Category: Philippines

Posted on

Case Notes: Three Supreme Court Rulings and the Numbers Behind the Legal Hybrid

These are the supporting notes for my post The Philippines Is a Legal Hybrid: Does the Mix Cost Us the Rules of the Game?, which I wrote for joeam.com. That post explains the two traditions and argues that mixing civil law and common law makes it harder to know the rules of the game. I kept it to its main argument and one test case, Article 36 of the Family Code. Everything else is here: three more rulings (Estrada, the condonation doctrine and the cityhood laws) and the numbers on our court backlogs.

I’m a technologist, not a lawyer. Where I couldn’t confirm something against the original text, I say so.

Case note 1: Estrada v. Desierto (2001)

On January 20, 2001, President Joseph Estrada left Malacañang without signing a resignation letter, and Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath that day. On March 2, 2001, in Estrada v. Desierto (G.R. Nos. 146710-15, ponente Justice Puno), the Supreme Court held that Estrada had resigned. I read the decision, the April 3, 2001 resolution denying reconsideration, and Justice Vitug’s and Justice Mendoza’s concurring opinions.

  • The Constitution names resignation but doesn’t say how to prove it. Article VII, Section 8 refers to the “resignation of the President.” The Court called resignation “a factual question” with two elements: an intent to resign and acts of relinquishment. The only authority it cites for that is one 1961 case, Gonzales v. Hernandez. The “totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts” test that carried the decision cites none in the March 2 text. So the Court applied an existing definition but set its own method for finding resignation without a letter.
  • The reasoning leaned on American sources. The key evidence was the Angara Diary, serialized in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. In the April 3 resolution the Court held it was not barred by the hearsay rule, because Estrada’s own statements were “admissions of a party” under Rule 130, Section 26. To support that it cited American evidence scholars (Wigmore, McCormick, Morgan, Mueller and Kirkpatrick) and US law-review debates on hearsay. On whether the case was a “political question” it invoked Marbury v. Madison. The Civil Code and stare decisis did not come up in the passages I read.
  • Same result, different roads. Justice Vitug’s later opinion calls the vote 13–0, with Chief Justice Davide and Justice Panganiban not taking part. But the concurrences, as far as I can tell from the opinions I read, did not all travel the majority’s road. The majority found an implied resignation. Justice Vitug agreed and added that abandonment of office is “a species of resignation.” Justice Mendoza rested the succession on a different ground, that Estrada was permanently disabled (which he read to include moral disability) “at least as of 11 P.M. of Friday, January 19, 2001.” In the March 2 decision’s closing lines, Justice Pardo concurred “in the result” and noted his belief that Estrada “was constrained to resign.” I did not read the separate opinions of Justices Kapunan, Ynares-Santiago and Sandoval-Gutierrez.
  • The label. “Constructive resignation” is how commentators describe the ruling. The Court never uses the phrase in the March decision or the April resolution. Its own word is “implied.”
  • The January 24 date. The Angara Diary quotes a draft agreement saying Estrada “shall resign today, 20 January 2001, which resignation shall be effective on 24 January 2001.” The Court treated him as having resigned by the morning of January 20. I didn’t find anything in the March decision or the April 3 resolution that deals with the January 24 date.
  • The Court was close to the events. Chief Justice Davide had administered Arroyo’s oath, and a Senate resolution quoted in the decision says it was “upon authority of an en banc resolution of the Supreme Court.” Davide and Justice Panganiban did not take part in deciding the case.

What this shows and doesn’t show. It shows a decision of the highest consequence that rests on a thin chain of authority for its key test, borrows heavily from American law, and reaches a unanimous result by more than one road. It doesn’t show bad faith or private benefit; supporters can fairly say the Court was resolving a constitutional crisis quickly with the facts it had. Critics argue the Court bypassed the impeachment process. I saw a law-journal article titled “Disregarding the Rule of Law in Estrada v. Desierto” but have not read it.

Case note 2: abandoning the condonation doctrine (2015)

This case cuts against my argument, and that is why it belongs here. In Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals and Binay (G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015), the Supreme Court ruled that “The condonation doctrine is ABANDONED, but the abandonment is PROSPECTIVE in effect.” Under that doctrine, from Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija (1959), an elected official’s re-election erased administrative liability for acts in a previous term.

What is notable is how the Court explained itself, in its own words as quoted in a later case (Office of the Ombudsman v. Vergara, G.R. No. 216871, December 6, 2017):

  • The doctrine was “adopted from one class of US rulings way back in 1959” and was “out of touch” with the current legal regime.
  • The abandonment applies only going forward because, in the Court’s words, “judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.” That is Article 8 of the Civil Code, the civil-law rule that quietly brings precedent in.
  • Citing De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, it said judicial decisions “assume the same authority as a statute itself,” so people who relied on the old doctrine should be protected.

So here the hybrid works in the open: a doctrine imported from American state cases, a Civil Code article used to justify prospective overruling, and a deliberate effort to protect people who relied on the old rule. Justice Bersamin concurred and dissented in part, and several justices did not take part. It is an example of a court managing the cost of changing its mind.

Case note 3: the cityhood laws, three reversals

League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 176951 and companion cases) concerned 16 municipalities that Congress converted into cities by laws exempting them from the higher income requirement (P100 million, up from P20 million) that Republic Act 9009 introduced. The Court’s own account of its procedural history, in its April 12, 2011 resolution, runs like this:

  • Nov. 18, 2008: the Court rules the 16 laws unconstitutional.
  • Apr. 28, 2009: on a motion for reconsideration the vote is 6–6, which is not enough to overturn the 2008 decision. The Court also denies the cities’ second motion for reconsideration as a “prohibited pleading.”
  • June 2, 2009: the Court “clarifies” that, because it voted on the second motion, it had “in effect” allowed it, so it was no longer a prohibited pleading.
  • Dec. 21, 2009: voting anew “in order to reach a concurrence of a majority,” the Court reverses itself and declares the laws constitutional.
  • Aug. 24, 2010: the Court reinstates its November 2008 decision, so the laws are unconstitutional again.
  • Feb. 15, 2011: the Court reverses again and declares the laws constitutional.
  • Apr. 12, 2011: the Court denies the challengers’ motion “with finality.” The vote lines show six justices concurring, six on the other side (Carpio, Carpio Morales, Brion, Peralta, Villarama and Sereno) and two not taking part.

The cities even argued that a tie vote on constitutionality could not serve as binding precedent. In the Court’s own recital, the same case was decided and re-decided on the same facts, with procedural rules (what counts as a prohibited pleading, what a tie means) described after the fact.

Care needed. This was one case, not a doctrine that changed, and the later rulings came in resolutions on pending motions. Changes in who sat on the Court may explain a lot of it. I did not find that in the Court’s text, so I don’t claim it. I did not confirm the vote counts for the December 2009, August 2010 and February 2011 rulings against the original texts, so I don’t give them.

What the numbers say about our courts

Backlogs are not the same problem as unclear rules. But they show how stretched the system is.

  • Lower courts: about 356,690 pending cases as of June 2025, with 161,412 cases resolved in January–June 2025 (21% above target), according to Court Administrator Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta at a House budget hearing. The Supreme Court had 12,943 pending cases and disposed of 2,367 in the same period, 79% of its target. Source: Abogado.com.ph report of the hearing. I could not confirm these figures against the Court’s own report, so treat them as reported.
  • Filings: a September 2026 judicial summit cites 495,527 cases filed in trial courts in 2025, with criminal matters about 75% of filings since 2018 and NCR plus Calabarzon holding 38.6% of the national docket. It also says 57.3% of decided cases were resolved through compromise or alternative dispute resolution. Source: Daily Tribune, Sept 24, 2026.
  • A September 2026 House budget hearing, as reported by Journal News Online: 319 judicial vacancies awaiting presidential appointment and 170 unorganized courts, with 2,303 judges as of August 31. Court Administrator Gomez-Estoesta gave examples of overloaded courts: 6,567 pending cases in Dasmariñas as of July 31 and a Cabuyao judge handling more than 5,000. Reported disposition rates: 56% overall, and 23% for the Supreme Court against a 38% target. I could not confirm these against the Court’s own figures, so treat them as reported.
  • Reform effects: a 2021 evaluation of the Continuous Trial reform (Orbeta, Paqueo and Siddiqi, with Innovations for Poverty Action) analyzed 1,971 courts and found it cut case duration by about 55–61 days and raised clearance rates, but it did not meaningfully reduce the overall backlog. Source: IPA study page.
  • This is an old problem. A 1987 Philippine Law Journal paper by Emmanuel Caparas and Florentino Feliciano (PDF) counted 331,100 cases pending in trial courts as of January 31, 1987. It blamed delay on court management, lawyer-caused postponements and the agencies that feed the courts. The 1987 and 2025 numbers aren’t directly comparable, because the scope differs, but they are the same order of magnitude after almost four decades.
  • Delay as inequality: Karl Garcia argues that delay works as a structural inequality. A corporation can outlast years of litigation, while a worker fighting wrongful dismissal may not last months without income (“Is Justice Only for the Rich in the Philippines?”). In “Too Many Lawyers, Too Little Justice” (January 2026) he links court congestion to jail overcrowding. These are opinion pieces, not data sources.

Sources

Lovingly made with Claude.

Posted on

TODO: Personal Project: Budget Cut PH : 2024 05 19 0332H

I believe we are walking slowly towards financial oblivion as a nation and the root is our multi modal society.

Our elites go to Davos and bring home concepts like clean air act, data privacy act, and various wokeness concepts that are useless for a nation with  a miniscule manufacturing base, a miniscule non BPO tech industry, and a failing educational system.

We have to really look at things with the mind of deletion, cancellation, removal of all these laws and bureaucracies that are costing us money and are only making things harder to build, nay impossible to build.

Key to this is looking at what each department spends on and how necessary those things are for the Philippines current level of development.

Institutions are built from the ground up and a lot of things can be saved if we put our minds to it and make hard decisions.

Thinking of cross posting this to joeam.com

Posted on

best read::Corruption, too | Inquirer Opinion

you define corruption as the appropriation of taxpayers’ money for personal gain, then this is corruption pure and simple. One sanctioned not just by long-held practice and tradition but by law.
All of which only shows how deeply rooted and tangled corruption is, and how beyond presidential resolve you need other things to push it back. Chief of them public opinion, public pressure, public opprobrium.
Someone like Enrile decides to play Santa Claus with your money, you can’t fight it legally, short of fighting to amend, or scrap, the law itself. But you can fight it morally, by public opinion, by heaping scorn on those who practice it—not quite incidentally by making sure that their children do not get voted into public office and that the values of their fathers are visited upon them.
You can fight it by telling the senators, whether they got P1.6 million or P250,000, whether the division of spoils is “hating  kapatid” or hating  gabi: You should be ashamed of yourselves you have the gall to accept things like this while the street children sleep in the streets, while the traffic cop grows tubercular from inhaling the traffic smoke. You have a heart, you have a conscience, why don’t you donate all that money to the cause of the NHA employees so their retirement pay, which is nowhere near what you get in a month, will remain intact?
I’m glad the commentators have been riled by this, but the question is, when will the public follow suit? When will we all get furious at this? When will we all go beyond making text jokes out of this? When will we start mounting a campaign against the kapal in the way we have done against the epal? This is appalling too, this is disgusting too:
This is corruption, too.
via Corruption, too | Inquirer Opinion.

Posted on

Binay and the court of public opinion | Inquirer Opinion

Unlike most of my friends I am not a fan, of Prof Monsod rather I’ve tried to teach myself how to be level headed and critical of everything. So if it seems I am ragging on the VP often this is not some demagogue

Six times in the past seven weeks, this column has been devoted to issues surrounding the Makati parking building and other possible cases of corruption against Vice President Jejomar Binay, who, as mayor, and together with his wife (three years) and son (four years and counting), has ruled Makati for the past 27 years.
Why the concentration on the overpriced building and Binay? Because Binay has made no secret of his desire to be president of the Philippines in 2016. Therefore, Filipinos should have access to independent information (as opposed to his press releases and the work of his network of media professionals) on how he ran Makati, which will help them make up their minds as to whether he deserves to be president—other than that he has been dreaming of it since he was a poor, orphaned child.
Binay has portrayed himself as a victim of political persecution, saying the case involving the Makati parking building is already with the Sandiganbayan and therefore should no longer be heard by the Senate blue ribbon subcommittee headed by Koko Pimentel. In addition, he says, the subcommittee has no jurisdiction and it should be the full committee that should be hearing the case.
Sorry, Mr. Vice President. It takes the Sandiganbayan an average of eight years to resolve a case, and quite apart from the doubts on its integrity, it is a fact that a decision made eight years from now by that court will be useless to the Filipino people who will be judging you in the election that will take place 18 months from now. Which is why they need to know about how you ran Makati, and, relatedly, your unexplained wealth.
The only possible place they can get their facts is from the Pimentel subcommittee, but you and your minions are trying your best to gag them. The political-persecution ploy is overplayed, I think. The fact that you are allowed by the administration to hand out land titles (the President usually does that) allows me to rest my case. The lack-of-jurisdiction ploy is the same one you used in 1995, and it bought you four years from the Supreme Court. I don’t know how many times you’ve used it since then, but I hope it doesn’t succeed now. The fate of the country is at stake.
Then there’s the presumption-of-innocence ploy—a man is presumed innocent until he is found guilty. True enough. But the Senate hearings are not a criminal proceeding, so that presumption is not at issue. This is the court of public opinion. Because, Mr. Vice President, you want to be president. And the question of the people watching is: Are you worthy?
via Binay and the court of public opinion | Inquirer Opinion.

Posted on

Mary Jane Veloso and being on different sides of the elephant

Who did what?
I first found out about Mary Jane’s case in January 2015, long before Filipinos knew who she was. This means I’ve been talking to the Philippine embassy officials about her case even before Migrante and NUPL knew about it.
At the time, they were preparing her first case review. They shared the background and the plans with me – to raise the translator issue – but asked me not to publish anything yet because they didn’t want to prejudice the upcoming case.
This is an indisputable fact: The Philippine government hired Indonesian lawyers to appeal Mary Jane’s case, but they did not publicize what they were doing at the start.
I’ve raised my concern several times about the lack of publicity over Mary Jane’s case, but the embassy insisted they believed the legal route will have a better chance of saving her than publicity, which at the time was backfiring on the Australians.
via Mary Jane Veloso and being on different sides of the elephant.

Posted on

BINAYARAN WATCH::Makati Home Ville: Where lies the truth?

The article tries to fact check the testimony of the witnesses but instead becomes a he said she said article.
It fails to ask the right questions and instead muddies the issue. Trash journalism.
Let us give a simple example of the enclosed excerpt.
In the article the issue of the housing of relocation is a statement by Binay that :

‘Binigyan na kayo ng lupa, gusto n’yo pa ng bahay?” (He said, “You were already given lands, you still want to be given houses?”).

The article then quotes a resident:

 “Hindi totoo ‘yan (That’s not true)!”

“Yung mga may kaya na magtayo nang sarili nila, okay lang na magtayo. Yung di kaya magtayo, lilipat sila sa pabahay, (Those who have the means, they may build their houses. Those who can’t, will be moved to the housing units),”

The issue was how unapologetic nay entitled Binay’s wording was. It was as if a King/Queen was telling his subjects you are alive what more can you ask for.
While the quoted person was addressing not what was said but the options the people in Homeville had.
And the the stupid reported didn’t have the sense to ask. Where does one live for 6 months while the HomeVille housing was being constructed while you are already here in Calauan?
 
WTF this is probably an overmatched intern or a paid hack.

 
EntitlementLani claimed, “Ang mga tao, takot lang magsalita. Siyempre, Binay ito. Kung paalisin sila? (The people here are just afraid to talk. Of course, this is Binay’s. What if they get evicted?)”To outsiders, the relocation site is Binay Compound. But to residents, it’s Makati Home Ville, and the 40-hectare property was purchased by the city government of Makati.Before the Senate committee, Edison recalled asking the Vice President about his alleged promise of providing them shelter: “Sabi niya, ‘Binigyan na kayo ng lupa, gusto n’yo pa ng bahay?” (He said, “You were already given lands, you still want to be given houses?”).Lopez outrightly dismissed this: “Hindi totoo ‘yan (That’s not true)!”“Yung mga may kaya na magtayo nang sarili nila, okay lang na magtayo. Yung di kaya magtayo, lilipat sila sa pabahay, (Those who have the means, they may build their houses. Those who can’t, will be moved to the housing units),” Zeny explained.THOSE WHO ARE ABLE. Residents with the means to build their own houses are encouraged to do so. Those who can’t, will move to the housing units.The housing units in Phase 3 were completed in March 2013. But it took 4 years since the first relocatees were moved to Makati Home Ville before the housing units were finished. They weren’t occupied until 6 months later.
via Makati Home Ville: Where lies the truth?.

Posted on

DILG: A bright future awaits 4Ps graduates | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

DILG: A bright future awaits 4Ps graduates
Posted on April 9, 2015
From the Department of Interior and Local Government
Thousands of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) high school scholars gathered together with Secretary of the Interior and Local Government Mar Roxas and other cabinet members in the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) on Thursday, to celebrate their graduation.
“Marami ang tumulong, marami ang nagsakripisyo para tayo ay makatuloy sa pag-aaral. Anuman ang marating natin, hindi tayo solo-flight dito,” said Roxas.
According to Roxas, the 4Ps project is an investment to elevate the situation of the students and families living in the poverty line.
Roxas also asked the students and their parents to continue reaching for their dreams, even if it meant sacrifice and hardship.
“Tandaan ninyong hindi kayo nag-iisa. Nariyan ang Maykapal. Anuman ang mangyayari sa inyo, anuman ang mangyayari sa ating bansa ay nasa sainyo,” Roxas said.
Help also continues for beneficiaries in the form of internships, college scholarships and skills training programs from the government.
Secretaries Corazon Soliman (DSWD), Armin Luistro (DepEd), Rosalinda Baldoz (DOLE), Commissioner Jose Sixto ‘Dingdong’ Dantes (NYC), and the supporters of the 4Ps were also present in the program.
More than 4.4 million poor Filipino families receive regular cash grants from the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, a poverty reduction strategy that gives Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) to poorest households, provided that they comply with the conditions set by the program.
This program also ranks as the 3rd largest conditional cash transfer program in the world, next to Brazil and Mexico.
dilg.gov.ph
via DILG: A bright future awaits 4Ps graduates | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.

Posted on

CCT beneficiary to study civil engineering in UP | Inquirer News

Topnotchers and awardees
Social Welfare Secretary Corazon Soliman said of the 4,000 graduates feted on Thursday, 95 shone academically and graduated as topnotchers and awardees in various fields.
The CCT program, or the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, has been heavily criticized as a “dole’’ by some sectors while others claim that the program’s budget is excessive.
Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, who was one of the guests at the celebration, appealed to the students and their parents to continue reaching for their dreams, even if it meant sacrifice and hardship.
Aside from the high school graduates, the DSWD also presented two former beneficiaries who graduated from college with the help of CHEd and are now licensed teachers.
“These kids only get P500, which is little. But you can see that with the perseverance of the children and their parents, they are now able to finish school,” Soliman said.
via CCT beneficiary to study civil engineering in UP | Inquirer News.

Posted on

rePost::In defense of knowledge: Philippine victimhood, the sequel | The Society of Honor by Joe America

So much of what we witness in the press, and from our friends, is negative.
And what a vast, needy dedication to ignorance our view of the Philippines becomes. We see conflict and complaint, villains and more villains, failure rather than success.
We fail to see the positives, or push them aside. We fail to see Manila congestion as a good sign of economic health, fail to notice that the shacks along the riverbanks are going away, or that Manila is no longer as flood prone, or that readiness for disasters is a national success story, or that the Philippines is demonstrating a mature, law-based solution to Moro rebellion and Chinese incursions. That there is a real middle class developing, high-rise homes reaching for the sky, an emerging base of good values and fair dealing. That the nation is leading Asia in growth and rising on every global index published, for ease of doing business, competitiveness, freedom, transparency and reduction of corruption. That democracy here is vibrant and working. That the nation is financially sound, collecting taxes better, putting money to better use . . .
Becoming whole.
The orphan of Asia is growing up.
via In defense of knowledge: Philippine victimhood, the sequel | The Society of Honor by Joe America.