Another article worth blogging.
When I was still a law student, Supreme Court pronouncements and of course, its decisions are part and parcel of our life. Their decisions form part of the law of the land. But cutting it short, I have never seen the Supreme Court as aggressive and as true to its mandate, even taking things to the next level, as it is now --- Holding a summit re: the extrajudicial killings in pursuit of upholding human rights and coming up with the rules on the writ of amparo. (Which is, by the way, a very popular bar question sometime in the '90s. I believe it was the number one question in political which made barristers scratch their heads.).
The Supreme Court is an entity in itself but like I always say, it is the people behind any institution/organization that breathes meaning into its being. It feels good seeing the High Court live up to the essence of its very existence. Truly unprecedented.
EDITORIAL
Protect us
Inquirer
Last updated 00:31am (Mla time) 10/01/2007
MANILA, Philippines -- Last week, while the country was absorbed in the latest twists of the National Broadband Network telenovela, the Supreme Court issued the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The new package of protections will become effective on Oct. 24—just a little over three months after the high court convened an extraordinary “national consultative summit” on political killings and politically motivated disappearances.
This is, in truth, remarkable. The pace of judicial innovation is virtually unprecedented, a reflection of the judiciary’s sense of urgency over the crisis of political violence that continues to disturb the country. At the same time, it cannot be said that the high court threw all caution to the wind; a study of the process and the Rule it produced soothes our concerns. The court made haste, but slowly.
Patterned after a legal remedy born out of the constitutional struggles of Latin American democracies, the writ takes its name after the Spanish “amparar,” meaning “to protect.” But as the Supreme Court itself took pains to point out, the scope of protection offered by the Philippine writ is wider than those it had been modeled after.
“The petition for a writ of amparo,” Section 1 of the new Rule states, “is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.”
Under the writ, the family of, say, a peasant leader believed to have been abducted by a military unit or a private army can petition the judiciary to compel the unit or the private group to undergo a legal undertaking that will force them to account for their actions. No more blanket denials. As the last provision of Section 9 declares: “A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.”
Some concerns have been raised, about the new Rule’s seeming lack of sympathy for or even outright hostility to public officials, in particular the members of the country’s armed services. We understand these concerns, but we cannot agree with the view they reflect, because it is based on a lack of understanding of the dual nature of all laws.
The Constitution itself bears witness to this duality. It grants enormous powers to the government and its instrumentalities; at the same time, it grants ample protection to the citizenry, precisely against the possibility of governmental intervention. What, for instance, is the Bill of Rights, if not the primary package of protections for citizens, citizens who may need to fight either the encroachments or the blandishments of the State?
The new Rule, therefore, does not discriminate against public authorities; instead, it recognizes the dignity of their office as well as the nature of public service. Thus, the standard the new Rule requires of public officials or employees, that they must render “extraordinary diligence” in performing their duties (contrasted with the “ordinary diligence” required of private persons), is not an added burden—it is a necessary corollary of their work.
The new Rule also includes four virtually new legal remedies: the temporary protection order, the inspection order, the production order and the witness protection order. Together, they make the new Rule a true landmark—one that entirely alters the legal landscape.
To be sure, some infelicities or imprecisions have found their way into the new Rule. The second provision of Section 1, which states that “The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof,” raises the question whether coverage here is meant exclusively—thus narrowing the scope of the writ (as outlined in the fourth paragraph of this editorial, above).
Section 5 requires the petitioner to provide “The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission”—an unfortunate phrasing that may be understood to mean that the respondent perceived to be responsible and the person actually responsible are the same.
Section 16, which punishes respondents who fail to respond to the writ, is vague on the actual penalty.
But taken all together, and in the light of key provisions that, for instance, waive docket fees and allow the filing of a petition “on any day and at any time,” the new Rule gives actual and potential victims of political violence both legal relief and real hope.
When I was still a law student, Supreme Court pronouncements and of course, its decisions are part and parcel of our life. Their decisions form part of the law of the land. But cutting it short, I have never seen the Supreme Court as aggressive and as true to its mandate, even taking things to the next level, as it is now --- Holding a summit re: the extrajudicial killings in pursuit of upholding human rights and coming up with the rules on the writ of amparo. (Which is, by the way, a very popular bar question sometime in the '90s. I believe it was the number one question in political which made barristers scratch their heads.).
The Supreme Court is an entity in itself but like I always say, it is the people behind any institution/organization that breathes meaning into its being. It feels good seeing the High Court live up to the essence of its very existence. Truly unprecedented.
EDITORIAL
Protect us
Inquirer
Last updated 00:31am (Mla time) 10/01/2007
MANILA, Philippines -- Last week, while the country was absorbed in the latest twists of the National Broadband Network telenovela, the Supreme Court issued the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The new package of protections will become effective on Oct. 24—just a little over three months after the high court convened an extraordinary “national consultative summit” on political killings and politically motivated disappearances.
This is, in truth, remarkable. The pace of judicial innovation is virtually unprecedented, a reflection of the judiciary’s sense of urgency over the crisis of political violence that continues to disturb the country. At the same time, it cannot be said that the high court threw all caution to the wind; a study of the process and the Rule it produced soothes our concerns. The court made haste, but slowly.
Patterned after a legal remedy born out of the constitutional struggles of Latin American democracies, the writ takes its name after the Spanish “amparar,” meaning “to protect.” But as the Supreme Court itself took pains to point out, the scope of protection offered by the Philippine writ is wider than those it had been modeled after.
“The petition for a writ of amparo,” Section 1 of the new Rule states, “is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.”
Under the writ, the family of, say, a peasant leader believed to have been abducted by a military unit or a private army can petition the judiciary to compel the unit or the private group to undergo a legal undertaking that will force them to account for their actions. No more blanket denials. As the last provision of Section 9 declares: “A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.”
Some concerns have been raised, about the new Rule’s seeming lack of sympathy for or even outright hostility to public officials, in particular the members of the country’s armed services. We understand these concerns, but we cannot agree with the view they reflect, because it is based on a lack of understanding of the dual nature of all laws.
The Constitution itself bears witness to this duality. It grants enormous powers to the government and its instrumentalities; at the same time, it grants ample protection to the citizenry, precisely against the possibility of governmental intervention. What, for instance, is the Bill of Rights, if not the primary package of protections for citizens, citizens who may need to fight either the encroachments or the blandishments of the State?
The new Rule, therefore, does not discriminate against public authorities; instead, it recognizes the dignity of their office as well as the nature of public service. Thus, the standard the new Rule requires of public officials or employees, that they must render “extraordinary diligence” in performing their duties (contrasted with the “ordinary diligence” required of private persons), is not an added burden—it is a necessary corollary of their work.
The new Rule also includes four virtually new legal remedies: the temporary protection order, the inspection order, the production order and the witness protection order. Together, they make the new Rule a true landmark—one that entirely alters the legal landscape.
To be sure, some infelicities or imprecisions have found their way into the new Rule. The second provision of Section 1, which states that “The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof,” raises the question whether coverage here is meant exclusively—thus narrowing the scope of the writ (as outlined in the fourth paragraph of this editorial, above).
Section 5 requires the petitioner to provide “The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission”—an unfortunate phrasing that may be understood to mean that the respondent perceived to be responsible and the person actually responsible are the same.
Section 16, which punishes respondents who fail to respond to the writ, is vague on the actual penalty.
But taken all together, and in the light of key provisions that, for instance, waive docket fees and allow the filing of a petition “on any day and at any time,” the new Rule gives actual and potential victims of political violence both legal relief and real hope.
0 comments:
Post a Comment