Life is Beautiful

sino ako… bukod sa pagiging peminista, abogada, kaibigan, kapatid, anak, babae at taong iyong iniibig… sino ako? sino ang tunay na ako? kung magbabago ang aking anyo, masasabi mo pa ba na ako si gina?

kung magbabago ang aking ugali… ang aking mga paniniwala at adhikain sa buhay, ako pa ba si gina na nakilala mo… marahil hindi na di ba? pero sino ba talaga ako? ibig sabihin ba na pag nagbago ako, tuluyan na akong magiging ibang tao? tuluyan na bang mabubura ang tunay kong pagkatao?

mahal mo ako dahil kilala mo ako. paano pag ang ako na nakilala mo nag iba na? magagawa mo pa rin bang ipagpatuloy ang pag ibig mo? magagawa mo pa rin bang matanggap ang panibagong ako?

oo, mahal mo ako ng buong puso… naiiintindihan ko ang mga katagang ito… hindi mo na kailangan ulitin pa…mahal mo ako bilang ako. wala akong duda diyan… naniniwala ako.

pero paano kung ang ako na nakilala mo noon ay tuluyan ng naglaho at nagiba? mamamatay rin ba ang pag - ibig mo o tuturuan mong muli ang sarili mo na mahalin ang panibago kong pagkatao?

"If you see me walking the road with someone else, it’s not because I like his company, it’s because you were not brave enough to walk beside me. If you hear me talking about him all the time, it’s not because he pleases me, it’s because you were deaf to hear my heartbeat. If you feel that I’m falling with someone new, it’s not because I love him, it’s because you were not there to catch me if i fall. I you feel lost, I too am nowhere…  I don’t know where the road is going…"

"If you wanna end up with the right person, you’ve got to make it happen… The best people are always taken… If you don’t steal them, you won’t have them."

"Men are like gum… After you chew, it loses its flavor."

"When a lady lawyer enters the court room, she carries with her her reputation… Promiscuity undermines such reputation. Thus, if you wanna have fun, be discreet…"

"Lots of people commit adultery. No, it shouldn’t happen. It is wrong. But it is also wrong to think that the law or a jury should make a difference. If two people love each other, they will gonna end up together. Stick a law, a judge or an old girlfriend between them, but still, they will find a way to be together because they are the ones who are meant to be."

"It just wasn’t you. You’re the best woman I’ve known. Your values, kindness, your beauty… You’re everything i looked for. When I finally found you, I was sure I would fall in love with you. I waited for it, but it never happened… I knew that marrying you would be the smartest thing to do. You would be a good mother, a great companion. Marrying you would have been the most practical thing. But part of me also would have died inside because I have no passion for you…"

"Love must win out. Go with your heart, follow your passion. But what about the consequences? The thing about love is that it is cloaked with so much romanticism that people sometimes refuse to see it as wrong even when it is wrong."

"If you’re involved with a married man and you wanna know if you are really meant for each other, don’t let guilt be an issue… But then, you may be meant to love each other forever but you are not meant to be together.”

“We all want love to come along, yet, we apply a lot of restrictions as to how it should come along…”

“Better to regret on the things you do rather than on the things you haven’t done.”

“The thing about great love is that it is immortal. It can live forever… even if the people involved don’t. When one dies, it is as if the other’s own center had been destroyed and nothing else mattered. He/she is lost… A love that he/she cherished more than life itself was taken from her…suddenly gone…”

“There are few things in life as precious as friendship. The best part of marriage is friendship and if we don’t associate a duty with it… a duty of loyalty, honesty, care… then, what have we got?”

“However much I know otherwise, part of me has always felt life has no meaning until you share it with somebody. Maybe that’s what I’m afraid of… my life suddenly taking on meaning or suddenly becoming void…”

“Sometimes, people get so used to things not working out. They strangely become more comfortable with failure than they are with success…. But then, don’t run away from someone you think is the right one… don’t run away from love. He who refuses to be hurt by love ends up by destroying himself.”

“Every relationship is like a cave. You have to explore it… mine it… but you have to venture into darkness…. That’s the glory of love.”

“We are lucky to have somebody with a bit of insanity… somebody who never lets you go… somebody who cherishes you forever…. Loving somebody forever is a legacy”

"To find love again, he had to lose it…
To find herself again, she had to lose him…."

Sometimes, what drives one away is not the absence of emotion, but the overwhelming presence of it to the extent that the identity of the person is lost in the process of loving…

Sometimes, a space between them would be of help… a space to know the flaws and mistakes… a space to rediscover yourself… a space to appreciate the love…. Another person would come into the picture, but then, one cannot really forget the person with whom, technically, you had spend the rest of your life with because of the long years you had been together. And sometimes, this person would turn out to be of help rather than a nemesis… He/she makes you realize that the love you had before is the one that is really meant for you… the one you should pursue… and the one you have to fight for…. That rebound lover discreetly teaches you to say to the other: "I’m sorry… my mistake… can we have one more chance?"

Petition for leave to resume the practice of law by Benjamin Dacanay
B.M. No. 1678 – December 17, 2007
Justice Corona 

Before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 (Citizen Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) can resume his law practice, he must first secure from the Supreme Court the authority to do so, conditioned on:

(a)    the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;

(b)    the payment of professional tax;

(c)    the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and

(d)     the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

Basya: Ang totoo, hangang ngayon umaasa pa din ako na sabihin mo sa akin na ako pa rin…  ako na lang … ako na lang ulit…

Popoy: She loved me at my worst, you had me at my best… and you chose to break my heart…

    This is an interesting case wherein the judge, after investigation, recommended to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) the suspension of a court employee, a utility worker for that matter, for giving birth out of wedlock. The recommendation is hereunder quoted:

"Since respondent admitted that she
is single and that she got pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy without being
married to the father of the child, albeit she advanced the reason for her
remaining unmarried, it being that she and her boyfriend had a mutual plan to
migrate to Canada, this Investigating Judge considers that such conduct of the
respondent fell short of the strict standards of Court personnel and contrary
to the Code of Judicial Ethics and the Civil Service Rules. A place in the
judiciary demands upright men and women who must carry on with dignity, hence
respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct which cannot be
countenanced by the Court. Certainly, the image of the Judiciary has been
affected by such conduct of the respondent."

The OCA, as well as the Supreme Court, however reversed the said recommendation.

For purposes of determining administrative
responsibility, giving birth out of wedlock is not per se immoral under
civil service laws. For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same
must be “grossly immoral,” that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree.

 In Estrada v.
Escritor, we emphasized that in
determining whether the acts complained of constitute “disgraceful and immoral
behavior” under civil service laws, the distinction between public and secular
morality on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other should be kept
in mind. The distinction
between public and secular morality as expressed — albeit not exclusively — in
the law, on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, is important
because the jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular
morality. Thus, government
action, including its proscription of immorality as expressed in criminal law
like adultery or concubinage, must have a secular purpose.

For a particular conduct to constitute
“disgraceful and immoral” behavior under civil service laws, it must be
regulated on account of the concerns of public and secular morality. It cannot
be judged based on personal bias, specifically those colored by particular
mores. Nor should it be grounded on “cultural” values not convincingly
demonstrated to have been recognized in the realm of public policy expressed in
the Constitution and the laws. At the same time, the
constitutionally guaranteed rights (such as the right to privacy) should be
observed to the extent that they protect behavior that may be frowned upon by
the majority.

Under these tests, two things may be
concluded from the fact that an unmarried woman gives birth out of wedlock:

(1) if the father of the child is himself unmarried, the woman is not
ordinarily administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct. It may be a
not-so-ideal situation and may cause complications for both mother and child
but it does not give cause for administrative sanction. There is no law which
penalizes an unmarried mother under those circumstances by reason of her sexual
conduct or proscribes the consensual sexual activity between two unmarried
persons. Neither does the situation contravene any fundamental state policy as
expressed in the Constitution, a document that accommodates various belief
systems irrespective of dogmatic origins.

(2) if the father of the child born out of wedlock is himself married to a
woman other than the mother, then there is a cause for administrative sanction
against either the father or the mother. In such a case, the
“disgraceful and immoral conduct” consists of having extramarital relations
with a married person. The sanctity of
marriage is constitutionally recognized and likewise affirmed
by our statutes as a special contract of permanent union. Accordingly, judicial
employees have been sanctioned for their dalliances with married persons or for
their own betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.

 In this case, it was
not disputed that, like respondent, the father of her child was unmarried.
Therefore, respondent cannot be held liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct
simply because she gave birth to the child Christian Jeon out of wedlock.

-ANONYMOUS vs. RADAM
A.M. No. P-07-2333 (December
19, 2007)
J. Corona

The
Supreme Court already approved the Rule on the Writ of Amparo [A.M. No.
07-9-12-SC, 25 September 2007], which is a remedy available to any
person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or
is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

Historically, Philippine habeas corpus (from 1901 until the present) miserably failed to produce efficacious legal remedy for victims of extrajudicial killings and desaparecidos. Once a lawsuit is filed under Habeas Corpus, Rule 102, Rules of Court, the defendants,
government officers would merely submit the usual defense of alibi or
non-custody of the body sought to be produced. The 1987 Philippine Constitution, however, empowers the Supreme Court to promulgate amparo and habeas data as part of the Rules of Court expressly: “Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.” (Sec. 5, (5), Article VIII, 1987, Constitution. Hence, Chief Justice Puno by judicial fiat proclaimed the legal birth of these twin peremptory writs on October 2007 as his legacy to the Filipino nation.

The Writ of Amparo is a remedy to enforce fundamental rights. “among
the different procedures that have been established for the protection
of human rights, the primary ones that provide direct and immediate
protection are habeas corpus and amparo. The difference between these
two writs is that habeas corpus is designed to enforce the right to
freedom of the person, whereas amparo is designed to protect those
other fundamental human rights enshrined in the Constitution but not
covered by the writ of habeas corpus.

Habeas Data, on the other hand, is “you should have the data”.
Habeas Data is a constitutional right to protect, per lawsuit filed in
court, to protect the image, privacy, honor, information,
self-determination and freedom of information of a person. Habeas Data
can used to discover what information is held about his or her person. Aside from giving individuals the right to find out what information is
being kept about them, the writ of habeas data seeks to protect the right to
find out what use and for what purpose such data are being collected. The
petitioner is also given the opportunity to question the data and demand their
“updating, rectification, or destruction."

SECTION 1. Petition. – The petition for a
writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

SEC. 2.  Who May File. – The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the following order:

(a) Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party;

(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or

(c) Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution,
if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party.

The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right
of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise,
the filing of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the
aggrieved party suspends the right of all others, observing the order
established herein.

SEC. 3. Where to File. – The petition may
be filed on any day and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of
the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its
elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.

When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be returnable before such court or judge.

When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of
their justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice
thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat,
act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.

When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be
returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the
Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to
any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission
was committed or any of its elements occurred.

SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. – The petitioner
shall be exempted from the payment of the docket and other lawful fees
when filing the petition. The court, justice or judge shall docket the
petition and act upon it immediately.

SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. – The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege the following:

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent
responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown
or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;

(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of
the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;

(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names,
personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation,
together with any report;

(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine
the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the
person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and

(f) The relief prayed for the petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.

SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. – Upon the
filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately
order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The
clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in
case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ
under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to
serve it.

The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of
its issuance.

SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ.
– A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance,
or a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished
by the court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other
disciplinary actions.

SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. – The writ
shall be served upon the respondent by a judicial officer or by a
person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy
on which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served
personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall
apply.

SEC. 9. Return Contents. – Within
seventy-two (72) hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall
file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits
which shall, among other things, contain the following:

(a) The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate
or threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of
the aggrieved party, through any act or omission;

(b) The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the
fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons
responsible for the threat, act or omission;

(c) All relevant information in the possession of the respondent
pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party;
and

(d) If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return
shall further state the actions that have been or will still be taken:

(i)     to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
(ii) to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or
disappearance of the person identified in the petition which may aid in
the prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
(iii)     to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or disappearance;
(iv) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or
disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought
about the death or disappearance;
(v)     to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance; and
(vi)     to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.

The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its resolution and the prosecution of the case.

A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.

SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. — All defenses shall be raised in the return, otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.

SEC. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. – The following pleadings and motions are prohibited:

(a)    Motion to dismiss;
(b)     Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position paper and other pleadings;
(c)    Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d)     Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e)     Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f)     Third-party complaint;
(g)     Reply;
(h)     Motion to declare respondent in default;
(i)     Intervention;
(j)     Memorandum;
(k)     Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief             orders; and
(l)     Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any                 interlocutory order.

SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. — In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.

SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. — The hearing on
the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice or judge may
call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine
the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the
parties.

The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority as petitions for habeas corpus.

SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. — Upon filing of
the petition or at anytime before final judgment, the court, justice or
judge may grant any of the following reliefs:

(a) Temporary Protection Order. – The court, justice or
judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or
the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected
in a government agency or by an accredited person or private
institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the
petitioner is an organization, association or institution referred to
in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be extended to the
officers involved.

The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private
institutions that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner
or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family, in
accordance with guidelines which it shall issue.

The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with
the rules and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or
judge.

(b) Inspection Order. — The court, justice or judge, upon
verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in
possession or control of a designated land or other property, to permit
entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or
photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon.

The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be
inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of
witnesses having personal knowledge of the enforced disappearance or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party.

If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of
the privileged nature of the information, the court, justice or judge
may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the
opposition.

The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to
establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or
violated.

The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized
to make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making
the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5)
days after the date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable
reasons.

(c) Production Order. – The court, justice or judge, upon
verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in
possession, custody or control of any designated documents, papers,
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or
objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain
evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit
their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the
movant.

The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of
the privileged nature of the information, in which case the court,
justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the
merit of the opposition.

The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all the parties.

(d) Witness Protection Order. – The court, justice or
judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the
Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection, Security
and Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981. The court,
justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government
agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of
keeping and securing their safety.

SEC. 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent.
– Upon verified motion of the respondent and after due hearing, the
court, justice or judge may issue an inspection order or production
order under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding section.

A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported
by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of
the defenses of the respondent.

SEC. 16. Contempt. – The court, justice or
judge may order the respondent who refuses to make a return, or who
makes a false return, or any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a
lawful process or order of the court to be punished for contempt. The
contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine.

SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required.
– The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. The
respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that
ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations was observed in the performance of duty. The respondent who
is a public official or employee must prove that extraordinary
diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was
observed in the performance of duty. The respondent public official or
employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.

SEC. 18. Judgment. — The court shall
render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven
by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the
writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the
privilege shall be denied.

SEC. 19. Appeal. – Any party may appeal
from the final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both. The period of
appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the
adverse judgment. The appeal shall be given the same priority as in
habeas corpus cases.

SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. –
The court shall not dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if upon
its determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the
failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their
lives.

A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo
court that shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order their
revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be
dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the
lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order
archiving the case.

The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court
Administrator a consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not
later than the first week of January of every year.

SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. — This Rule shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.

SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action.
– When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for
the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available
by motion in the criminal case.

The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of amparo.

SEC. 23. Consolidation. – When a criminal
action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ,
the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.

When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed
subsequent to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be
consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the
procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of
the reliefs in the petition.

SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. — This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights recognized and protected by the Constitution.

SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. – The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.

SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. –
This Rule shall govern cases involving extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof pending in the trial and appellate
courts.

SEC. 27. Effectivity. – This Rule shall take effect on October 24, 2007, following its publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.

House Bill 2295, sponsored by Bayan Muna Representative Teddy Casino and 4 others, seeks to mandate the conversion
of accumulated annual VAT payments on goods and services as an
additional income tax exemption in favor of low-income earners.

"Payments incurred by the individual taxpayer receiving a
compensation income of not more than P300,000 for the purchase of goods
and services within the taxable year preceding the filing of the income
tax shall be converted as a deductible allowance to their annual tax
dues, provided that annual VAT payments shall not exceed P36,000,"
Casiño said in a statement on Wednesday.

It seems that the VAT payments made by compensation-income earners for the taxable year shall be treated as a tax credit and not merely as a deduction from gross income since according to the aforequoted statement, it shall be converted as a deductible allowance to their annual tax dues.

If that would be the case, it is tantamount to saying that a compensation-income earner is entitled to claim its input tax without any application with the BIR for a tax credit certificate. Unlike in other kinds of taxpayers, in case of excess input tax over their output tax, the same shall be applied by the taxpayer either as a refund or credit against other internal revenue taxes. Hence, a question may arise if this bill passes the  constitutional requirement that the rule of taxation shall be uniform. But one may argue that uniformity of taxation, like the kindred concept of equal protection, merely requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities (Juan Luna Subdivision vs. Sarmiento, 91 Phil 371). Uniformity does not forfend classification as long as:

(1) the standards that are
used therefor are substantial and not arbitrary,
(2) the categorization
is germane to achieve the legislative purpose,
(3) the law applies, all
things being equal, to both present and future conditions, and
(4) the
classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same
class (Pepsi Cola vs. City of Butuan, 24 SCRA 3; Basco vs. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52).

Moreover, since compensation-income earners are covered by the withholding tax system, the proposed bill will create a difficulty in the tax system. The taxes of this kind of taxpayers are being withheld by their employers, who in turn, remit the same to the BIR. Thus, at the end of the taxable year or at the time of the filing of the income tax returns for that matter, these taxpayers would always be claiming a refund for their income tax payments since the basis of the computation of the tax withheld made by their employer does not reflect the VAT payments made by the said taxpayers. One may argue that the taxpayer may just claim the same as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year, but then, the excess payments would just accumulate year after year. Thus, the bill is not administratively feasible, unless the bill contains certain provisions addressing this matter.

Nevertheless, this proposed bill would aid the government in increasing its tax collections since more consumers will now
demand receipts from business establishments and professionals.

    The MTRCB had recently rated three movies with an X for being contrary to its rules and regulations. These movies, according to the censor board, are not fit for public viewing, thus, warranting a rated-X. The movies are as follows:

                    1. Mendiola;
                    2. A Day in the Life of Gloria; and
                    3. Rights.

    According to the censors, “Rights” contained scenes that “undermine faith and confidence in the government and the duly constituted authorities; that “Mendiola” had a “tendency to incite rebellion and sedition,”; and that “A Day in the Life of
Gloria” was “libelous and defamatory to the good name and reputation of
the President of the Philippines.”

    The said act is now the subject of congressional inquiry for being suppressive to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. Here’s what Justice Isagani Cruz, a constitutionalist, have to say about the matter.

I
have done this several times in this paper and elsewhere, but this is a
right that can never be overemphasized or needlessly reiterated. It is
a right of which the government should be perpetually reminded lest the
people’s conformity to its disregard or their neglect in not protesting
its abuse encourage the censor in eroding it.

I am doing this again because of the action taken by the Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) in giving three
movies an “X” rating and banning them from public exhibition. It says
they are “libelous and defamatory to the good name and reputation of
the President of the Philippines,” have “a tendency to incite rebellion
and sedition,” “undermine faith and confidence in the government and
duly constituted authorities,” and are “one-sided” and “black
propaganda.”

If the members of the Board had been my students in Constitutional
Law, they would surely have flunked. If they are lawyers, they have
discredited their Alma Mater that should disown them. These
presumptuous non-judges would condemn as criminal hostile comments
against Ms Macapagal-Arroyo and her government what we columnists make
every day. She herself would tolerate or ignore them but her appointees
in the MTRCB are more popish than the Pope.

Either they are unctuously eager to please their benefactor or they
are grossly ignorant of their functions. Perhaps both. John Milton
declared the impossibility of finding a person base enough to accept
the office of censor and at the same time good enough to perform its
duties. The members of the MTRCB are guilty on both counts.

They are unlike the justices of the Supreme Court appointed by
President Arroyo who have dared to displease her by declaring some of
her acts unconstitutional. Unlike them too, the MTRCB members do not
know what they are talking about in spouting their incredible
impertinence. The first thing they sorely need is a briefing on freedom
of expression.

They should always remember that we live in a democratic state under
the Bill of Rights. That immortal charter of liberty guarantees to
every person the courage and the dignity to speak up, even against the
mighty monarch, let alone a puny president.

Censors are presumptuous persons who believe they are the supreme
moral, political, social, and artistic arbiter of the people applying
only their own subjective standards in controlling the flow of thought
and action. They are nervous pedagogues with their fussy and
authoritarian intrusion, like a spinster aunt who warns—but secretly
hopes—that there is a man hiding under her bed.

The members of the MTRCB have absolutely no right whatsoever to
prohibit criticisms against the “good name and reputation of the
President of the Philippines” even assuming the propriety of their
questionable adjective. No one has. As for the supposed incitement of
the movies to sedition or rebellion, and whether they are libelous or
not, are matters for the courts, not the Board, to decide. The opinion
that the films are “one-sided” and “black propaganda” does not excuse
their unilateral suppression, absent a healthy contest between opposite
ideas.

In 1994, their predecessors in the MTRCB refused to permit the
public exhibition of the celebrated “Schindler’s List” unless certain
portions of it were excised. The producer rejected the requirement and
considered withdrawing the film altogether. Fortunately, President
Fidel Ramos reversed the censors and the people were able to view the
movie completely. Contrary to the fears of the Board, nothing untoward
happened as a result of their exposure to the scenes it wanted to
delete.

The MTRCB was paranoid about the reaction of the Filipino audience
to the picture. Like an over-acting disciplinarian, it shielded their
eyes from its ugly realities as if they were innocent little children
who should see nothing but sweetness and light. The Board did not
consider the fact that the people had their own grown-up sense of
discernment that, rightly or wrongly, would inform their impressions
and decisions.

Freedom of expression forbids previous suppression of ideas except
where the government can show a clear and present danger of their
circulation. It is the censor who must justify such prohibition;
otherwise, the ideas must enjoy full and free dissemination. In the
well-ordered society, however, freedom of expression, like most
freedoms, is subject to the paramount police power. This means that the
thought freely expressed may subsequently be validly punished if made
without authority or proof.

When I was on the Court, I hoped for an opportunity to write
about—and against—censorship as an obstacle to the free publication and
discussion of information affecting the public interest. “Schindler’s
List” would have been such a subject—and “The Piano” too—but they never
reached judicial scrutiny. I would have appreciated the chance to exalt
freedom of expression once more—even probably as a dissenter again—as
the most precious jewel in the crown of liberty.

    Despite the supremacy of the the freedom of expression in the hierarchy of fundamental civil rights, it is subject to government regulation. The right must yield to the inherent police power of the State. However, to be considered as a valid regulation and not suppression of the right, it must be reasonable. To be considered as reasonable, it must pass the two-fold

test

of public interest and reasonably necessary to promote its purpose.

    Some of the powers of the MTRCB as set forth in PD 1986, are:

c) To approve or disapprove, delete
objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the importation,
exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition
and/or television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs
and publicity materials subject of the preceding paragraph, which, in
the judgment of the board applying contemporary Filipino cultural
values as standard, are objectionable for being immoral, indecent,
contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the
Republic of the Philippines or its people, or with a dangerous tendency
to encourage the commission of violence or of wrong or crime, such as
but not limited to:

i) Those which tend to incite
subversion, insurrection, rebellion or sedition against the State, or
otherwise threaten the economic and/or political stability of the
State;

ii) Those which tend to undermine
the faith and confidence of the people in their government and/or the
duly constituted authorities;

iii) Those which glorify criminals or condone crimes;

iv) Those which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence or pornography;

v) Those which tend to abet the traffic in and use of prohibited drugs;

vi) Those which are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living or dead; and

vii) Those which may constitute
contempt of court or of any quasi-judicial tribunal, or pertain to
matter which are sub-judice in nature.

Provided, however, That deletions or
cuts must not be made on the master negative of the films, and that
such master negative shall be deposited with the Film Archives of the
Philippines and shall be released for export purposes to the film owner
only upon showing of the proper export permit; Provided, finally, That
the film owner shall execute his own undertaking that such master
negative shall be exclusively used for export purposes and not for
local showing;

To supervise, regulate, and grant,
deny or cancel, permits for the importation, exportation, production,
copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition, and/or television
broadcast of all motion pictures, television programs and publicity
materials, to the end that no such pictures, programs and materials as
are determined by the BOARD to be objectionable in accordance with
paragraph (c) hereof shall be imported, exported, produced, copied,
reproduced, distributed, sold, leased, exhibited and/or broadcast by
television;

d) To classify motion pictures,
television programs and similar shows into categories such as "G" or
"For General Patronage" (all ages admitted), "P" or "Parental Guidance
Suggested", "R" or "Restricted" (for adults only), "X" or "Not for
Public Viewing", or such other categories as the BOARD may determine
for the public interest;

    The MTRCB is empowered by PD 1986 to classify movies accordingly provided it is within the bounds of the law. It cannot suppress the freedom of expression under the guise of its authority. Such that if the MTRCB can justify that the movies in question warrant an X-rating, then the classification is proper. Otherwise, in the absence of reasonable grounds to be classified as such, I can say that the censor board acted without or in excess of its authority, thus the act should be overturned.