MikeLigalig.com

Turning the other cheek, Filipinos try to understand as the President curses their bishops and priests. An American Jesuit sexually had molested him in grade school. On return to California that priest victimized other boys, for which the Society of Jesus paid $16 million damages. Duterte carries the hurt to this day.

What horrifies Christians is Duterte mocking their God and faith. "Body of Christ sa inyong igit (in your s***)," he said in a forum of barangay officials in Davao, Dec. 29, 2016.

At a friend's birthday party on Nov. 23, 2017, he noted: "It's not our fault; it's the fault of God. Why did he have to create woman. If we were all men, we'd just have a free-for-all."

God did not tempt Adam and Eve. The devil did, in guise of a serpent. In "Paradise Lost" John Milton depicted the serpent as Satan's sidekick.

Man is the highest of God's creatures. Yet he is far from perfect. Distracted, inebriated, with limited brain, he can only grasp so much. He cannot hope to imbibe all the knowledge of the world, contained in great libraries, some destroyed forever by book burners through history. In a lifetime at best we can only read a few hundred tomes. As the angel boy demonstrated to Augustine using a seashell, all the waters of the ocean just wouldn't fit the hole on the shore.

At times out of frustration with misunderstanding, man loses hope or temper; other times he stays humble and faithful. Those are his free choices. "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it" (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Christian theologians continue to debate the doctrine of original sin. A dominant line is that original sin is a condition. That is, every person is born tainted with The Fall of Man. Original sin is not something a person commits by thought or deed. Rather, he carries the tendency of the first parents to fall for temptation. "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." In "The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended," Jonathan Edwards notes that "youth" in that passage from Genesis 8:21 means for English speakers "from infancy." Baptism restores man to God's redemption, the chance for eternal life.

God created Adam and Eve in His image. They were like Him capable of love and justice. He granted them lives of bounty in Paradise. He shared with them what He had: free will. God has free will, which He, being omnibenevolent, uses only for good. "And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die'" (Genesis 2:16-17).

Original sin, free will and Christians

GOTCHA
Jarius Bondoc (The Philippine Star)
June 27, 2018

"God doubted his creation so he tested it. Tinawag nya ung ahas tapos binigyan nya ng apple. Pinakagat nya doon sa bunganga. Sabi nya sa ahas, dalhin mo itong apple doon kay Eve and tempt her to eat it. Taste it. Dineliver nya kay Eve. Si Eve, apple yun, e. Nakabalot pa ng foam at net: made in China. Kinain ni Eve. Tapos si Eve, ginising si Adam – siguro katatapos lang – kumain ka rin. Kinain ni Adam, then malice was born.

"Who is this stupid God? Istupido talaga itong p*******a kung ganoon. You created something perfect and then you think of an event that would tempt and destroy the quality of your work. How can you rationalize a God... Ikaw, maniwala ka?

"So tayo ngayon, all of us are born with original sin. Ano man yan? Was it the first kiss? What was the sin? Nasa womb ka pa, may kasalanan ka na. Tsuk-tsak lang 'yun ng nanay pati tatay mo, wala ka naman kasali, tapos ngayon may original sin ka. T*******g klase – anong klaseng relihiyon 'yan? 'Yan ang hindi ko matanggap. What a stupid proposition. Tapos i-baptize ka. Basain pa yung ulo mo ng tubig.

"I believe there is a universal mind. But to what extent is the influence of that – I cannot picture him anymore as a human being, in the image of God. But I really believe, I have this faith and abiding thing about – pero ung relihiyon, maniwala kayo diyan."

- President Rodrigo Duterte, June 22, 2018, Opening of the National ICT Summit, Davao City

"Silence is often the best reproof for profane behavior [...] When officials begin to mock God or lie or cuss, just politely leave."

-Jarius Bondoc
Gotcha, Philippine Star

But Pantoja also appealed to Rodrigo Duterte "to instead lead in fostering respect toward different religious beliefs."

Chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo defended Mr. Duterte anew, saying he and many other Catholics were not offended by his remarks.

"Maybe to you it's insulting . . . I was not insulted as a Catholic. Many Catholics have not been insulted by that," he said over ANC. — With reports from Gabriel Cardinoza, Leo Udtohan, Divina Suson, Jigger Jerusalem, Christine O. Avendaño, Julie Aurelio and AP

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/

'Blasphemous' remarks

While others were conciliatory, more Church leaders have come out to denounce what some called "blasphemous" remarks.

"How can he be President for all Filipinos if he does not have the respect for the Catholic faithful?"' Caloocan Bishop Pablo Virgilio David, CBCP vice president, said in a Facebook post.

"Most of his supporters are Catholics, right? Catholics will respect him even if he does not agree with the Catholic faith. But disagreement is not a license to insult," David added.

The PCEC national director, Noel Pantoja, also condemned the remarks, saying it was "completely inappropriate for the President to derisively curse at the God of the Christian faith, who is deeply worshipped not only by a majority of Filipinos but also by a vast number of people from all over the world."

"The theme will be how to lessen the rift between the government and the Church," said Roque, who will constitute the panel together with Foreign Undersecretary Ernesto Abella and Council for Philippine Affairs secretary general Pastor Boy Saycon.

The CBCP president, Archbishop Romulo Valles, welcomed the move. "To dialogue, to listen to one another, is always good."

The President has excoriated the Church over reports of abuses by priests in response to the latter's criticism of the administration's bloody war on drugs.

'My God is perfect'

"Your God is not my God because your God is stupid. Mine has a lot of common sense," he said. "If I choose not to believe in any God, what's the f***** thing about it? It's a freedom to choose one."

At another point, the President said: "I did not say that God is stupid; listen to the records," he said. "I said your God is a stupid God, my God is perfect."

Even so, presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said on Tuesday that he had been tasked by the President to initiate a dialogue with the CBCP, PCEC and other religious groups.

In a televised speech in Davao City on Friday, the President took aim at the biblical story of man's creation, and asked why God created Adam and Eve only to allow them to fall from grace.

"Who is this stupid God? You created something perfect and then you think of an event that would destroy the quality of your work," the 73-year-old leader said. "How can you rationalize that God? How can you believe him?"

Despite the outrage, the President defended his remark when he addressed village officials in Cagayan de Oro City on Monday night.

Sunday Mass appeal

Bishop Alberto Uy of the Diocese of Tagbilaran in Bohol province appealed to parishioners "to pray for healing so that the President's heart could be healed."

"We need to be hopeful. We continue to respect our President. And we pray for him," Uy said during Sunday Mass at St. John the Baptist Church in Garcia Hernandez town. "We pray for healing."

The Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC) also called on evangelical Christians to keep praying for the President and his administration to be able "to lead our nation with the knowledge, wisdom and righteousness that come from God."

"We pray for his healing and for God's forgiveness on him," he said on Tuesday in an open letter posted on the archdiocese website and addressed to the youth. "But we must rebuke his errors about our Christian faith."

"He is a person in authority and some of you might get confused when you hear him," said Villegas, a former president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).

"To pray for him is not enough. We must serve you the truth as we pray for him," he added.

Let's pray for Duterte's healing, bishops urge

By: Tina G. Santos
Reporter
June 27, 2018


President Rodrigo Duterte INQUIRER FILE PHOTO / JOAN BONDOC

Two Catholic bishops have called on the faithful to pray for President Rodrigo Duterte's "healing" following his "stupid God" rant, but one prelate suggested that Catholics also rebuke his "errors" on the Christian faith.

The President, notorious for having cursed Pope Francis and world leaders, sounded unapologetic on Monday night, but he formed a three-man team to dialogue with the Church and other religious organizations.

As the furor over the President's remark grew louder among the clergy and Catholics, Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas exhorted the faithful to "choose to love" the President and even "pray for him with compassion."

Most Rev. Pablo Virgilio S. David, D.D.
Bishop of Caloocan

"It was about a free man created by God who has the ability to use his freedom to do evil," he said. "The story is a conundrum. The writer knows that no snake can actually speak in real life. The language is figurative."

According to the bishop, nothing in the Bible states that the Lord created the world as perfect and that He sent the snake to tempt Eve.

"In what bible did the President read that? The sin isn't just about eating a forbidden fruit that caused malice. Nothing in the Bible also states that the fruit was an apple," David said.

"The story was about the desire of man to 'become like God' or to 'act like God' [as stated in] Genesis 3:4-5," he said. /atm

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/

"Maybe he was absent when his teacher explained it to him," David said. "The Adam and Eve story of the Book of Genesis is in the Bible, not only of the Catholics, but also in the Jewish bible, Protestant bible, Orthodox bible and Iglesia ni Cristo bible," he stresed.

The creation story in the Bible, David said, had different interpretations, explaining that Duterte's interpretation was "sort of fundamentalist."

"[The interpretation] was far from what the puzzle contained in Genesis Chapter 3 intended to suggest," the bishop said.

FUNDAMENTALIST INTERPRETATION OF GOD?

Duterte might have been 'absent' during Catechism class – bishop

By: Julius N. Leonen
Reporter
June 26, 2018

President Rodrigo Duterte might have been "absent" when Catechism was being discussed in class since his interpretation of the Bible was not in line with the Catholic faith, according to Caloocan Bishop Pablo Virgilio David.

David said he was "sure that [Duterte's interpretation] was not how religious education teachers of Ateneo and San Beda teach Catechism."

"What we were criticizing was his own interpretation of the Bible," David said in a statement written in Filipino and posted on Facebook.

+Luis Antonio G. Cardinal Tagle
Archbishop of Manila

"Blest are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of slander against you because of Me. Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is great in heaven." (Matthew 5:11-12)

To sum up, please remind our Christian faithful to rejoice always, as Pope Francis in his latest exhortation Gaudete et Exultate tells us. Celebrate the faith! Fill up the churches! Sing loudly at mass. Pray fervently. Serve joyfully. Tell the world of God's love for you. Be fools for Christ. Be at peace. God is the Savior. We do not need to save God. It is God who will save us.

I hope these "scattered" ideas could help. Please pray for our meeting here at Geneva. God bless us and our country!

+ Luis Antonio G. Cardinal Tagle
Archbishop of Manila

– Rappler.com

5. Some biblical texts might help restore a faith perspective and interior peace when people get disturbed by questions about God and God's ways. Here are some:

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord." (Isaiah 55:8 )

"We preach Christ crucified: a scandal to Jews and absurdity to Gentiles. But to those who are called, Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God. For God's folly is wiser than men and his weakness, more powerful than men." (I Corinthians 1:23-25)

4. While these questions are extremely important for the dialogue between faith and current concerns, let us not be distracted from addressing other pressing concerns with the fervor of faith and love: for example, the increasing prices of goods, job security, exploitation of women and children, violence in homes and neighborhoods, different types of addictions, crimes, vulnerabilities of OFWs, the daily paralyzing traffic in big cities, flooding, reconstruction of destroyed cities, combatting terrorism, corruption and others. We need to come together and contribute to positive responses according to each one's capability. We cannot address these problems by just blaming someone. Those who believe in God must work faithfully and joyfully for the Lord. Those who do not believe in God must serve out of human decency, generosity and concern for neighbors.

3. Questioning God and God's ways is not new. It is as old as humanity and religions. In the history of the church they have become moments for study, reflection and clarification of doctrine. Creation and evolution, God's goodness and evil, God's grace and human freedom, God's mercy and eternal punishment – these topics have been raised at various moments of the Church's history. In my visits to colleges and universities, I have been asked similar questions by young people. Their scientific and technological education calls for a review of the relationship between Faith, science and reason. Remember Glyzelle, the young girl who asked Pope Francis at UST, "Why does God allow children to suffer? "These questions are always raised and will continue to be raised. As a constructive step, perhaps, we can invite our philosophers, scientists, theologians, bible scholars, catechists and social workers to revisit these concerns and present responses appropriate to our contemporary sensibilities. Maybe a renewed apologetics is needed for those who are sincerely searching for the truth.

from Luis Antonio G. Cardinal Tagle:

June 27, 2018

My Dear Priests in the Archdiocese of Manila,

Greetings of joy and peace! I am now in Geneva for the UN Conference on Migrants and Refugees sponsored by the Holy See, Caritas Internationalis, the World Council of Churches, International Detention Coalition, and other groups. Msgr. Clem Ignacio has requested for my thoughts on the recent issues in our country. I admit that I do not have a complete picture of the context, but I would like to share some random thoughts with you.

1. Be at peace. Be calm. Don't let things disturb your inner peace. Let us read the situation with the eyes of faith.

2. Vatican II stressed that we Catholics should respect non-Catholics and their religions. We also respect those who do not believe in God. All people should strive to respect those who differ from their beliefs. Religions are not to be used for conflicts but for mutual understanding and peace.

The quote, dated 22 June 2018, during the National Information-Communication Technology (ICT)Summit, Davao City:

"Who is this stupid God? This son of a bitch is then really stupid. How can you rationalize a God? Do you believe?" - President Rodrigo R. Duterte

A true friendship between a homeless boy and a stray dog


reddit.com

An 11-year-old homeless boy's meeting with Badgi the dog resulted in a genuine and true friendship. All day long, Rommel, the boy, begs for money and in the evening, he shares his food with the dog. In return, Badgi protects the boy from anyone who tries to steal his money.

http://giggag.com/

Wednesday 27 June 2018
17:00 Local time

Group F
Kazan Arena
Kazan

Full-Time

Korea R.   2
Germany   0


Wednesday 27 June 2018
19:00 Local time

Group F
Ekaterinburg Arena
Ekaterinburg

Full-Time

Mexico   0
Sweden   3


Wednesday 27 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group E
Spartak Stadium
Moscow

Full-Time

Serbia   0
Brazil   2


Wednesday 27 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group E
Nizhny Novgorod Stadium
Nizhny Novgorod

Full-Time

Switzerland   2
Costa Rica   2


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

Tuesday 26 June 2018
17:00 Local time

Group C
Fisht Stadium
Sochi

FULL-TIME

Australia   0
Peru   2


Tuesday 26 June 2018
17:00 Local time

Group C
Luzhniki Stadium
Moscow

FULL-TIME

Denmark   0
France   0


Tuesday 26 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group D
Saint Petersburg Stadium
St. Petersburg

FULL-TIME

Nigeria   1
Argentina   2


Tuesday 26 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group D
Rostov Arena
Rostov-On-Don

FULL-TIME

Iceland   1
Croatia   2


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

Monday 25 June 2018
8:00 Local time

Group A
Samara Arena
Samara

FULL-TIME

Uruguay   3
Russia   0


Monday 25 June 2018
17:00 Local time

Group A
Volgograd Arena
Volgograd

FULL-TIME

Saudi Arabia   2
Egypt   1


Monday 25 June 2018
20:00 Local time

Group B
Kaliningrad Stadium
Kaliningrad

FULL-TIME

Spain   2
Morocco   2


Monday 25 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group B
Mordovia Arena
Saransk

FULL-TIME

Iran   1
Portugal   1


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

hello, mr hubs! i'm the real aylandil.

Quote from: hubag bohol on July 12, 2017, 03:49:49 PM



Sa gamay pa si Aylandil, with her two elder siblings...

kusoga sad diay nimong mangukoy uy, bai hubs.

Sunday 24 June 2018
15:00 Local time

Group G
Nizhny Novgorod Stadium
Nizhny Novgorod

Full-Time

England   6
Panama   1


Sunday 24 June 2018
20:00 Local time

Group H
Ekaterinburg Arena
Ekaterinburg

Full-Time

Japan   2
Senegal   2


Sunday 24 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group H
Kazan Arena
Kazan

Full-Time

Poland   0
Colombia   3


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

Saturday 23 June 2018
15:00 Local time

Group G
Spartak Stadium
Moscow

Full-Time

Belgium   5
Tunisia   2


Saturday 23 June 2018
18:00 Local time

Group F
Rostov Arena
Rostov-On-Don

Full-Time

Korea R.   1
Mexico   2


Saturday 23 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group F
Fisht Stadium
Sochi

Full-Time

Germany   2
Sweden   1


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

Friday 22 June 2018
15:00 Local time

Group E
Saint Petersburg Stadium
St. Petersburg

Full-Time

Brazil   2
Costa Rica   0


Friday 22 June 2018
18:00 Local time

Group D
Volgograd Arena
Volgograd

Full-Time

Nigeria   2
Iceland   0


Friday 22 June 2018
20:00 Local time

Group E
Kaliningrad Stadium
Kaliningrad

Full-Time

Serbia   1
Switzerland   2


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

i can relate. and i'm happy.

dream, my pet. at least you are real.

Thursday 21 June 2018
16:00 Local time

Group C
Samara Arena
Samara

Full-Time

Denmark   1
Australia   1


Thursday 21 June 2018
20:00 Local time

Group C
Ekaterinburg Arena
Ekaterinburg

Full-Time

France   1
Peru   0


Thursday 21 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group D
Nizhny Novgorod Stadium
Nizhny Novgorod

Full-Time

Argentina   0
Croatia   3


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

Decision                             50                             G.R. No. 237428

opined:

Practically all who have written on the subject agree that impeachment involves a protection of a public interest, incorporating a public law element, much like a criminal proceeding .... mpeachment is a process instigated by the government, or some branch thereof, against a person who has somehow harmed the government or the community. The process, moreover, is adversarial in nature and resembles, to that extent, a judicial trial.(125)


The oft-cited origin of quo warranto was the reign of King Edward I of England who questioned the local barons and lords who held lands or title under questionable authority. After his return from his crusade in Palestine, he discovered that England had fallen because of ineffective central administration by his predecessor, King Henry III.(126) The inevitable result was that the barons, whose relations with the King were governed on paper by Magna Carta, assumed to themselves whatever power the King's officers had neglected. Thus, King Edward I deemed it wise to inquire as to what right the barons exercised any power that deviated in the slightest from a normal type of feudalism that the King had in mind. The theory is that certain rights are regalia and can be exercised only upon showing of actual grants from the King or his predecessor. Verily, King Edward's purpose was to catalogue the rights, properties and possessions of the kingdom in his efforts to restore the same.

In the Philippines, the remedies against usurpers of public office appeared in the 1900s, through Act No. 190.(127) Section 197 of the Act provides for a provision comparable to Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court:

Sec. 197. Usurpation of an Office or Franchise - A civil action may be brought in the name of the Government of the Philippine Islands:

1. Against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public civil office or a franchise within the Philippine Islands, or an office in a corporation created by the authority of the Government of the Philippine Islands;
2. Against a public civil officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provisions of law, works a forfeiture of his office;
3. Against an association of persons who act as a corporation within the Philippine Islands, without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.

-------
125 (visited on March 15, 2018).
126 Nathan Isaacs, The Statutes of Edward I. Their Relation to Finance and Administration, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 8 (.Jun., 1921 ), pp. 804-818.
127 See Agcaoili v. Suguitan, supra note 87.

Decision                             49                             G.R. No. 237428

While heavily influenced by the British concept of impeachment, the United States of America made significant modifications from its British counterpart. Fundamentally, the framers of the United States visualized the process as a means to hold accountable its public officials, as can be gleaned from their basic law:

The President, Vice-President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.(121)

Other noted differences from the British process of impeachment include limiting and specifying the grounds to "treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors", and punishing the offender with removal and disqualification to hold public office instead of death, forfeiture of property and corruption of blood.(122)

In the Philippines, the earliest record of impeachment in our laws is from the 1935 Constitution.(123) Compared to the US Constitution, it would appear that the drafters of the 1935 Constitution further modified the process by making impeachment applicable only to the highest officials of the country; providing "culpable violation of the Constitution" as an additional ground, and requiring a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives to impeach and three-fourths vote of the Senate to convict.

As currently worded, our 1987 Constitution, in addition to those stated in the 1935 basic law, provided another additional ground to impeach high ranking public officials: "betrayal of public trust". Commissioner Rustico De los Reyes of the 1986 Constitutional Commission explained this ground as a "catch-all phrase to include all acts which are not punishable by statutes as penal offenses but, nonetheless, render the officer unfit to continue in office. It includes betrayal of public interest, inexcusable negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of power, breach of official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, etc. to the prejudice of public interest and which tend to bring the office into disrepute."(124)

From the foregoing, it is apparent that although the concept of impeachment has undergone various modifications to suit different jurisdictions and government forms, the consensus seems to be that it is essentially a political process meant to vindicate the violation of the public's trust. Buckner Melton, in his book The First Impeachment: The Constitution's Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount, succintly

-------
121 Section 4, Article II of the US Constitution.
122 See Justice Jose Vitug's Separate Opinion, Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives in G.R. No. 160261, 460 Phil. 830 (2003); Puno, Renato V. The Process of Impeachment and its applicability in the Philippine Legal System, Ateneo Law Journal (1982). p. 165.
123 See Justice Jose Vitug's Separate Opinion, Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives in G.R. No. 160261, 460 Phil. 830 (2003).
124 Records of Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, p. 272.

Decision                             48                             G.R. No. 237428


While both impeachment and quo warranto may result in the ouster of the public official, the two proceedings materially differ. At its most basic, impeachment proceedings are political in nature, while an action for quo warranto is judicial or a proceeding traditionally lodged in the courts.

To lend proper context, We briefly recount the origin and nature of impeachment proceedings and a quo warranto petition:


Historians trace the origin of impeachment as far as the 5th century in ancient Greece in a process called eisangelia.(117) The grounds for impeachment include treason, conspiracy against the democracy, betrayal of strategic posts or expeditionary forces and corruption and deception.(118)

Its, modern form, however, appears to be inspired by the British parliamentary system of impeachment. Though both public and private officials can be the subject of the process, the British system of impeachment is largely similar to the current procedure in that it is undertaken in both Houses of the Parliament. The House of Commons determines when an impeachment should be instituted. If the grounds, normally for treason and other high crimes and misdemeanor, are deemed sufficient, the House of Commons prosecutes the individual before the House of Lords.(119)

While impeachment was availed for "high crimes and misdemeanors", it would appear that the phrase was applied to a variety of acts which can arguably amount to a breach of the public's confidence, such as advising the King to grant liberties and privileges to certain persons to the hindrance of the due execution of the laws, procuring offices for persons who were unfit, and unworthy of them and squandering away the public treasure, browbeating witnesses and commenting on their credibility, cursing and drinking to excess, thereby bringing the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom, and failure to conduct himself on the most distinguished principles of good faith, equity, moderation, and mildness.(120)

-------
117 (visited on March I 5, 2018).
118 Id.
119 Jack Simson Caird, Impeachment, BRIEFING PAPER, Number CBP7612, 6 June 2016. Accessed from (visited on March 15, 2018).
120 (visited on March I 5, 2018).

Decision                             47                             G.R. No. 237428

The instant petition is a case of transcendental importance

While traditionally, the principle of transcendental importance applies as an exception to the rule requiring locus standi before the Courts can exercise its judicial power of review, the same principle nevertheless, finds application in this case as it is without doubt that the State maintains an interest on the issue of the legality of the Chief Justice's appointment.

Further, it is apparent that the instant petition is one of first impression and of paramount importance to the public in the sense that the qualification, eligibility and appointment of an incumbent Chief Justice, the highest official of the Judiciary, are being scrutinized through an action for quo warranto. The Court's action on the present petition has far-reaching implications, and it is paramount that the Court make definitive pronouncements on the issues herein presented for the guidance of the bench, bar, and the public in future analogous cases. Thus, the questions herein presented merit serious consideration from the Court and should not be trifled on.

Policy and ethical considerations likewise behoove this Court to rule on the issues put forth by the parties. This Court has always been a vigilant advocate in ensuring that its members and employees continuously possess the highest ideals of integrity, honesty, and uprightness. More than professional competence, this Court is cognizant of the reality that the strength of Our institution depends on the confidence reposed on Us by the public. As can be gleaned from Our recent decisions, this Court has not hesitated from disciplining its members whether they be judges, Justices or regular court employees. This case should not therefore be treated merely with kid gloves because it involves the highest official of the judicial branch of the government. On the contrary, this is an opportune time for this Court to exact accountability by examining whether there has been strict compliance with the legal and procedural requirements in the appointment of its Members.

Respondent, however, pounds on the fact that as a member of the Supreme Court, she is an impeachable officer. As such, respondent argues that a quo warranto proceeding, which may result in her ouster, cannot be lodged against her, especially when there is an impending impeachment case against her.

This argument is misplaced.

Decision                             46                             G.R. No. 237428


The petition challenges respondent's right and title to the position of Chief Justice. The Republic avers that respondent unlawfully holds her office because in failing to regularly declare her assets, liabilities and net worth as a member of the career service prior to her appointment as an Associate Justice, and later as Chief Justice, of the Court, she cannot be said to possess the requirement of proven integrity demanded of every aspiring member of the Judiciary. The Republic thus prays that respondent's appointment as Chief Justice be declared void. Respondent counters that, as an impeachable officer, she may only be removed through impeachment by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over an action for quo warranto

Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, in part, provides that the Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. This Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writs, including quo warranto.

Relatedly, Section 7, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court provides that the venue of an action for quo warranto, when commenced by the Solicitor General, is either the Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila, in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme Court.

While the hierarchy of courts serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs, a direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue such writs is allowed when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.(115) In the instant case, direct resort to the Court is justified considering that the action for quo warranto questions the qualification of no less than a Member of the Court. The issue of whether a person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office is a matter of public concern over which the government takes special interest as it obviously cannot allow an intruder or impostor to occupy a public position.(116)

-------
115 Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Assn., Inc. (CREBA) v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 635 Phil. 283, 300 (2010).
116  Republic of the Philippines v. Pablico Corpin, 104 Phil. 49. 53 ( 1958).

Wednesday 20 June 2018
15:00 Local time

Group B
Luzhniki Stadium
Moscow

Full-Time

Portugal   1
Morocco   0


Wednesday 20 June 2018
18:00 Local time

Group A
Rostov Arena
Rostov-On-Don

Full-Time

Uruguay   1
Saudi Arabia   0


Wednesday 20 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group B
Kazan Arena
Kazan

Full-Time

Iran   0
Spain   1


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

Tuesday 19 June 2018
15:00 Local time

Group H
Mordovia Arena
Saransk

Full-Time

Colombia   1
Japan   2


Tuesday 19 June 2018
18:00 Local time

Group H
Spartak Stadium
Moscow

Full-Time

Poland   1
Senegal   2


Tuesday 19 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group A
Saint Petersburg Stadium
St. Petersburg

Full-Time

Russia   3
Egypt   1


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

Monday 18 June 2018
15:00 Local time

Group F
Nizhny Novgorod Stadium
Nizhny Novgorod

Full-Time

Sweden   1
Korea R.   0


Monday 18 June 2018
18:00 Local time

Group G
Fisht Stadium
Sochi

Full-Time

Belgium   3
Panama   0


Monday 18 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group G
Volgograd Arena
Volgograd

Full-Time

Tunisia   1
England   2


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

Sunday 17 June 2018
16:00 Local time

Group E
Samara Arena
Samara

Full-Time

Costa Rica   0 
Serbia   1


Sunday 17 June 2018
18:00 Local time

Group F
Luzhniki Stadium
Moscow

Full-Time

Germany   0
Mexico   1


Sunday 17 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group E
Rostov Arena
Rostov-On-Don

Full-Time

Brazil   1
Switzerland   1


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

However, despite the breeder's claim of a "100% success rate" Mystic Marcus has slipped up a few times.

In 2016, the micro pig backed Derby County to beat Hull City in the Championship play-off semi-final after choosing the apples with the club's badge. The Rams lost 3-0.

They did win the second leg 2-0 though. Maybe that is what he meant?

Also, the teams he has predicted will make the World Cup semi-finals cannot all reach the last four without at least two of them meeting in one of the quarter-finals.

But, there is a chance he could choose the winner - in 2010, during the World Cup Finals in South Africa, an octopus named Paul correctly predicted the winners of eight matches, including the eventual winner Spain.


https://www.bbc.com/

So far his World Cup predictions appear to be on the nose - or snout - as Uruguay brought home the bacon with a dramatic victory over Egypt.

The pig breeder said: "Marcus is the seventh child of a seventh child and apparently they're gifted with special powers, so maybe that's where it comes from."

Ms Stevens has about 100 animals on her farm, but Marcus holds a "special place in her heart".


MERCURY PRESS
Mystic Marcus has "special powers" said his owner

She said: "He's got a lovely personality, he's totally unfazed by all the fuss.

"He's really chilled out and happy to go and do stuff. He takes it all in his stride."

World Cup 2018: Mystic micro pig chooses semi-finalists

15 June 2018


MERCURY PRESS
Mystic Marcus ate 28 apples, with flags of each nation, and left four which it is claimed will make the semi-finals

A pig with "special powers" has chosen the four nations that will reach the World Cup semi-finals - and England is not one of them.

Mystic Marcus, a micro pig from Heage, Derbyshire, chose Belgium, Argentina, Nigeria and Uruguay.

He did it by eating apples marked with the flags of all the other teams.

He correctly predicted the outcome of the 2014 Fifa World Cup, the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump's election, said owner Juliette Stevens.

A Russian football team fan


http://www.sporthiva.com/

Saturday 16 June 2018
13:00 Local time

Group C
Kazan Arena
Kazan

Full-Time

France   2
Australia   1


16 June 2018
16:00 Local time

Group D
Spartak Stadium
Moscow

Full-Time

Argentina   1
Iceland   1


16 June 2018
19:00 Local time

Group C
Mordovia Arena
Saransk

Peru   0
Denmark   1


16 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group D
Kaliningrad Stadium
Kaliningrad

Full-Time

Croatia   2
Nigeria   0


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

Friday 15 June 2018
17:00 Local time

Group A
Ekaterinburg Arena
Ekaterinburg

Full-Time

Egypt   0
Uruguay   1


Friday 15 June 2018
18:00 Local time

Group B
Saint Petersburg Stadium
St. Petersburg

Full-Time

Morocco   0
Iran   1


Friday 15 June 2018
21:00 Local time

Group B
Fisht Stadium
Sochi

Full-Time

Portugal   3   
Spain   3


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

Matches (and Results)
GROUP PHASE
14-28 June 2018

Thursday 14 June 2018
18:00 Local time

Group A
Luzhniki Stadium
Moscow

Full-Time

Russia  5 Saudi Arabia  0


https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/

https://www.facebook.com/

ang news reporter and medyo kuwang sa utok ani.

Decision                             45                             G.R. No. 237428

In line with the foregoing, We deem it baseless, not to mention problematic, the respondent's prayer that the matter of inhibition of the six Associate Justices be decided by the remaining members of the Court En Banc. The respondent herself was cognizant that the prevailing rule allows challenged Justices to participate in the deliberations on the matter of their disqualification. Moreover, exclusion from the deliberations due to delicadeza or sense of decency, partakes of a ground apt for a voluntary inhibition. It bears to be reminded that voluntary inhibition, leaves to the sound discretion of the judges concerned whether to sit in a case for other just and valid reasons, with only their conscience as guide.(113) Indeed, the best person to determine the propriety of sitting in a case rests with the magistrate sought to be disqualified. Moreover, to compel the remaining members to decide on the challenged member's fitness to resolve the case is to give them authority to review the propriety of acts of their colleagues, a scenario which can undermine the independence of each of the members of the High Court.

In the En Banc case of Jurado & Co. v. Hongkong Bank,(114) the Court elucidated that a challenge to the competency of a judge may admit two constructions: first, the magistrate decides for himself the question of his competency and when he does so, his decision therein is conclusive and the other Members of the Court have no voice in it; and second, the challenged magistrate sits with the Court and decides the challenge as a collegial body. It was in Jurado that the Court adopted the second view as the proper approach when a challenge is poised on the competency of a sitting magistrate, that is, the Court, together with the challenged magistrate, decides. Jurado further expressly excluded a possible third construction wherein the Court decides the challenge but without the participation of the challenged member on the ground that such construction would place power on a party to halt the proceedings by the simple expedient of challenging a majority of the Justices. The Court sees no reason to deviate from its standing practice of resolving competency challenges as a collegial body without excluding the challenged Member from participating therein.

Accordingly, the Court resolves to DENY respondent's motion to exclude Associate Justices Peralta, Leonardo-De Castro, Jardeleza, Tijam, Bersamin, and Martires in the resolution of the separate motions for inhibition against the said Associate Justices. Likewise, the Court resolves to DENY the said separate motions for inhibition.

-------
113 Dr. Raul M. Sunico v. Judge Pedro DI. Gutierrez, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2457, February 21, 2017.
114 I Phil. 395 (1902).

Decision                             44                             G.R. No. 237428

respect to person and to do equal right to the poor and the rich."(109) (Citation omitted)

The Court has pointedly observed in Pimentel v. Hon. Salanga:(110)

    Efforts to attain fair, just and impartial trial and decision, have a natural and alluring appeal. But, we are not licensed to indulge in unjustified assumptions, or make a speculative approach to this ideal. It ill behooves this Court to tar and feather a judge as biased or prejudiced, simply because counsel for a party litigant happens to complain against him. As applied here, respondent judge has not as yet crossed the line that divides partiality and impartiality. He has not thus far stepped to one side of the fulcrum. No act or conduct of his would show arbitrariness or prejudice. Therefore, we are not to assume what respondent judge, not otherwise legally disqualified, will do in a case before him. We have had occasion to rule in a criminal case that a charge made before trial that a party "will not be given a fair, impartial and just hearing" is "premature." Prejudice is not to be presumed. Especially if weighed against a judge's legal obligation under his oath to administer justice "without respect to person and do equal right to the poor and the rich." To disqualify or not to disqualify himself then, as far as respondent judge is concerned, is a matter of conscience.(111) (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

The Court has consequently counseled that no Judge or Justice who is not legally disqualified should evade the duty and responsibility to sit in the adjudication of any controversy without committing a dereliction of duty for which he or she may be held accountable. Towards that end, the Court has aptly reminded:

    To take or not to take cognizance of a case, does not depend upon the discretion of a judge not legally disqualified to sit in a given case. It is his duty not to sit in its trial and decision if legally disqualified; but if the judge is not disqualified, it is a matter of official duty for him to proceed with the trial and decision of the case. He cannot shirk the responsibility without the risk of being called upon to account for his dereliction.(112)

It is timely to be reminded, too, that the Supreme Court is a collegial judicial body whose every Member has solemnly and individually sworn to dispense and administer justice to every litigant. As a collegial body, the Supreme Court adjudicates without fear or favor. The only things that the Supreme Court collectively focuses its attention to in every case are the merits thereof, and the arguments of the parties on the issues submitted for consideration and deliberation. Only thereby may the solemn individual oath of the Members to do justice be obeyed.

-------
109 Id. at 384-385.
110 128 Phil. 176 (1967).
111 Id. at 182-183.
112 People v. Moreno, 83 Phil. 286, 294 ( 1949); Perfecto v.
    Contreras, 28 Phil. 538 (1914); .Joaquin v. Barretto, 25
    Phil. 281, 287 (1913).

Decision                             43                             G.R. No. 237428

Contrary to respondent's contentions, Justice Martires has not suggested that she suffers from some mental or psychological illness. At most, his questions and statements were merely hypothetical in nature, which do not even constitute as an opinion against respondent. Certainly, to impute actual bias based on such a brief discourse with respect to hypothetical matters is conjectural and highly speculative. "Allegations and perceptions of bias from the mere tenor and language of a judge is insufficient to show prejudgment."(107)

In the same vein, insinuations that the Justices of the Supreme Court are toeing the line of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte in entertaining the quo warranto petition must be struck for being unfounded and for sowing seeds of mistrust and discordance between the Court and the public. The Members of the Court are beholden to no one, except to the sovereign Filipino people who ordained and promulgated the Constitution. It is thus inappropriate to misrepresent that the Solicitor General who has supposedly met consistent litigation success before the Supreme Court shall likewise automatically and positively be received in the present quo warranto action. That the Court spares the Solicitor General the rod is easily dispelled by the Court's firm orders in G.R. Nos. 234359 and 234484 concerning alleged extra legal killings - a case directly concerning the actuations of the executive department - to provide the Court with documents relative to the Oplan Tokhang operations and by a unanimous vote, rebuked the Solicitor General's plea for reconsideration. Suffice to say that the Court decides based on the merits of a case and not on the actors or the supposed benefactors involved.

Absent strong and compelling evidence establishing actual bias and partiality on the part of the Justices whose recusal was sought, respondent's motions for inhibition must perforce fail. Mere conjectures and speculations cannot justify the inhibition of a Judge or Justice from a judicial matter. The presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role of dispensing justice in accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor,. should not be abandoned without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

In Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. v. Dimaculangan,(108) we held:

    "(B)ias and prejudice, to be considered valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of judges, must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice. These cannot be presumed, especially if weighed against the sacred obligation of judges whose oaths of office require them to administer justice without

-------
107 Gochan v. Gochan, 446 Phil. 433, 439 (2003);
     People v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 150, 158 (1999).
108 469 Phil. 373 (2004).

Decision                             42                             G.R. No. 237428

determining the constitutional and statutory eligibility of applicants for the position of Chief Justice. It bears stressing, too, that at the time said statement was made, the petition for quo warranto has not been filed; thus, such statement cannot amount to a prejudgment of the case.

Furthermore, according to Justice Peralta, while he was then the Acting Ex Officio Chairperson of the JBC at the time of respondent's application for the position of Chief Justice, he had no personal knowledge of the disputed facts concerning the proceedings, specifically the matters considered by the members of the JBC in preparing the shortlist of nominees. He explained that it was the ORSN of the JBC which was tasked to determine completeness of the applicants' documentary requirements, including the SALNs.

As for Justice Martires' statements during the Oral Arguments, this Court does not view them as indication of actual bias or prejudice against respondent. Our review of the record reveals that Justice Martires' did not refer to respondent as the object of his statements, as follows:

JUSTICE MARTIRES: Solicitor Calida, would you agree with me na lahat ng taong may dibdib ay may kaba sa dibdib? At lahat ng taong may ulo ay may katok sa ulo.

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA: Yes, Your Honor, I agree.

JUSTICE MARTIRES: Now would you consider it a mental illness (sic) when a person always invokes God as the source of his strength? The source of his inspiration? The source of happiness? The source of everything in life? Is that a mental illness.

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA: Not necessarily, Your Honor.

JUSTICE MARTIRES: So, I'm just making a follow-up to the question that Justice Velasco earlier asked. So, would you agree with me that the psychiatrist made a wrong evaluation with respect to the psychiatric report of the Chief Justice? (106)

Neither are we prepared to conclude that Justice Martires' statements were based on an extraneous source, other than what what he has learned or encountered over the course of the instant proceedings. There is nothing in the interpellation, nor in Justice Martires' statements that he has read the psychiatric report, nor has read newspaper accounts tackling the same. He merely asked the OSG if he has read the same, and his opinion regarding it.

-------
106 Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated April 10, 2018, pp. 234-235.

Decision                             41                             G.R. No. 237428

Respondent's call for inhibition has been based on speculations, or on distortions of the language, context and meaning of the answers the Justices may have given as sworn witnesses in the proceedings of the House Committee on Justice.

Justice Bersamin's statement that "Ang Supreme Court ay hindi po maaring mag function kung isa ay diktador," is clearly a hypothetical statement, an observation on what would the Court be if any of its Members were to act dictatorially.

Likewise, the Court cannot ascribe bias in Justice Bersamin's remark that he was offended by respondent's attitude in ignoring the collegiality of the Supreme Court when she withdrew the Justices' "privilege" to recommend nominees to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court. It would be presumptuous to equate this statement to a personal resentment as respondent regards it. There has always been a high degree of professionalism among the Members of the Court in both their personal and official dealings with each other. It cannot also be denied that the statement reflected a natural sentiment towards a decision reached and imposed by a member of a collegial body without consultation or consensus.

Meanwhile, respondent's allegation of actual bias and partiality against Justice Peralta is negated by his testimony during the January 15, 2018 hearing of the House Committee on Justice, where he stated that he has been very supportive of the Judiciary reforms introduced by respondent as the Chief Justice, even if she suspects that he is one of those behind her impeachment.

Justice Peralta's testimony before the House Committee on Justice also contradicts respondent's allegation that Justice Peralta's apparent bias arose from his belief that respondent caused the exclusion of his wife, Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, from the list of applications for the position of CA Presiding Justice. Justice Peralta has made it clear during the February 12, 2018 Congressional hearing that he has already moved on from said issue and that the purpose of his testimony was merely to protect prospective applicants to the Judiciary.

Justice Peralta's testimony during the Congressional hearing that "had (he) been informed of (the) letter dated July 23, 2012 and a certificate of clearance, (he) could have immediately objected to the selection of the Chief Justice for voting because this is a very clear deviation from existing rules that if a member of the Judiciary would like ... or. .. a candidate would like to apply for Chief Justice, then she or he is mandated to submit the SALNs," is clearly a' hypothetical statement, which will not necessarily result in the disqualification of respondent from nomination. It was also expressed in line with his functions as then Acting Chairperson of the JBC, tasked with

Decision                             40                             G.R. No. 237428

    3. On November 28, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc gave clearance for Justices who have been invited by the House Committee on Justice to testify in connection with the impeachment complaint, to give testimony on administrative matters if they so wish. The Court's Resolution in this regard states that the authority was granted "only because the proceedings before the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives constitute part of the impeachment process under Section 3, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution."

A copy of the Court's Resolution is hereto attached as Annex "A."

    4. I am submitting this Sworn Statement to the House Committee on Justice as my testimony in relation to A.M. No. 17-06-02- SC, based on my best recollection of events relating to said matter and available records. I shall, however, be willing to give further testimony should the House Committee find it appropriate to propound questions thereon at the December 11, 2017 Committee hearing, subject to applicable limitations under law and relevant rules.

    5. I will appear and give testimony before the House Committee on Justice not as a witness for the complainant, but to honor the Committee's invitation to shed light on A.M. No. 17-06-02- SC and to accord due respect to the Constitutionally established process of impeachment. (Emphasis ours)

Likewise, the Justices, including Justice Tijam, who appeared during the House Committee on Justice hearings, refused to form any conclusion or to answer the uniform query as to whether respondent's acts constitute impeachable offenses, as it was not theirs to decide but a function properly belonging to the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.(104) Evidently, no bias and prejudice on the part of the Justices could be inferred therein.

A judge may decide, "in the exercise of his sound discretion," to recuse himself from a case for just or valid reasons. The phrase just or valid reasons, as the second requisite for voluntary inhibition, must be taken to mean---

    x x x causes which, though not strictly falling within those enumerated in the first paragraph, are akin or analogous thereto. In determining what causes are just, judges must keep in mind that next to importance to the duty of rendering a righteous judgment is that of doing it in such a manner as will beget no suspicion of the fairness and integrity of the judge. For it is an accepted axiom that every litigant, including the state, in criminal cases, is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, and the law intends that no judge shall preside in any case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and independent.(105)

-------
104 See TSN of the House Committee on Justice dated December 11, 2017, p. Xl-2;XVII-l.
105 30 Am. Jr. 767.

Decision                             39                             G.R. No. 237428

In Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Sps. Dy Hong Pi, et al.,(100) this Court explained that:

    [T]he second paragraph of Rule 137, Section 1,(101) does not give judges unfettered discretion to decide whether to desist from hearing a case. The inhibition must be for just and valid causes, and in this regard, We have noted that the mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is without basis. This Court has to be shown acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before it can brand them with the stigma of bias or partiality. Moreover, extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself. The only exception to the rule is when the error is so gross and patent as to produce an ineluctable inference of bad faith or malice.(102) (Citations omitted)

In this case, it does not appear that there are grounds for compulsory inhibition. As to voluntary inhibition, the mere fact that some of the Associate Justices participated in the hearings of the Committee on Justice determining probable cause for the impeachment of respondent does not make them disqualified to hear the instant petition. Their appearance thereat was in deference to the House of Representatives whose constitutional duty to investigate the impeachment complaint filed against respondent could not be doubted. Their appearance was with the prior consent of the Supreme Court En Banc and they faithfully observed the parameters that the Court set for the purpose. Their statements in the hearing, should be carefully viewed within this context, and should not be hastily interpreted as an adverse attack against respondent.

In fact, Justice Tijam, in his Sworn Statement(103) submitted to the House Committee on Justice, clearly identified the purpose of his attendance thereat:

    2. In reply, I sent a letter to Representative Umali on November 24, 2017, informing him that inasmuch as the issue involved actions of the Supreme Court En Banc, I deemed it proper to first secure its approval before participating in the House Committee hearing.

-------
100 606 Phil. 615 (2009).
101 Section I. Disqualification of judges. - No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
102 Supra at 638-639.
103 Dated December 6, 2017.

Decision                             38                             G.R. No. 237428

proceedings, based on the evidence presented and conduct observed by the judge, do not prove personal bias or prejudice on the part of the judge."(98)

A circumspect reading of Justice Tijam's statements in the Manila Times article reveals that the manifest intent of the statements was only to prod respondent to observe and respect the constitutional process of impeachment, and to exemplify the ideals of public accountability, thus:

    He added that he wanted to encourage Sereno to show up at the Congress hearings "to respect and participate in the impeachment (process), and to defend herself and protect the institution."

    Sereno, he said, should be a role model when it comes to respecting the Constitution.

    "Impeachment is not an invention of politicians. It was drafted by the framers of the Constitution. Media, which propagates the myth that impeachment is a numbers game, hence, is political and arbitrary, fails to emphasize the fact that the rule of the majority is the essence of democracy," the m_agistrate stressed.

    Tijam believes that the impeachment process against Sereno is not an attack on the high court or the Judiciary because the Supreme Court does not consist of the chief justice alone.

    "Impeachment is [neither] an assault on the Judiciary nor an infringement on the independence of the Judiciary, because it is enshrined in the Constitution.  Parenthetically, when the SC strikes down acts of Congress and acts of the President and the Executive Department for being unlawful and unconstitutional, the SC is not assaulting the independence of Congress and the Executive Department because the expanded power of judicial review is enshrined in the Constitution," Tijam pointed out.

    Sereno, he said, should be a role model when it comes to respecting the Constitution.(99) (Emphasis ours)

Notably, respondent conveniently and casually invoked only a portion of the article which suited her objective of imputing bias against Justice Tijam.

As to the act of wearing a red tie which purportedly establishes Justices Tijam and Bersamin's prejudice against her, the argument is baseless and unfair. There is no basis, whether in logic or in law, to establish a connection between a piece of clothing and a magistrate's performance of adjudicatory functions. Absent compelling proof to the contrary, the red piece of clothing was merely coincidental and should not be deemed a sufficient ground to disqualify them.

-------
98 People v. Hon. Ong, 523 Phil. 347, 358 (2006).
99 <http://www.manilatimes.net/appear-congress-violate-constitution/366575/> (visited on April 6,
2018).

knocked down si ondoy pagbiya sa inner demons.

The British freedom fighter and writer George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm) has an instructive parallel to offer from his own time and country. Although definitely a more benign and normal character than Duterte, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, the adamant appeaser of Hitler, had something of a Duterte in him, which should be detectable in Orwell's depiction of Chamberlain here:

"Opponents professed to see in him a dark and wily schemer, plotting to sell England to Hitler, but it is far likelier that he was merely a stupid old man doing his best according to his very dim lights. It is difficult otherwise to explain the contradictions of his policy, his failure to grasp any of the courses that were open to him. Like the mass of people, he did not want to pay the price either of peace or of war." – Rappler.com

https://www.rappler.com/

Robredo's calm but consistent voice

Her forbearance, another trait inherent in her, has drawn criticisms from anti-Duterte militants, although they probably only felt she could be more rousing in her rhetoric. The point is she has not defaulted on her watchdog duty — unlike Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle and the hierarchy of bishops, on whom that duty is no less self-proclaimed as a God-assigned one: They pursue "a policy of critical collaboration" with Emperor Rodrigo, while their flock is fed to his lions.

Amid their silence, Robredo's calm but consistent voice has been dominant. She has not stopped calling on Duterte to end his murderous war on drugs and his "political harassment" of de Lima and set her free. As soon as the guns fell silent in Marawi, she was there reaching out to its orphans and homeless. To Sereno, she has vowed to "do everything . . . to right [the] wrong" done her. And she urges the press to "not be intimidated into toning down [its] reporting."

Lately she has been pressing the Duterte government to file a diplomatic protest with China for its military threats. Being itself the beneficiary of Duterte's treason, China may well be the issue to decide our nation's fortunes.

In fact, Robredo has been made to wait too long. If anyone deserved to be ousted by the Supreme Court, it was not its own chief justice, Maria Lourdes Sereno, but Duterte himself: Long before he ran for president, he had been certified, clinically and judicially, to be psychologically incapacitated — ineligible ab initio, to be consistent to the Latin letter with the exotic legal doctrine quo warranto. But, then, Robredo would have also protested, as she has done in Sereno's case, that quo warranto is inapplicable to the president, deserving as he might be, or any other impeachable official.

In any case, out of respect for law and tradition, though both are not hospitable toward the vice president — a "spare tire", as the comparison goes — Robredo tried to endure not only her nominal accommodation into the Cabinet early in the Duterte regime but also Duterte's lecherous gestures and remarks. Her resignation, doubtless a forced one, as housing secretary and her total alienation in the end from a regime that operates by conspiracy must have brought mutual relief.

Robredo's role is not an easy one, to be sure, having to stand in fortuitous waiting for the president to die or become incapacitated, but a president who meanwhile turns whatever he touches to ruins with such efficiency his successor, whoever that may be, would not know how to begin to clean up after him.

I did in fact ask Robredo how she might herself approach the job if it fell to her. She just looked at me, then looked sightlessly through me, shaking her head not so vigorously as might indicate a terrified and escapist "Oh, no, not me!", but slowly, indicating what seemed to me a more dutiful if anxious "Well...."

Of course, when I put the question to her, Duterte had done extensive touching all around: more than 20,000 had been killed in his extrajudicial war on drugs; Marawi City had been reduced to ground zero in his bombing war against a gang of separatists, brigands, and terrorist suspects; corruption and profligacy had begun to smell from inside his regime; China had been far gone into its arms buildup in the West Philippine Sea waters he had ceded to it, treasonously, and also had begun to corner official infrastructure and loan contracts on terms so criminal kickbacks cannot but be suspected; and oppositionist Senator Leila de Lima had been in jail longer than a year, awaiting indictment for a crime her persecutors had yet to decide.

Newspoint

Robredo and Rodrigo

It may seem unfair for Robredo — and absurd, too — to be compared with Rodrigo Duterte, but, having been cast by fate as his vice president, she just has to stand the comparison, if only for the hoped-for enlightenment of those fooled by Duterte or misinformed about her or otherwise requiring to be set straight

Vergel O. Santos
May 26, 2018

 

Leni Robredo has good political instincts, not the instincts for posturing and compromise that get votes but the instincts for righteous and reformist leadership that could save lost nations like ours.

A lawyer and an economist as well, Robredo is challenging the operating culture of patronage, in which justice and other beneficence are trickled down, rationed as it were, by wealthy and powerful padrinos; she wants social development directed in reverse, from the ground up, as only natural and logical, with the poor as its first and main beneficiaries, as only fair.

It may seem unfair for Robredo — and absurd, too — to be compared with Rodrigo Duterte, but, having been cast by fate as his vice president, she just has to stand the comparison, if only for the hoped-for enlightenment of those fooled by Duterte or misinformed about her or otherwise requiring to be set straight.

Decision                             37                             G.R. No. 237428

As for Justice Samuel R. Martires, respondent concludes Justice Martires' manifested actual bias based on his statements during the Oral Arguments which purportedly tended to question respondent's mental and psychological fitness.

In particular, respondent seeks the inhibition of Justice Tijam based on the latter's statement as quoted in a Manila Times article to the effect that if respondent continues to ignore and to refuse to participate in the impeachment process, she is clearly liable for culpable violation of the Constitution.

Respondent cites the article entitled, "Appear in Congress or vio1ate Constitution," dated December 4, 2017, where Justice Tijam was purportedly quoted to have said:

Impeachment is a constitutional process and a mandate enshrined in the Constitution. Justices took an oath to defend, preserve, protect the Constitution. If Chief Justice Sereno continues to ignore and continues to refuse to participate in the impeachment process, ergo, she is clearly liable for culpable violation of the Constitution. (emphasis supplied)

Respondent claims that the aforesaid statements of Justice Tijam are indicative of his stance that there may be a ground to impeach and remove respondent from office, which is also the objective of the quo warranto petition against her.

Ultimately, the cause for inhibition simmers to the question of whether, in so appearing and testifying before the House Committee on Justice, the Members of the Court are precluded from hearing and deciding the instant petition for quo warranto. To this, the Court answers in the negative.

Jurisprudence recognizes the right of litigants to seek disqualification of judges. Indeed, elementary due process requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. "A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity."(97)

However, the right of a party to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling the case must be balanced with the latter's sacred duty to decide cases without fear of repression. The movant must therefore prove the ground of bias and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge from participating in a particular trial. "[W]hile it is settled principle that opinions formed in the course of judicial

-------
97 Query of Exec. Judge Estrada, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, 239 Phil. 1, 6 (1987).

Decision                             36                             G.R. No. 237428

    Section 5. When an individual may commence such an action. - A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his own name.

In this case, the movants-intervenors are neither individuals claiming to be entitled to the questioned position nor are they the ones charged with the usurpation thereof.

Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the movants-intervenors, in their respective Motions, presented nothing more than a mere reiteration of respondent's allegations and arguments in her Comment.

For these reasons, the Court, in its Resolution(96) dated April 3, 2018, resolved to deny the motions for intervention respectively filed by Capistrano et al., and Zarate et al., and to note the IBP's intervention. For similar reasons, the Court resolves to deny the motion for intervention of Senators De Lima and Trillanes.

No basis for the Associate Justices
of the Supreme Court to inhibit in
the case

The instant petition comes at the heels of the recently-concluded hearings on the determination of probable cause in the impeachment complaint against respondent before the House Committee on Justice. Several Members of the Court, both incumbent and retired, were invited, under pain of contempt, to serve as resource persons. Those Members who were present at the Committee hearings were armed with the requisite imprimatur of the Court En Banc, given that the Members are to testify only on matters within their personal knowledge and insofar as material and relevant to the issues being heard. For lack of particularity, the Court supposes that the attendance of some of its Members in the House Committee hearings is the basis of movant-intervenor Saguisag's motion to recuse.

On the other hand, respondent was more emphatic when she sought affirmative relief, in the form of the inhibition of six ( 6) Justices, of the Court, whose jurisdiction she questions and assails. Specifically, respondent prays for· the inhibition of Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin, Diosdado M. Peralta, Francis H. Jardeleza, Noel Gimenez Tijam, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro and Samuel R. Martires fundamentally on the ground of actual bias for having commonly testified before the House Committee on Justice on the impeachment case.

-------
96 Rollo, pp. 501-505.

Decision                             35                             G.R. No. 237428

    (a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;

    (b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or

    (c) An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.

The remedy of quo warranto is vested in the people, and not in any private individual or group, because disputes over title to public office are viewed as a public question of governmental legitimacy and not merely a private quarrel among rival claimants.(94)

Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, (95) historically traced the nature of quo warranto proceedings as a crime which could only be prosecuted in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers. In time, the criminal features of quo warranto proceedings were modified and as such, the writ came to be used as a means to determine which of two claimants was entitled to an office and to order the ouster and the payment of a fine against the usurper. This quasi-criminal nature of quo warranto proceedings was adopted in some American states. Nonetheless, Newman explains that the Code of the District of Colombia, which was the venue of the case, continues to treat usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. Thus:

In a sense - in a very important sense - every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law, in the administration of law, and in having only qualified officers execute the law. But that general interest is not a private, but a public interest. Being such, it is to be  represented by the Attorney General or the District Attorney, who are expected by themselves or those they authorize to institute quo warranto proceedings against usurpers in the same way that they are expected to institute proceedings against any other violator of the law. That general public interest is not sufficient to authorize a private citizen to institute such proceedings, for, if it was, then every citizen and every taxpayer would have the same interest and the same right to institute such proceedings, and a public officer might, from the beginning to the end of his term, be harassed with proceedings to try his title.

The only time that an individual, in his own name, may bring an action for quo warranto is when such individual has a claim over the position in question. Section 5 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court provides:

-----
94 Oakland Municipal Improvement league v. City of Oakland (1972) 23 Cal. App. 30 165, 170.
95 238 U.S. 537 (1915).

interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both; or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof. As regards the legal interest as qualifying factor, this Court has ruled that such interest must be of a direct and immediate character so that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment. The interest must be actual and material, a concern which is more than mere curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire; it must not be indirect and contingent, indirect and remote, conjectural, consequential or collateral.x x x. (91) (Emphasis ours)

Clearly, herein movant-intervenors' sentiments, no matter how noble, do not, in any way, come within the purview of the concept of "legal interest" contemplated under the Rules to justify the allowance of intervention. Movant-intervenors failed to show any legal interest of such nature that they will "either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment". Even the IBP's assertion of their "fundamental duty to uphold the Constitution, advocate for the rule of law, and safeguard the administration of justice", being the official organization of all Philippine lawyers, will not suffice. Admittedly, their interest is merely out of "sentimental desire" to uphold the rule of law. Meanwhile, Senators De Lima and Trillanes' claimed legal interest is mainly grounded upon their would-be participation in the impeachment trial as Senators-judges if the articles of impeachment will be filed before the Senate as the impeachment court. Nevertheless, the fact remains that as of the moment, such interest is still contingent on the filing of the articles of impeachment before the Senate. It bears stressing that the interest contemplated by law must be actual, substantial, material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or expectant.(92)

Indeed, if every person, not parties to the action but assert their desire to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, were allowed to intervene, proceedings would become unnecessarily complicated, expensive, and interminable.(93)

Emphatically, a quo warranto proceeding is an action by the government against individuals unlawfully holding an office. Section 1, Rule 66 provides:

Section 1. Action by Government against individuals. - An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against:

-------
91 Ongco v. Dalisay, 691 Phil. 462, 469-4 70 (2012) citing Hon. Executive Secretary, et al. v.
Northeast Freight Forwarders, Inc., 600 Phil. 789, 799 (2009).
92 Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Heirs of Estanis/ao Mifloza, 656 Phil. 537, 547
(2011 ).
93 Id. at 547-548.

Decision                             33                             G.R. No. 237428

    d. In case of a finding that respondent is ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice, whether the subsequent nomination by the JBC and the appointment by the President cured such ineligibility.

4. Whether respondent is a de Jure or de facto officer.



Intervention is an ancillary remedy
restricted in purpose and in time

Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein for a certain purpose: to enable the third party to protect or preserve a right or interest that may be affected by those proceedings.(90)

Nevertheless, the remedy of intervention is not a matter of right but rests on the sound discretion of the court upon compliance with the first requirement on legal interest and the second requirement that no delay and prejudice should result as spelled out under Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, as follows:

    Sec. 1. Who may intervene. - A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

Each of the movant-intervenors in this case seek to intervene as citizens and taxpayers, whose claimed interest to justify their intervention is their "sense of patriotism and their common desire to protect and uphold the Philippine Constitution". The movant-intervenors further assert a "public right" to intervene in the instant case by virtue of its "transcendental importance for the Filipino people as a whole". Apart from such naked allegations, movant-intervenors failed to establish to the Court's satisfaction the required legal interest. Our jurisprudence is well-settled on the matter:

Intervention is not a matter of absolute right but may be permitted by the court when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the statute authorizing intervention. Under our Rules of Court, what qualifies a person to intervene is his possession of a legal

-------
90 Hi-Tone Marketing Corp. v. Baikal Realty Corp., 480 Phil. 545, 569 (2004).

allegedly failed to submit.

At the last minute, respondent also seeks to disqualify Justice Samuel R. Martires for his purported insinuations during the Oral Arguments questioning her "mental" or "psychological" fitness on the basis of her belief that God is "the source of everything in (her) life."(89)

Respondent also prays that the Ad Cautelam Respectful Motions for Inhibitions of Associate Justices Peralta, Leonardo-De Castro, Jardeleza, Tijam, Bersamin and Martires be resolved by the Court En Banc, without the participation of the Justices she seeks to disqualify.


From the arguments raised by the parties and the issues as delineated in the Advisory governing the special Oral Arguments by way of accommodation to respondent, the paramount issues to be resolved by the Court are:

1. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for quo warranto against respondent who is an impeachable officer and against whom an impeachment complaint has already been filed with the House of Representatives;

2. Whether the petition is outrightly dismissible on the ground of prescription;

3. Whether respondent is eligible for the position of Chief Justice:

    a. Whether the determination of a candidate's eligibility for nomination is the sole and exclusive function of the JBC and whether such determination. partakes of the character of a political question outside the Court's supervisory and review powers;

    b. Whether respondent failed to file her SALNs as mandated by the Constitution and required by the law and its implementing rules and regulations; and if so, whether the failure to file SALNs voids the nomination and appointment of respondent as Chief Justice;

    c. Whether respondent failed to comply with the submission of SALNs as required by the JBC; and if so, whether the failure to submit SALNs to the JBC voids the nomination and appointment of respondent as Chief Justice;

-------
89 Id.

Decision                              31                          G.R. No. 237428

appointment).


By way of separately filed motions, respondent seeks affirmative relief, in the form of the inhibition of five (5) Justices of the Court, the jurisdiction of which she questions and assails. Respondent prays for the inhibition of Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin, Diosdado M. Peralta, Francis H. Jardeleza, Noel Gimenez Tijam, and Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro from hearing and deciding the present petition.

In common, respondent imputes actual bias on said Justices for having testified before the House Committee on Justice on the impeachment complaint. In particular, respondent considered Justice Bersamin's allusion to respondent as a "dictator" and his personal resentment about the supposed withdrawal of the privilege previously enjoyed by the members of the Court to recommend nominees to vacant positions in the Judiciary, as evidence of actual bias.

Justice Peralta's inhibition, on the other hand, is being sought because as then Acting ex officio Chairperson of the JBC when respondent was nominated for appointment as Chief Justice, he would have personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings and for having served as a material witness in the matter in controversy.

Justice Jardeleza's inhibition is sought on the ground that his testimony before the House Committee on Justice reveals that he harbors ill feelings towards respondent on account of the latter's challenge to his integrity during the nomination process for the Associate Justice position vice Justice Roberto A. Abad which he characterized as "inhumane".

Respondent seeks the inhibition of Justice Tijam based on the latter's statement as quoted in a Manila Times article to the effect that if respondent continues to ignore and to refuse to participate in the impeachment process, she is clearly liable for culpable violation of the Constitution.

Respondent likewise made mention that Justice Tijam and Justice Bersamin wore a touch of red during the "Red Monday" protest on March 12, 2018 wherein judges and court employees reportedly called on respondent to make the supreme sacrifice and resign.

Respondent also calls for the inhibition of Justice De Castro for having allegedly prejudged the issue as regards the validity of respondent's nomination and appointment in 2012 when Justice De Castro testified under oath during the House Committee on Justice hearings that respondent should have been disqualified from the shortlist on account of the SALNs she

Decision                             30                             G.R. No. 237428

Constitution and to oppose government actions that are clearly and patently unconstitutional. It is also Senators De Lima and Trillanes' theory that the instant quo warranto case is aimed to deprive the Senate of its jurisdiction as the impeachment tribunal. They argue that their mandated duty as judges in the possible impeachment trial of the Chief Justice will be pre-empted and negated if the quo warranto petition will be granted. Their claimed legal interest in their intervention in and opposition to the petition for quo warranto is mainly anchored upon their duty and prerogatives as Senators-judges in an impeachment trial and to protect the institution of impeachment as a mode of enforcing accountability.

Senators De Lima and Trillanes' Opposition-In-Intervention is a mere reiteration of the respondent's argument that this Court has no jurisdiction over a petition for quo warranto against an impeachable officer. They argue that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is, by express provision of the Constitution, removable from office exclusively by impeachment. They also aver that the ground raised in the petition for quo warranto - lack of integrity for failing to submit one's SALN - is part of the allegations in the impeachment case being heard in the House of Representatives. Thus, they argue that the use of an identical ground in a quo warranto proceeding directly undermines the jurisdiction of the Senate to hear and decide impeachment cases and the prerogative of the senators to try the same.

Senators De Lima and Trillanes also advance the argument that the Constitution identifies and enumerates only three qualifications for appointment to the Supreme Court: (1) natural born citizenship; (2) age, i.e., at least forty years; and (3) an experience of at least 15 years either as judge of a lower court or in the practice of law in the Philippines. They assert that the filing of a SALN, taking of psychological or physical examination, and similar requirements, are merely discretionary administrative requirements for consideration of the JBC, not Constitutional requirements, hence, can be waived, removed entirely, or adjusted by the JBC in the exercise of its discretion. According to the said movant-intervenors, Section 7(3), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which states that,"[ a] Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence", does not speak of objective constitutional qualifications, but only of subjective characteristics of a judge. They, therefore, contend that "qualifications" such as citizenship, age, and experience are enforceable while "characteristics" such as competence, integrity, ,probity, and independence are mere subjective considerations.

Corollarily, Senators De Lima and Trillanes argue that the subjective considerations are not susceptible to analysis with tools of legal doctrine. Hence, questions on this matter are for the consideration of political institutions under the Constitution, i.e., the JBC and the President (prior to appointment) and the House of Representatives and the Senate (after

Decision                              29                             G.R. No. 237428

Zarate et al. raise the similar argument that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may only be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust and that it is only the Congress who has the power to remove the Chief Justice through the exclusive mode of impeachment.

They further argue that the issue of respondent's non-submission of complete SALNs, without more, does not have the effect of putting to question her integrity as she did not conceal her SALNs. They argue that the qualification of having a "proven integrity" is a standard subject to the discretion of, first, the JBC who submits the list of qualified candidates; and second, of the President, who will select among the shortlist whom to appoint as Chief Justice.

Movant-Intervenor Rene A.V. Saguisag subsequently filed a Supplement to Motion for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and Opposition-in-Intervention Cum Petition to Recuse seeking the inhibition of unnamed Members of this Court who "may have prematurely thrown their weight on the other side, actually or perceptually" on the ground that respondent is entitled to an impartial arbiter.

As well, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) filed its Motion for Leave to File and to Admit Attached Opposition-in-Intervention as an organization of all Philippine lawyers, having the fundamental duty to uphold the Constitution and an interest in ensuring the validity of the appointments to the Judiciary. The IBP's arguments reflect the arguments of the respondent and the other movant-intervenors that the quo warranto petition is time-barred and is unavailable against an impeachable officer. The IBP further argues that the determination of whether respondent is of "proven integrity" belongs to the JBC and which question the Court cannot inquire into without violating the separation of powers. It is likewise the contention of the IBP that the petition is fatally flawed since the JBC never required the submission of respondent's SALNs from 2001 to 2006.

Also seeking to intervene in the instant petition, Senators Leila M. De Lima (Senator De Lima) and Antonio F. Trillanes IV (Senator Trillanes) as citizens, taxpayers, and senators of the Republic, filed a Motion to Intervene and Admit Attached Opposition-In-Intervention (Ad Cautelam) on April 4, 2018.

In the said Motion, Senators De Lima and Trillanes assert that they possess a clear legal interest, both personal and official, in the subject matter of the Republic's petition to oust the Chief justice on the ground that she does not possess the constitutional requirement of integrity. According to Senators De Lima and Trillanes, they have the right and duty to uphold the

Take into consideration what happens when you do the opposite of the Harvard study's recommended habits:

• Poor diet leads to one in five deaths, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington and published by the journal Lancet. A poor diet can also cause high blood pressure and diabetes, which are linked to eating the wrong foods. (The right diet, the study found, is one that incorporates whole grains, fruit, nuts and seeds).

• Not exercising also leads to high blood pressure and diabetes, and people who are physically inactive are more likely to develop anxiety, depression, coronary heart disease and even cancer, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

• Falling below or above your proper BMI isn't safe. Being underweight, where your BMI is below average, signals malnutrition and increases the risk of osteoporosis, a decreased immune function and fertility issues, according to Healthline. Having a higher BMI or having obesity causes chronic health conditions, such as asthma and bone problems.

• Overindulging in alcohol can lead to cancer, even a light intake, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

• Smoking has killed more than one in 10 people worldwide, according to a study published in Lancet — 11.5% of global deaths were attributed to smoking.

Given all that, those 5 good habits may not seem so bad, after all.

https://www.marketwatch.com/

There are a few ways to slowly make them a part of your life however, according to the National Institutes of Health. Become aware of your bad habits, whether they're dipping into the office vending machine at 3 p.m. or staying out late and giving the gym a miss the next morning.

Also, don't do it alone. Ask friends and family to try these healthy challenges with you. The National Institutes of Health also suggests looking ahead and imagining how you'll feel when you accomplish your goals. "You're never too out of shape, too overweight, or too old to make healthy changes," the organization's monthly newsletter suggests.

There are other factors to consider if you want to add years to your life or, at the very least, not shorten it. Along with exercising and eating nutritious meals, people need to have active social lives and get enough sleep, studies suggest. More than 40% of adults in the U.S. suffer from loneliness, which is linked to depression, dementia, anxiety and cardiovascular diseases. Insufficient sleep also lead to hypertension, diabetes and obesity.

Men and women who followed the healthiest of lifestyles were 82% less likely to die from cardiovascular disease and 65% less likely to die from cancer compared with people who lived unhealthy lifestyles over the course of 30 years, according to the study, published online in the journal Circulation.

The researchers analyzed 34 years of data from more than 78,000 women and 27 years of data from more than 44,000 men. The researchers estimated the women who adopted these five habits would see 14 more years of life, and men would add 12 years.

The healthy habits that the Harvard researchers pinpointed may sound obvious, but they're not easy to adopt. For starters, that recommended BMI might be difficult for many Americans. The average BMI for the average American man is 28.6, up from 25.1 in the early 1960s. Anything over 24.9 is considered overweight and a BMI over 30 is regarded as obese.

Harvard scientists say these 5 things can prolong your life by a decade

May 26, 2018
     
You'll have to make some trade-offs if you want those extra years


Getty Images
Harvard researchers say they've figured out which five habits lead to a longer life.

ALESSANDRA MALITO
REPORTER

Want to live 10 years longer? You may have to revamp your lifestyle.

There are five habits that, when done together, could add more than a decade to your life expectancy, according to a study released Monday by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The good news: 10 years is a lot of extra time. The bad news: You'll have to cut out junk food and being a couch potato.

Here's what the study recommends you do:

• Eat a healthy diet

• Exercise 30 minutes or more a day

• Maintain a healthy weight (Specifically, a body mass index between 18.5 and 24.9 — you can find yours here.)

• Don't drink too much alcohol (No more than one 5 oz. glass of wine per day for women, and two glasses for men)

• Don't smoke (ever)

Marie Antoinette
(aka Madame Deficit)

Born 1755.

The last Queen of France, Antoinette is a legend among big spenders.

Her hairstyles were extravagant beyond belief. She could even hide tiny vases of water in there to keep the ornamental flowers fresh. Her jewellery was no less sumptuous – two of her diamond bracelets were worth as much as a Parisian mansion.

Even as her subjects were suffering from starvation and disease, she continued spending and gambling. She paid to construct her own private retreat at Versailles complete with artificial rivers, a rotunda and a series of what appeared to be rustic cottages. The cost: two million francs.

Her spending was said to be a direct cause of the economic plight that led to the French Revolution. Aristocrats were murdered by enraged mobs and the royal family were forced to flee their palace.

A French general told the royals that their journey would be much safer if they made it in two small, inconspicuous carriages. Instead, Antoinette demanded they use larger carriages that could be outfitted with a full silver dinner service and a wine chest.

She met her end at the guillotine. She was disdainful to the last.

-from http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/article/2147422/five-leaders-wives-and-their-obscene-shopping-habits-rosmah-mansor-and
-photos from various online sources

Maha bint Mohammed bin ahmad al-Sudairi
Ex-wife of Saudi Arabia's former interior minister.

On a shopping trip in 2009, al-Sudairi spent US$20 million in Parisian boutiques. Her staff would leave an embossed card marked "Payment to Follow" with shop staff. But while previous payments had been settled promptly, 30 Parisian retailers pursued her after the spree, saying she owed them a total of €15 million (US$17.7 million).

A court order was obtained to seize goods from her Georges V hotel suite. The debts were said to have been eventually settled through the Saudi embassy.

Al-Sudairi and her entourage of 60 people tried to flee with numerous limousines and luggage from the Shangri-La Hotel Paris without paying the US$7 million bill in 2012.
She was back in Paris in December 2011 with her entourage of 60, occupying 41 rooms at the Shangri-La Hotel and running up a bill of more than US$7 million.

At 3.30am on May 31, 2012, five months after she arrived at the hotel, police were called as her entire group tried to sneak out without paying. Al-Sudairi escaped prosecution by claiming diplomatic immunity. Two storage units containing her purchases from 2012 were seized, to be auctioned off to satisfy creditors. She was barred from leaving Saudi Arabia after that spending spree.

Grace Mugabe
(aka "Gucci" Grace, DisGrace, The First Shopper)

Grace was Robert Mugabe's former secretary. She married him officially at the age of 31 when he was 72.

While their country descended into chaos, Grace was busy shopping in Europe. On one trip she spent US$120,000 in Paris. In 2002 she was banned from entering the EU. "This will stop Grace Mugabe going on her shopping trips in the face of catastrophic poverty blighting the people of Zimbabwe," said Glenys Kinnock, a Labour Party member of the European parliament at the time.

Grace Mugabe built two palaces, one of which she later sold to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The second palace was built with US$26 million taken from the coffers of her political party Zanu-PF.

In 2009, while in Hong Kong, where she owns a property and her daughter went to university, she and a bodyguard attacked a journalist, Richard Jones, cutting his face with her bejewelled rings. She was granted diplomatic immunity.

That immunity also saved her from prosecution after she attacked and wounded South African model Gabriella Engels.

A Zimbabwean police spokeswoman stated on March 26 that they were investigating a case of alleged ivory smuggling linked to Grace Mugabe.

I might have a small fist. But when it comes to fighting, I will put stones inside to enlarge it. Do not doubt my capabilities (GRACE MUGABE)

Imelda Marcos
(aka Iron Butterfly)

Imelda Marcos was born in 1929. She was the first lady of the Philippines from 1965 to 1989.

Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos was removed from power in 1986. According to the Presidential Commission on Good Government, the Marcos family pilfered between US$5 billion and US$10 billion during their time in power.

The years 1983 to 1985 saw the biggest decline in GDP in the country's history. Two of the Marcos children are still active in Philippines politics.

Imelda left Malacanang Palace after her husband's fall from power, leaving behind 15 mink coats, 508 gowns, 888 handbags and, of course, the shoes. Estimates went as high as 7,500 pairs, but the final tally was a paltry 1,060 pairs.

Former Philippine first lady Imelda Marcos looks at her famous shoe collection after formally opening the suburban Marikina Shoe Museum in Manila in 2001. Photo: AFP
"They went into my closets looking for skeletons, but thank God, all they found were shoes, beautiful shoes," she is quoted as saying.

She had a 175-piece art collection that included works by Michelangelo, Botticelli, Canaletto, Monet and Raphael. She once spent US$2,000 on chewing gum in a San Francisco airport. She was found to have funnelled millions to offshore bank accounts in the name Jane Ryan.

Five leaders' wives and their obscene shopping habits, from Rosmah Mansor and Grace Mugabe to Marie Antoinette

Following the downfall of Rosmah Mansor, Malaysia's former first lady, we look at spouses who are known for their love of luxury and designer goods and weren't shy about raiding their nation's coffers to fund their shopping sprees

Wednesday, 23 May, 2018
Simon O'Reilly

Rosmah Mansor, Malaysia's former first lady, is the latest in a long line of spouses who devoted their time to acquiring and spending money, usually from their cash-strapped nations, while their citizens were suffering or starving.


Rosmah Mansor
(aka The Bag Lady)

Born 1951. Second wife of Najib Razak, the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

On May 18 this year, Malaysian police seized a large number of designer handbags, many of them stuffed with cash and jewellery, during searches of homes and offices linked to Najib. The former prime minister has been barred from leaving the country after allegations that he oversaw the looting of billions of dollars from development company 1MDB.

His luxury-loving spouse Rosmah is said to have spent US$8 million in seven years in designer shops and US$400,000 on anti-ageing products. She owns a US$10 million, 30-carat diamond ring, while her husband's salary was US$130,000 a year.

taxpayers.

The comment-in-intervention is a virtual echo of the arguments raised in respondent's comment that quo warranto is an improper remedy against impeachable officials who may be removed only by impeachment and that the application of the PET rules are limited only to the President and Vice President who are elective, and not appointive, officials. Movant-intervenors similarly argue that the petition is already time-barred as the cause of action arose upon respondent's appointment as Chief Justice on August 24, 2012 or almost six (6) years ago.

Capistrano et al. argue that it is not incumbent upon respondent to prove to the JBC that she possessed the integrity required by the Constitution for members of the Judiciary; rather, the onus of determining whether or not she qualified for the post fell upon the JBC. They also posit that nowhere in the Constitution is the submission of all prior SALNs required; instead, what is required is that all aspiring justices of the Court must have the imprimatur of the JBC, the best proof of which is a person's inclusion in the shortlist.

Capistrano et al. persuade that respondent's explanation that her government records in the academe for 15 years are irretrievable is reasonable and that respondent did not mislead the JBC. On the contrary, they claim that the JBC accepted her explanation when it deemed respondent as qualified. In doing so, they conclude, that the JBC determined that she possessed the integrity as required by the Constitution.

A few hours after the filing of the Capistrano et. al.,'s Comment-in-Intervention, another set of intervenors composed of: (1) BAYAN MUNA Representative (Rep.) Carlos Isagani Zarate; (2) ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio & Francisca Castro; (3) GABRIELA Women's Party Rep. Emerenciana De Jesus & Arlene Brosas; (3) ANAKPAWIS Partylist Rep. Ariel Casilao; (5) KABATAAN Partylist Rep. Sarah Jane Elago; (6) Convenors and members of Movement Against Tyranny (MAT), namely: Francisco A. Alcuaz, Bonifacio P. Ilagan, & Col. George A. Rabusa (Ret. ); (7) Former Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag; ( 8 ) Bishop Broderick S. Pabillo, D.D.; (9) Secretary Gen. of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) Renato M. Reyes, Jr.; (10) Member of MDD Youth (an Affiliate of Aksyon Demokratiko) Kaye Ann Legaspi; and (11) Secretary General of National Union of People's Lawyers Atty. Ephraim B. Cortez (Zarate, et al.,) filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and Opposition-in-Intervention, pursuant to Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. They claim that as citizens and taxpayers, they have a legal interest in the matter of respondent's ouster or removal.

in accordance with the dictates of due process and fair play, respondent's Reply/Supplement to her Memorandum, albeit filed Ad Cautelam, is admitted.

Respondent raises two points in her Reply/Supplement: first, the new matter of tax fraud allegedly committed by her; and second, the forum shopping allegedly committed by the Republic.

Respondent sought to address the inclusion of the charge of tax fraud allegedly committed by her relative to the fees she received in the PIATCO cases which respondent argues to have been raised by the Republic only in its memorandum. Respondent denies having concealed or under declared her income in the PIATCO cases. She further points out that the Summary and the Powerpoint presentation prepared by BIR Deputy Commissioner Guballa and which were attached to the Republic's memorandum were incomplete, inaccurate and merely preliminary. In any case, respondent avers that BIR Deputy Commissioner Guballa himself found that respondent had "substantially declared all income (legal fees) from the PIATCO case in her ITRs from years 2004 to 2009 BUT there were certain discrepancies."(88)

Respondent also accuses the Republic of having committed deliberate forum-shopping in filing the action for quo warranto even when the impeachment proceeding was already pending before the House of Representatives. Contending that all the elements of forum-shopping are present, respondent points to the (1) identity of parties between the quo warranto action and the impeachment case inasmuch as the House Committee on Justice is also part of the Government; (2) identity of causes of action considering that the quo warranto case is based on respondent's alleged lack of proven integrity for failure to file all her SALNs when she was teaching at the U.P. College of Law and for concealing her true income and evasion of taxes which were the same attacks on her eligibility and qualifications as enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment; and (3) identity in the relief sought as both the quo warranto and the impeachment sought her removal from the Office of the Chief Justice.


Through a Joint Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admit Attached Comment-In-Intervention, movant-intervenors composed of (1) former CEO of PAG-IBIG Fund, Zorayda Amelia Capistrano Alonzo, (2) peace & human rights advocate Remedios Mapa Suplido, (3) urban poor advocate Alicia Gentolia Murphy, ( 4) Chairperson of Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA) Noland Merida Penas, (5) Fr. Roberto Reyes, and (6) poet, feminist & youth advocate Reyanne Joy P. Librado (Capistrano, et al.,) seek to intervene in the present petition as citizens and

-------
88 Respondent's Reply/Supplement to Memorandum Ad Cautelam.
Decision 28 G.R. No. 237