Today, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima lamented on the non-inclusion of budget for the hiring of the very much needed 733 new prosecutors nationwide in the 2011 proposed outlay for the Department of Justice.
This planned hiring is supposedly in compliance with Republic Act 10071 or the National Prosecution Service Act, which aims among others to achieve the ideal ratio of two prosecutors for every regional trial court judge; one prosecutor for every municipal trial court; and one prosecutor for every two municipal circuit trial court.
If realized this will definitely enhance and facilitate the speedy administration of justice in the country considering the high rate of population increase. However, it will not be the sole solution or the root cause of the country's rotten justice system; but it will be a good start and surely contribute in the much awaited improvement.
This is also a good news for all lawyers who want or aspire to be public prosecutors. It is also a very secured way of becoming a judge. I hope these positions are still up for grabs by the time I graduate from law school.
Monday, September 27, 2010
SC: Retail trade liberalization law constitutional
SC: Retail trade liberalization law constitutional
By Nikko DizonPhilippine Daily InquirerFirst Posted 07:52:00 09/28/
MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 or Republic Act No. 8762, a decade after it was questioned by lawmakers as supposedly being anti-Filipino.
“(W)hile the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, it also recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair,” it said.
Associate Justice Roberto Abad penned the 11-page decision.
Ten years ago, then Representatives Gerardo Espina, Orlando Fua Jr., Prospero Amatong, Robert Ace Barbers, Raul Gonzales, Prospero Pichay, Franklin Bautista and Juan Miguel Zubiri haled to court Cabinet officials of the Estrada administration during which the law was signed.
The officials were then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora Jr., former Trade Secretary Manuel Roxas II, former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Felipe Medalla, former Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Gov. Rafael Buenaventura, and former Securities and Exchange Commission chair Lilia Bautista.
The petitioners argued that RA 8762 violated provisions in the Constitution which places the national economy under the control of Filipinos to achieve equal distribution of opportunities, promote industrialization and full employment, and protect Filipino enterprise against unfair competition and trade policies.
The passage of RA 8762 effectively repealed RA 1180, which absolutely prohibited foreign nationals from engaging in the retail trade business.
RA 8762 allows foreign investors to engage in retail trade under specific categories, depending on the amount of capital invested.
The high court noted that the petitioners were unable to show that the implementation of the law would prejudice them or inflict damage to them as taxpayers or legislators.
“There is no showing that the law has contravened any constitutional mandate,” it said. It pointed out that the Constitution “does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly.”
“The objective is simply to prohibit foreign powers or interests from maneuvering our economic policies and ensure that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of development,” the high court said.
Moreover, the Constitution gives Congress the “discretion to reserve to Filipinos certain areas of investments upon the recommendation of NEDA (National Economic Development Authority) and when the national interest requires,” it said.
http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20100928-294726/SC-Retail-trade-liberalization-law-constitutional
By Nikko DizonPhilippine Daily InquirerFirst Posted 07:52:00 09/28/
MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 or Republic Act No. 8762, a decade after it was questioned by lawmakers as supposedly being anti-Filipino.
“(W)hile the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, it also recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair,” it said.
Associate Justice Roberto Abad penned the 11-page decision.
Ten years ago, then Representatives Gerardo Espina, Orlando Fua Jr., Prospero Amatong, Robert Ace Barbers, Raul Gonzales, Prospero Pichay, Franklin Bautista and Juan Miguel Zubiri haled to court Cabinet officials of the Estrada administration during which the law was signed.
The officials were then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora Jr., former Trade Secretary Manuel Roxas II, former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Felipe Medalla, former Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Gov. Rafael Buenaventura, and former Securities and Exchange Commission chair Lilia Bautista.
The petitioners argued that RA 8762 violated provisions in the Constitution which places the national economy under the control of Filipinos to achieve equal distribution of opportunities, promote industrialization and full employment, and protect Filipino enterprise against unfair competition and trade policies.
The passage of RA 8762 effectively repealed RA 1180, which absolutely prohibited foreign nationals from engaging in the retail trade business.
RA 8762 allows foreign investors to engage in retail trade under specific categories, depending on the amount of capital invested.
The high court noted that the petitioners were unable to show that the implementation of the law would prejudice them or inflict damage to them as taxpayers or legislators.
“There is no showing that the law has contravened any constitutional mandate,” it said. It pointed out that the Constitution “does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly.”
“The objective is simply to prohibit foreign powers or interests from maneuvering our economic policies and ensure that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of development,” the high court said.
Moreover, the Constitution gives Congress the “discretion to reserve to Filipinos certain areas of investments upon the recommendation of NEDA (National Economic Development Authority) and when the national interest requires,” it said.
http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20100928-294726/SC-Retail-trade-liberalization-law-constitutional
Half of 2011 bar exams in multiple choice format—Corona
ILOILO CITY, Philippines – Starting next year, part of the bar examinations will be in multiple choice format, but this will not necessarily make the test easier, according to Chief Justice Renato Corona.
"Multiple choice questions could be difficult – more rational, not necessarily easier," Corona told reporters at the launching of the Justice on Wheels Mobile Court program here on Wednesday.
Corona confirmed that the Supreme Court, which administers the annual exam, would adopt the changes in the format to be implemented next year under 2011 Bar Examination Committee chairman Associate Justice Roberto Abad.
"We are changing the format of the bar examinations because the present format we are following has been there for more than 100 years already and we feel it is not responsive to the way law should be taught today," Corona said.
The exam will be divided in two parts with the first part in multiple choice format with examinees choosing the best answer among four to five correct answers while the second part will be essay-type to test reasoning, writing and logic abilities.
Asked if the changes were meant to address the low passing rate in the examinations, Corona said this would not necessarily address the problem.
He said the low passing average in the bar exams could be attributed to many factors, including the preparedness of the examinees, handwriting of the bar-takers, reasoning ability and adeptness in expressing themselves in English.
The bar examinations, first held in the country in 1901 with 13 examinees, is among the most anticipated especially because of its traditionally low passing rate.
The exam top notchers usually land jobs in the top law firms in the country.
However, the continued dismal passing rate in the bar examinations has alarmed the Supreme Court and prompted calls for reforms in the country's law schools.
In 2008, the high court lowered the passing rate to 70 percent from 75 percent and the disqualification rate in three subjects (civil, labor and criminal law from 50 percent to 45 percent. This made it possible for 1,289 of the total 5,626 takers (22.91 percent) to hurdle the examinations.
Corona said the bar examinees could still find next year's examination easier because it would be focused and will have limited coverage.
[Previously], "we didn’t know where the examiners will get the questions but [next year] we will be limiting them to the most important subjects," he said.
FROM: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100805-285071/Half-of-2011-bar-exams-in-multiple-choice-formatCorona
"Multiple choice questions could be difficult – more rational, not necessarily easier," Corona told reporters at the launching of the Justice on Wheels Mobile Court program here on Wednesday.
Corona confirmed that the Supreme Court, which administers the annual exam, would adopt the changes in the format to be implemented next year under 2011 Bar Examination Committee chairman Associate Justice Roberto Abad.
"We are changing the format of the bar examinations because the present format we are following has been there for more than 100 years already and we feel it is not responsive to the way law should be taught today," Corona said.
The exam will be divided in two parts with the first part in multiple choice format with examinees choosing the best answer among four to five correct answers while the second part will be essay-type to test reasoning, writing and logic abilities.
Asked if the changes were meant to address the low passing rate in the examinations, Corona said this would not necessarily address the problem.
He said the low passing average in the bar exams could be attributed to many factors, including the preparedness of the examinees, handwriting of the bar-takers, reasoning ability and adeptness in expressing themselves in English.
The bar examinations, first held in the country in 1901 with 13 examinees, is among the most anticipated especially because of its traditionally low passing rate.
The exam top notchers usually land jobs in the top law firms in the country.
However, the continued dismal passing rate in the bar examinations has alarmed the Supreme Court and prompted calls for reforms in the country's law schools.
In 2008, the high court lowered the passing rate to 70 percent from 75 percent and the disqualification rate in three subjects (civil, labor and criminal law from 50 percent to 45 percent. This made it possible for 1,289 of the total 5,626 takers (22.91 percent) to hurdle the examinations.
Corona said the bar examinees could still find next year's examination easier because it would be focused and will have limited coverage.
[Previously], "we didn’t know where the examiners will get the questions but [next year] we will be limiting them to the most important subjects," he said.
FROM: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100805-285071/Half-of-2011-bar-exams-in-multiple-choice-formatCorona
Gin by any other name still ‘ginebra’
MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals (CA) has thrown out the petition of an alcoholic beverage firm asking for the exclusive use of “ginebra” on its gin products.
The court said the word was a generic term for “gin.”
In a ruling released Friday, Associate Justice Estela Bernabe upheld the decision of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) junking the request of La Tondeña Distillers Inc. (LTDI) to grant it a trademark for “ginebra.”
“Accordingly, the court finds no error on the part of the IPO director general in dismissing petitioner’s appeal from the denial of its application for registration of the mark ‘ginebra,’” Bernabe said in her six-page decision.
LTDI, formerly Ginebra San Miguel Inc., had filed a petition on February 21, 2003, asking the Bureau of Trademarks to grant it exclusive rights to put the word “ginebra” on its products.
According to the appellate court, LTDI itself mentioned in the petition that the term “ginebra” was a Spanish word for the English word “gin,” an intoxicating drink made from the juniper berry.
As such, the court said that using the word “ginebra” was “merely indicative and descriptive of the merchandise or product designated” and that it was a generic term referring to gin products.
It said that allowing LTDI to have intellectual property rights over the word “ginebra” would unfairly deny four other beverage companies use of the term on their products.
“It is, therefore, a generic term which cannot be appropriated for petitioner’s exclusive use because it would unjustly deprive other gin dealers of the right to use the same with reference to their merchandise,” the appeals court ruled. Aside from LTDI, alcoholic beverage companies Tanduay Distillers Inc., Twin Ace Holding Corp., Consolidated Distillers of the Far East Inc., and Webengton Distillery Inc. had also been putting the word “ginebra” on their gin bottles, the court said.
http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20100823-288377/Gin-by-any-other-name-still-ginebra
The court said the word was a generic term for “gin.”
In a ruling released Friday, Associate Justice Estela Bernabe upheld the decision of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) junking the request of La Tondeña Distillers Inc. (LTDI) to grant it a trademark for “ginebra.”
“Accordingly, the court finds no error on the part of the IPO director general in dismissing petitioner’s appeal from the denial of its application for registration of the mark ‘ginebra,’” Bernabe said in her six-page decision.
LTDI, formerly Ginebra San Miguel Inc., had filed a petition on February 21, 2003, asking the Bureau of Trademarks to grant it exclusive rights to put the word “ginebra” on its products.
According to the appellate court, LTDI itself mentioned in the petition that the term “ginebra” was a Spanish word for the English word “gin,” an intoxicating drink made from the juniper berry.
As such, the court said that using the word “ginebra” was “merely indicative and descriptive of the merchandise or product designated” and that it was a generic term referring to gin products.
It said that allowing LTDI to have intellectual property rights over the word “ginebra” would unfairly deny four other beverage companies use of the term on their products.
“It is, therefore, a generic term which cannot be appropriated for petitioner’s exclusive use because it would unjustly deprive other gin dealers of the right to use the same with reference to their merchandise,” the appeals court ruled. Aside from LTDI, alcoholic beverage companies Tanduay Distillers Inc., Twin Ace Holding Corp., Consolidated Distillers of the Far East Inc., and Webengton Distillery Inc. had also been putting the word “ginebra” on their gin bottles, the court said.
http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20100823-288377/Gin-by-any-other-name-still-ginebra
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)