Alan F. Paguia
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
January 4, 2011
Under the Constitution, may a rule defeat a principle? NO.
The Rule
1. The Constitution provides that all cases heard by the SC shall be decided:
a) EN BANC - “with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.” (Sec. 4(2), ART. VIII)
b) In DIVISION - “with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc; Provided that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.” (Sec. 4(3)3, ibid.)
Implementation by the SC
2. To implement the foregoing provisions, the Internal Rules of the SC were issued, the material provisions of which read:
“Rule 12 Voting Requirements
SECTION. 1. Voting requirements. – (a) All decisions and actions in Court en banc cases shall be made upon the concurrence of the majority of the Members of the Court who actually took part in the deliberations on the issue or issues involved and voted on them.
(b) All decisions and actions in Division cases shall be made upon the concurrence of at least three Members of the Division who actually took part in the deliberations on the issue or issues involved and voted on them.
SEC. 2. Tie voting in the Court en banc. – (a) In civil cases, includingspecial proceedings and special civil actions, where the Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority vote cannot be had, the Court shall deliberate on it anew. If after such deliberation still no decision
is reached, the Court shall, in an original action filed with it, dismiss the case; in appealed cases, it shall affirm the judgment or order appealed from.
(b) In criminal cases, when the Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had, the Court shall deliberate on it anew. If after such deliberation still no decision is reached, the Court shall reverse the judgment of conviction of the lower court and acquit the
accused.
(c) When, in an administrative case against any of the Justices of the appellate courts or any of the Judges of the trial courts, the imposable penalty is dismissal and the Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the majority vote required by the Constitution for dismissal cannot be had, the Court shall deliberate on the case anew. If after such deliberation still no decision is reached, the Court shall dismiss the administrative case, unless a majority vote decides to impose a lesser penalty.
(d) Where the Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the majority vote required by the Constitution for annulling any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation cannot be had, the Court shall deliberate on the case anew. If after such deliberation still no decision is reached, the Court shall deny the challenge to the constitutionality of the act.
(e) In all matters incidental to the main action where the Court en banc is equally divided in opinion, the relief sought shall be denied.
SEC. 3. Failure to obtain required votes in Division. – Where the necessary majority of three votes is not obtained in a case in a Division, the case shall be elevated to the Court en banc.
SEC. 4. Leaving a vote. – A Member who goes on leave or is unable to attend the voting on any decision, resolution, or matter may leave his or her vote in writing, addressed to the Chief Justice or the Division Chairperson, and the vote shall be counted, provided that he or she took part in the
deliberation”
The Principle
3. Under the Constitution: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” (Sec. 1, ART II)
Comments
4. The RULE in question is – SC cases shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in each case and voted thereon.
5. The PRINCIPLE is DEMOCRACY, which means the RULE OF MAJORITY.
6. WHAT IS MAJORITY? It means: “The greater number. The number greater than half of any total.” (Black’s Law Dictionary; Perez v. De la Cruz , 27 SCRA 587)
7. The RULE appears to be an EXPERIMENTAL DEVIATION from established constitutional standards of articulation.
a) Under the Constitution of the United States of America, the Federal Supreme Court consists of 9 Members (Sec. 1, ART. III, in relation to 28 USC § 1). 5 votes constitute the MINIMUM MAJORITY to render
a decision (Bush v. Gore, December 12, 2000). It bears notice that such minimum majority is based on the total number of 9 Justices. However, it takes 6 Justices, or 2/3 of 9, to constitute a QUORUM (par. 2, Rule 3, RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES)
b) Under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, the Supreme Court consists of 11 Members (Sec. 10 ART. VIII), 6 votes constitute the MINIMUM MAJORITY to render a decision (Sec. 9, R.A. 296, a.k.a. Judiciary Act of 1948). It bears notice that such minimum majority is based on the total number of 11 Justices. It takes 6 Justices to constitute a QUORUM, except when the appealed judgment imposes the death
penalty, in which case the presence of 8 Justices, or more than 2/3 of 11, is needed to have a QUORUM. (ibid., TAÑADA and FERNANDO, Constitution of the Philippines Annotated; 1949 Ed., p. 759)
c) Under the 1973 Philippine Constitution, the Supreme Court consists of 15 Members (Par. 2, Sec. 2, ART. X). 8 votes constitute the MINIMUM MAJORITY to render a decision, except that in order to declare the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of a treaty, executive agreement, or law – there must be a vote by at least 10 Justices, or 2/3 of 15. (ibid.).
While the foregoing provisions are CLEAR and SPECIFIC as to the MINIMUM MAJORITY for the SC to render a DECISION, the 1987 RULE is NOT. In fact, the latter is AMBIGUOUS. When applied to cases heard by a DIVISION of 3 or 5 Justices, the MINIMUM MAJORITY of 3 votes is CONSISTENT with the
cardinal principle of DEMOCRATIC RULE in relation to the total number of Justices in the division, that is: (a) 3 out of 3, or (b) 3 out of 5. However, when applied to cases heard by a DIVISION of 7 Justices, or by the Court en banc, the MINIMUM MAJORITY is INCONSISTENT with the cardinal principle of DEMOCRATIC RULE in relation to the total number of Justices in the division or the Banc, that is: (a) 3 out of 7, or (b) 5, 6, or 7 out of 15. Obviously, the solution to the AMBIGUITY is JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION that could reconcile the RULE with the PRINCIPLE by harmonizing the rule with the objective MINIMUM MAJORITY of: (a) 4 out of 7, and (b) 8 out of 15. To construe otherwise would be
to ridicule common sense by applying the MAJORITY of the MINIMUM MAJORITY, which is actually the MINORITY. The mechanical application of the 1987 RULE thus defeats the principle of DEMOCRACY or MAJORITY by creating the possibility of the RULE OF THE MINORITY.
8. WHAT IS THE RULE WHEN THERE IS A TIE OR THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF VOTES IS NOT OBTAINED?
First. In cases heard by a Division, the same shall be decided by the Court en banc (Sec. 3, Rule 12, IRSC).
Second. In cases heard by the Court en banc, the rules in Section 2, Rule 12 of the INTERNAL RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT shall apply.
It is important to note at this point that in Fortich v. Corona, 312 SCRA 751, at 758, the SC ruled that when there is a tie or the required number of votes is not obtained, THERE IS NO DECISION. It seems clear the intrinsic merit of the argument is self-evident.
9. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM MAJORITY FOR THE SC TO BE ABLE TO RENDER A DECISION EN BANC? Eight. (People v. Alberca, 257 SCRA 613, at 640, June 26, 1996). According to the Court: “Since the votes of the five Justices fall short of the majority of the 8 votes needed to affirm the sentence of death of the trial court, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed” (ibid.). This is clear recognition that a majority of 8 votes is necessary in a case heard by the Court en banc. While such majority is qualified by the purpose to affirm the imposition of the death penalty, the same necessarily constitutes an affirmation of the necessity of a majority of 8 votes to render a decision en banc. Common sense dictates that if it takes, at least, 8 votes TO AFFIRM, it ought to follow that it should also take, at least, 8 votes TO REVERSE. To rule otherwise would be to read into the Constitution a DISTINCTION that is not there. Moreover, the ruling in Fortich v. Corona, supra, would seem to indicate, by extension of logic, that unless there is a majority of 8 votes, there is NO DECISION to speak of.
10.Hence, if there is no majority of 8 votes MODIFYING or REVERSING the appealed decision or matter subject of the motion for reconsideration, it follows that the same had WITHSTOOD scrutiny by the SC, and, therefore, should be deemed to STAND ON RECORD.
11. Thus, a 5, 6, or 7-vote acquittal, reversal, affirmation, and/or modification by the Court en banc is NOT A DECISION.
Friday, January 14, 2011
The Federal Reserve is a private bank!
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
1/14/2011
It was on a Jan. 11 episode of a morning radio program that I realized how very few even among our society’s most well read really understand the core of the global financial and economic problem. To this day, only a handful are able to narrow the issue down to the very character of the so-called “Central Bank of the World,” the US Federal Reserve.
And whenever this happens, such as on that day when one bright texter conveyed this very important point to Teddy “Boy” Locsin during his radio broadcast, saying that “the US Federal Reserve is a private bank,” it is no longer strange that a lame retort that goes, “No. The Federal Reserve is a government bank; that is why it is called Federal,” will fly back almost without a nanosecond of thought from the supposed erudite’s lips. Yet even as Locsin believes this to be too obvious, it will definitely do him good if he can shift his attention to the case, Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982), US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, where the court ruled that: “The Federal Reserve Banks ‘are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations,’ and there is not sufficient ‘federal government control’ over ‘detailed physical performance’ and ‘day to day operation’ of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency.”
The case involved a plaintiff who was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by a Federal Reserve bank, who brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court under Judge David Williams dismissed it, holding that a Federal Reserve bank was not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act.
The Center for Research on Globalization (CRG) report on this issue is very thorough and anyone can access its Web site (http://globalresearch.ca/) to check out the documents involved. At the end of the long analysis, the CRG says: “The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses.”
After the 2008 Wall Street collapse, the clamor for the audit of the Federal Reserve has intensified with former and soon-to-run-again “independent” Republican and Tea Party-backed presidential bet Ron Paul leading the charge. The Federal Reserve is still refusing the audit and the US Congress can’t do much about it so far because its character as a private bank allows it to set up many barriers to auditing.
The many Web sites on the issue say there’s an easier way to confirm if the Federal Reserve is or isn’t a private bank by looking into the US’ Yellow Pages. Indeed, the Federal Reserve does not appear in the pages’ government listing — but it comes after Federal Express in the commercial listing!
Enterprising investigators have dug up the private interests that own the controlling stocks of the Fed: Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris; Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy; Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; Kuhn, Loeb Bank of NY (now Shearson American Express); Goldman Sachs of NY; National Bank of Commerce NY/Morgan Guaranty Trust (where JP Morgan Bank, Equitable Life, and Levi P. Morton are principal shareholders); Hanover Trust of NY (where William and David Rockefeller and Chase National Bank NY are principal shareholders); and Lehman Bros. (prior to 2008). Is it just a coincidence that all of them are Jewish interests?
In the final analysis, the Philippines — being tied to American economy and finance — is also under the control of this system. It’s no surprise then that many of our Finance secretaries have been recommended by Hank Greenberg — yes, another prominent Jewish money master.
It is therefore important for the likes of Teddy “Boy” Locsin to appreciate the real nature of the Federal Reserve. As a very popular communicator, it will be a boon to public enlightenment if he starts explaining this.
The control of money is the control of society; and control open to the public such as that of the “Bank of China,” which makes no bones about its being under the control of the Chinese government, is better than control hidden behind the cloak of terms such as “Federal” or “Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas” (BSP) that mislead the people, when their money is actually controlled by unaccountable and self-interested parties that continue to exploit, abuse, and steal from them and the nation’s wealth.
The banking system that China maintains, similar to that of many other countries that are still state-controlled or dominated (e.g., India and, of course, Vietnam), is coined by some as the “National Bank” system. The Philippines, in contrast, has an absurd set-up where the BSP Board is dominated by private directors, even as the Philippine President appoints the BSP chief.
The famous and infamous quote from Amschel Rothschild, father of the Rothschild banks of Germany, Paris and Britain goes thus: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws…” And, if I may add, neither will they care about who votes in these elections or who counts these votes as many of these (including those PCOS machines) can be bought anyway. And since there are no elections in China, the Rothschilds of this world are not able to control such state-centered countries, including Cuba.
In the end, it’s a choice between the dictatorship of Money or the dictatorship of the People, represented by a National Economic Development program geared toward popular economic democracy. Whose side are you on?
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; TNT with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “2011: Year of Fighting Phil. Oligarchy” with Butch Junia and FDC’s Job Bordamente; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com)
Herman Tiu Laurel
1/14/2011
It was on a Jan. 11 episode of a morning radio program that I realized how very few even among our society’s most well read really understand the core of the global financial and economic problem. To this day, only a handful are able to narrow the issue down to the very character of the so-called “Central Bank of the World,” the US Federal Reserve.
And whenever this happens, such as on that day when one bright texter conveyed this very important point to Teddy “Boy” Locsin during his radio broadcast, saying that “the US Federal Reserve is a private bank,” it is no longer strange that a lame retort that goes, “No. The Federal Reserve is a government bank; that is why it is called Federal,” will fly back almost without a nanosecond of thought from the supposed erudite’s lips. Yet even as Locsin believes this to be too obvious, it will definitely do him good if he can shift his attention to the case, Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982), US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, where the court ruled that: “The Federal Reserve Banks ‘are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations,’ and there is not sufficient ‘federal government control’ over ‘detailed physical performance’ and ‘day to day operation’ of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency.”
The case involved a plaintiff who was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by a Federal Reserve bank, who brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court under Judge David Williams dismissed it, holding that a Federal Reserve bank was not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act.
The Center for Research on Globalization (CRG) report on this issue is very thorough and anyone can access its Web site (http://globalresearch.ca/) to check out the documents involved. At the end of the long analysis, the CRG says: “The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses.”
After the 2008 Wall Street collapse, the clamor for the audit of the Federal Reserve has intensified with former and soon-to-run-again “independent” Republican and Tea Party-backed presidential bet Ron Paul leading the charge. The Federal Reserve is still refusing the audit and the US Congress can’t do much about it so far because its character as a private bank allows it to set up many barriers to auditing.
The many Web sites on the issue say there’s an easier way to confirm if the Federal Reserve is or isn’t a private bank by looking into the US’ Yellow Pages. Indeed, the Federal Reserve does not appear in the pages’ government listing — but it comes after Federal Express in the commercial listing!
Enterprising investigators have dug up the private interests that own the controlling stocks of the Fed: Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris; Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy; Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; Kuhn, Loeb Bank of NY (now Shearson American Express); Goldman Sachs of NY; National Bank of Commerce NY/Morgan Guaranty Trust (where JP Morgan Bank, Equitable Life, and Levi P. Morton are principal shareholders); Hanover Trust of NY (where William and David Rockefeller and Chase National Bank NY are principal shareholders); and Lehman Bros. (prior to 2008). Is it just a coincidence that all of them are Jewish interests?
In the final analysis, the Philippines — being tied to American economy and finance — is also under the control of this system. It’s no surprise then that many of our Finance secretaries have been recommended by Hank Greenberg — yes, another prominent Jewish money master.
It is therefore important for the likes of Teddy “Boy” Locsin to appreciate the real nature of the Federal Reserve. As a very popular communicator, it will be a boon to public enlightenment if he starts explaining this.
The control of money is the control of society; and control open to the public such as that of the “Bank of China,” which makes no bones about its being under the control of the Chinese government, is better than control hidden behind the cloak of terms such as “Federal” or “Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas” (BSP) that mislead the people, when their money is actually controlled by unaccountable and self-interested parties that continue to exploit, abuse, and steal from them and the nation’s wealth.
The banking system that China maintains, similar to that of many other countries that are still state-controlled or dominated (e.g., India and, of course, Vietnam), is coined by some as the “National Bank” system. The Philippines, in contrast, has an absurd set-up where the BSP Board is dominated by private directors, even as the Philippine President appoints the BSP chief.
The famous and infamous quote from Amschel Rothschild, father of the Rothschild banks of Germany, Paris and Britain goes thus: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws…” And, if I may add, neither will they care about who votes in these elections or who counts these votes as many of these (including those PCOS machines) can be bought anyway. And since there are no elections in China, the Rothschilds of this world are not able to control such state-centered countries, including Cuba.
In the end, it’s a choice between the dictatorship of Money or the dictatorship of the People, represented by a National Economic Development program geared toward popular economic democracy. Whose side are you on?
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; TNT with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “2011: Year of Fighting Phil. Oligarchy” with Butch Junia and FDC’s Job Bordamente; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
