspension of the NBN-ZTE deal, which I think is a mistake, for the impression it makes is the Administration has gone tired of defending it and has given it up. Obviously, the intended effect is for people to stop talking about it. Yet, strategists in the opposition, which I hope are not wanting, should view the suspension as an admission of fault and an opportunity to mount a stronger case against the proponents of the deal.

Thus, the only foreseeable ending to this drama is the removal or resignation of one or more - or all - of the following:

a) the Comelec Commissioner,
b) the Secretary of Transportation and Communication
c) the President.

Meanwhile, with the shelving of the NBN-ZTE deal, some Chinese state executives are going to call the Comelec Commissioner. The cancellation of the transaction is inevitable. If indeed commissions have been advanced to facilitate the deal, are they going to be returned? In all likelihood, they have already been spent in clubs in Vegas or Macau, stashed away in Swiss or German banks, given to the paramours, or used to buy votes. They are gone and never to be returned. Sorry na lang. Yet, the problem is this: ZTE is a Chinese state company. What will the Chinese politburo say? Thus, it will be a matter of time before this controversy becomes a China vs. RP diplomatic concern.

Worse than rats

It is often whispered in conversations over coffee among the bureaucrats that frequent the coffee shops in Morato, Quezon City that Chinese state companies are willing to loan millions of dollars in exchange for kickbacks to Chinese officials, which Chinese officials are also willing to share with their Filipino counterparts. The present controversy concerning the scandalous NBN-ZTE deal only confirms that the hush talk has a basis in fact.

The amazing thing is in this situation, you can never doubt that even in their corrupt practices, the Chinese remain good patriots to their country. On one hand, the Chinese officials can sleep well at night for what is being given back to them as commissions would be repaid to their mother country, principal plus interest, by the Philippine government. So China never really loses anything.

On the other hand, their Filipino bureaucrats show that they are worse than rats, for not only do the Filipino bureaucrats put their country further into debt, they also make it pay for the kickbacks that they and their Chinese counterparts share. Talk about screwing your own kind. They don't care if the debt is a burden that not only their fellow Filipinos would carry, but also debts that would be paid by their own children, grand children, and great grandchildren.

With these officials running the Philippine government, Rizal must be turning in his grave.

A Theory of Justice

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue: likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded in justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled: the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the caculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one: analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.

A Theory of Justice, (original edition) by John Rawls

Adios Pavarotti!

Thank you for bringing your music to the world!

WE'RE HIRING!

We have a big project coming and will need first year lawyers, law graduates and junior and senior law students to help us out.

The project will require part time and full time work employees.

If interested, please email your resumes to marvin_aceron@yahoo.com

Don't forget to leave your contact details.

You may also see us at 301 Cedar Executive Bldg.Timog Ave., corner Sct. Tobias, Quezon City. 

Filipino with the "F": A Guide for the Perplexed (Conclusion)

It's the National Language Month. It's time to finish the blog series on the national language. The first part is here. The second part is here. The complete article in .doc format is here. This part catalogues the discussion on the national language issue among the 1987 Constitutional Commissioners.


III. National Language Policy under the 1987 Constitution:
Merging of Movements

A. Pilipino as the Nucleus

After laying down the legal evolution of the national language, this note will now investigate the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission (hereinafter 1986 CONCOM) in order to arrive at the definition of Filipino as envisioned by the Constitutional Commissioners. Professor Yabes once remarked that since the mono-lingualists succeeded in baptizing Tagalog into Pilipino, it would not be difficult for them to rebaptize Pilipino into Filipino.48 His worlds proved to be prophetic, for the 1986 CONCOM found itself in a predicament where rebaptizing Pilipino into Filipino was the only practical option. The objections against the purist Pilipino persisted, although the Surian ng Wikang Pambansa (SWP) formerly the Institute on National Language, had formally adopted49 a new alphabet. Meanwhile, Pilipino gained popular usage. Estimates put the level of dissemination of Pilipino at 80 per cent.50 Hence, to disregard this achievement by pursuing the original concept of the 1973 Constitution’s linguistic legal fiction would mean a set back for the national language program.

It is for these reasons that the Committee on Human Resources of the 1986 CONCOM proposed the adoption of Filipino, the multi-language based national language, with Pilipino as the nucleus, which is short of saying it had adopted the universal approach of Ernesto Constantino.51 Filipino was thus fashioned as a merger of the two ideas on national language which evolved in history. The committee draft read, “The national language of the Philippines is Filipino.” The interpolations of Commissioner Ople would illustrate the committee conception of Filipino.

MR. OPLE… (A)t the present stage of development of Filipino, especially, (as) this is taught and actually utilized in the University of the Philippines, Filipino with its main features, that is to say with a capital “F” is not yet really highly distinguishable from Pilipino with a capital “P.” Will the committee agree to that construction?

MR. VILLACORTA. The qualification “highly distinguishable” is appropriate. It is not highly distinguishable. So we agree with the Commissioner, Madame President.

MR. OPLE. Thank you. And the developments in grammar, syntax, and the rules of language that have pertained to Pilipino with a capital “P”, although amended to become highly liberalized, will not be discarded because we are recognizing Filipino with a capital “F” as the national language. Will that be correct?

MR. VILLACORTA. It is inevitable. Madam President, that the starting point would be Pilipino because that has already been developed in the past as an evolving national language, but then this does not mean that we should limit ourselves to the syntax or to the vocabulary of Pilipino which is based on Tagalog.52 (emphasis supplied)

The opposition to this proposal was raised by Commissioners Davide and Sarmiento. Both argued that Filipino did not exist. Thus, they maintained that the constitutional provision on language should keep the original phrasing in the 1973 Constitution which stated that the national language of the Philippines shall be, and not is, Filipino.53

Commissioner Villacorta reiterated that Filipino existed and gave some samples.

MR. VILLACORTA. (W)e are referring to the masses of people – the ones who came in contact with in our public hearings. They are the ones who say. “Sain kayo maglakad tapos dini?” instead of the purist saying “Saan kayo magtutungo pagkatapos ditto?” But we understand what they mean when they say, “mas guapo kuno ang kanyang amiga” o “ yawa kawatan pala ang soltero” or “ huwag ka man magtapo sa road” or “mayroon pa ngani.” These speakers of the lingua franca throughout the country make themselves clearly understood because consciously or unconsciously, they use words that most Filipinos can comprehend.54

B. Filipino as lingua franca

The argument on Filipino’s non-existence was reiterated by the interpolations of Commissioner Bacani who asked Commissioner Villacorta whether the speech delivered by Commissioner Tadeo, a native of the Tagalog province of Bulacan, was in Filipino. Commissioner Villacorta said no, but he qualified that it was partly Filipino. Commissioner Villacorta answered that Filipino refer to two things: that which had “Pilipino” as the nucleus and that informal language used by native speakers who come from different linguistic groups which language he illustrated through his examples. Hence, it could not be said that Filipino did not exist. The following exchange would clarify the matter.

BISHOP BACANI. I noticed that when the Commissioner was speaking, I could understand the words but I could not easily get the sense. That is the reason I ask these two main questions: Is the language of Commissioner Tadeo Filipino? Were those phrases mentioned by Commissioner Villacorta meant to be Filipino? Let us have a national language which is Filipino. Thus, it will be either of these two. In other words, is Filipino not yet an existent national language? Is it a language that is still to be formed?

MR. VILLACORTA. It is an existent national language and the nucleus is Pilipino with a “P.” The contemplation of the committee is that the nucleus is still Pilipino because it is already a widespread and existing language – Pilipino with a “P.” We also said that there is an existent broadened, expanded language called Filipino and its formalization has to be done in the educational system and others but it does not mean that since it is not yet formalized, it is nonexistent. It is a lingua franca.

BISHOP BACANI. So when we say the national language of the Philippines is Pilipino, are we not saying that the national language of the Philippines is the language spoken by Commissioner Tadeo?

MR. VILLACORTA. It is part of that national language…55

At this point, Commissioner Bennagen stood up to explain that a language does not come fully-bloomed at a particular point in time, but is something dynamic and ever-growing. This implies that looking for definite parameters of Filipino is not the way to view the language.

MR. BENNAGEN. There seems to be an assumption that a language comes fully blown at a particular point in time. I think that even we who speak our own native languages cannot pinpoint a specific period in history when it emerges full blown. So we should look at language as a growing organism and that it grows in at least two identifiable ways.

First, it is unplanned – that which is used in everyday life by people of all sorts with different first language who come into contact with each other. Second, through a planned manner which we hope we should be mandated by this Constitution. For instance, in 1957, the people of Malaysia decided to have Bahasa Malaysia as their national language. They undertook a great deal of studies. But it was only sometime in 1972 or around 1973 when they had systematized the spelling. In 1973, it finally became the medium of instruction up to the tertiary level although it was already being used in government, in commence, and in industry.

… That is why we say that in the proposal it should be further developed on the basis of Philippine and other languages and that steps shall be taken by the government, et cetera, to accelerate this law.56

Commissioners Davide and Sarmiento later withdrew57 their opposition when a new sentence was added to the proposed provision. The additional sentence read,

As It [Filipino] evolves, it shall be developed and enriched on the basis of Philippine and other languages.

The provision was passed with the CONCOM voting 44 to 0.

The preceding exchanges show that the intent of the 1986 CONCOM was to adopt Pilipino as the nucleus of the multi-language based national language. Hence, Director Pineda’s construction is legally supported.

C. Liberal standards adopted

The next important point is that by adopting Pilipino as the nucleus of Filipino, the CONCOM also overruled the “purist” policy of the previous Institute on National Language. The speck of Commissioner Rodrigo provides a colorful elaboration on this matter. It deserves an extensive quote for its significance.

MR. RODRIGO… Ang unang mahalagang malaman natin ay itong Filipino ay hindi isang bagong kinatha o kakathaing lenggwahe. Ito ay batay sa Pilipino. Palalawakin lamang natin ang saklaw ng Filipino… Kaya nga’t ang Pilipino ay batay sa Tagalog at ang Filipino ay batay sa Pilipino. Kaya’t hindi natin buburahin ang nakamtan na nating mga developments sa Pilipino.

Ngayon, ano ang nangyari roon sa Pilipino? Bakit tinalikdan iyang Pilipino at ginawang Filipino? Palagay ko, ang isang dahilan ay sapagkat noong magkaroon ng Surian ng Wikang Pambansa na pinamunuan ng nasirang Lope K. Santos, sumalangit nawa, ang kanyang sinunod na patakaran ay yaong purismo. May roon tayong maraming salita sa wikang Tagalog, Cebuano, Hiligaynoon, Ilokano, Bikolano, na hango sa wikang Kastila. Mula 6,000 hanggang 10,000 mga salita ang hango sa wikang Kastila – libro, mikropono, sapatos, pantaloon, bintana, silya – ngunit ang ginagawang patakaran ng Surian ay purismo. Umimbento ng mga bagong salita. Halimbawa, kapag sinabi mong “gramatika” ay maiintindihan na ng lahat, maging ng mga Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilokano, o Bikolano. Pero ang Surian ay kumatha o umimbento ng bagong salita – “balarila.” Iyong salitang diksyonaryo ay alam na ng lahat ngunit muling kumatha ng bago – “talatinigan”; “bokabularyo” – alam na ng lahat, pero kumatha ng “talasalitaan.” Mga kaibigan, noong ako ay nasa Senado at araw ni Balagtas, Abril 2, ako ay nagtalumpati on a privilege speech at binatikos ko iyong purismo. Ang sabi ko ay hinirapan natin ang wikang Tagalog maging para sa Tagalog. Ako ay sumusulat sa Tagalog; tumutula pa ako kung minsan sa Tagalog. Ngunit alam ba ninyo na iyong aking mga apo ay natutulungan ko sa homework nila sa arithmetic at history pero hindi ko matulungan sa wikang pambansa o national language? Napakaraming bagong mga salita na ni ako ay hindi ko naiintindihan. Kaya noong ako ay nagtalumpati, sinabi kong pati iyong “silya” ay gusto pang gawing “salumpuwit.”…

Noong nag-recess kami sa Senado, lumapit sa akin si Don Claro Recto. Alam ninyo medyo pilyo iyang si Recto. Sabi sa akin, “Hoy, soc, binabati kita. Mayroon lang akong itatanong sa iyo.” “Ano ho iyon?” wika ko. Ang sabi niya, “kung ‘yong ‘silya’ ay ‘salumpuwit,’ iyong ‘bra’ ay salong ano?” (Laughter)

Minsan naman, sinabi ni Raul Manglapuz, “Hindi ba iyong telegrama ay gusto pang gawing ‘pahatid kawad’? “Oo,” wika ko. Sabi niya, “Eh, kung iyong telegrama ay pahatid kawad, iyong ‘wireless’ ay ano?” “Aba, eh, siyanga pala.” Ang wika ko, sabi ni Raul, “Siguro iyon ay pahatid-kawad-na-walang-kawad.” (Laughter)

Kaya nga naantala ang paglaganap ng ating wika. Natakot ang mga estudyante. Kahit ang mga Tagalog ay natakot. Ang mga Tagalog ay lumalagpak sa national language. Kaya nga iyan ang isang dahilan kung bakit ginawang “Filipino.” Ako ay nagagalak sapagkat akalain ba ninyong inalis iyong napakaraming letra sa ating alpabet. Inalis ang letters “c”, “f”, “j”, “q”, “y”, at “x”. Kawawa naman ako. Ako ay Francisco, nawala iyong “f” iyong “c” kaya ako ay “Prankisko” (Laughter) May nagsabi sa akin, kung lahat ng “c” ay magiging “k”, iyong “Cecilio” ay ano? Di “Kekilyo,” wika niya. (Laughter)

Kaya’t ako ay kumakatig na ang ating gawing wikang pambansa ay ang Filipino.59

The inference that can be drawn out from this is that any “purism” which the Commission on National Language, the body which replaced60 the Institute on National Language may adopt stands to be overruled as unconstitutional. There is legal ground to hold that the Commission on National Language must promulgate liberal rules on standardization based on usage. This is particularly significant when it comes to orthography and grammar. Lope K. Santos’ twenty-letter alphabet and grammar of the Pilipino language must be amended to accommodate the fusion of other languages.

D. Expanding the Usage Domain

In the schema presented by Director Pineda, expanding the usage domain of the nucleus is the key element to the development of the multi-language based national language. It is important that Filipino be used widely in national affairs. In the 1987 CONCOM, Commissioners Aquino and Villacorta stated that the approach in the development of the national language should not be hermaphroditic.61 Experiences here and abroad showed that a national language is useless if it is not used as the medium of instruction and official communication. People remained semi-literate and ignorant about scientific concepts, skills, and principles, because science and technology were usually written and transmitted in the English language which only a small part of the population had mastered.

In this regard, the Committee on Human Resources proposed62 that the Constitution should provide that resolute steps be taken by the government in order that Filipino be used as medium of official communication and school instruction. Commissioner Bernas pointed out that the proposal would create a redundancy, because making Filipino the official language would have the same effect as a provision which stated that the government shall take steps to use Filipino as a medium of communication in all branches of government. Commissioner Villacorta’s reply was that the committee intended to kept the detailed provision to reinforce the character of Filipino as an official language. Commissioner Bennagen explained that Filipino as an official language had been mostly practiced in stationeries and government buildings as names and in titles as well as in post offices. Filipino should be utilized in government as well as in communications and in all levels of the educational system. The proposal was carried 37 votes to none.

E. The Examples in Perspective

A discussion of the language policy is not complete without considering the samples of Filipino which were presented in the deliberations of the 1987 CONCOM. Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. has quoted some of them in his popular treatise63 on the Constitution. The danger is that these might be misunderstood and become a source of legal complications in the future. Moreover, as an acknowledged authority on Constitutional Law, Fr. Bernas has raised the opinion that these examples show that the language policy is still hazy. A language similar to what Commissioner Villacorta illustrated is simply inelegant, if ever it does exist. It is thus necessary to contextualize these examples in order to avoid further confusion.

During the proceedings, there were other samples presented on the floor aside from the Villacorta examples indicated above. One of these samples was provided by Commissioner Tingson, which was in the form of a prayer,

MR. TINGSON… Panginoon, bigyan mo po kami ng mga Filipinos nga may kasing-kasing na mahinulsulun. Nga nagahigugma sang katarungan apan nagasabdung sang kalainan. Kay, Ginoo, ito pong mga Filipinos ang aming bayan ngayon may kailangan kay amo ining mga Filipinos nga may matuod nga sadsara.64

It can be observed that the examples appear to be rough mixtures of words culled from different local dialects, but the important point is that these examples will not bind the users of Filipino. Commissioner Ople clarified that the enrichment, expansion, and indenfinite strengthening of the language through assimilation will have to be done in the course of the evolution of this language. It is not the intention of the framers of the Constitution to prescribe certain quotas in accordance with a certain fiat of the government.65 The Constitution did not adopt the Complete Amalgamation Approach in the development of the language.

It must be further emphasized that the Constitution refers to two types66 of Filipino. The first is that which is embodied by Pilipino at the present and to be engineered as to allow influences from other languages. The second is the informal lingua franca developed as speakers from different linguistic groups in the country converse. All of the examples referred to the second type. While the 1987 CONCOM did not bother to give similar examples of the first type (it being an obvious matter), it should be remembered that Filipino is not limited to the second. More importantly, the relationship of the first and second examples must be examined. The second is said to have evolved informally. It has no established grammar and vocabulary. It bears, however, a semblance of the end goal of the first type, when time and usage have allowed the first type to grow and develop with the least amount of control from the purist. The second type is what eventually the first type will be in the future when the languages have fused.

IV. CONCLUSION

The language provisions67 of the 1987 Constitution read,

The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.

Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system.

For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English…

The ambiguity of the concept of Filipino under the present Constitution might have been avoided if the framers had only expressed the fact that they meant a Filipino with a nuclear basis on Pilipino. Although this intent was repeated throughout the proceedings, such was not manifested in the final draft of the Constitution. We can only surmise at what the reasons were. In any case, the crucial point has been established: Filipino with the “F” is the national language based on all existing native languages with a nucleus nesting on Tagalog or Pilipino with the “P.” Hence, the observation of Edilberto Alegre is correct. Filipino with the “F” and Pilipino with the “P” are similar. This can also be the basis for the use of Pilipino as an official language and medium of instruction. But this will only hold as long as the multi-language based national language has not taken off from its Tagalog roots. If it does – in the meantime that all the obstacles preventing it from doing so are being removed under the liberal language policy – then the distinction can be rightfully made. But whether it will is another question.

Footnotes

48 Yabes, supra note 32 at 342.
49 20 October 1971.
50 Pineda, supra note 13 at 60.
51 Reference to Ernesto Constantino’s work pervaded the discussions on the floor. See 4 CONCOM 152, 155.
52 Id. at 153.
53 Id. at 464.
54 Id. at 478
55 Id. at 481
56 Id. In order to facilitate understanding, the speech as reproduced here has been divided into paragraphs shorter than what appears on record.
57 4 CONCOM 487, 489.
59 Id. at 484-485.
60 An Act Creating the Commission on the Filipino Language, Prescribing Its Powers, Duties and Functions, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, Republic Act No. 7104, sec. 16 (1991).
61 Id. at 489-490.
62 See 4 Concom 489-495 for the entire discussion.
63 2 Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. The Constitution of the Philippines: A Commentary 528 (1987).
64 4 CONCOM 486.
65 Supra note 14.
66 Supra note 56.
67 Philippine Const. Art. XIV, secs. 6 and 7.

My Top Ten Starbucks Aliases

1. Nowan

One cappuccino for "Nowan"! (Insert canned laughter here.)

2. Yu
3. Mi
4. Bidden
5. Saken
6. Rontong
7. Rorot
8. Ever
9. Given
10. Nickate

Plaridel Recalls his Conflict with Rizal

For the past months, I have been reading the collected letters of Marcelo H. Del Pilar, which were published in English translation by the National Historical Institute. One of the more memorable letters in the collection is Del Pilar's letter to Deodato Arellano dated March 31, 1891 in which Plaridel tells Deodato the events that led to Rizal's parting with the Filipinos in Madrid and Rizal's eventual return to the Philippines.

In this letter, Plaridel gives us a different glimpse into Rizal's persona, his beef with the freeloaders on a New Year's Eve banquet, their debate on whether the La Solidaridad is independent of their political organization, and the elections among the Filipinos in Madrid, which Rizal grudgingly won over Plaridel. Del Pilar shows why Rizal stands way above his peers.

Madrid March 31, 1891


Ka Dato:

I received your letters last February 8 and 20 as well as those from Chanay, Ponciano and those addressed to Teofilo and Don Fernando. I also received from the house of Bayo a letter for Rizal, which was sent immediately to its destination, as were the others.

I owe you an explanation on what you call a conflict between Rizal and myself; the briefness of my previous statements seems to have brought about his judgment. There was no such conflict between us nor among the members of the colony, although in the election for leader there were pro-Rizal and pro-Pilar groups. Doctor Rosario must be there already and he can give you a more detailed account. And even now I call it childishness.

It is a traditional habit in the colony to enjoy at a fraternal banquet on the night of December 31. In the morning of that day, the suggestion was raised regarding the drinking of champagne, since the young men had been preparing their respective speeches. A thousand means were discussed to obtain champagne for the night; and at lunchtime, many jokes were passed around, but I kept quiet and was thinking of paying for the champagne; I wanted to surprise them. After the meal, I went to the house of Bayo to get the money for the champagne. From the house of Bayo, at around three in the afternoon, I went to the house of Doña Justa Jugo (a Filipina), where we were invited for tea, since it was the birthday of a son of hers. While I was there, Rizal arrived and he called me aside and told me: “Before coming here I passed by your house and heard a proposal that you spend for tonight’s coffee.” “Accepted”, I replied. Imagine why I would not accept that offer when I was willing to spend a lot more.

Nighttime comes, the young people, always gay, sign a paper which they do not allow me to read; and at the hour when we sat down at the table, the proposal signed by 25 table companions (I believe we were 31) was presented, having been prepared with much grace by Lete, asking that I pay for the coffee, Cunanan for the cigars, and Rizal and Dominador Gomez (who had not arrived yet) for the champagne.

I expressed my acceptance and so did Cunanan. But Rizal had the good or bad grace to protest and argue. I attempted to drown that protest, proposing that besides those mentioned, Modesto Reyes and Mariano Abella pay for the champagne. They also accepted. It may have been that Rizal did not hear me since we were far from each other, I at the presidential center of the table, he at the extreme left and the proponents at the extreme right; so that no one paid any attention to my proposal and Rizal began to collect, starting from the left of the table, a contribution of one peseta from each person for the champagne. In the midst of the hubbub, someone approached me and whispered, saying: “Mister Director, the proposal has been retracted, but we thank you for the coffee. We expected no less from your graciousness.”

I understood the bitterness that provoked Rizal’s protest. Not being aware of my proposal, he remained happy and witty, and I worried that there would be some conflict. The collection of one peseta went on, going from the extreme left toward the center; from here to the extreme right; no one wanted to give anything.

Very ingenious, but very strong arguments against Rizal began at the extreme right; I took advantage of the fact that Rizal was not aware of the extent of the arguments and I got up and approached the extreme right to tell them secretly not to spoil this brotherly reunion. All of them listened to me and the meal continued without any more quarrels.

The moment for the toast came. Dr. Rosario initiated the toasts and so magnificent was the moment when he lamented the lack of interest of some in their studies so that he received great applause; but at the end of the applause, the voice of Rizal was heard to say “We should feel it instead of clapping.” This caused some discontented looks.

When the banquet was finished, Naning and I accompanied Doña Marina and Micaela, who had gone to watch the banquet and were going home alone at midnight: then we went home to Atocha street and met the group that had been arguing. It was five in the morning and since I had an appointment at eight, I immediately went to bed but I know that there was talk about Rizal, saying that he liked to impose his will and I don’t know what else.

At eight in the morning I went to my appointment and later, at about twelve, I ate lunch and went back to sleep. But at five in the afternoon, I was awakened and told that the colony was going to meet in my rooms for the purpose of naming a leader whom they could respect; and in fact the members of the colony started arriving. Half asleep and half awake, I was surprised at this sudden determination on their part and told myself that I did not see the need for such an arrangement. I continued lying in bed thinking, and it occurred to me that this might be a trick against Rizal to make him realize that his leadership was not indisputable like many believed. That thought made me rise from bed ready to go against the idea that was being presented as a means of uniting the colony (which was already united). I searched for reasons but they all told me that it was the best way to unite us, and I did not date to voice my suspicions, since these were apparently unfounded.

At this moment Rizal arrives surrounded by the persons who had begun the idea with the support of Rizal himself, and without giving me time to do much, the session began. The idea was presented by Lete, who supported his proposal and he announced that he was counting on Rizal’s support. Some spoke up asking for clarification, and I replied in rebuttal. “Every institution, every organization,” said I, “has reason to exist only when it answers a need. What need does this new organization answer? For legitimate political ends we have the Spanish-Philippine Association; for purposes of propaganda we have another group at our disposal which gives great support.

They all contradicted me and I was beaten as the only one opposed to the idea. Naning thought like me, but did not consider it wise to insist and thus kept quiet.

A commission was formed to prepare the statutes, and Llorente, Rizal and I were elected. The commission met immediately after and Rizal was appointed chairman.

Once the project of Statutes had been prepared, I was ready to approve it without reading it. For me it was enough since Rizal had drafted it and I told Llorente this, but he insisted that I nevertheless read it. I leafed through it and was taken aback by an article that said that the head of the colony would decide the policies of the colony and that the Solidaridad would become subordinate to it.

I called the attention of Rizal to this saying that the Solidaridad depends on another entity. He replied : “Be quiet since, at the end, you will be elected head, since I and my companions at home will vote for you and that does not matter.” I gave him other explanations and I was able to modify the article, altering it as follows: that the leader shall direct its policies and in this sense the Solidaridad shall be its official organ.

A general council was formed to discuss the ruling and on coming to the article cited, a question was presented regarding the wisdom of an “official organ,” and whether this meant its subordination. It was my turn to reply and I said that it meant that the leader of the colony has the means to publish his agreements and thoughts and that without being his subordinate, the paper was willing to insert his authentic decisions. Rizal, without speaking to me directly, said “And if the Solidaridad published something that is not convenient for the interests of the colony, would there be solidarity in the colony because of what the La Solidaridad says?”

I pretended not to hear this question and said: “Gentlemen, the Solidaridad is willing to lend all kinds of service to the colony and even to those who are not part of the colony, as long as it is for the good of the Philippines; what I cannot do is to abdicate its independence; and I cannot do this because it belongs to another very respectable entity, whose instructions are incompatible with subordination to any other group that has not been previously designated. You may vote unanimously for the subordination of the paper; and if the paper does not become subordinate, your votes will lose their validity.”

This explanation was received with approval and Rizal announced that he would request from that Center the authorization that was needed to establish the paper in the colony.

The discussion about the rule ended, we proceeded to the election of the leader and the obligatory majority was not reached. The candidates were Rizal and myself. The voting was repeated thrice and the results were the same, and Rizal and I parted with great cordiality, so much so, that he told me that since the voting would be repeated the next day, it would be convenient to name a third person in order to avoid the formation of factions, to which I agreed.

In the afternoon of the following day the elections were repeated; I wished to go out and did not attend, leaving to Naning my right to vote and to sign agreements. Upon my return to my house I was greeted with the following news: that during the first election, there was no majority; that Naning met in secret with Rizal proposing a third candidate of the coalition who would be recommended by the two contending parties; that Rizal, without accepting or refusing the proposal, replied that he would be going abroad to work alone, and that where there are two Filipinos, it is not possible to have unity. The second election took place without any results either; so that in view of this, Rizal counted the votes in his favor and in the presence of everyone said: “Good, I see that I have 19 friends in the colony; goodbye, gentlemen, I am going to pack my bag, till then,” picked up his hat and left. Naning who had instructions from me to avoid the success of my candidacy, talked with those who he knew voted for me and asked them, for the sake of harmony, to vote for Rizal. Voting took place and Rizal won.

A Counselor was elected from the two who, according to rules, should exist and Lete was chosen. In the election for the other Counselor there was no majority between Naning and Apacible and voting was suspended, to be repeated the following day. The Rizalists agreed to support the candidacy of Naning, but Naning worked so that the Pilarists would not vote for him and it was agreed to vote for Doctor Rosario. The following day it was my turn to preside at the elections, and again no results were obtained; Rosario did not obtain a majority. There is more: Rizal himself said that he would not accept the leadership if the candidacy of Rosario succeeded. The Rizalists spoke to me to return to the candidacy of Naning, and I replied that they had seen me make all kinds of concessions for the sake of reconciliation, but at this point, they should also look for other conciliatory means. At this point, Rosario approached me and said: “Director, let us carry to the extreme our willingness to comply; we have already given in as to the leadership; let us also give in now so that we can prove that we are not elements of discord.” I suspended the session in order to confer and by common agreement a third person of the coalition was proposed: Don Modesto Reyes. Elections took place and he won.

The day of the oath-taking came and I presided. Having read the Act, I asked Rizal the following question: if he was accepting the position and was willing to swear an oath, and he asked to be heard. He made a long recriminatory speech, he goaded Lete, and added that Mr. Del Pilar should have immediately withdrawn his candidacy for the reason that he himself had judged his triumph ill-timed (it is true that I said that); that in Manila the news of his defeat would be poorly received, since he is recognized there as the leader, and it would be very bad if he were not also the leader in Madrid; that the leadership in Manila is in the letter that the Center sent him comparing him with Ruiz Zorilla and besides, his leadership was undisputed there, since all opinions in that area right now have come about through him. (It took me great effort to maintain my composure, after the presidency.)

The speech over, Lete asked to be heard and before agreeing to this, I warned him that the occasion was not meant to start controversies but to turn over the position, and Lete calmed me down by saying that he had no intention of arguing about anything but only to say a few words to clear himself of the charges directed against him.

Finally, I accepted the oaths of Rizal and the Counselors and swore them in. Dominador Gomez and Tomas Arejola made speeches alluding to the event, mentioning the conciliatory behavior with which the supporters distinguished themselves.

I found myself obliged to speak and said, more or less: there should not be any divisiveness in the Philippine Colony and there is none; some share the sentiments that encourage us, others are for the ideals that we pursue: the abolition of everything that stands in the way of our liberty in the Philippines, and at the same time and for the same reason, of that of the Spanish flag also. Divisiveness will bring us nowhere and since our efforts to obtain peace are recognized, I ask for nothing more but that all of us forget the bitterness felt because of the past arguments.

Thus I ended this act. A few weeks later, Rizal went on his planned trip abroad and I was elected to the position he vacated. I considered resigning, but thinking that they would misinterpret my resignation, I accepted.

That is the true story of the case: I appeal for the testimony of those who have recently returned there. Now I leave it to your judgment. I am of the opinion that we should avoid at all costs any unfavorable judgment of Rizal: I wish to keep unsullied the great name that he enjoys. You will remember that when he was insisting on returning there, I asked you to see to it that nothing should occur to belittle him; I precisely did that since I could foresee the event that I have just witnessed. My reputation was not established in the libraries, and the libraries do not take into account the circumstances surrounding the reality that prompts us to work.

MARCELO

Filipino with the "F": A Guide for the Perplexed (Part Two)

Continued from here.

The complete article can be found here

B. Tagalog and the Purists in the Institute of National Language

On 13 November 1936, Congress enacted Commonwealth Act No. 184. The act created the Institute of National Language composed of a director, seven members, and an executive secretary, each representing one of the linguistic groups of the Philippines. The Institute was principally tasked to choose the native tongue which was to be used as a basis for the evolution and adoption of the Philippine national language. In the selection, preference was to be given to the tongue that was most developed as regards structure, mechanism, and literature, and was accepted, and used by the greatest number of Filipinos. A year after it was established, the Institute was directed to publish its linguistic studies, and to recommend to the President the adoption of the national language based on the native tongue it had chosen.

On 9 November 1937, the Institute passed a resolution recommending that Tagalog be made the basis of the national language. On 30 December of the same year, President Quezon declared33 Tagalog as the national language of the Philippines. He subsequently authorized34 the printing of the dictionary and grammar prepared by the Institute, and fixed 18 June 1940, as the day upon which the national language was to be taught in all public and private schools. Tagalog became the official language effectively on 4 July 1946 by congressional act.35 Tagalog was later designated as Pilipino.36

Gradually, the multi-lingualists found reason to protest the actions of the Institute of National Language. The movement was not organized, but it had a wide reservoir of support which could be drawn upon any time.37 One of the issues raised by the multi-lingualists was the difficulty in learning and applying of the grammar prescribed by the Institute. The Institute coined terms in place of grammatical texts which were already familiar to many people and reduced that alphabet to the twenty-letter pre-Spanish alphabet. Such were considered signs of retrogression instead of progress.38 Soon enough, the critics called the linguistic attitude taken by the Institute as “purism.”

The mono-lingualists, on their part, lamented the junior role which Pilipino took in the general language program of the government. English continued to be the language of official communication and the principal medium of instruction. The place of Pilipino in the official business of government, on one hand, was merely ceremonial. Among the few government actions on language, for instance, were the mandatory celebration of the National Language Week,39 the naming of all government buildings, edifices, and offices in Pilipino;40 and the translation of all letter-heads of departments, offices, and agencies of the government to Pilipino.41 English, on the other hand, was the language in which laws and executive orders were passed and issued.

The courts promulgated their decisions in English. In the schools, the principal subjects of math and science were taught in English. Schools were also allowed to impose fines on students who spoke in Pilipino within the school premises.

C. The 1972 CONCON: Birth of Filipino

The mono-lingualists and the multi-lingualists debated anew on the provision of language during the 1972 Constitutional Convention (1972 CONCON). The issues against the mono-lingualists were the “purist” attitude of the Institute, the limited twenty-letter Pilipino pre-Spanish alphabet, and the political deception employed during the 1934 CONCON. For their part, the mono-lingualists pointed to the developments achieved in the propagation of the national language, particularly in mass media. They also raised the point that disregarding the gains of Pilipino would only perpetuate the continued domination of the English language in the country.

Professor Yabes offeres a framwork42 for studying how the struggle between the two movements on language ensued in the 1972 CONCON. According to him, it was three-phase struggle. Phase one was the struggle over which language of the Constitution was to be promulgated. In this phase, the multi-lingualists prevailed when the 1972 CONCON decided that the Constitution was to be promulgated solely in English and not in Pilipino.43

The second phase was the struggle in the Committee on National Language over what was to be the national language. In this phase, the multi-lingualists prevailed again when the committee decided44 to adopt Filipino, a language yet to be developed on the basis of existing native languages and dialects, and without precluding the assimilation of words from foreign languages. Pending the adoption of a common national language, the committee recommended the continuance of English and Spanish as official languages. It also recommended the vernaculars spoken in the various areas or regions as official languages in those areas or regions, including Arabic and the Manila Lingua Franca in the Muslim and Greater Manila Area.45

The third phase was the struggle over the final text of the language provision. In this phase, the real victor was uncertain, as the proposal of the committee underwent the following changes: a) Pilipino was made the second language of the Constitution and the second official language; b) reference to the vernaculars and the Manila Lingua Franca were deleted.

The final text of the 1973 Constitution provision on language read,

Section 3. (1) This Constitution shall be officially promulgated in English and Pilipino, and translated into each dialects spoken by over fifty thousand people, and into Spanish and Arabic, in case of conflict, the English text shall prevail.

(2) The National Assembly shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino.

(3) Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages.46

When the adoption of the 1973 Constitution was finally declared, the national language was supposed to be multi-language based, but the multi-lingualists did not appear to be the clear winner. The real outcome was contingent upon how the Batasang Pambansa was to evolve the multi-language based Filipino as the 1973 Constitution mandated.

D. Inaction of the Batasang Pambansa

The mandate of the Constitution to the Batasang Pambansa to take steps towards the development and adoption of Filipino was never fulfilled. The only positive effort was the filing of Parliamentary Bill No. 7199, which was introduced by Mambabatas Pambansa (MP) Pacificador and eleven other MP’s. Under section 7 of the bill, Pilipino was to be the nucleus of Filipino. The bill was never enacted into law, but it indicated a willingness to compromise on the part of the multi-lingualists, and it laid the foundation to the 1987 Constitution’s Filipino. Meanwhile, under then existing laws, Pilipino kept its stature as a national language.47

It may be concluded that, the struggle between the mono-lingualists and the multi-lingualists ended in a deadlock of sorts. On one hand the multi-lingualists were able to correct the deception which took place during the 1934 CONCON. On the other hand, there was no law to support the multi-lingualists’ Constitutional provision. Thus, the mono-lingualists were able to maintain the preferred position of Pilipino over the other native languages in the national language policy.

Footnotes


33 Executive Order 134 (1937).
34 Executive Order 263 (1940).
35 Commonwealth Act No. 570 (1940).
36 Department Order No. 7 issued by the Department of Education (1959).
37 Yabes, supra note 31 at 343.
38 Id. at 346.
39 Proclamation No. 12 (1954).
40 Executive Order No. 96 (1967).
41 Memorandum Circular No. 172 (1968).
42 See L.Y. Yabes, Let’s Study the New Constitution: The Language Provision, 38 Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review 1-172.
43 The basis of the voting was the so-called Quirino resolution which was adopted by a vote of 146 to 78 on second reading and 165 to 101 on third and final reading.
44 Voting was twenty-five (25) to nine (9) in favor of Filipino with one (1) voting for Filipino with reservations.
45 L.Y. Yabes, supra not 43 at 100-107.
46 Philippine Const., art. XV, sec. 3 (1973).
47 Department of Justice Opinion No. 73 (1973).

(To be continued)