“I, ____________________ do solemnly swear that ... I will delay no man for money or malice ...” So help me God.” (Attorney’s Oath, Form 28, Rules of Court).
“Moreover, the omissions of respondent violated Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Judges are mandated to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. In other words, judges should never cause judicial delay.
Delay derails the administration of justice. It postpones the rectification of wrong and the vindication of the unjustly prosecuted. It crowds the dockets of the courts, increasing the costs for all litigants, pressuring judges to take short cuts, interfering with the prompt and deliberate disposition of those causes in which all parties are diligent and prepared for trial, and overhanging the entire process with the pall of disorganization and insolubility. More than this, possibilities for error in fact-finding multiply rapidly as time elapses between the original fact and its judicial determination. If the facts are not fully and accurately determined, then the wisest judge cannot distinguish between merit and demerit. If courts do not get the facts right, there is little chance for their judgment to be right.” (Orocio v. Roxas, 562 SCRA 347, 357 - 2008)
“ “Prolonged and unjustified delay is the major weakness of our judicial system today.” Though there is a consensus that delay is a pervasive and long-standing problem facing America’s trial courts, there is great disagreement over what is actually meant by “delay”. For research purposes, it often means the age of cases or docket backlog; to the practicing lawyer, delay is the time from announcement that the case is ready for trial until the court can reach the matter; for litigants, the public, and reformers, delay is more broadly defined to include the time from the filing to disposition. Largely depending upon the definition used by the commentator, “delay” is either a cause or a result of the massive congestion in our courts. However categorized, delay has far-reaching and long-lasting effects not only on the litigants but on the administration of justice itself. Delay brings the system of justice into disrepute and breeds disrespect for law. “Justice delayed is justice denied” may sound trite, but the plaintiff and the defendant who must wait from two to five years for the disposition of their lawsuit not only suffer frustration but either or both may suffer injustice in the outcome as well. A party’s rights may change substantially as a result of the death, the disappearance, or the dimming memory, of a witness. The sustained anxiety of the litigants and their resultant dissatisfaction with the legal system are sufficient reasons to require prompt and effective measures for the more expeditious handling of civil disputes. Chief Justice Burger has observed:
There is nothing incompatible between efficiency and justice. Inefficient courts cause delay and expense, and diminish the value of the judgment Small litigants, who cannot manipulate the system, are often exploited - to use the words of Moofield Story, a former president of the American Bar Association - by the litigant ‘with the longest purse.’ . . . Efficiency - like the trial itself - is not an end in itself. It has as its objective the very purpose of the whole system - to do justice. Inefficiency drains the value of even a just result either by delay or excessive cost, or both.” (Civil Trial Manual 2, 1980). By Atty. Cesar T. Tirol
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Summary Judgment in Annulment of Marriages Case A Taboo
It is on the principle that marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution and as the foundation of the family, the State is duty bound to protect and preserve it. In obedience to this legal truism that “judgment on the pleadings” or “summary judgment”, or even “confession of judgment,” for that matter has no place in cases of declaration of absolute nullity of marriage as well as in annulment of marriage. The rationale is not difficult to see because the grounds for the dissolution of marriages must be proved by preponderance of evidence by the party invoking the same through the trial personally conducted by the Judge.
This is precisely the reason behind that both the Civil Code of the Philippines and the Family Code of the Philippines prescribe that the Court should order the prosecuting attorney to appear and intervene for and in behalf of the State. It is to be noted that the mere submission by the public prosecutor of his report that no collusion exists between the parties would not mean the termination of the State’s participation in the proceedings. The public prosecutor, whose role among other things is the preservation of marriage, should actively participate in the trial of the case and to subject the petitioner’s witnesses to extensive and exhaustive cross examination purposely to see to it that there is no suppression as well as fabrication of evidence.
If there is still any doubt as to the propriety in the application of “summary judgment” or “judgment on the pleadings” or “confession of judgment” it has been laid to rest by the promulgation of the “Rule on Declaration of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages” As it is written, the Rule is explicit in its mandate that the Judge should personally conduct the trial of the case and there should be no delegation of the reception of evidence before a commissioner save as to matter involving property relations of the parties. Putting a stamp of clarity like an unexpected thundercloud looming in the horizon, the Rule also provides that no “judgment on the pleadings” “summary judgment” or “confession of judgment shall be allowed, which means that the grounds for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage or annulment of marriage must be duly proved and established.
In the strict observance of the State’s policy to maintain the Filipino family as a foundation of the nations, the law requires in no uncertain terms the active participation of the public prosecutor or the Solicitor General in the trial of the case and not like a puppet whose string is being pulled to nod agreement to everything the petitioner says. In this way it could ensure that the interest of the State is fully represented and protected in the proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriage by way of preventing the presentation of fabricated or suppressed evidence. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
This is precisely the reason behind that both the Civil Code of the Philippines and the Family Code of the Philippines prescribe that the Court should order the prosecuting attorney to appear and intervene for and in behalf of the State. It is to be noted that the mere submission by the public prosecutor of his report that no collusion exists between the parties would not mean the termination of the State’s participation in the proceedings. The public prosecutor, whose role among other things is the preservation of marriage, should actively participate in the trial of the case and to subject the petitioner’s witnesses to extensive and exhaustive cross examination purposely to see to it that there is no suppression as well as fabrication of evidence.
If there is still any doubt as to the propriety in the application of “summary judgment” or “judgment on the pleadings” or “confession of judgment” it has been laid to rest by the promulgation of the “Rule on Declaration of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages” As it is written, the Rule is explicit in its mandate that the Judge should personally conduct the trial of the case and there should be no delegation of the reception of evidence before a commissioner save as to matter involving property relations of the parties. Putting a stamp of clarity like an unexpected thundercloud looming in the horizon, the Rule also provides that no “judgment on the pleadings” “summary judgment” or “confession of judgment shall be allowed, which means that the grounds for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage or annulment of marriage must be duly proved and established.
In the strict observance of the State’s policy to maintain the Filipino family as a foundation of the nations, the law requires in no uncertain terms the active participation of the public prosecutor or the Solicitor General in the trial of the case and not like a puppet whose string is being pulled to nod agreement to everything the petitioner says. In this way it could ensure that the interest of the State is fully represented and protected in the proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriage by way of preventing the presentation of fabricated or suppressed evidence. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
Party- In- Interest in Annulment of Marriages
There are some nagging questions that have been confronting practitioners before the Family Courts especially on the cases of annulment of marriage. Foremost of which is the issue on the real-party-interest who can initiate an action to sever the marital bonds. It has been the rule and practice that the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the marriage as the same is being reserved solely and exclusively to the husband or wife. The importance of the real party in interest cannot be overemphasized, like that Dutch boy with his thumb plugging the hole in the dike trying to hold the tides.
This is clear under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages by making it exclusively the right of the spouses to initiate the action. Simply put, such petition cannot be filed by the compulsory heirs or intestate heirs of the spouses for the simple reason that they have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor. If ever, they can inquire into the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a separate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the proper courts. More so, neither the State can institute an action to nullify marriages for the logical ground that the primary and primordial concern of the government is to preserve marriages and not to seek their dissolution.
A methodical examination, however, of the present Rule would show that it extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. Further, the new Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before the date of its operation on March 15, 2003 although the marriage subject matter of the case is within the coverage of the Family Code. In other words, in the event that the marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code, then the applicable law is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration and in that case a direct action to declare the marriage as void may be filed and not necessarily in a settlement of the estate proceedings. But the catch is the same can only be filed by the real party in interest purposely to protect their successional rights.
This brings us to the question as to who is the real party-in-interest who can bring an action to declare the marriage as null and void in the event that the marriage was solemnized under the auspices of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Party-in- interest as understood in our civil law means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case. In a petition to declare the nullity of marriage, it must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest and must be based on a cause of action. For instance, under the law on succession, the children, as compulsory heirs, and by operation of law have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights.
In the presence of the compulsory heirs, it is readily apparent that brothers and sisters as well as other collateral relatives of the deceased spouse are not the real party-in-interest to bring an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the latter. This is so because the presence of the legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of the deceased spouse who are considered as compulsory heirs precludes succession by collateral relatives and their right is as ephemeral as the moonlight that illuminates the night. The impression is only in the possibility that there are no compulsory heirs that collateral relatives, as real party-in-interest, may bring an action to declare marriage as void since they shall be called upon to succeed to the entire estate of the decedent. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
This is clear under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages by making it exclusively the right of the spouses to initiate the action. Simply put, such petition cannot be filed by the compulsory heirs or intestate heirs of the spouses for the simple reason that they have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor. If ever, they can inquire into the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a separate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the proper courts. More so, neither the State can institute an action to nullify marriages for the logical ground that the primary and primordial concern of the government is to preserve marriages and not to seek their dissolution.
A methodical examination, however, of the present Rule would show that it extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. Further, the new Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before the date of its operation on March 15, 2003 although the marriage subject matter of the case is within the coverage of the Family Code. In other words, in the event that the marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code, then the applicable law is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration and in that case a direct action to declare the marriage as void may be filed and not necessarily in a settlement of the estate proceedings. But the catch is the same can only be filed by the real party in interest purposely to protect their successional rights.
This brings us to the question as to who is the real party-in-interest who can bring an action to declare the marriage as null and void in the event that the marriage was solemnized under the auspices of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Party-in- interest as understood in our civil law means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case. In a petition to declare the nullity of marriage, it must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest and must be based on a cause of action. For instance, under the law on succession, the children, as compulsory heirs, and by operation of law have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights.
In the presence of the compulsory heirs, it is readily apparent that brothers and sisters as well as other collateral relatives of the deceased spouse are not the real party-in-interest to bring an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the latter. This is so because the presence of the legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of the deceased spouse who are considered as compulsory heirs precludes succession by collateral relatives and their right is as ephemeral as the moonlight that illuminates the night. The impression is only in the possibility that there are no compulsory heirs that collateral relatives, as real party-in-interest, may bring an action to declare marriage as void since they shall be called upon to succeed to the entire estate of the decedent. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
Monday, July 27, 2009
Illegal Possession of Firearms
With the proliferation of unlicensed firearms in our midst, it is not surprising that many a crime had been committed by the malefactors armed with handguns, and sometimes with deadly or near fatal consequences. It is so frustrating to know that authorities’ efforts to curb the rising rate of criminality have remained an exercise in futility. Its pernicious effects to the peace loving citizenry have brought serious doubts on their government’s capability to restrain it like a fervent zealot out to bring down the monarchy of the olden time.
Undoubtedly, the government has not been remiss in addressing this problem, since legislations have been passed to curb or at least contain the pernicious effects of unwarranted increased in gun related criminal acts. Not to be outdone, the judiciary has also its own fair share in eliminating if not, minimizing the evil consequences of the rapid increase of unlicensed firearms. The court records are replete with decisions convicting the accused for the violation of the law penalizing unauthorized carriage of loose handguns whether as a crime by itself or as aggravating circumstance.
The question that has bedeviled legal experts since the enactment of Republic Act No. 8294, otherwise commonly known as the “Illegal possession of firearms” on July 6, 1997, and stirred up academic and scholarly debates is whether or not the mere filing of an Information for “other crime/s” or more specifically for “Gun Ban violations,” against the accused bars his prosecution for illegal possession of firearm. This came about because of a seemingly innocent phrase in the subject law, but nonetheless, has been the topic of various verbal intercourses as well as multifarious jurisprudence, and in its innocuousness, it provides that: Provided, however, “That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.”
In a case of relative recency, the Supreme Court has the occasion and finally tamed, like a restless wind inside the letter box, conflicting views on the subject when it ruled that the accused can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, provided no other crime was committed by the person arrested. The Highest Court made it clear that the word “committed” in the subject law should be taken in its ordinary signification, which necessarily connotes a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful prosecution or voluntary admission of the accused in open Court.
In other words, other than those crimes specifically enumerated in the law, like homicide, murder, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d’ etat, the accused may be prosecuted, tried and convicted for the “other crimes” as well as for illegal possession of firearm, unless the accused has been convicted by final judgment or has pleaded guilty, of the “other crime” and which case it would be a bar and would preclude the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearm. Resultantly, there is no legal prohibition for the accused to be prosecuted and convicted for illegal possession of firearm and “other crime” unless and until the accused has been convicted by final judgment of the said “other crime.”
It is readily apparent, therefore, that if the accused is prosecuted for the offense which is listed under R.A. 8294, then any Information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed since it is no longer the subject of separate and distinct prosecution. The reason is not difficult to see as the law itself so mandates that the particularity of illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, and to be considered either as an aggravating circumstance of the crime of murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d’ etat. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
Undoubtedly, the government has not been remiss in addressing this problem, since legislations have been passed to curb or at least contain the pernicious effects of unwarranted increased in gun related criminal acts. Not to be outdone, the judiciary has also its own fair share in eliminating if not, minimizing the evil consequences of the rapid increase of unlicensed firearms. The court records are replete with decisions convicting the accused for the violation of the law penalizing unauthorized carriage of loose handguns whether as a crime by itself or as aggravating circumstance.
The question that has bedeviled legal experts since the enactment of Republic Act No. 8294, otherwise commonly known as the “Illegal possession of firearms” on July 6, 1997, and stirred up academic and scholarly debates is whether or not the mere filing of an Information for “other crime/s” or more specifically for “Gun Ban violations,” against the accused bars his prosecution for illegal possession of firearm. This came about because of a seemingly innocent phrase in the subject law, but nonetheless, has been the topic of various verbal intercourses as well as multifarious jurisprudence, and in its innocuousness, it provides that: Provided, however, “That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.”
In a case of relative recency, the Supreme Court has the occasion and finally tamed, like a restless wind inside the letter box, conflicting views on the subject when it ruled that the accused can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, provided no other crime was committed by the person arrested. The Highest Court made it clear that the word “committed” in the subject law should be taken in its ordinary signification, which necessarily connotes a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful prosecution or voluntary admission of the accused in open Court.
In other words, other than those crimes specifically enumerated in the law, like homicide, murder, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d’ etat, the accused may be prosecuted, tried and convicted for the “other crimes” as well as for illegal possession of firearm, unless the accused has been convicted by final judgment or has pleaded guilty, of the “other crime” and which case it would be a bar and would preclude the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearm. Resultantly, there is no legal prohibition for the accused to be prosecuted and convicted for illegal possession of firearm and “other crime” unless and until the accused has been convicted by final judgment of the said “other crime.”
It is readily apparent, therefore, that if the accused is prosecuted for the offense which is listed under R.A. 8294, then any Information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed since it is no longer the subject of separate and distinct prosecution. The reason is not difficult to see as the law itself so mandates that the particularity of illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, and to be considered either as an aggravating circumstance of the crime of murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d’ etat. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Voluntary Appearance
Every serious student of criminal procedure knows that before the court can act on any pending motion or incident before it, it is necessary that it should have first acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The textbook theory on the jurisdiction, which is the authority of the court to hear and try a particular offense, over the person of the accused is accomplished in two modes, namely through the coercive process by way of arrest and voluntary surrender. The thinking then was that any action made by the court before it has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused is susceptible to attack direct or otherwise.
The Supreme Court has somewhat relaxed this school of thought in several cases by way of adding a new mode of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused. This is by way of voluntary appearance wherein the accused can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, even without arrest or voluntary surrender, the court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused by his voluntary appearance and to judicially consider any pending incident for its resolution.
There is voluntary appearance when, for example, the accused files a “motion to quash”, or “motion for re-investigation,” or “motion for judicial determination of probable cause” and the like. In these instances, the court may be able to grant affirmative reliefs or even dismiss the case against him, notwithstanding the fact that he is still at large. Simply put, it is not always essential that jurisdiction over the person of the accused be first acquired by the court before it can deny or grant a motion, or issue orders and processes.
The rule, however, is not absolute as it is subject to a certain well defined exception, that is, in the matter for application for bail or the reduction thereof, which mandates that the living body of the accused must be first in the custody of the law. This is so because the purpose of the application for bail is obviously designed to secure the provisional or temporary liberty of the accused and the same cannot be availed of unless and until the custody of the accused has been secured by the judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender. In a stunning array of fresh insights the Supreme Court has once again made clear an otherwise hazy and murky aspect in our criminal procedure. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
The Supreme Court has somewhat relaxed this school of thought in several cases by way of adding a new mode of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused. This is by way of voluntary appearance wherein the accused can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, even without arrest or voluntary surrender, the court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused by his voluntary appearance and to judicially consider any pending incident for its resolution.
There is voluntary appearance when, for example, the accused files a “motion to quash”, or “motion for re-investigation,” or “motion for judicial determination of probable cause” and the like. In these instances, the court may be able to grant affirmative reliefs or even dismiss the case against him, notwithstanding the fact that he is still at large. Simply put, it is not always essential that jurisdiction over the person of the accused be first acquired by the court before it can deny or grant a motion, or issue orders and processes.
The rule, however, is not absolute as it is subject to a certain well defined exception, that is, in the matter for application for bail or the reduction thereof, which mandates that the living body of the accused must be first in the custody of the law. This is so because the purpose of the application for bail is obviously designed to secure the provisional or temporary liberty of the accused and the same cannot be availed of unless and until the custody of the accused has been secured by the judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender. In a stunning array of fresh insights the Supreme Court has once again made clear an otherwise hazy and murky aspect in our criminal procedure. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
Law suit looming over Calajunan dumpsite
ILOILO CITY—Environmental group, Global Legal Action on Climate Change is warning City Hall it could be sued for maintaining an open dumpsite despite the ban.
Unfazed, Mayor Jerry Trenas said that the City will not close the dumpsite in Brgy. Calajunan, Mandurriao district, adding that it has the nod of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
“It’s okay with me. We will just answer the complaint,” the Mayor said in a text message.
The local chapter of GLACC wrote Trenas, reminding him of the prohibition against open dumpsites under Republic Act 9003, a nine-year-old law governing the disposal of solid wastes in the country.
“We have observed that our City has not complied with the provisions of the Law on Solid Waste Management: Maintenance of an Open Dumpsite at Brgy. Calajunan, Mandurriao, Iloilo City since 2001 despite the enactment and passage of RA 9003,” the GLACC-Iloilo chapter said in its July 7, 2009 letter to Trenas.
“We respectfully request that you take measures to correct the situation within thirty (30) days from receipt of this letter,” the group further said in its letter. The 30-day period ticked off July 8 this year, when the Office of the Mayor received the letter.
The letter, respectful it may be of Trenas, warned the mayor “that should no serious effort be taken by your Office to correct the situation we will indorse the matter to the Office of the Environmental Ombudsman for its appropriate action and we will also file appropriate actions before competent Court to compel your Office to comply with the provisions of RA 9003.”
Copies of the letter were furnished the Sangguniang Panlungsod, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources regional office 6, the Office of the Environmental Ombudsman, and the punong barangay of Calajunan, where the City had been maintaining its open dumpsite for several years already.
At the same time, the GLACC is also requesting DENR to monitor City Hall’s compliance, and to submit to them a report on the extent of the City’s compliance with the Solid Waste Management Act.
The letter is a follow up on the earlier request by the group on the different government agencies for the enforcement of the country’s environmental laws, which highlighted the local celebration of the World Environment Day last June 5.
CITY HALL NOT BALKING
The Mayor, described by his critics as lacking in political will, would not give in to the demand of GLACC.
“The DENR has given its nod for the continued operation of the dumpsite,” the Mayor said. “It’s okay with me, we’ll just answer that,” he stressed.
“If the court orders us to close down the dumpsite, then that’s not going to be a problem, we will stop collecting garbage; or if they want, we’ll give to them the garbage we have collected,” Trenas jested.
What the GLACC does not understand, he said, is the immensity of the task and the cost involved in converting the open dumpsite into a sanitary landfill.
Thirty-days is just too little a time for us to convert it into a sanitary landfill, he said.
The City’s Solid Waste Management Board is in the thick of preparing a technical report and plans for the construction of a sanitary landfill in a 5-hectare portion of the Calajunan dumpsite. The German aid agency GTZ is helping the City in preparing the plans for the construction of sanitary landfill.
At present, the mountains of garbage in the Calajunan dumpsite is gradually covered with earth, Trenas said. It’s now a ‘transition dumpsite’
Moreover, the mayor mentioned the financial requirements for the construction of a sanitary landfill. For every hectare, around P50-70 million is needed. “And we’re going to need about five hectares,” he pointed out
At the same time, the Mayor defended his administration’s gains in dealing with solid waste, saying that the City’s Solid Waste Management Board was awarded the best for Visayas region.
The DENR is a member of the SWMB; and to GLACC’s request on the environment agency to monitor the City’s compliance, the mayor sees no problem.
“The DENR is a member of SWMB, they know what the City is doing,” Trenas said. By Ronilo Ladrido Pamonag
Unfazed, Mayor Jerry Trenas said that the City will not close the dumpsite in Brgy. Calajunan, Mandurriao district, adding that it has the nod of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
“It’s okay with me. We will just answer the complaint,” the Mayor said in a text message.
The local chapter of GLACC wrote Trenas, reminding him of the prohibition against open dumpsites under Republic Act 9003, a nine-year-old law governing the disposal of solid wastes in the country.
“We have observed that our City has not complied with the provisions of the Law on Solid Waste Management: Maintenance of an Open Dumpsite at Brgy. Calajunan, Mandurriao, Iloilo City since 2001 despite the enactment and passage of RA 9003,” the GLACC-Iloilo chapter said in its July 7, 2009 letter to Trenas.
“We respectfully request that you take measures to correct the situation within thirty (30) days from receipt of this letter,” the group further said in its letter. The 30-day period ticked off July 8 this year, when the Office of the Mayor received the letter.
The letter, respectful it may be of Trenas, warned the mayor “that should no serious effort be taken by your Office to correct the situation we will indorse the matter to the Office of the Environmental Ombudsman for its appropriate action and we will also file appropriate actions before competent Court to compel your Office to comply with the provisions of RA 9003.”
Copies of the letter were furnished the Sangguniang Panlungsod, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources regional office 6, the Office of the Environmental Ombudsman, and the punong barangay of Calajunan, where the City had been maintaining its open dumpsite for several years already.
At the same time, the GLACC is also requesting DENR to monitor City Hall’s compliance, and to submit to them a report on the extent of the City’s compliance with the Solid Waste Management Act.
The letter is a follow up on the earlier request by the group on the different government agencies for the enforcement of the country’s environmental laws, which highlighted the local celebration of the World Environment Day last June 5.
CITY HALL NOT BALKING
The Mayor, described by his critics as lacking in political will, would not give in to the demand of GLACC.
“The DENR has given its nod for the continued operation of the dumpsite,” the Mayor said. “It’s okay with me, we’ll just answer that,” he stressed.
“If the court orders us to close down the dumpsite, then that’s not going to be a problem, we will stop collecting garbage; or if they want, we’ll give to them the garbage we have collected,” Trenas jested.
What the GLACC does not understand, he said, is the immensity of the task and the cost involved in converting the open dumpsite into a sanitary landfill.
Thirty-days is just too little a time for us to convert it into a sanitary landfill, he said.
The City’s Solid Waste Management Board is in the thick of preparing a technical report and plans for the construction of a sanitary landfill in a 5-hectare portion of the Calajunan dumpsite. The German aid agency GTZ is helping the City in preparing the plans for the construction of sanitary landfill.
At present, the mountains of garbage in the Calajunan dumpsite is gradually covered with earth, Trenas said. It’s now a ‘transition dumpsite’
Moreover, the mayor mentioned the financial requirements for the construction of a sanitary landfill. For every hectare, around P50-70 million is needed. “And we’re going to need about five hectares,” he pointed out
At the same time, the Mayor defended his administration’s gains in dealing with solid waste, saying that the City’s Solid Waste Management Board was awarded the best for Visayas region.
The DENR is a member of the SWMB; and to GLACC’s request on the environment agency to monitor the City’s compliance, the mayor sees no problem.
“The DENR is a member of SWMB, they know what the City is doing,” Trenas said. By Ronilo Ladrido Pamonag
Friday, July 10, 2009
38 Iloilo Graduates Passed the 2008 Bar Exams
Thirty eight (38) new lawyers from the three (3) law schools in Iloilo City joined the elite club of legal practitioners after passing the 2008 Bar Examinations. They are among the 1,310 successful examinees out of the 6,364 who took the said exam touted to be the most difficult of its kind in the country. The passing percentage for this year is 20.58%.
The new Ilonggo lawyers are as follows: From Central Philippine University (CPU) College of Law – Atty. Felizardo D. Amigable, Jr., Atty. Maricel F. Bermejo, Atty. Jeremy D. Delfin, Atty. Felix G. Guarnes, Jr., Atty. Bellatrix O. Legaspi, Atty. Gladys Pearl T. Palabrica, Atty. Erlyn M. Pegarido, Atty. Risha Mae L. Suelo and Atty. Nasty Jones S. Sumagaysay.
From the University of Iloilo (UI) College of Law– Atty. JP Anthony D. Cuñada, Atty. Hernando C. Galvez, Atty. Keenan Rhys Y. Jurilla, and Atty. Geony P. Licera.
From the University of San Augustin (USA) College of Law – Iloilo – Atty. Ma. Carolina T. Advincula, Atty. Princess May Alcarde, Atty. Jelou Almalbis, Atty. Francis Athanasius Ampig, Atty. Maynard Caballero, Atty. Mae Jill B. Carillo, Atty. Mary Dezerie Cazenas, Atty. Mark Espinosa, Atty. Rene Estocapio, Atty. Mary Anne Galanto, Atty. Marilyn Israel, Atty. Rey Magtubo, Atty. Paul Andre Margarico, Atty. Sharon Millan, Atty. Kristin Marie Falallimpa, Atty. Mark Geoffrey Paguntalan, Atty. Ronilo Pamonag, Atty. Ramar Niel Pascua, Atty. Kareen Dela Cruz, Atty. Sherwin Paul Quidato, Atty. Roberto Salazar, Atty. Lorevi Grace Setias, Atty. Marilyn Te, Atty. Jennifer Torril, and Atty. Jerilee Uy.
The new crop of lawyers are a welcome addition to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Iloilo Chapter as it continues to undertake various activities for the benefit and service of the community. We look forward to seeing you in Court!!! By Ian Thomas M. Besana
some of the new Iloilo lawyers
The new Ilonggo lawyers are as follows: From Central Philippine University (CPU) College of Law – Atty. Felizardo D. Amigable, Jr., Atty. Maricel F. Bermejo, Atty. Jeremy D. Delfin, Atty. Felix G. Guarnes, Jr., Atty. Bellatrix O. Legaspi, Atty. Gladys Pearl T. Palabrica, Atty. Erlyn M. Pegarido, Atty. Risha Mae L. Suelo and Atty. Nasty Jones S. Sumagaysay.
From the University of Iloilo (UI) College of Law– Atty. JP Anthony D. Cuñada, Atty. Hernando C. Galvez, Atty. Keenan Rhys Y. Jurilla, and Atty. Geony P. Licera.
From the University of San Augustin (USA) College of Law – Iloilo – Atty. Ma. Carolina T. Advincula, Atty. Princess May Alcarde, Atty. Jelou Almalbis, Atty. Francis Athanasius Ampig, Atty. Maynard Caballero, Atty. Mae Jill B. Carillo, Atty. Mary Dezerie Cazenas, Atty. Mark Espinosa, Atty. Rene Estocapio, Atty. Mary Anne Galanto, Atty. Marilyn Israel, Atty. Rey Magtubo, Atty. Paul Andre Margarico, Atty. Sharon Millan, Atty. Kristin Marie Falallimpa, Atty. Mark Geoffrey Paguntalan, Atty. Ronilo Pamonag, Atty. Ramar Niel Pascua, Atty. Kareen Dela Cruz, Atty. Sherwin Paul Quidato, Atty. Roberto Salazar, Atty. Lorevi Grace Setias, Atty. Marilyn Te, Atty. Jennifer Torril, and Atty. Jerilee Uy.
The new crop of lawyers are a welcome addition to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Iloilo Chapter as it continues to undertake various activities for the benefit and service of the community. We look forward to seeing you in Court!!! By Ian Thomas M. Besana
some of the new Iloilo lawyers
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Lawyers Head GLACC-Iloilo Launching
Last June 5, 2009 at IBP-Iloilo Chapter Office, Hall of Justice Iloilo City, GLACC-Iloilo or Global Legal Action for Climate Change was formally launched and legal letter petitions were sent to different local and national agencies, calling for their attention as to their roles in curbing environmental issues, especially climate change.
Different sectors from NGOs, Youth Groups and residents of municipalities signed the petitions with the assistance of volunteer Iloilo lawyers, members and officers of IBP Iloilo Chapter. Among the lawyers present were Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)Iloilo Chapter President Marven Daquilanea, Visayan Sea Squadron Hector Teodosio, and GLACC lawyers namely, Norberto Pocesion, Shanelle Salinas, Victor Decida, Pet Melliza, and Prosecutor Bionat.
The Letter Petitions that were signed and sent by members of Responsible Ilonggos for Sustainable Energy, Paulinian Environmental Society, residents of Iloilo City and of the different Municipalities of Iloilo, Philippines are as follows:
1. Letter Petition to Secretary Arthur Yap, Secretary of Department of Agriculture, requesting him for Guidelines for the Demarcation of Municipal Waters with Outlying Islands and inquiring from his good office why there was no promulgation as such guidelines considering RA 8550 (The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998) has been passed more than 10 years ago.
2. Letter Petition to Secretary Arthur Yap, Secretary of Department of Agriculture, and Secretary Ronaldo Puno, Secretary of Department of Interior and Local Government, reminding them that under RA 8550 and EO No. 774, at least 15% of the Municipal waters must be set aside as fish sanctuaries, and that they must conduct massive information, education and communication as part of their role as a task Group on Fisheries, respectively.
3. Letter Petition to Secretary Arthur Yap, Department of Agriculture, and Secretary Lito Atienza, Secretary of Department of Environment and Natural Resources, requesting their good offices for data on inventory of abandoned fishponds, areas available for mangrove reforestation, actions done by the specified departments on reverting or reforesting these degraded mangrove areas, and success rates of reforestations. The request is based on RA 8550.
4. Letter Petition to Secretary Lito Atienza, DENR, requesting for a copy of the National Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and in its absence, an answer why such plan was not done despite the passage of the RA 8749 (The Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999) ten 10 years ago, more or less.
5. Letter Petition to Secretary Angelo Reyes, Secretary of Department of Energy, requesting as to the update on the use of environment-friendly source of energy, the ecological impact of Carbon Dioxide as a result of our preferential use of coal and oil, and why Philippines still grants coal and oil exploration which is incongruent to RA 7638 (Department of Energy Act of 1992).
6. Letter Petition to Secretary Angelo Reyes, DOE, requesting an update as to the status on the implementation of curbing air pollution contributed by the transportation system in the Philippines, specifically as to the provisions of the Constitution, Art II (Secs. 15 and 16), RA No. 8749 and EO 290 (Implementing the Natural Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport).
7. Letter Petition to Secretary Angelo Reyes, DOE, which specifically questions the inconsistent mandate of the law and the granting of the Coal Plant in Iloilo City . RA 7638 created the functions and role of the Department of Energy in promoting non- conventional energy resources (biomass, wind, solar, and so on), which is incongruent to the granting of a coal plant in Iloilo City, when in truth and in fact there are other alternative sustainable energy sources that can be benefited from.
8. Letter Petition to Secretary Leandro Mendoza, Secretary of Department of Transportation and Communication, requesting on the update of the status of adopting an environmentally sustainable transport strategy, specifically to mandate public land transport vehicles to use cleaner fuels and technologies. This is based on the Philippine Constitution, Art. II (Secs. 15 and 16) and RA 8749.
9. Last, but not the least, Letter Petition to House Speaker Prospero Nograles and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, petitioning the Congress to immediately enact a law in determining the metes and bounds of forest lands and final forest lines in the country, this is in promotion to the right of the Filipinos, and generation thereafter, to a balance and healthful ecology as protected by the Philippine Constitution.
The press briefing was attended by different media groups: the TV, radio and print media of Iloilo City . Aside from the volunteer lawyers, the press briefing was attended by representatives from the Paulinian Environmental Society of St. Paul University and Melvin Purzuelo of Responsible Ilonggos for Sustainable Energy (RISE). By Frances Shanelle Salinas
Different sectors from NGOs, Youth Groups and residents of municipalities signed the petitions with the assistance of volunteer Iloilo lawyers, members and officers of IBP Iloilo Chapter. Among the lawyers present were Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)Iloilo Chapter President Marven Daquilanea, Visayan Sea Squadron Hector Teodosio, and GLACC lawyers namely, Norberto Pocesion, Shanelle Salinas, Victor Decida, Pet Melliza, and Prosecutor Bionat.
The Letter Petitions that were signed and sent by members of Responsible Ilonggos for Sustainable Energy, Paulinian Environmental Society, residents of Iloilo City and of the different Municipalities of Iloilo, Philippines are as follows:
1. Letter Petition to Secretary Arthur Yap, Secretary of Department of Agriculture, requesting him for Guidelines for the Demarcation of Municipal Waters with Outlying Islands and inquiring from his good office why there was no promulgation as such guidelines considering RA 8550 (The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998) has been passed more than 10 years ago.
2. Letter Petition to Secretary Arthur Yap, Secretary of Department of Agriculture, and Secretary Ronaldo Puno, Secretary of Department of Interior and Local Government, reminding them that under RA 8550 and EO No. 774, at least 15% of the Municipal waters must be set aside as fish sanctuaries, and that they must conduct massive information, education and communication as part of their role as a task Group on Fisheries, respectively.
3. Letter Petition to Secretary Arthur Yap, Department of Agriculture, and Secretary Lito Atienza, Secretary of Department of Environment and Natural Resources, requesting their good offices for data on inventory of abandoned fishponds, areas available for mangrove reforestation, actions done by the specified departments on reverting or reforesting these degraded mangrove areas, and success rates of reforestations. The request is based on RA 8550.
4. Letter Petition to Secretary Lito Atienza, DENR, requesting for a copy of the National Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and in its absence, an answer why such plan was not done despite the passage of the RA 8749 (The Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999) ten 10 years ago, more or less.
5. Letter Petition to Secretary Angelo Reyes, Secretary of Department of Energy, requesting as to the update on the use of environment-friendly source of energy, the ecological impact of Carbon Dioxide as a result of our preferential use of coal and oil, and why Philippines still grants coal and oil exploration which is incongruent to RA 7638 (Department of Energy Act of 1992).
6. Letter Petition to Secretary Angelo Reyes, DOE, requesting an update as to the status on the implementation of curbing air pollution contributed by the transportation system in the Philippines, specifically as to the provisions of the Constitution, Art II (Secs. 15 and 16), RA No. 8749 and EO 290 (Implementing the Natural Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport).
7. Letter Petition to Secretary Angelo Reyes, DOE, which specifically questions the inconsistent mandate of the law and the granting of the Coal Plant in Iloilo City . RA 7638 created the functions and role of the Department of Energy in promoting non- conventional energy resources (biomass, wind, solar, and so on), which is incongruent to the granting of a coal plant in Iloilo City, when in truth and in fact there are other alternative sustainable energy sources that can be benefited from.
8. Letter Petition to Secretary Leandro Mendoza, Secretary of Department of Transportation and Communication, requesting on the update of the status of adopting an environmentally sustainable transport strategy, specifically to mandate public land transport vehicles to use cleaner fuels and technologies. This is based on the Philippine Constitution, Art. II (Secs. 15 and 16) and RA 8749.
9. Last, but not the least, Letter Petition to House Speaker Prospero Nograles and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, petitioning the Congress to immediately enact a law in determining the metes and bounds of forest lands and final forest lines in the country, this is in promotion to the right of the Filipinos, and generation thereafter, to a balance and healthful ecology as protected by the Philippine Constitution.
The press briefing was attended by different media groups: the TV, radio and print media of Iloilo City . Aside from the volunteer lawyers, the press briefing was attended by representatives from the Paulinian Environmental Society of St. Paul University and Melvin Purzuelo of Responsible Ilonggos for Sustainable Energy (RISE). By Frances Shanelle Salinas
Monday, July 6, 2009
Passion For The Game
As we have all experienced, any team sport helps bridge the gap between and among its participants. Friendships among players, coaches and cheerers alike are forged in due time.
One basketball fan has written somewhere that friendship and basketball go together nicely and there is no other game on the face of the earth that brings people together like basketball.
Through the years, our very own IBP basketball has grown from just one team of around 12 players to the present four color teams namely: blue, red, white and green with a total of 60 players, more or less. Players religiously practice Tuesdays and Thursdays at the YMCA Gym honing their basketball talents and skills and forging friendship bonds among themselves.
Fuelling the Ilonggo lawyers’ love for basketball are leagues or conferences sponsored by past and present IBP administrations such as the Pedronio Cup which is usually held in the months of July-August participated by two teams of lawyers, one team for each law school in Iloilo City and one team composed of Hall of Justice’ employees. We also have the annual Inter-Color Sportsfest every October-November wherein lawyers with basketball skills (and even those who do not have any) join to form four color teams and play against each others’ guts.
In addition, the current administration headed by IBP President Marven Daquilanea has sponsored the First President’s Cup from May 21 to June 20, 2009 which was an inter-school competition participated by four teams, namely: Central Philippine University, University of Iloilo, University of San Agustin and Other Law Schools.
The 3rd runner up award went to Other Law Schools while University of Iloilo was 2nd runner up. The Championship game was held at Monte Rosa, Mandurriao, Iloilo City between University of San Agustin and Central Philippine University. In the end, the Championship trophy was bagged by University of San Agustin with Central Philippine University as 1st runner up. The event ended with loads of food, drinks and a lot of singing and dancing.
Not to be forgotten are friendship games in or out of Iloilo City. Aside from regular basketball leagues, invitations to play against other select teams are always welcome by our team as long as schedule permits it. Our team has been regularly invited to play in the Zaldivar Cup of San Jose, Antique and against government employees of Badiangan and Passi City.
Adding to IBP’s list was last June 28, 2009’s invitation by Atty. F. Evari Tupas to join in the celebration of Barotac Viejo’s Patronal town fiesta by playing against Tupas Hawks composed of Mayor Raul “boboy” Tupas, Niel “beng” Tupas III, Nielo Tupas and fourteen other players.
Unfortunately, due to conflicting schedules, only seven players for IBP-Iloilo, namely: Dennis Ventilacion, Noel Palomado, Roledo dela Cruz, Clarence Zerrudo, Aemos Jonathan Galuego, Christopher Dequilla and Christian Arfel Cuadras, went to face Barotac Viejo’s Tupas Hawks.
During the 1st half of the game, Tupas Hawks displayed dominance in the board yet our team showed off courage, skills and persistence. The 1st half score was tied at 54. IBP-Iloilo played their best during the 3rd quarter where they were able to lead by 9 points. Tupas Hawks rallied but were not able to break away during the 4th quarter despite the disparity in numbers against our team and when the final whistle came, the score was tied at 74. IBP-Iloilo left Barotac Viejo Gym with Tupas Hawks asking for a re-match in the future. The team’s hard work paid off when sibling lawyers, F. Evari and Miru Alfonso Tupas, hosted dinner exclusively for IBP-Iloilo.
Surely these basketball invitations are more than enough to fuel our passion for the game! By Jojie L. Balume
Friday, July 3, 2009
A Relevant IBP
(Inaugural Speech of IBP-Iloilo President Marven B. Daquilanea delivered at the induction of IBP-Iloilo new set of Officers and new lawyers on July 3, 2009 at Amigo Terrace Hotel, Iloilo City with Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero as the guest speaker)
Our Honored Guest Speaker, Governor Niel Tupas, Mrs. Nonoy Myrna Tupas, Mayor Elyzer Chavez of Passi City, Regional Director Isagani Cuevas, Regional Director Janet Oberio, Executive Judge Rene Hortillo, members of the bench, fellow lawyers, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.
I was told by the IBP staff that historically, the number of people who attend the IBP Induction is usually 100 only. Tonight we have 250 guests, the biggest crowd ever in an IBP Iloilo induction. I would like to believe that this is because of my popularity but I know for a fact that it is not the reality. The reasons for this gathering tonight are: (1) the guests were subpoenaed rather than invited; (2) the lawyers here have been told that the food and drinks are free; (3) the final reason, "Marami kasing ayaw maniwala na ang ating kagalang galang na bisita ay mas magandang lalaki keysa akin." Well ladies and gentlemen, see for yourself,hindi naman nagkakalayo, di ba? And if you ask my wife, I may still have a little edge, although she may be the only one in this room who would think so.
Maayong gab-i sa inyo tanan and thank you for honoring our invitation although it ends with the threat, "FAIL NOT UNDER THE PENALTY OF LAW".
I thank my fellow lawyers who came tonight. Truth to tell most of them including Governor Tupas did not vote for me. They did not bother to vote in the elections because my whole Board ran unopposed. But a lot of them were present in the fellowship up to 3AM the night before the elections. The next day less than half showed up as even some of the candidates for the Board almost failed to make it to the nomination. THank you my companeros for coming tonight even though it is against your nature.
It is against the nature of lawyers to appear without a fee. They are paid to appear so it is impossible for them to appear when they are the ones who will pay. In a way lawyers are more fortunate than actors or models, whose appearance fees is in direct proportion to their appearances. Lawyers get paid an appearance fee no matter how good or bad their appearance may be and, in many cases, those who are not half as good looking get paid more. I believe that we should change the term appearance fee- because in legal jargon, that is misleading. (Some of the judges here are nodding their heads in agreement).
At this time I will not dwell on the outstanding stewardship of President Nene Teruel and the outgoing Board as their achievements will all be presented later in this program. It was an honor and a pleasure to have worked with them. A good and competent team, they were, so let us give them a round of applause please.
Let me begin where I ended in taking my oath. This oath (show paper) end with the words "SO HELP ME GOD". Have you ever wondered why oaths of office always close with those words? An oath is defined as "A solemn appeal to God for the declaration of the inviolability of a promise or undertaking."
When I took my oath just moments ago, I made five solemn vows. (1) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, (2) to obey laws and orders of duly constituted authorities, (3) to do no falsehood, (4) not to sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, (5) and not to delay any man for money or malice.
A diocesan priest on the other hand, when ordained, does not make an oath, he only makes only one promise. It is the promise to obey his bishop.
That is why it is easier to do wrong as a President of IBP Iloilo than to sin as a priest.
It is on this context that I address you tonight. While I took my oath and the many vows in it, I will only make one promise. That is a promise that to the best of my knowledge and discretion we will make this small organization relevant to our society in the next two years.
When are we irrelevant as an organization of lawyers? We are irrelevant when we are so parochial--that our fees, our MCLE completion numbers, and our grudges against the bench, the prosecution service, and fellow lawyers are more important than what is right and what is just. We are irrelevant when we are so consumed by self-presevation that profit rather that the advocacy of truth and fairness is our primary motivation. We are irrelevant when our people are abused and our democratic institutions are challenged while we sit indifferently and read our law books in the airconditioned comforts of our offices.
And how are we to be relevant? We are relevant when we, as an organization, can influence what is happening around us. We will condemn if we have to. We will sue if necessary. We will march in the streets when needed. But we will act and make a stand as an organization of lawyers in every issue and controversy that affects our people. There will be times that your Board of Officers will be right and that we will be with the popular sentiments. There will be times when we will not be popular and when we may be wrong. Nonetheless, we will always act and act swiftly at every opportunity. And we will act with conviction so that IBP Iloilo will be here to speak for you whether your prosecutor is a barangay tanod or the Secretary of Justice.
I stress the need to speak out for our people and our country because of a story that inspired me. It is a story of a German theologian, Martin Niem"ller cited in the self-written obituary of the editor-in-chief of the Tamil Guardian, who was gunned down, execution style, last January 2009. The story tells that Niem'ller in his youth was an anti-Semite and an admirer of Hitler. As Nazism took hold in Germany, however, he saw Nazism for what it was: it was not just for the Jews Hitler sought to extirpate, it was just about anyone with an alternate point of view. Niem"ller spoke out, and for his trouble was incarcerated and very nearly executed. While incarcerated, Niem"ller wrote a poem that stuck hauntingly in the mind of the dissident journalist: The Niem"ller poem goes:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Let me repeat that:
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
That is why I envision IBP Iloilo to always be there to speak out for all and any of you when no one else will. In many occasions we have not acted and we have not spoken as an organization. Sometimes because of indifference, but more often because it is difficult to have a consensus among 11 officers whose livelihood is to argue and disagree on what the other lawyer has to say. We, your present Board of Officers, have agreed that, when there is an important issue or concern we will deliberate and we will argue but before the end of the day we will always take a stand and speak out in behalf of our Chapter.
And what of our fellow lawyers in IBP Iloilo in the next two years? We plan an expanded coverage for our members to include hospitalization benefits as we also undertake to make an emergency facility at the Hall of Justice. Too many of us suffer illnesses or die from the stress of our profession. We will honor the most senior among our practicing lawyers during law week as we will also have a memorial to old colleagues whom we remeber in private but never in public ceremonies. We will extend our MCLE and MLAS services from merely hosting the seminars to monitoring deficiencies and assisting in the filing of the complete requirements. We will provide for free to all our members the 2009 Schedule of Minimum Fees and Directory of Members in digital format as it will also be incorporated in our website for access to our members. We will screen and evaluate aspirants to the judiciary and government service with the purpose of favorably endorsing applicants but we will not endorse those who are unfit and unworthy of elementary standards of fairness, industry, and integrity. These and many more are detailed in the plans and programs approved by the new Board of Officers in our first organizational meeting last April 3, 2009.
We will be as relevant to our members as we will be to our society.
But I am here making a speech. Will I really be here to speak for you when this night is over?
Frankly my friends, I could only hope that I will live up to my promise because I owe too many people too much for this chance to address you as IBP President. Not the least is a hardworking Board - Maricar, Gene, BG, Noel, Cyril, Joann, Dan, Janet, Aloy, and Dennis, who all made this evening possible.
There are many among the lawyers here who could have easily defeated me in a contested election. You did not. Inspite of the goading and encouragement from some that this Presidency should not be given to me in a silver platter. You refused. Thank you for that. Many of you here refused to run against me because you consider me a friend so much so that your Board of Officers was elected by unanimous consensus rather than a bitter contest as we always had in the past IBP elections. This inspite of an unofficial division that separate us into two camps when the election nears. The main personalities of the previous contests set aside their differences to field a common slate, I believe that as lawyers you also considered our qualities aside from our friendship and for that I am very grateful for the unanimity of your confidence.
I have too many of you here to thank that I will not have the time to name each and everyone of you individually. You helped in different ways. I owe even those of you who did not vote for us because it was an uncontested election. I owe a lot to our guest speaker and our VIPs for making time to be with us tonight and giving this occasion honor and prestige by your presence. I owe a lot of you in a lot different ways. Allow me to make two exceptions in my general expression of gratitude.
First, I would like to thank my Tatay. The original Basoy to many of you. He did not want to be here he told me because his coat that he last wore when he retired as Provincial Administrator ten years ago does not fit him anymore. Your many friends in the media and in Passi City are here as your Congressional candidate Niel Tupas is here as well. I want to brag to you in front of them that for a short time, in this little part of our country my peers have chosen me to be first among equals. As I want everyone to know that what I am I owe a lot to you.
Second, I would like to thank my best friend who was my playmate since kindergarten, my girlfriend the last 34 years, and my wife for the last 23 years. Thank you for believing that I can be a capable President as long as I put my heart and soul and you put in all you can afford to spare for the necessary expenses.
The rest of you my friends, forgive me for making a general acknowledgment of my gratitude as there are just too many of you. The only way I can repay your trust is not by public acknowledgment but in making and doing all that I can to make IBP Iloilo relevant. Relevant so that when others do not or will not speak out for you, this organization will.
That is not a vow. That is a promise that, as I have defined earlier, bears the weight and responsibility of the solemn oath that I affirmed in saying, "SO HELP ME GOD".
Sa liwat salamat gid kag maayong gab-i sa inyo tanan.
Our Honored Guest Speaker, Governor Niel Tupas, Mrs. Nonoy Myrna Tupas, Mayor Elyzer Chavez of Passi City, Regional Director Isagani Cuevas, Regional Director Janet Oberio, Executive Judge Rene Hortillo, members of the bench, fellow lawyers, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.I was told by the IBP staff that historically, the number of people who attend the IBP Induction is usually 100 only. Tonight we have 250 guests, the biggest crowd ever in an IBP Iloilo induction. I would like to believe that this is because of my popularity but I know for a fact that it is not the reality. The reasons for this gathering tonight are: (1) the guests were subpoenaed rather than invited; (2) the lawyers here have been told that the food and drinks are free; (3) the final reason, "Marami kasing ayaw maniwala na ang ating kagalang galang na bisita ay mas magandang lalaki keysa akin." Well ladies and gentlemen, see for yourself,hindi naman nagkakalayo, di ba? And if you ask my wife, I may still have a little edge, although she may be the only one in this room who would think so.
Maayong gab-i sa inyo tanan and thank you for honoring our invitation although it ends with the threat, "FAIL NOT UNDER THE PENALTY OF LAW".
I thank my fellow lawyers who came tonight. Truth to tell most of them including Governor Tupas did not vote for me. They did not bother to vote in the elections because my whole Board ran unopposed. But a lot of them were present in the fellowship up to 3AM the night before the elections. The next day less than half showed up as even some of the candidates for the Board almost failed to make it to the nomination. THank you my companeros for coming tonight even though it is against your nature.
It is against the nature of lawyers to appear without a fee. They are paid to appear so it is impossible for them to appear when they are the ones who will pay. In a way lawyers are more fortunate than actors or models, whose appearance fees is in direct proportion to their appearances. Lawyers get paid an appearance fee no matter how good or bad their appearance may be and, in many cases, those who are not half as good looking get paid more. I believe that we should change the term appearance fee- because in legal jargon, that is misleading. (Some of the judges here are nodding their heads in agreement).
At this time I will not dwell on the outstanding stewardship of President Nene Teruel and the outgoing Board as their achievements will all be presented later in this program. It was an honor and a pleasure to have worked with them. A good and competent team, they were, so let us give them a round of applause please.
Let me begin where I ended in taking my oath. This oath (show paper) end with the words "SO HELP ME GOD". Have you ever wondered why oaths of office always close with those words? An oath is defined as "A solemn appeal to God for the declaration of the inviolability of a promise or undertaking."
When I took my oath just moments ago, I made five solemn vows. (1) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, (2) to obey laws and orders of duly constituted authorities, (3) to do no falsehood, (4) not to sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, (5) and not to delay any man for money or malice.
A diocesan priest on the other hand, when ordained, does not make an oath, he only makes only one promise. It is the promise to obey his bishop.
That is why it is easier to do wrong as a President of IBP Iloilo than to sin as a priest.
It is on this context that I address you tonight. While I took my oath and the many vows in it, I will only make one promise. That is a promise that to the best of my knowledge and discretion we will make this small organization relevant to our society in the next two years.
When are we irrelevant as an organization of lawyers? We are irrelevant when we are so parochial--that our fees, our MCLE completion numbers, and our grudges against the bench, the prosecution service, and fellow lawyers are more important than what is right and what is just. We are irrelevant when we are so consumed by self-presevation that profit rather that the advocacy of truth and fairness is our primary motivation. We are irrelevant when our people are abused and our democratic institutions are challenged while we sit indifferently and read our law books in the airconditioned comforts of our offices.
And how are we to be relevant? We are relevant when we, as an organization, can influence what is happening around us. We will condemn if we have to. We will sue if necessary. We will march in the streets when needed. But we will act and make a stand as an organization of lawyers in every issue and controversy that affects our people. There will be times that your Board of Officers will be right and that we will be with the popular sentiments. There will be times when we will not be popular and when we may be wrong. Nonetheless, we will always act and act swiftly at every opportunity. And we will act with conviction so that IBP Iloilo will be here to speak for you whether your prosecutor is a barangay tanod or the Secretary of Justice.
I stress the need to speak out for our people and our country because of a story that inspired me. It is a story of a German theologian, Martin Niem"ller cited in the self-written obituary of the editor-in-chief of the Tamil Guardian, who was gunned down, execution style, last January 2009. The story tells that Niem'ller in his youth was an anti-Semite and an admirer of Hitler. As Nazism took hold in Germany, however, he saw Nazism for what it was: it was not just for the Jews Hitler sought to extirpate, it was just about anyone with an alternate point of view. Niem"ller spoke out, and for his trouble was incarcerated and very nearly executed. While incarcerated, Niem"ller wrote a poem that stuck hauntingly in the mind of the dissident journalist: The Niem"ller poem goes:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Let me repeat that:
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
That is why I envision IBP Iloilo to always be there to speak out for all and any of you when no one else will. In many occasions we have not acted and we have not spoken as an organization. Sometimes because of indifference, but more often because it is difficult to have a consensus among 11 officers whose livelihood is to argue and disagree on what the other lawyer has to say. We, your present Board of Officers, have agreed that, when there is an important issue or concern we will deliberate and we will argue but before the end of the day we will always take a stand and speak out in behalf of our Chapter.
And what of our fellow lawyers in IBP Iloilo in the next two years? We plan an expanded coverage for our members to include hospitalization benefits as we also undertake to make an emergency facility at the Hall of Justice. Too many of us suffer illnesses or die from the stress of our profession. We will honor the most senior among our practicing lawyers during law week as we will also have a memorial to old colleagues whom we remeber in private but never in public ceremonies. We will extend our MCLE and MLAS services from merely hosting the seminars to monitoring deficiencies and assisting in the filing of the complete requirements. We will provide for free to all our members the 2009 Schedule of Minimum Fees and Directory of Members in digital format as it will also be incorporated in our website for access to our members. We will screen and evaluate aspirants to the judiciary and government service with the purpose of favorably endorsing applicants but we will not endorse those who are unfit and unworthy of elementary standards of fairness, industry, and integrity. These and many more are detailed in the plans and programs approved by the new Board of Officers in our first organizational meeting last April 3, 2009.
We will be as relevant to our members as we will be to our society.
But I am here making a speech. Will I really be here to speak for you when this night is over?
Frankly my friends, I could only hope that I will live up to my promise because I owe too many people too much for this chance to address you as IBP President. Not the least is a hardworking Board - Maricar, Gene, BG, Noel, Cyril, Joann, Dan, Janet, Aloy, and Dennis, who all made this evening possible.
There are many among the lawyers here who could have easily defeated me in a contested election. You did not. Inspite of the goading and encouragement from some that this Presidency should not be given to me in a silver platter. You refused. Thank you for that. Many of you here refused to run against me because you consider me a friend so much so that your Board of Officers was elected by unanimous consensus rather than a bitter contest as we always had in the past IBP elections. This inspite of an unofficial division that separate us into two camps when the election nears. The main personalities of the previous contests set aside their differences to field a common slate, I believe that as lawyers you also considered our qualities aside from our friendship and for that I am very grateful for the unanimity of your confidence.
I have too many of you here to thank that I will not have the time to name each and everyone of you individually. You helped in different ways. I owe even those of you who did not vote for us because it was an uncontested election. I owe a lot to our guest speaker and our VIPs for making time to be with us tonight and giving this occasion honor and prestige by your presence. I owe a lot of you in a lot different ways. Allow me to make two exceptions in my general expression of gratitude.
First, I would like to thank my Tatay. The original Basoy to many of you. He did not want to be here he told me because his coat that he last wore when he retired as Provincial Administrator ten years ago does not fit him anymore. Your many friends in the media and in Passi City are here as your Congressional candidate Niel Tupas is here as well. I want to brag to you in front of them that for a short time, in this little part of our country my peers have chosen me to be first among equals. As I want everyone to know that what I am I owe a lot to you.
Second, I would like to thank my best friend who was my playmate since kindergarten, my girlfriend the last 34 years, and my wife for the last 23 years. Thank you for believing that I can be a capable President as long as I put my heart and soul and you put in all you can afford to spare for the necessary expenses.
The rest of you my friends, forgive me for making a general acknowledgment of my gratitude as there are just too many of you. The only way I can repay your trust is not by public acknowledgment but in making and doing all that I can to make IBP Iloilo relevant. Relevant so that when others do not or will not speak out for you, this organization will.
That is not a vow. That is a promise that, as I have defined earlier, bears the weight and responsibility of the solemn oath that I affirmed in saying, "SO HELP ME GOD".
Sa liwat salamat gid kag maayong gab-i sa inyo tanan.
Friday, March 13, 2009
12th National Convention of Lawyers
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) will hold its 12th National Convention on March 26-28, 2009 at the Bacolod Pavillon Hotel and Resort, Bacolod City. The Negros Occidental chapter will host the said event with the theme, "Upholding the Rule of Law: IBP's Continuing Challenge" . According to IBP National President Feliciano Bautista, the convention is by tradition the culminating activity of every term of IBP Board of Governors. It is also meant to be an occasion for members of the profession to find common resolve in the burning issues of the moment, and to participate in the continuing task of upholding the Rule of Law towards the realization of a society that is just, democratic and economically sufficient, added by the IBP Negros Occidental President Rodolfo Parreno.
Several activities were lined up for this year's national convention. The Opening Ceremony will be graced by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno as the keynote speaker. Other notable guests on the first day are Senators Mar Roxas and Francis Escudero. The Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) lecture series will take up the morning and afternoon schedule of the second day. In the evening, the regional presentation will highlight the program. Closing plenary session will be held on the third and final day as well as the awarding of prizes for the Sports Competition.
The Sports Competition is a pre-convention activity in which different chapters of the IBP will compete on several sports event like Basketball, Badminton, Lawn Tennis, Golf, Billiards, Bowling and Chess. Some 2000 lawyers from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao are expected to attend the convention according to IBP National President Feliciano M. Bautista.
Several activities were lined up for this year's national convention. The Opening Ceremony will be graced by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno as the keynote speaker. Other notable guests on the first day are Senators Mar Roxas and Francis Escudero. The Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) lecture series will take up the morning and afternoon schedule of the second day. In the evening, the regional presentation will highlight the program. Closing plenary session will be held on the third and final day as well as the awarding of prizes for the Sports Competition.
The Sports Competition is a pre-convention activity in which different chapters of the IBP will compete on several sports event like Basketball, Badminton, Lawn Tennis, Golf, Billiards, Bowling and Chess. Some 2000 lawyers from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao are expected to attend the convention according to IBP National President Feliciano M. Bautista.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
2008 IBP-Iloilo Intercolor Sportsfest: When Colors Roar
More than the trophies, it has always been pride, glory, and a year’s worth of bragging rights that motivated the lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Iloilo Chapter to take some time off the pleadings, court hearings, and client meetings to sweat it out at its annual Inter Color Sportsfest. For this year, five (5) sports events were organized namely, Basketball, Badminton, Table Tennis, Billiards, and Chess. Series of eliminations were also conducted for the respective events. The final games and the awarding of prizes however were held at the Club House of Sta. Rosa Subdivision in Mandurriao, Iloilo on November 15, 2008. This is something new for IBP-Iloilo who always had this event at the flood-stricken Iloilo Sports Complex Covered Gym.
This year’s sportsfest was more exciting because of the strong team rivalries. In Basketball, the games became more intense. The competitive nature of the players even produced some injuries and heated verbal exchanges during the game. The biggest upset of the sportsfest was also in Basketball. The Blue Team who was the favorite to win and the defending champion succumbed to the pressure made by the Green Team in a thrilling match during the second round of eliminations at YMCA Gymnasium. The loss of the Blue Team cost them a chance to play in the finals. John Paul Vargas is now probably spending a few more hours in court to perfect his free throws which he easily missed during the crucial part of that game. The Green Team eventually won the coveted champions title against the Red Team.
Photo: The 2008 IBP-Iloilo Basketball Champion (Green Team)
Just like in Basketball, team rivalry was also very apparent in Badminton. Some Basketball players also joined their badminton team in order to increase their group’s chances of winning. Aemos Jonathan Galuego of the Green Team and this year’s Most Valuable Player (MVP) for Basketball also took the Men’s Singles Title for the second time in a row as well as the Mixed Doubles Title with his partner Carol Salvatierra. This earned him another MVP title for Badminton. This came as no surprise since Galuego was formerly a varsity player in badminton for the University of the Philippines in his college days and also a member of the prestigious Valiant Badminton Club in Iloilo City. Another former varsity player RLeone Gerochi and Samson Go of the Red Team took home the Men's Doubles Title. On the women's side, Ma. Elena Gerochi also from the Red Team grabbed the singles title for the first time from Suzette Alquisada of the White Team who has dominated the game for several years. In Doubles, it was still Gracious Espinosa and Janette Mae Dillomes of the Blue Team who prevailed. It was already a third title for the duo.
Photo: All four(4) teams for Badminton before the games
In Table Tennis, Rexinor John Demogena won the Men’s Singles Title while Arnold Lebrilla and Martin Mamon in the Men’s Doubles. The women of badminton, Pamela Helen Bitera and Carol Salvatierra invaded the table tennis Women's Doubles by winning the title for this year. Ana Pueda Galvez took home the Singles title.
Photo: Table Tennis Women's Doubles Champion
In Billiards and Chess, Hermie Jun Toledo and Arnold Molina outplayed everyone on their respective games. Refer to the following for the complete list of winners by event.
Photo: The finalists Hermie Jun Toledo and Patrick Lloyd Gellada
LIST OF WINNERS BY EVENT:
BASKETBALL
Champion: GREEN TEAM
1st Runner Up: RED TEAM
2nd Runner Up: BLUE TEAM
MYTHICAL FIVE
Aemos Jonathan Galuego
Sotero Cabarles Jr.
Patrick Lloyd Gellada
Clarence Zerrudo
Rolido de la Cruz
ALL DEFENSIVE TEAM
Noel Palomado
Jessie Sullano
Nelson Bartolome
Joel Espana
SPECIAL AWARDS
Most Valuable Player: Aemos Jonathan Galuego
Most Improved Player: White Gallego
Rookie of the Year: Christopher Dequilla
Coach of the Year: Amalik Espinosa
BADMINTON
MEN'S SINGLES
Champion: Aemos Jonathan Galuego (Green Team)
1st Runner Up: Carmelo Nochete (Blue Team)
2nd Runner Up: Hilarion Firmeza, Jr. (White Team)
MEN'S DOUBLES
Champion: RLeone Gerochi and Samson Go (Red Team)
1st Runner Up: Wesley Barayuga and Carmelo Nochete (Blue Team)
2nd Runner Up: Aemos Jonathan Galuego and Fhymore Gascon (Green Team)
WOMEN'S SINGLES
Champion: Ma. Elena Gerochi (Red Team)
1st Runner Up: Suzette Alquisada (White Team)
2nd Runner Up: Janette Mae Dillomes (Blue Team)
WOMEN'S DOUBLES
Champion: Gracious Espinosa and Janette Mae Dillomes (Blue Team)
1st Runner Up: Carol Salvatierra and Pamela Helen Bitera (Green Team)
2nd Runner Up: Ma.Elena Gerochi and Myra Duremdes (Red Team)
MIXED DOUBLES
Champion: Aemos Jonathan Galuego and Carol Salvatierra (Green Team)
1st Runner Up: Samson Go and Ma. Elena Gerochi (Red Team)
2nd Runner Up: Hilarion Firmeza and Suzette Alquisada (White Team)
SPECIAL AWARDS
Most Valuable Player: Aemos Jonathan Galluego
Most Improved Player: Myra Duremdes
Rookie of the Year: Jovy June Tin
BILLIARDS
Champion: Hermie Jun Toledo
1st Runner Up: Patrick Lloyd Gellada
2nd Runner Up: Joe John Alipao
CHESS
Champion: Arnold Molina
1st Runner Up: Dennis Ausan
2nd Runner Up: Benjie Yotoko
3rd Runner Up: Edwardo Areno
TABLE TENNIS
MEN'S SINGLES
Champion: Rexinor John Demogena
1st Runner Up: Ryan Castro
2nd Runner Up: Raul Retiro
3rd Runner Up: Arnold Lebrilla
MEN'S DOUBLES
Champion: Arnold Lebrilla and Martin Mamon
1st Runner Up: Raul Retiro and Roel Patricio
2nd Runner Up: Jeeli Espinosa and Rexinor John Demogena
3rd Runner Up: Ryan Castro and Arturo Cangrejo
WOMEN'S SINGLES
Champion: Ana Pueda Galvez
1st Runner Up: Amelita del Rosario-Benedicto
2nd Runner Up: Elena Opinion
3rd Runner Up: Elsie Jane Victoria Causing
WOMEN'S DOUBLES
Champion: Carol Salvatierra and Pamela Helen Bitera
1st Runner Up: Ma. Elena Gerochi and Janette Mae Dillomes
By Gracious J. Espinosa
This year’s sportsfest was more exciting because of the strong team rivalries. In Basketball, the games became more intense. The competitive nature of the players even produced some injuries and heated verbal exchanges during the game. The biggest upset of the sportsfest was also in Basketball. The Blue Team who was the favorite to win and the defending champion succumbed to the pressure made by the Green Team in a thrilling match during the second round of eliminations at YMCA Gymnasium. The loss of the Blue Team cost them a chance to play in the finals. John Paul Vargas is now probably spending a few more hours in court to perfect his free throws which he easily missed during the crucial part of that game. The Green Team eventually won the coveted champions title against the Red Team.
Photo: The 2008 IBP-Iloilo Basketball Champion (Green Team)Just like in Basketball, team rivalry was also very apparent in Badminton. Some Basketball players also joined their badminton team in order to increase their group’s chances of winning. Aemos Jonathan Galuego of the Green Team and this year’s Most Valuable Player (MVP) for Basketball also took the Men’s Singles Title for the second time in a row as well as the Mixed Doubles Title with his partner Carol Salvatierra. This earned him another MVP title for Badminton. This came as no surprise since Galuego was formerly a varsity player in badminton for the University of the Philippines in his college days and also a member of the prestigious Valiant Badminton Club in Iloilo City. Another former varsity player RLeone Gerochi and Samson Go of the Red Team took home the Men's Doubles Title. On the women's side, Ma. Elena Gerochi also from the Red Team grabbed the singles title for the first time from Suzette Alquisada of the White Team who has dominated the game for several years. In Doubles, it was still Gracious Espinosa and Janette Mae Dillomes of the Blue Team who prevailed. It was already a third title for the duo.
Photo: All four(4) teams for Badminton before the gamesIn Table Tennis, Rexinor John Demogena won the Men’s Singles Title while Arnold Lebrilla and Martin Mamon in the Men’s Doubles. The women of badminton, Pamela Helen Bitera and Carol Salvatierra invaded the table tennis Women's Doubles by winning the title for this year. Ana Pueda Galvez took home the Singles title.
Photo: Table Tennis Women's Doubles ChampionIn Billiards and Chess, Hermie Jun Toledo and Arnold Molina outplayed everyone on their respective games. Refer to the following for the complete list of winners by event.
Photo: The finalists Hermie Jun Toledo and Patrick Lloyd GelladaLIST OF WINNERS BY EVENT:
BASKETBALL
Champion: GREEN TEAM
1st Runner Up: RED TEAM
2nd Runner Up: BLUE TEAM
MYTHICAL FIVE
Aemos Jonathan Galuego
Sotero Cabarles Jr.
Patrick Lloyd Gellada
Clarence Zerrudo
Rolido de la Cruz
ALL DEFENSIVE TEAM
Noel Palomado
Jessie Sullano
Nelson Bartolome
Joel Espana
SPECIAL AWARDS
Most Valuable Player: Aemos Jonathan Galuego
Most Improved Player: White Gallego
Rookie of the Year: Christopher Dequilla
Coach of the Year: Amalik Espinosa
BADMINTON
MEN'S SINGLES
Champion: Aemos Jonathan Galuego (Green Team)
1st Runner Up: Carmelo Nochete (Blue Team)
2nd Runner Up: Hilarion Firmeza, Jr. (White Team)
MEN'S DOUBLES
Champion: RLeone Gerochi and Samson Go (Red Team)
1st Runner Up: Wesley Barayuga and Carmelo Nochete (Blue Team)
2nd Runner Up: Aemos Jonathan Galuego and Fhymore Gascon (Green Team)
WOMEN'S SINGLES
Champion: Ma. Elena Gerochi (Red Team)
1st Runner Up: Suzette Alquisada (White Team)
2nd Runner Up: Janette Mae Dillomes (Blue Team)
WOMEN'S DOUBLES
Champion: Gracious Espinosa and Janette Mae Dillomes (Blue Team)
1st Runner Up: Carol Salvatierra and Pamela Helen Bitera (Green Team)
2nd Runner Up: Ma.Elena Gerochi and Myra Duremdes (Red Team)
MIXED DOUBLES
Champion: Aemos Jonathan Galuego and Carol Salvatierra (Green Team)
1st Runner Up: Samson Go and Ma. Elena Gerochi (Red Team)
2nd Runner Up: Hilarion Firmeza and Suzette Alquisada (White Team)
SPECIAL AWARDS
Most Valuable Player: Aemos Jonathan Galluego
Most Improved Player: Myra Duremdes
Rookie of the Year: Jovy June Tin
BILLIARDS
Champion: Hermie Jun Toledo
1st Runner Up: Patrick Lloyd Gellada
2nd Runner Up: Joe John Alipao
CHESS
Champion: Arnold Molina
1st Runner Up: Dennis Ausan
2nd Runner Up: Benjie Yotoko
3rd Runner Up: Edwardo Areno
TABLE TENNIS
MEN'S SINGLES
Champion: Rexinor John Demogena
1st Runner Up: Ryan Castro
2nd Runner Up: Raul Retiro
3rd Runner Up: Arnold Lebrilla
MEN'S DOUBLES
Champion: Arnold Lebrilla and Martin Mamon
1st Runner Up: Raul Retiro and Roel Patricio
2nd Runner Up: Jeeli Espinosa and Rexinor John Demogena
3rd Runner Up: Ryan Castro and Arturo Cangrejo
WOMEN'S SINGLES
Champion: Ana Pueda Galvez
1st Runner Up: Amelita del Rosario-Benedicto
2nd Runner Up: Elena Opinion
3rd Runner Up: Elsie Jane Victoria Causing
WOMEN'S DOUBLES
Champion: Carol Salvatierra and Pamela Helen Bitera
1st Runner Up: Ma. Elena Gerochi and Janette Mae Dillomes
By Gracious J. Espinosa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
