MikeLigalig.com

Decision                             26                             G.R. No. 237428

It is also respondent's position that the omission of her husband's signature on her 2011 SALN was inadvertent and was not an offense. According to her, it could not adversely impact on her integrity absent any allegation or finding that she acquired ill-gotten wealth. She argues that the Civil Service Commission's Guidelines which require the signature of the spouse who is not a public officer, was promulgated only in January 2013.

With regard to the jewelry she acquired from 1986 to 1991 which were supposedly declared in her 1991 SALN but were undeclared in her 1990 SALN, respondent avers that these assets were actually declared in her 1985 and 1989 SALNs, and they were consistently declared in all her subsequent SALNs beginning 1991. According to respondent, she should not be faulted for her inadvertent omission to declare such assets in her 1990 SALN as her declaration of the same thereafter is consistent with good faith and cured whatever error there may have been in her 1990 SALN. She argues that said assets were not manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and even as a U.P. Professor, she could have afforded to purchase jewelry worth PhP15,000.00 over a span of six (6) years.

Finally, respondent argues that it is an "unreasonable and oppressive" interpretation of the law to reckon her entry SALN as Associate Justice of the Court from the date of her appointment (August 16, 2010) and not from Decemb~r 31, 2009 when it was actually filed. Respondent contends that R.A. No. 6713 only requires that the SALN be filed "within thirty days after assumption of office" - a directive she supposedly complied with. She argues that while the Implementing Rules and Regulations ofR.A. No. 6713 state that the SALN should be reckoned from the first day of service, the law provides for a review and compliance procedure which requires that a reporting individual first be informed and provided an opportunity to take necessary corrective action should there be any error in her SALN. Respondent avers that she did not receive any notice or compliance order informing her that her entry SALN was erroneous, and she was not directed to take the necessary corrective action.


At the close of the Oral Argument, granted upon respondent's Ad Cautelam motion, the Court specifically required the parties to submit their respective memoranda within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days, after which, the petition shall be submitted for decision. Notwithstanding such clear directive from the Court, and even without being required to, respondent moves (again Ad Cautelam) for the inclusion of her Reply/Supplement to her memorandum filed beyond the period granted by the Court to the parties. The belated filing of said Reply/Supplement in disregard of the Court's directive merits its non-admission. Nevertheless, as the Court remains circumspect of the pleadings submitted by the parties and

from public office (i.e., 2001, 2004, 2005 and 2006).

Respondent's Memorandum also sought to address certain matters raised during the Oral Arguments.

As to where her SALNs are, respondent avers that some of her SALNs were in fact found in the records of the U.P. HRDO, and she was able to retrieve copies of some of her SALNs from the U.P. Law Center. Without prejudice to her jurisdictional objections, she attached them to the Memorandum. She argues that the fact that the SALN s for certain years are missing cannot give rise to the inference that they were not filed. She points out that U.P. was only required to keep the SALNs for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement, after which the SALN may be destroyed.

In explaining her statement before the JBC that her SALNs were irretrievable, respondent avers that she honestly could not retrieve copies from U.P. over the course of a weekend given to her to complete her missing documentary requirements. She declares that she did not keep copies of her SALN s and she was not required to do so by law.

Respondent asserts that her 2009 SALN was not belatedly filed. She explains that her 2009 SALN is an entry SALN which she originally filed on September 16, 2010 within thirty (30) days after her assumption of office as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. According to her, the revised 2009 SALN which has the annotation "revised as of 22 June 2012," is a revised version executed in June 2012 to more accurately reflect the acquisition cost of certain assets declared in 2010.

With respect to the purported 2006 SALN, respondent avers that it was not the SALN required by RA 6713, but a mere statement of her assets which the JBC requested as a tool to determine her assets for comparison with her income tax returns. She explains that she merely happened to use a downloadable SALN form which she filled up and dated as of the time of its writing, i.e., July 27, 2010. She claims that she never misrepresented the same to be her 2006 exit SALN from U.P. According to her, she in fact considers her 2006 SALN as one of the missing SALNs she is still trying to locate.

Respondent claims that she could not recall all the circumstances why her 1998 SALN was executed only in 2003 which, according to her, was reasonable since it happened l5 years ago. She claims that there is no law prohibiting her from submitting the same, and the fact that the SALN was filed serves the purpose of the law and negates any intention to hide unexplained wealth.

Decision                             24                             G.R. No. 237428

discretionary powers, such as the JBC which uses its wisdom and discretion in determining whether an applicant to the Judiciary is a person of "proven" integrity.

Respondent also contends that absent any challenge to her nomination and appointment on the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the JBC and the President, her appointment can no longer be questioned.

Respondent reiterates that the instant petition is time-barred. She argues that the Republic cannot rely on Agcaoili v. Suguitan(87) because it mentioned the principle nullum temus occurit regi or "no  time runs against the king" only in passing, as the "general rule concerning limitation of action in quo warranto proceedings." She avers that Agcaoili is in fact authority for the principle that prescription will definitely run against the State if the rule or statute clearly so provides.

Respondent avers that she complied with the SALN laws as Professor of the U.P. College of Law and that the law presumes regularity in the filing of SALNs. According to respondent, that at least 11 of her SALNs have been found tends to prove a pattern of filing, rather than non-filing.

Respondent argues that the burden of proof in quo warranto proceedings falls on the party who brings the action and that based on Doblada, the Republic failed to discharge this burden.

Respondent claims that the records of the U.P. HRDO are incomplete and unreliable and there was no categorical statement in its Certification that she failed to file her SALNs for the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Further, she avers that the records of the Office of the Ombudsman are even more incomplete and unreliable, thus, any certification from said office would likewise be insufficient to prove that she failed to file 11 of her SALNs while she was a U.P. Professor.

Respondent contends that she has actually presented preponderant evidence that she filed her SALNs. She avers that she has recovered 11 of her U.P. SALNs and she has direct proof that she executed at least 12 SALNs as a U.P. Professor. She stresses that the U.P. HRDO has thrice "cleared" her of all administrative responsibilities and administrative charges.

Respondent also claims that she was not even required to file a SALN from 1986 to 1991 because her status and appointment then was merely temporary. According to her, the fact that she served as counsel for the Republic for the PIATCO cases in 2004, 2005 and 2006 does not negate her defense that under the law, she was not required to file her SALNs for the years when she was on leave and ·was not receiving compensation arising

-------
87 48 Phil. 676 ( 1929).

Respondent insists that she can be removed from office only through impeachment. In addition to the arguments raised in her Comment Ad Cautelam, respondent asserts that impeachment was chosen as the method of removing certain high-ranking government officers to shield them from harassment suits that will prevent them from performing their functions which are vital to the continued operations of government. Such purpose, according to respondent, would be defeated if Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution would not be construed as providing an exclusive means for the removal of impeachable officers. Respondent argues that it would be absurd for the framers of the Constitution to provide a very cumbersome process for removing said officers only to allow a less difficult means to achieve the same purpose.

Respondent contends that the Republic, in citing the 2010 PET Rules and the cases of Estrada v. Desierto(83) and Lawyers League for a Better Philippines and/or Oliver Lozano v. President Corazon Aquino et al.,(84) erroneously lumps together the Chief Justice, the President and the Vice President, simply because they are all impeachable officers. Respondent argues that there are substantial distinctions between the President and Vice President on the one hand, and Members of the Supreme Court on the other: first, unlike Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution vesting in the Court the power to be the  "sole judge" of all contests relating to the qualifications of the President and the Vice-President, there is no similar provision with respect to the other impeachable officials, i.e., the Members of this Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commission or the Ombudsman; and second, the President and Vice-President are elected officials while the other impeachable officers are appointive officials.

Respondent also argues that there is not a single pronouncement in Funa v. Chairman Villar(85) and Nacionalista Party v. De Vera(86) (by way of a ruling or obiter dictum) to the effect that an impeachable officer may be ousted through a writ of quo warranto, and that both cases were not even for quo warranto.

Respondent maintains that whether respondent was a person of ''proven integrity" when she applied for the position of Chief Justice is a political question outside the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, which only the JBC and the President as the appointing authority could determine. She avers that the application of the political question doctrine is not confined to the President or Congress, as the Republic supposedly argues, but extends to other government departments or officers exercising

-------
83 Supra note 75.
84 Supra note 76.
85 Supra note 65.
86 Supra note 66.

Decision                             22                             G.R. No. 237428

correctly instituted the quo warranto petition only against respondent.

Insisting on respondent's lack of integrity, the Republic argues that respondent had the legal obligation to disclose to the JBC that she failed to file her SALNs at least 11 times, citing the case of OCA v. Judge Estacion Jr.(79)

The Republic also argues that respondent's claim of good faith is not a defense. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019(80) and R.A. No. 6713(81) are special laws and are thus governed by the concept of malum prohibitum, wherein malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial. Thus, her act of blaming the Review and Compliance Committee of U.P. for its failure to inform her that she had no SALNs on file does not exonerate her. The Republic further notes that respondent resorted to the fallacy of tu quoque - a diversionary tactic by using the fault of others to justify one's own fault.

Believing in the strength of its case, the Republic underscores its contention that the respondent was not able to dispute the evidence put forth by the Republic that she failed to religiously file her SALNs throughout her entire stint in the government. The Republic claims that it is futile for respondent to merely allege during the Oral Arguments that she filed her SALNs and wi11 produce them before the Senate. Respondent's admissions during the Oral Arguments, together with the U.P. HRDO's certification, prove that she did not religiously file her SALNs as required by law.

As to the applicability of this Court's ruling in Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr.,(82) the Republic argues that the case is not on all fours with the instant petition. The Doblada ruling, according to the OSG, did not involve issues on qualifications to public office unlike the present petition. Second, unlike in Doblada, respondent in this case failed to offer any countervailing evidence to disprove the Certifications by the U.P. HRDO and the Ombudsman. Lastly, the statement in Doblada relied upon by the respondent is a mere dictum. The issue therein is centered on Doblada's unexplained wealth. Furthermore, Doblada was decided only in 2005 or after respondent violated the legal requirement on the filing of SALNs.

-------
79 317 Phil. 600 (1995).
80 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. Approved on August 17, 1960.
81 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on February 20, 1989.
82 498 Phil. 395 (2005).

As to the question on jurisdiction, the Republic contends that the Supreme Court is clothed with the authority to determine respondent's qualifications and eligibility to hold the position of the Chief Justice. It argues that the determination of this issue is not a political question because such issue may be resolved through the interpretation of the pertinent prov1s1ons of the Constitution, laws, JBC rules, and Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Going to the fundamental issue of respondent's eligibility to hold the position of Chief Justice, the Republic reiterates that respondent failed to comply with the requirement of submitting SALNs and thus has failed to prove her integrity. Further, the Republic cites respondent's gross misrepresentation in stating that her reason for non-submission of SALNs was because she could no longer retrieve all of such SALN s. According to the Republic, respondent's allegation seems to imply that she did file her SALNs when the Certifications from the U.P. and the Ombudsman state otherwise.

The Republic posits that respondent's lack of integrity is further bolstered by her failure to disclose to the JBC that she failed to file her SALN 11 times during her tenure as U .P. Law Professor.

Integrity, the Republic claims, is simply faithful adherence to the law, and the filing of SALN is a qualification implied from the requirement of integrity. The filing of SALN is not an additional requirement unduly imposed on applicants to positions in the Judiciary. When respondent failed to file her SALN, she did not comply with the Constitution, laws and appropriate codes of conduct. There is no need to allege or prove graft and corruption in order to prove an aspiring magistrate's lack of integrity.

Finally, the Republic contends that the presumption of regularity cannot be applied in respondent's favor. The Republic claims that such presumption attaches only to official acts and not to all acts of officials. The presumption, according to the Republic, applies only to official acts specified by law as an official duty or to a function attached to a public position. In this case, the filing of SALN is neither an official duty nor a function attached to a position of a U.P. College of Law Professor. In any case, the Republic claims that it has successfully disputed such presumption through the Certifications it presented from U.P. and the Ombudsman.


In addition to the arguments put forth by the Republic in the Petition and the Reply, the Republic further justified its non-inclusion of the JBC in the instant petition. It contends that since the petition only disputes the respondent's eligibility to become the Chief Justice, the Solicitor General

It commemorates the historic and spiritual ties between two peoples scattered among the nations, united by their commitment to freedom, humanitarian principles and faith in the God of the Bible.

The story of the Jews' dramatic escape from the Holocaust and their resettlement in the Philippines is recorded in the book "Escape to Manila," written by refugee Frank Ephraim.

A film that records that modern-day Exodus, titled "Rescue in the Philippines," is being produced by Frieder Films and 3 Roads Communications.

https://unitedwithisrael.org/

Quezon was the President of the first democracy in the "Far East," extending safety and liberty to the Jews who would set up the first democracy and Bible-believing state in the Middle East.

The tradition of freedom of worship and support for the biblical "chosen people" would manifest again seven years later when the Philippines became the only Asian nation to vote in the United Nations for the partition of Palestine and the recreation of the state of Israel. Many of the refugees to Manila eventually resettled in Israel.


'Open Doors' monument
Photo by The Embassy of the Philippines

The Filipinos and Quezon are honored in Israel by an attractive and imposing "Open Doors" monument in Rishon Lezion Memorial Park just off Tel Aviv built in 2009.

The dramatic rescue plan for the Jews was devised by three men who mapped out a strategy over weekend nights playing poker and smoking cigars.

They were: Quezon, who would sanction the Jews' official entry and even donate his own land in Marikina and Mindanao for their settlements; American High Commissioner to the Philippines Paul McNutt, who risked his political career convincing US government officials to issue thousands of working visas for Jews to the Philippines; and Herbert Frieder and his sons, owners of the Philippine-based Helena Cigar and Cigarette Factory, who provided jobs in their factory for the Jews, raised money to transport them to Manila, found them housing and schools for their children.

"We went to the Philippines because it was the only place that gave us a visa," recalled Harry Brauer, one of the Jews who escaped captivity, during that black period of ignorance and anti-Semitism.

The German and Austrian Jews were given visas to work in Manila.

'Moral courage'

"Other countries did not think [saving the Jews] was that important, I don't presume to say," said Quezon's daughter Zeneida Quezon Avanceña.

"But I know dad had the moral courage to do it because he believed in the sanctity of human life and the right of people to live as they believe they should."


Zeneida "Nini" Quezon Avanceña, daughter of former President Manuel L. Quezon. CONTRIBUTED PHOTO

"The mob was screaming bloody murder: 'Kill the Jews!'" recalls child refugee to Manila John Odenheimer who saw Nazi storm troopers rampaging through their Jewish neighborhood.

"We caught the last train out of Berlin, they closed the border after us," recalls German refugee Guenther Leopold, whose house was smashed and ransacked by Nazi soldiers. "There was nothing left (but broken) glass on the floors."

The year was 1940. On the other side of the world, a Filipino leader opened his country to fleeing Jewish refugees when no other country would take them.

President Quezon opened the Philippines' doors to up to 10,000 Jewish refugees.


Manuel Luis Quezón (August 19, 1878 – August 1, 1944) served as president of the Commonwealth of the Philippines from 1935 to 1944. Photo US Library of Congress

Israel Honors The Philippines for Saving Jews

Sep 4, 2012

As the Philippines commemorates the 134th birthday of Manuel L. Quezon, he is also honored by thousands of Jewish families who have survived and prospered because they found a home in Manila at the darkest time in their history as a race.

It was a point of no return.

German and Austrian Jews—1,200 of them—narrowly escaped Adolf Hitler's gas chambers just before the German dictator rounded up 6 million Jews who were eventually tortured and murdered in his concentration camps.

i can relate...

Decision                             22                             G.R. No. 237428

correctly instituted the quo warranto petition only against respondent. Insisting on respondent's lack of integrity, the Republic argues that respondent had the legal obligation to disclose to the JBC that she failed to file her SALNs at least 11 times, citing the case of OCA v. Judge Estacion Jr.(79)

The Republic also argues that respondent's claim of good faith is not a defense. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019(80) and R.A. No. 6713(81) are special laws and are thus governed by the concept of malum prohibitum, wherein malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial. Thus, her act of blaming the Review and Compliance Committee of U.P. for its failure to inform her that she had no SALNs on file does not exonerate her. The Republic further notes that respondent resorted to the fallacy of tu quoque - a diversionary tactic by using the fault of others to justify one's own fault.

Believing in the strength of its case, the Republic underscores its contention that the respondent was not able to dispute the evidence put forth by the Republic that she failed to religiously file her SALNs throughout her entire stint in the government. The Republic claims that it is futile for respondent to merely allege during the Oral Arguments that she filed her SALNs and will produce them before the Senate. Respondent's admissions during the Oral Arguments, together with the U.P. HRDO's certification, prove that she did not religiously file her SALNs as required by law.

As to the applicability of this Court's ruling in Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr.(82), the Republic argues that the case is not on all fours with the instant petition. The Doblada ruling, according to the OSG, did not involve issues on qualifications to public office unlike the present petition. Second, unlike in Doblada, respondent in this case failed to offer any countervailing evidence to disprove the Certifications by the U.P. HRDO and the Ombudsman. Lastly, the statement in Doblada relied upon by the respondent is a mere dictum. The issue therein is centered on Doblada's unexplained wealth. Furthermore, Doblada was decided only in 2005 or after respondent violated the legal requirement on the filing of SALNs.

-------
79 317 Phil. 600 (1995).
80 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. Approved on August 17, 1960.
81 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on February 20, 1989.
82 498 Phil. 395 (2005).

As to the question on jurisdiction, the Republic contends that the Supreme Court is clothed with the authority to determine respondent's qualifications and eligibility to hold the position of the Chief Justice. It argues that the determination of this issue is not a political question because such issue may be resolved through the interpretation of the pertinent prov1s1ons of the Constitution, laws, JBC rules, and Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Going to the fundamental issue of respondent's eligibility to hold the position of Chief Justice, the Republic reiterates that respondent failed to comply with the requirement of submitting SALNs and thus has failed to prove her integrity. Further, the Republic cites respondent's gross misrepresentation in stating that her reason for non-submission of SALNs was because she could no longer retrieve all of such SALN s. According to the Republic, respondent's allegation seems to imply that she did file her SALNs when the Certifications from the U.P. and the Ombudsman state otherwise.

The Republic posits that respondent's lack of integrity is further bolstered by her failure to disclose to the JBC that she failed to file her SALN 11 times during her tenure as U.P. Law Professor.

Integrity, the Republic claims, is simply faithful adherence to the law, and the filing of SALN is a qualification implied from the. requirement of integrity. The filing of SALN is not an additional requirement unduly imposed on applicants to positions in the Judiciary. When respondent failed to file her SALN, she did not comply with the Constitution, laws and appropriate codes of conduct. There is no need to allege or prove graft and corruption in order to prove an aspiring magistrate's lack of integrity.

Finally, the Republic contends that the presumption of regularity cannot be applied in respondent's favor. The Republic claims that such presumption attaches only to official acts and not to all acts of officials. The presumption, according to the Republic, applies only to official acts specified by law as an official duty or to a function attached to a public position. In this case, the filing of SALN is neither an official duty nor a function attached to a position of a U.P. College of Law Professor. In any case, the Republic claims that it has successfully disputed such presumption through the Certifications it presented from U.P. and the Ombudsman.


In addition to the arguments put forth by the Republic in the Petition and the Reply, the Republic further justified its non-inclusion of the JBC in the instant petition. It contends that since the petition only disputes the respondent's eligibility to become the Chief Justice, the Solicitor General

disagrees with respondent's interpretation that the word "may" qualifies only the penalty imposable after the impeachment trial, i.e., removal from office. The Republic claims that respondent's interpretation would lead to an absurd situation in the event that the Senate imposes a lesser penalty, like suspension of the President, which would result in a vacancy in the position not intended by the Constitution. This is because vacancy in the Office of the President occurs only in case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation, in which event the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term.

Invoking the verba legis principle in statutory construction, the Republic claims that Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not expressly prohibit resort to other means to remove impeachable officers in position.

Contrary to respondent's claim that this Court has no disciplinary authority over its incumbent members, the Republic cites Section 13 of A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC which created a permanent Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards, tasked to investigate complaints involving graft and corruption and ethical violations against members of the Supreme Court. The Republic points out that such Ethics Committee conducted the investigation in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC(77) and A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC.(78)

Meanwhile, in support of its claim that the petition is not time-barred, the Republic explains that the State has a continuous interest in ensuring that those who partake of its sovereign powers are qualified. It argues that the one-year period provided under Section 11 of Rule 66 merely applies to individuals who are claiming rights to a public office, and not to the State. To consider the instant petition as time-barred, the Republic argues, is to force the State to spend its resources in favor of an unqualified person.

Further, the Republic claims that even if it be assumed that the one year period applies against the State, it cannot be  deemed to have been notified of respondent's failure to file her SALNs. It argues that it has no statutory obligation to monitor compliance of government employees other than its own. It alleges that SALNs are not published, hence it has no feasible way of taking cognizance of respondent's failure to file SALN.

In any case, the Republic claims that the unique circumstances of the instant case behoove this Court to be liberal in interpreting the one-year reglementary period.

-------
77 647 Phil. 122 (2010).
78 599 Phil. 258 (2009).

leave without pay, she was actually not required to file any SALN for the inclusive years. She adds that to require the submission of SALNs as an absolute requirement is to expand the qualifications provided for under the Constitution.

Nonetheless, respondent represents that she continues to recover and retrieve her missing SALNs and will present them before the Senate sitting as the Impeachment Tribunal and not to this Court considering her objections to the latter's exercise of jurisdiction.

Respondent also stresses that the failure to file SALNs or to submit the same to the JBC has no bearing on one's integrity. The submission of SALNs was simply among the additional documents which the JBC had required of the applicants for the position of Chief Justice. It is respondent's position that the non-filing of SALN is not a ground for disqualification unless the same was already the subject of a pending criminal or administrative case or if the applicant had already been finally convicted for a criminal offense involving said failure to file SALNs. In this case, respondent points out that the JBC was made aware as early as July 20, 2012 that respondent had not submitted to the JBC her SALNs as a U.P. professor and yet none of them invoked Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 or the "integrity rule."

Respondent likewise contends that the issue of whether an applicant for the position of Chief Justice is a person of "proven integrity" is a question "constitutionally committed to the JBC" and is therefore a political question which only the JBC could answer, and it did so in the affirmative when it included respondent's name in the shortlist of nominees for the position of Chief Justice.


In refuting respondent's arguments, the Republic justifies its resort to the unconventional method of quo warranto. The Republic cites the cases of Estrada v. Desierto(75) and Lawyers League for a Better Philippines and/or Oliver Lozano v. President Corazon Aquino et al.(76) where this Court took cognizance of a petition for quo warranto to oust an impeachable official. It reiterates its argument that it seeks respondent's ouster, not on account of commission of impeachable offenses, but because of her ineligibility to assume the position of Chief Justice.

The Republic maintains that the phrase "may be removed from office" in Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution means that Members of the Supreme Court may be removed through modes other than impeachment and

-------
75 406 Phil. 1 (200 I).
76 En Banc Resolution dated May 22, 1986 in G.R. No. 73748.

Justice may be ousted from office only by impeachment. Respondent contends that the use of the phrase "may be removed from office" in Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not signify that Members of the Supreme Court may be removed through modes other than impeachment. According to respondent, the clear intention of the framers of the Constitution was to create an exclusive category of public officers who can be removed only by impeachment and not otherwise.

It is likewise the argument of respondent that since a petition for quo warranto may be filed before the RTC, such would result to a conundrum because a judge of lower court would have effectively exercised disciplinary power and administrative supervision over an official of the Judiciary much higher in rank and is contrary to Sections 6 and 11, Article VIII of the Constitution which vests upon the Supreme Court disciplinary and administrative power over all courts and the personnel thereof. She theorizes that if a Member of the Supreme Court can be ousted through quo warranto initiated by the OSG, the Congress' "check" on the Supreme Court through impeachment would be rendered inutile.

Respondent argues that the present petition is time-barred as Section 11, Rule 66 provides that a petition for quo warranto must be filed within one ( 1) year from the "cause of ouster" and not from the "discovery" of the disqualification. Respondent contends that the supposed "failure" to file the required SALNs allegedly took place for several years from 1986 to 2006, thus, the "cause of ouster" existed even before the respondent was appointed as Chief Justice on August 24, 2012. Therefore, as early as her appointment, the Republic, through the OSG, already had a cause of action to seek her ouster. Even assuming that the one-year prescriptive period may be counted from the Republic's "discovery" of the disqualification, the petition would still be time-barred since the Republic would have made such a "discovery" through U.P., considering that the U.P. HRDO is required to submit a list of employees who failed to file their SALNs.

Respondent avers that the Court cannot presume that she failed to file her SALNs because as a public officer, she enjoys the presumption that her appointment to office was regular. According to respondent, the Republic failed to overcome this presumption as the documents relied upon by it, i.e., certifications from the U.P. HRDO and the Ombudsman, do not categorically state that respondent failed to file her SALNs. On the contrary, respondent points out that the U.P. HRDO had certified that she had been cleared of all administrative responsibilities and charges as of June 1, 2006 and that there was no pending administrative charge against her.

It is likewise the contention of respondent that public officers without pay or those who do not receive compensation are not required to file a SALN. Thus, respondent argues that for the periods that she was on official

Being circumspect in the examination of every pleading and document on record, this Court observes that, initially, the Comment Ad Cautelam dated March 16, 2018 filed before Us was neither signed by the respondent herself nor verified to have been read by her and attested by her that the allegations therein are true and correct of her personal knowledge or based on authentic records. This Court is not unaware that under the Rules of Court, specifically Section 4, Rule 7, not all pleadings need to be under oath, verified, or accompanied by an affidavit. In fact, the rules on quo warranto do not require the filing of such comment, but pursuant to the dictates of the fundamental right of due process and also the desire of this Court to dispose of this case judiciously, impartially, and objectively, this Court gave the respondent the opportunity to be heard and oppose the allegations in the petition by requiring her to file a comment thereto. Thus, this Court anticipated a response from the respondent to take such opportunity to settle the uncertainty of her nomination and appointment through her comment to the petition. What was received by this Court, however, was an unverified Comment repudiating the Court's jurisdiction, merely signed by counsel, who appeared to be representing the respondent.

Wary of the legal implications of such unverified pleading, i.e. possible refutation of the allegations stated therein and repudiation of the signing counsel's authority to represent, this Court in its April 3, 2018 Resolution(69) set as a condition for the conduct of Oral Arguments prayed for by respondent, that the latter affirm and verify under oath the truth and veracity of the allegations in the Comment Ad Cautelam filed by counsel supposedly on her behalf.

In an Ad Cautelam Partial Compliance/Manifestation dated April 5, 2018, respondent affirmed and verified under oath the truth and veracity of the allegations in the said Comment Ad Cautelam through a Verification dated April 6, 2018 attached therein.

In the said Comment Ad Cautelam, respondent argues that, on the strength of Section 2,(70) Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and the cases of Mayor Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan,(71) Cuenca v. Hon. Fernan,(72) In Re: First lndorsement from Hon. Gonzales,(73) and Re: Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment Against Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio,(74) the Chief

-------
69 Id. at 501-505.
70 Sec. 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may 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. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as
provided by law, but not by impeachment.
71 213 Phil. 288 (1984).
72 241 Phil. 162 (1988).
73 243 Phil. 167 (1988).
74 En Banc Resolution dated August JO, 2012 in A.M. No. 12-8-4-SC.

Court since respondent's transgressions only came to light during the proceedings of the House Committee on Justice on the allegations of the impeachment complaint filed against her. Alternatively, the Republic claims that it has an imprescriptible right to bring a quo warranto petition under the maxim nullum tempus occurit regi.

In justifying resort to a petition for quo warranto, the Republic argues that quo warranto is available as a remedy even as against impeachable officers, like respondent. The Republic argues that a petition for quo warranto is different from the impeachment proceedings because the writ of quo warranto is being sought to question the validity of her appointment, while the impeachment complaint accuses her of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust while in office.(64) Citing the 2010 Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) and the cases of Funa v. Chairman Villar(65) and Nacionalista Party v. De Vera,(66) the Republic argues that quo warranto may be resorted to even against impeachable officers and that the respondent's assumption of the position as Chief Justice under the color of an executive appointment is a public wrong correctible by quo warranto.

The Republic seeks to oust respondent from her position as Chief Justice on the ground that the latter failed to show that she is a person of proven integrity which is an indispensable qualification for membership in the Judidary under Section 7(3),(67) Article VIII of the Constitution. According to the Republic, because respondent failed to fulfill the JBC requirement of filing the complete SALNs, her integrity remains unproven. The Republic posits that the JBC's ostensible nomination of respondent does not extinguish the fact that the latter failed to comply with the SALN requirement as the filing thereof remains to be a constitutional and statutory requirement.(68)

In sum, the Republic contends that respondent's failure to submit her SALNs as required by the JBC disqualifies her, at the outset, from being a candidate for the position of Chief Justice. Lacking her SALNs, respondent has not proven her integrity which is a requirement under the Constitution. The Republic thus concludes that since respondent is ineligible for the position of Chief Justice for lack of proven integrity, she has no right to hold office and may therefore be ousted via quo warranto.

-------
64 Rollo, p. 13.
65 686 Phi I. 571 (2012).
66 85 Phil. 126 (1949).
67 Sec. 7. (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. (Emphasis ours)
68 Rollo, p. 28.

The impeachment complaint was endorsed by several members of the House and, thereafter, was found to be sufficient in form and substance. The respondent filed her answer to the impeachment complaint. After the filing of the reply and the rejoinder, the House Committee on Justice conducted several hearings on the determination of probable cause, the last of which was held on February 27, 2018.(57)

During these hearings, it was revealed that respondent purportedly failed to file her SALNs while she was a member of the faculty of the U.P. College of Law and that she filed her SALN only for the years 1998, 2002 and 2006. During the hearing on February 7, 2018 of the House Committee on Justice, Justice Peralta, as a resource person being then the acting ex-officio Chairman of the JBC, further claimed that during the JBC deliberations in 2012, he was not made aware that respondent submitted incomplete SALNs nor that respondent's letter dated July 23, 2012 to the JBC was ever deliberated upon.(58) This was confirmed by Atty. Fernan Cayosa;(59) by Atty. Capacite, who emphasized that based on the rubber stamp received, only the offices of the JBC regular members, the ORSN and the OEO were furnished copies of the letter;(60) and by Atty. Pascual on the basis of the transmittal letter.(61)

The foregoing sworn declarations made during the hearings before the House Committee on Justice spawned two relevant incidents: one, the proposal of the House Committee for this Court to investigate on the proceedings of the JBC relative to the nomination of respondent as Chief Justice which is now presently docketed as A.M. No. 17-11-12 and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC; and two, the Letter(62) dated February 21, 2018 of Atty. Eligio Mallari to the OSG requesting that the latter, in representation of the Republic, initiate a quo warranto proceeding against respondent.

Thus, the present petition.


The Republic, through the OSG, claims that an action for quo warranto is the proper remedy to question the validity of respondent's appointment. It alleges that the instant petition is seasonably filed within the one-year reglementary period under Section 11, Rule 66,(63) of the Rules of

-------
57 Id. at 176-177.
58 TSN dated February 7, 2018, VI-3, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
59 TSN dated Febraury 12, 2018, LCLV, XIII-2, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
60 TSN dated February 12, 2018, HLEF, XXII-3, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
61 TSN dated February 12, 2018, LCLV, XXVIIl-4, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
62 Id. at 93-94.
63 Sec. 11. Limitations. - Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (l) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose, nor to authorize an action for damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding section unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner's right to the office in question.

On the scheduled date of the interview on July 24, 2012, despite respondent's submission of only 3 SALNs, Atty. Pascual prepared a Report Re: Documentary Requirements and SALN of candidates for the Position of Chief Justice of the Philippines(55) wherein respondent was listed as applicant No. 14 with an opposite annotation that she had "COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS" and a note stating "Letter 7/23/12 - considering that her government records in the academe are more than 15 years old, it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve all those files."

The JBC then proceeded to interview the candidates, including respondent who was interviewed on July 27, 2012. On August 6, 2012, the ORSN prepared a list of the 20 candidates, respondent included, vis-a-vis their SALN submissions. Opposite respondent's name was an enumeration of the SALNs she submitted, i.e., 2009, 2010 and 2011 and an excerpt from her July 23, 2012 letter that "considering that [respondent's] government records in the academe are more than 15 years old, it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve all those files." On August 13, 2012, the JBC voted on who would be included in the short list and on the same day, transmitted to the President its nominations(56) for the position of Chief Justice, as follows:

1. Carpio, Antonio T.
2. Abad, Roberto A.
3. Brion, Arturo D.
4. Jardeleza, Francis H.
5. Sereno, Maria Lourdes P.A.
6. Zamora, Ronaldo B.
7. Leonardo-De Castro, Teresita J.
8. Villanueva, Cesar L.

A month after respondent's acceptance of her nomination, or on August 24, 2012, respondent was appointed by then President Aquino III as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

On August 30, 2017, or five years after respondent's appointment as Chief Justice, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Larry Gadon (Atty. Gadon) against respondent with the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives (House Committee on Justice) for culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust. The complaint also alleged that respondent failed to make truthful declarations in her SALNs.

-------
55 See Annex "C" of the Joint Comment of Atty. Mejia and Atty. Cayosa in A.M. No. 17-11-12-SC and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC.
56 Id. at 278-279.

Resolution No. 060231 dated 01 February 2006 and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 10-2006 dated 17 April 2006), this clearance can be taken as an assurance that my previous government employer considered the SALN requirements to have been met. A copy of the Clearance dated 19 September 2011 issued by the University of the Philippine~ is hereby attached.

In the 05 June 2012 Announcement, the Judicial and Bar Council imposed the requirement of submitting all previous SALNs for those in the government. As I pointed out earlier, my service in government is not continuous. The period of my private practice between my service in the University of the Philippines ending in 2006 and my appointment to the Supreme Court in 2010 presents a break in government service. Hence, in compliance with the documentary requirements for my candidacy as Chief Justice, I submitted only the SALN s from end of 2009 up to 31 December 2011, since I am considered to have been returned to public office and rendered government service anew from the time of my appointment as Associate Justice on 16 August 2010.

Considering that I have been previously cleared from all administrative responsibilities and accountabilities from my entire earlier truncated government service, may I kindly request that the requirements that I need to comply with, be similarly viewed as that from a private sector, before my appointment to the Government again m 2010 as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.


The letter dated July 23, 2012 was received by the Office of the Administrative and Financial Services (OAFS) and copies thereof were received by the offices of the JBC regular members, the ORSN and the OE0.(52) The letter, however, was neither examined by the JBC regular members nor was it deliberated upon either by the JBC En Banc or the Execom.(53) Although the determination of whether a candidate has substantially complied with the documentary requirements was delegated to the Execom, the latter could not produce any minutes of the meeting or record that the members thereof deliberated on the July 23, 2012 letter of respondent.(54)

-------
51 Id. at 78-79.
52 See Comment of Executive Officer Atty. Capacite in A.M. No. 17-11-12~SC and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC, p. 5.
53 See Joint Comment of Atty. Mejia and Atty. Cayosa in A.M. No. 17-11-12-SC and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC, p. 6.
54 Letter dated April 6, 2018 of Atty. Capacite to the Office of Justice Tijam, certifying that there was no such minutes of meeting. The letter states:
xxxx
     This pertains to your request (through a telephone call) this afternoon for a copy of the minutes of a meeting wherein the Executive Committee of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) supposedly made a detennination after the 20 July 2012 JBC En Banc meeting of who among the candidates for the Chief Justice position had or had not substantially complied with the documentary requirements for the said post.
     As I have earlier informed you, no such minutes is extant in our records.
xxxx.

Because there were several candidates with incomplete documentary requirements, the JBC En Banc agreed to again  extend the deadline for the submission of the lacking requirements to July 23, 2012 and that the determination of whether a candidate has substantially complied with the  requirements be delegated to the Execom. It also appears that the JBC En Banc further agreed that the candidates who fail to complete the requirements on said date are to be excluded from the list of candidates to be interviewed and considered for nomination, unless they would be included if in the determination of the Execom he or she has substantially complied.(47)

Thus, on July 20, 2012, the ORSN, through its then Chief Atty. Richard Pascual (Atty. Pascual), inquired as to respondent's SALNs for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999. (48) During the Congressional hearings on impeachment, Atty. Pascual would later on testify that he asked respondent to submit her SALNs from 1996 to 2006, or spanning a period of 10 years.(49) During the Oral Arguments, respondent would maintain that Atty. Pascual only required her to submit her SALNs from 1995-1999 and did not ask for her more recent SALNs. Either way, the years requested from respondent are within the period (1986 to 2006) covered by her employment with the U.P. College of Law.

In response, the respondent, in the afternoon of July 23, 2012, transmitted a letter(50) of even date to the JBC, which stated:


As I had noted in my Personal Data Sheet, after my resignation from government service in 2006, as a professor at the University of the Philippines, I became a full-time private practitioner. Hence, when I was nominated for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 2010, my nomination was considered as that of a private practitioner, and not as a government employee. Thus, the requirements imposed on me in connection with the consideration of my name, were those imposed on nominees from the private sector, and my earlier-terminated government service, did not control nor dominate the kind of requirements imposed on me.

Considering that most of my government records in the academe are more than fifteen years old, it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve all of those files.

In any case, the University of the Philippines has already cleared me of all academic/administrative responsibilities, money and property accountabilities and from administrative charges as of O 1 June 2006. Since it is the ministerial duty of the Head of the Office to ensure that the SALNs of its personnel are properly filed and accomplished (CSC

-------
47 Id. at 289-290.
48 Id. at 270-271.
49 House Committee Hearing on February 27, 2018.
50 Id. at 78-79 and 270-271.

 

The Executive Officer informed the Council that Dean Pangalangan lacks five (5) SALNs. She was informed that he could not obtain them from the U.P., but he is trying to get from the Civil Service Commission.

Justice Lagman moved that the SALNs of Dean Pangalangan be considered as substantial compliance.

8. Congressman Rufus B. Rodriguez

Justice Peralta said that as per the report, Congressman Rodriguez did not submit even one SALN. He commented that he may not be interested although he accepted his nomination.

The Executive Officer informed the Council that he is abroad. He was notified through email, as his secretary would not give his contact number.

9. Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento - has lacking SALNs

10. Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno

The Executive Officer informed the Council that she had not submitted her SALNs for a period of ten (10) years, that is, from 1986 to 2006.

Senator Escudero mentioned that Justice Sereno was his professor at U.P. and that they were required to submit SALNs during those years.

11. Judge Manuel DJ Siayngco - has complied

Atty. Cayosa mentioned that Judge Siayngco has to submit a certificate of exemption because judges are also required to comply with that requirement.

12. Dean Amado D. Valdez - has lacking requirements

13. Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. - has complied

14. Atty. Vicente R. Velasquez - has lacking requirements

15. Dean Cesar L. Villanueva - has lacking requirements

16. Atty. Ronaldo B. Zamora - has lacking SALNs and MCLE
cert.


-------
46 Id. at 288-289.

Decision                             10                             G.R. No. 237428

On July 2, 2012, respondent accepted several nominations from the legal and the evangelical community for the position of Chief Justice and in support of her nomination, respondent submitted to the ORSN her SALNs for the years 2009,(39) 2010,(40) and 2011. (41) Respondent also executed a waiver of confidentiality(42) of her local and foreign bank accounts.(43)

On July 6, 2012, or even before the deadline of the submission of the documentary requirements on July 17, 2012, the JBC En Banc came up with a long list of the candidates totaling twenty-two (22), respondent included, and scheduled the public interview of said candidates on July 24-27, 2012.(44)

On July 20, 2012, the JBC in its Special En Banc Meeting,(45) deliberated on the candidates for the position of Chief Justice with incomplete documentary requirements. In particular, the JBC examined the list of candidates and their compliance with the required submission of SALNs. The minutes of the JBC deliberation reveal as follows:


The Executive Officer asked for clarification, particularly with respect to SALNs, whether five (5) SALNs would constitute a substantial compliance if the candidate has been in the government service for twenty (20) years.

The Council examined the list with regard to the SALNs, particularly the candidates coming from the government, and identified who among them would be considered to have substantially complied:

1. Justice Arturo D. Brion - has substantially complied

2. Justice Antonio T. Carpio - has substantially complied

3. Secretary Leila M. De Lima - has substantially complied

4. Chairperson Teresita J. Herbosa - has complied

5. Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza - has complied

6. Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro - has sµbstantially complied

7. Dean Raul C. Pangalangan

-------
39 Id. at 71-72.
40 Id. at 73-74.
41 Id. at 75-77.
42 Id. at 269.
43 Id. at 174-175.
44 Minutes of JBC Meeting dated July 6, 2012.
45 Annex "17" of the Comment.

Mejia as regular member representing the academe. The JBC Executive Committee (Execom) was composed of the JBC Regular Members and assisted by the Office of the Executive Officer (OEO) headed by Atty. Annaliza S. Ty-Capacite (Atty. Capacite ).

The JBC announcement was preceded by an En Banc meeting held on June 4, 2012 wherein the JBC agreed to require the applicants for the Chief Justice position to submit, instead of the usual submission of the SALNs for the last two years of public service, all previous SALNs up to December 31, 2011 for those in government service. (33) However, for the other judicial vacancies, the JBC required the submission of only two SALNs.(34) Accordingly, in the Announcement(35) published on June 5, 2012, the JBC specifically directed the ~andidates for the Chief Justice post to submit, in addition to the usual documentary requirements, the following:

(1) Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALN):

a. for those in the government: all previous SALNs (up to 31 December 2011)

b. for those from the private sector: SALN as of 31 December 2011

(2) Waiver in favor of the JBC of the confidentiality of local and foreign bank accounts under the Bank Secrecy Law and Foreign Currency Deposits Act. 36 (Emphasis ours)

The JBC announcement further provided that "applicants with incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not be interviewed or considered for nomination."(37)

Nevertheless, the JBC En Banc subsequently agreed to extend the deadline for the filing of applications or recommendations to July 2, 2012 and the submission of the other documentary requirements to July 17, 2012.(38)

On June 25, 2012, the JBC En Banc resolved not to require the incumbent Supreme Court Justices who are candidates for the Chief Justice position to submit other documentary requirements, particularly the required clearances. Instead, the JBC En Banc required the incumbent Justices to submit only the SALNs, bank waiver, medical certificate, laboratory results and the PDS.

-------
33 TSN dated February 12, 2018, X-3, Committee on Justice ofthe House of Representatives; see also Joint Comment of JBC Regular Members Atty. Jose V. Mejia and Atty. Maria Milagros Fernan-Cayosa (Re: Resolution dated 20 February 2018) in A.M. No. 17-11-12-SC and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC.
34 JBC Announcement dated June 19, 2012; id. at 2190.
35 Id. at 84-86.
36 Id. at 83.
37 Id. at 86.
38 JBC Announcement dated June 19, 2012; id. at 2190.

Year: 2003
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2002
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31,2002

Year: 2004
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2003
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 2005
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2004
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 2006
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2005
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

June 1, 2006
SALN ought to be filed: SALN as of June 1, 2006 (exit SALN)
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record of SALN as of June 1, 2006 (exit SALN)-

Alleged break in government service from June 2, 2006 until August 15, 2009 but was engaged as legal counsel for the Republic from June 2, 2006 to 2009.


Year: August 16, 2010
SALN ought to be filed: SALN as of August 16, 2010 (re-entry SALN)
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31, 2009 but filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc only on June 22, 2012 and unsubscribed
-no record of SALN as of August 16, 2010 (re-entry SALN)-

Year: 2011
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2010
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31, 2010 but unsubscribed

Year: 2012
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2011
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31, 2011

A month after, or on August 13, 2010, respondent was appointed by then President Benigno C. Aquino III (President Aquino III) as Associate Justice, and on August 16, 2010, respondent took her oath of office as such.

When the position of the Chief Justice was declared vacant in 2012, the JBC announced(32) the opening for application and recommendation of the position of Chief Justice. During the 2012 deliberations for the position of the Chief Justice, the members of the JBC En Banc were  Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (Justice Peralta) as Acting ex officio Chairman; Undersecretary Michael Frederick L. Musngi as ex officio member vice Leila M. De Lima; Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Representative Niel Tupas as ex officio members representing the Congress; Justice Regino C. Hermosisima Jr. as regular member representing the retired Supreme Court Justices; Justice Aurora Santiago Lagman as regular member representing the Private Sector; Atty. Maria Milagros N. Fernan-Cayosa as regular member representing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and Atty. Jose V.

-------
32 Id. at 83.

Year: 1986
SALN ought to be filed: SALN as of November 1986 (entry SALN)
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31, 1985; -no record of SALN as of November 1986-

Year: 1987
SALN ending December 31, 1986
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 1988
SALN ending December 31, 1987
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 1989
SALN ending December 31, 1988
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 1990
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1989
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1989 (sourced by respondent from one of the "filing cabinets" or "drawers" of U.P.)

Year: 1991
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1990
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31, 1990

Year: 1992
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December SALN ending December 31, 1990
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1991

Year:1993
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1992
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 1994
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1993
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1993

Year:1995
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1994
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1994

Year:1996
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1995
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1995

Year: 1997
SALN ought to be filed: December SALN ending December 31, 1996
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1996

Year: 1998
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December SALN ending December 31, 1997
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1997

Year: 1999
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1998
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1998 (filed with the Ombudsman on December 16, 2003)

Year: 2000
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1999
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 2001
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2000
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 2002
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2001
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

(note: sourced from tabular form by poster)

After having served as a professor at the U.P. College of Law until 2006, and thereafter as practitioner in various outfits including as legal counsel for the Republic until 2009, the respondent submitted her application for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in July 2010.

In support of her application as Associate Justice, respondent submitted to the Office of Recruitment Selection and Nomination (ORSN) of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) her SALN for the year 2006.(26) This SALN for 2006 bears no stamp received by the U.P. HRDO and was signed on July 27, 2010.(27) According to respondent, the JBC considered her nomination for the position of Associate Justice as that of a private practitioner and not as a government employee.(28) Only recently, in a letter(29) to the ORSN dated February 2, 2018, likewise attached to her Ad Cautelam Manifestation/Submission, respondent would explain that such SALN was really intended to be her SALN as of July 27, 2010.(30) Respondent further explained during the Oral Arguments that she merely downloaded the SALN form and forgot to erase the year "2006" printed thereon and that she was not required by the ORSN to submit a subscribed SALN.(31)

Thus, as the certifications executed by the U.P. HRDO, the Ombudsman and the ORSN of the JBC stand, the only SALNs available on record and filed by respondent were those for the calendar years 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002 or eleven (11) SALNs filed in her 20-year government service in U.P. No SALNs were filed from 2003 to 2006 when she was employed as legal counsel for the Republic. Neither was there a SALN filed when she resigned from U.P. College of Law as of June 1, 2006 and when she supposedly re-entered government service as of August 16, 2010.

In tabular form, respondent's inclusive years in government employment vis-a-vis the SALNs filed by her and available on record are as follows:

-------
26 Id. at 67-70.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 174.
29 Id. at 1729-1730.
30 TSN, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
31 TSN, Oral Arguments dated April 10, 2018.

Position: Deputy Commissioner 

Department/Agency: Commission on Human Rights (UP Diliman, Commonwealth Ave., QC, TEL:928-7098)

Nature of Work: Legal and Administrative

Supervisor: Acting Chairman & Commissioner Abelardo Aportadera (TEL: 687-7571)

Incidentally, the U.P. HRDO certified that there was no record on respondent's 201 file of any permission to engage in limited practice of profession.(11) Her engagement as legal counsel for the Republic continued until 2009.(12)

Despite having been employed at the U.P. College of Law from November 1986 to June 1, 2006, the record of the U.P. HRDO only contains the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for 1985,(13) 1990,(14) 1991, (15) 1993,(16) 1994,(17) 1995,(18) 1996,(19) 1997,size=6pt](20)[/size] and 2002,(21) filed by respondent. On the other hand, the records of the Central Records Division of the Office of the Ombudsman yields that there is no SALN filed by respondent for calendar years 1999 to 2009 except for the SALN ending December 1998 which was subscribed only in August 2003 and transmitted by the U.P. HRDO to the Ombudsman only on December 16, 2003.(22) Belatedly, in respondent's Ad Cautelam Manifestation/Submission, she attached a copy of her SALN for 1989(23) which she supposedly sourced from the "filing cabinets"(24) or "drawers of U.P."(25) Similarly, despite having been employed as legal counsel of various government agencies from 2003 to 2009, there is likewise no showing that she filed her SALNs for these years, except for the SALN ending December 31, 2009 which was  unsubscribed and filed before the Office of the Clerk of Court only on June 22, 2012.

-------
11 Id. at 65.
12 Id. at 173.
13 Id. at 597-597 A.
14 Id. at 598-598A.
15 Id. at 599-599A.
16 Id. at 600-600A.
17 Id. at 601-601A.
18 Id. at 602-602A.
19 Id. at 603-603A.
20 Id. at 604-604A.
21 Id. at 54-55.
22 Id. at 60-62.
23 ld. at 1727-1728.
24 TSN, Oral Arguments on April 10, 2018, p. 105.
25 TSN, Oral Arguments on April 10, 2018, p. 120.

Based on the records of the U.P. Human Resources Development Office (U.P. HRD0),( 8 ) respondent was on official leave from the U.P. College of Law for the following periods:

June 1, 2000 - May 31, 2001
June 1, 2001 - May 31, 2002
November 1, 2003 - May 31, 2004
June 1, 2004 - October 31, 2004
November 1, 2004 - February 10, 2005
February 11, 2005 - October 31, 2005
November 15, 2005 - May 31, 2006

While being employed at the U.P. College of Law, or from October 2003 to 2006, respondent was concurrently employed as legal counsel of the Republic in two international arbitrations: (a) PIATCO v. Republic of the Philippines and MIAA; and (b) Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (PIATCO cases).(9)

The Personal Data Sheet (PDS) accomplished under oath by respondent further details, among others, the following engagements/services rendered by her for various government agencies:(10)

Position: Legal Counsel 

Department/Agency: Various agencies of government--- Office of the President, Office of the Solicitor General, Manila International Airport Authority, Department of Agriculture, Department of Trade and Industry, WTO-AFTA Commission, Philippine Coconut Authority 

Nature of Work: Legal--- various international trade and investment law in WTO (Geneva), ICSID (Washington, DC), ICC-ICA (Singapore, Paris), and in bilateral dispute resolution mechanisms

Supervisor: Executive Secretaries Alberto Romulo, Eduardo Ermita, and Leandro Mendoza; Presidential Legal Counsel Avelino Cruz and Merceditas Gutierrez; Solicitor Generals Alfredo Benipayo, Antonio Nachura and Agnes Devanadera; MIAA General Manager Alfonso Cusi, Sen. Edgardo Angara, Sec. Salvador Escudero, Undersecretary Thomas Aquino, Amb. Lilia Bautista

-------
8 Annex "D" of the Petition.
9 Id. at 173. 10 Id. at 850-851.

it tritely - "the Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court."(4) All public officers whether in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial departments are bound to follow the law. If a public officer violates the law, he or she shall suffer punishment, sanctions and adverse consequences. The obligatory force of the law is necessary because once we allow exceptions, concessions, waiver, suspension or nonapplication to those who do not want to follow the law, nobody else will obey the law.

In this unprecedented case for quo warranto against the incumbent Chief Justice, the Republic entreats this Court to declare Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (respondent) ineligible to hold the highest post in the Judiciary for failing to regularly disclose 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 Supreme Court, in violation of the Constitution, the Anti-Graft Law, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Republic accordingly seeks the nullification of respondent's appointment, asserting that her failure to file the required disclosures and her failure to submit the same to the Judicial and Bar Council show that she is not possessed of "proven integrity" demanded of every aspirant to the Judiciary.


Invoking the Court's original jurisdiction under Section 5(1 ), Article VIII of the Constitution in relation to the special civil action under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed the present Petition (5) for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare as void respondent's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and to oust and altogether exclude respondent therefrom.


From November 1986 to June 1, 2006, or spanning a period of 20 years, respondent served as a member of the faculty of the University of the Philippines-College of Law (U.P. or U.P. College of Law), initially as a temporary faculty member (from November 1986 to December 31, 1991) and thereafter, as a permanent faculty member until her resignation therefrom on June 1, 2006.(6) As a regular faculty member, respondent was paid by the month by U.P. (7)

-------
4 Id. at 943.
5 Rollo, pp. 3-44.
6 Id. at 172.
7 TSN, Oral Arguments on April 10, 2018.

Integrity has, at all times, been stressed to be one of the required qualifications of a judge. It is not a new concept in the vocation of administering and dispensing justice. In the early l 600's, Francis Bacon, a philosopher, statesman, and jurist, in his "Essay L VI: Of Judicature" said - "'[a]bove all things, integrity is the Judge's portion and proper virtue." Neither is integrity a complex concept necessitating esoteric philosophical disquisitions to be understood. Simply, it is a qualification of being honest, truthful, and having steadfast adherence to moral and ethical principles.(1) Integrity connotes being consistent - doing the right thing in accordance with the law and ethical standards every time. Hence, every judicial officer in any society is required to comply, not only with the laws and legislations, but with codes and canons of conduct and ethical standards as well, without derogation. As Thomas Jefferson remarked, "it is of great importance to set a resolution, never not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual, he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart and in time depraves all its good dispositions." Mental dishonesty and moral mischief breed all that integrity is not.

In our jurisdiction, one cannot be qualified to be a member of the Judiciary, lacking such mandatory requirement of "proven integrity". Inevitably, an appointee to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must be the exemplar of honesty, probity and integrity. The purpose of this requirement is self-evident as the Chief Justice heads the Judiciary and adjudicates cases as a member of the Court that "has the last word on what the law is."(2) Together with other Justices, the Chief Justice also disciplines members of the Bar for misconduct. The significance of probity and integrity as a requirement for appointment to the Judiciary is underscored by the fact that such qualifications are not explicitly required of the President, the Vice-President or the Members of Congress under the Constitution. The Constitution, thus, demands in no uncertain terms that the Chief Justice be the embodiment of moral and ethical principles. He or she must be of unquestionable character, possessed of moral authority to demand obedience to the law and to impose a rule of conduct. Indeed, one who exacts compliance with the law and ethical standards should be their foremost adherent.

No one is above the law and the Constitution, not even a Chief Justice who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. The Court in Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives,(3) says

-------
<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/integrity> (visited on March 19, 2018);
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/integrity> (visited on March 19, 2018). 2 Conde v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 228 Phil. 145, 151 ( 1986). 3 460 Phil. 830 (2003).

notes for posterity; the ponencia of the pro and con supreme court justices on the quo warranto against ma. lourdes sereno. 2018.

It is clear to me and many others that the Court, the one nonpolitical branch of government, must hear back from the people it has failed to serve.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/

Then, three paragraphs later, we read: "The present action for quo warranto against the respondent constitutes an institutional attack on the Supreme Court, as it enlists the Court's participation in the erosion of its own independence through the circumvention of the very document it has been tasked to uphold."

Like many others, I am still in shock over the Court's suicide. It was not unexpected; the signs were there for all to see. Still. I grieve over the role our constitutional law professor, Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, played in the tragedy—his decision to appear at the impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives had befuddled those of us in the first class he ever taught; but his vote to allow the patently unconstitutional ouster of the chief justice upended everything he taught us in Constitutional Law. I note that in an extensive discussion on Maria Lourdes Sereno's motion to inhibit six justices who had demonstrated manifest partiality against her, the decision only explained away the conduct of four of the justices; nothing much was said about Jardeleza and about Associate Justice Teresita de Castro. Their damning statements were simply ignored. I read the Tijam decision and see that white is painted as black, and black as white—this is not justice, but, rather, the opposite of it.

For me, the most crucial (and at the same time characteristic) passage in Caguioa's dissent directly responds to the majority's dismissal of the fear that the Solicitor General was being given too much power.

"The 'fear' is not founded on the 'fallacious and cynical view of the competence and professionalism of the Solicitor General and the members of this Court.' ... the 'fear' is not even based on any imputation of malice or irregularity on the part of the present Solicitor General. Rather, the 'fear' is based on the dangerous power the ponencia grants the present and future Solicitors General without any constitutional support. With such unfettered power, the balance of power between the three coordinate departments unconstitutionally shifts, and the independence and stability of the Judiciary is eroded. This is where the danger lies."

He summarizes his view by offering six interconnected arguments, a layered approach to the issue that measures the leap in logic the majority decision had to make. Then he responds to every major argument of the ruling, proving without a doubt that the eight justices who used the case to "re-write the Constitution" (Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio), "supplanting the [Judicial and Bar] Council's determination" (Associate Justice Estela Perlas Bernabe) and birthing "a legal abomination" (Associate Justice Marvic Leonen), committed institutional suicide. "Without honor," Caguioa adds.

Years from now, as we sift through the jurisprudential debris of the Duterte era, we will find the charred remains of the Peralta ruling on the Marcos burial and the rotting timber of Tijam's lengthy justification for ousting a chief justice without benefit of an impeachment proceeding—and then we will see, still standing, the true guideposts. We will be reminded, with the full force of regret, of the legal acuity of Carpio's opinions, the eloquence and superior understanding of Leonen's dissents, and the compelling clarity of Caguioa's alternate — that is to say, true — accounting.

NEWSSTAND

The Supreme Court commits suicide

John Nery
May 15, 2018

When the complete history of this Supreme Court is written, the role of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa as the clarion voice of conscience and clarity in the hardest cases will finally be given sharp relief. As I have learned in the Marcos burial case and in the martial-law-in-Mindanao decisions, Caguioa's dissenting opinion is the right first read after the ponencia. His dissents — in brisk, bracing language — offer a comprehensive, point-by-point rebuttal (or perhaps the more precise term is evisceration) of the majority opinion; they are messages from an alternate universe, where justice prevails over power and reason over force.

He has done it again, in Republic v. Sereno. He begins with an unflinching look at the true stakes: "This quo warranto petition is brought before the Court purportedly to test the integrity of the Chief Justice. However, what it really tests is the integrity of the Court .... By ousting the Chief Justice through the expediency of holding that the Chief Justice failed this 'test' of integrity, it is actually the Court that fails." (That one word, "expediency," is telling.)

Germany

The German government expressed deep concern about the dozens of Palestinians killed by Israeli troops in Gaza, urging Israel to refrain from using live munitions except as a last resort.

"The right to peaceful protest must also apply in Gaza," a foreign ministry spokeswoman said. "Israel has the right to defend itself and secure its [border] fence against violent intrusions, but the principle of proportionality applies."

That meant that live munitions should only be used when other, weaker forms of deterrence had proven unsuccessful and specific threats were present, the spokeswoman added.

-from "World leaders react to US embassy relocation to Jerusalem", https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/world-leaders-react-embassy-relocation-jerusalem-180514142652207.html

European Union

Federica Mogherini, the European Union's foreign policy chief, called on Israel to respect the "principle of proportionality in the use of force" after Israeli soldiers shot and killed dozens of Palestinians in Gaza.

Mogherini said that all should act "with utmost restraint to avoid further loss of life" and added that "Israel must respect the right to peaceful protest".

She also insisted that Hamas, which runs the enclave, must make sure demonstrators in Gaza are peaceful and "must not exploit them for other means".

Some European foreign ministers said that Trump's decision to relocate the embassy was unwise and likely to exacerbate tensions.

Ireland's Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said the move "is inflaming already a very tense situation, and the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians."

His Dutch counterpart, Stef Blok, said: "we don't consider it a wise decision to move the embassy".

Their comments come after the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania blocked the 28-nation European Union from publishing a statement about the US move.

Pakistan

Pakistan's foreign ministry said in a statement that the embassy move to Jerusalem violates international law and several UN Security Council resolutions, in particular resolutions 476 and 478.

"The government and people of Pakistan stand firmly with the Palestinian people," the statement read.

"Pakistan also renews its call for establishment of a viable, independent and contiguous State of Palestine, on the basis of internationally agreed parameters, the pre-1967 borders, and with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital."

Kuwait

Kuwait called for an emergency UN Security Council meeting for Tuesday.

Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour urged the council Monday to condemn the killings. Mansour called the Israeli military response a "savage onslaught" and an "atrocity".

The council held an emergency meeting when the protests began in March. Members then urged restraint on both sides but could not agree on any action or joint message.

Turkey

Late on Monday evening, Ankara announced that it will be recalling its ambassadors in Washington and Tel Aviv.

"What Israel is doing is a genocide," Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, according to state-run Anadolu news agency. "Israel is a terrorist state."

Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag said Turkey will call for a UN General Assembly meeting, as he announced that three days of national mourning will be held to commemorate the Palestinian demonstrators killed in Gaza.

Ibrahim Kalin, spokesman for the Turkish president, called the deaths of Palestinians in Gaza "another dark spot, another crime added to Israel's wall of shame".

Kalin took to Twitter to criticise the international community for its silence "in the face of this systematic barbarism".

The Turkish foreign ministry said in a statement the embassy move violated international law and damaged the peace process.

In a statement published late on Sunday, Erdogan said the relocation served to "reward" the Israeli government despite it undermining efforts to resolve the decades-long conflict, while it "punished" Palestinians.

"History and humanity will never forgive the injustices done to our Palestinian brothers," Erdogan said.

 
Lebanon

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri wrote on Twitter that he regrets "this decision that is igniting the anger of millions of Arabs, Muslims and Christians".

He said Lebanon denounces the "provocative" decision that is deepening the conflict and allowing the "Israelis to spill more blood of innocent Palestinians and increases the intensity of extremism that threatens the world community".

The group's deputy leader, Sheikh Naim Kassem, made his comments in a speech in Beirut on Monday marking the 70th anniversary of what Arabs refer to as the Nakba or "Catastrophe", when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were expelled from what is now Israel during the 1948 war around Israel's creation.

"God willing, the Nakba that happened 70 years ago will be a motive for change and liberation," Kassem said.

Iran

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif called the US embassy opening in Jerusalem "a day of great shame".

"Israeli regime massacres countless Palestinians in cold blood as they protest in the world's largest open air prison," he wrote on Twitter.

"Meanwhile, Trump celebrates move of US illegal embassy and his Arab collaborators move to divert attention".

Last week, Trump defied last-ditch efforts by European allies and withdrew the US from a multinational nuclear agreement signed with Iran in 2015. 

"Definitely their measures on moving their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and Iran's nuclear issue will not go unchallenged," Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran's parliament, said on Monday, warning that the relocation would inflame tensions in the Middle East.

"These sorts of actions will increase tension in the region and the world," Iran's semi-official ISNA news agency quoted Larijani as saying.

Larijani urged Muslim countries to take more serious measures in response to Trump's "wrong and unwise decision".

 
United Nations

Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, the UN high commissioner for human rights, called for the immediate stop of Israeli live fire targeting dozens.

A statement read on Twitter: "Shocking killing of dozens, injury of hundreds by Israeli live fire in Gaza must stop now. The right to life must be respected. Those responsible for outrageous human rights violations must be held to account. The international community needs to ensure justice for victims."

Earlier, Antonio Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, expressed concern about "the high number of people killed" in Gaza.

Speaking to reporters in Austria's capital, Vienna, the UN chief said that the Gaza bloodshed showed the need for a political solution.

"There is no Plan B to a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace," Guterres said.

Here's a round-up of statements from around the world regarding Monday's events (i.e. US embassy opening in Jerusalem and Palestinian protests):

Arab League

The Cairo-based Arab League, comprising 22 member states, urged the international community to oppose what it considers an "unjust decision" and the ongoing "Israeli occupation" of Jerusalem

It called the embassy relocation a "blatant attack on the feelings of Arabs and Muslims" and a "grave violation of the rules of international law" that would destabilise the region.

Palestinians have asked for an urgent meeting at the Arab League on Wednesday to discuss the matter.

Egypt's al-Azhar religious institution meanwhile urged the international community to use "all peaceful means" to "dismiss positions of countries that sided with the Zionist entity," referring to Israel.

some trivia:

-of the asean, not a single muslim-majority country was represented

-of the 28-member european union (including the united kingdom), austria, czech republic, hungary, and romania, for a total of 4, were represented

Most countries say the status of Jerusalem - a sacred city to Jews, Muslims and Christians - should be determined in a final peace settlement and that moving their embassies now would pre-judge any such deal.

Israel's foreign ministry said all 86 countries with diplomatic missions in Israel were invited to the embassy opening, and 32 confirmed attendance.

Here is a breakdown of the countries that attended the ceremony:

A: Albania, Angola, Austria

C: Cameroon, Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ivory Coast, Czech Republic

D: Dominican Republic

E: El Salvador, Ethiopia

G: Georgia, Guatemala

H: Honduras, Hungary

K: Kenya

M: Myanmar, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

P: Panama, Peru, Philippines*

R: Romania, Rwanda

S: Serbia, South Sudan

T: Thailand

U: Ukraine

V: Vietnam

P: Paraguay

T: Tanzania

Z: Zambia

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

*underscoring is poster's

US opens embassy in Jerusalem: Which countries attended?

Thirty-two countries attend US ceremony to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem, says Israel's foreign ministry.

15 May 2018


Israel said all 86 countries with diplomatic missions in Israel were invited to the event [Ronen Zvulun/Reuters]

The United States has formally opened its embassy in Jerusalem amid deadly protests in the Gaza Strip.

The move on Monday followed a December 2017 decision by US President Donald Trump to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and relocate the US mission there from Tel Aviv.

Trump's controversial declaration was widely condemned by the international community, with the United Nations General Assembly rejecting by a huge majority the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Terror attacks

Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim country. More than 82% of its roughly 261 million people follow Islam. Almost 10% of the population is Christian.


The Indonesian bomb squad at the scene of one of the attacks.

Indonesia has long struggled with domestic terrorist groups, particularly the al-Qaeda affiliated group Jemaah Islamiyah, which claimed responsibility for 11 attacks between 2000 and 2010, including the deadly 2002 Bali bombings that left more than 200 people dead and hundreds injured, many of them tourists.

In recent years, Indonesia has been confronting ISIS attempts to recruit members in the country.

In May 2017, two suicide bombers attacked a bus station in the capital, Jakarta, killing at least three police officers and wounding six officers and five civilians. Authorities suspect ISIS involvement.

In 2016, ISIS said it carried out a suicide bombing and shooting near a Starbucks in Jakarta. Two people were killed and 24 were wounded.

It was the first major attack in Jakarta since Jemaah Islamiyah's 2009 simultaneous attacks on the J.W. Marriott and Ritz Carlton hotels, which left seven people dead.

Journalist Masrur Jamaluddin reported from Jakarta, Eliott C. McLaughlin wrote from Atlanta and Susannah Cullinane wrote from Auckland, New Zealand. CNN's Kathy Quiano, Ralph Ellis and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.

https://edition.cnn.com/

Pope prays for victims

Pope Francis prayed for the victims of the attacks during his weekly Sunday audience in St Peter's Square.

"Together we invoke the God of peace to cease these violent actions, and in the heart of all, find space not for hatred and violence but for reconciliation and fraternity," he said.

Indonesia's Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi tweeted condolences to the bombing victims with the hashtags #UnitedAgainstTerrorism and #WeAreNotAfraid.

The US Embassy in Jakarta condemned the attacks.

"These attacks on peaceful worshipers are an affront to the tolerance and diversity embraced by Indonesians. The United States stands with the people of Indonesia, and we offer our deepest condolences to the families of the victims," the statement read.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo toured the site with government ministers Sunday afternoon, meeting with local authorities and politicians before visiting the wounded at a local hospital.

Churches bombed

According to Karnavian's chronology of events, which doesn't line up with the sequence Mangera previously provided to the state-run Antara news agency, the father, identified as Dita Sopriyanto, drove a van to the Indonesian Christian Church and dropped off wife Puji Kuswat and their 9- and 12-year-old daughters.

The wife and daughters went inside and detonated a bomb, Karnavian said.

The father then drove the van to the Pentecost Central Church, where, from inside the vehicle, he detonated another bomb in front of the church.

At the same time, the general said, Sopriyanto's sons drove motorcycles to Santa Maria Catholic Church, where they, too, detonated bombs. According to CCTV footage, the bomb at that church went off at 7:08 a.m. (8:08 p.m. ET Saturday).

Forensic evidence indicates the bombs were attached to the attackers' bodies, Karnavian said.

Police have closed all three locations as they investigate. At the family's home, investigators found three plastic boxes containing pipe bombs, Surabaya police Grand Commissioner Rudi Setiawan said. A bomb squad conducted a controlled explosion of the devices, he said.

The investigators also found "black powder" at the homes, and officers seized books and documents from the house, Setiawan said.

Family of suicide bombers attacks 3 churches in Indonesia, killing 7, police say

By Masrur Jamaluddin, Eliott C. McLaughlin and Susannah Cullinane, CNN
May 14, 2018

Jakarta(CNN) A husband and wife used their four children in a string of deadly suicide attacks on three churches in the Indonesian city of Surabaya that left seven people dead, according to the country's ranking police official.

The family included two daughters, aged 9 and 12 years old, said Head Gen. Tito Karnavian. The young girls were present when their mother detonated one of the bombs, and the couple's two teenage sons carried out a separate attack on another church.

Earlier reports indicated at least 10 people died in the Sunday morning attacks, but Karnavian said during a news conference that seven victims were killed.

Forty-one people, including two police officers, were hospitalized with injuries, police spokesman Frans Barung Mangera said previously.


Police converge on Santa Maria Catholic Church in Surabaya.

The six bombers also died, Karnavian said. Investigators believe the parents belong to Jamaah Ansharut Daulah, a terrorist group that lends its support to ISIS in Indonesia, the police general said.

Through its Amaq News Agency, ISIS claimed responsibility for what it called "martyrdom attacks" in the port city on the east coast of Java Island but provided no proof to substantiate its claim. Authorities have not confirmed the claim.

Quote from: islander on May 14, 2018, 12:29:30 PM
The first of these decisions resulted in giving validity to a void constitution. In 1973, while President Ferdinand Marcos ruled the Philippines under martial law, he issued a proclamation stating that the people had ratified a new constitution which made his dictatorial powers permanent.

Quote from: islander on May 14, 2018, 12:29:30 PM
The second of these decisions legitimated the removal of an elected president outside of the impeachment process. In 2001, there was a people power revolt (Edsa II) because the Senate, acting as an impeachment court trying then President Joseph Estrada, refused to open a sealed envelope widely suspected of containing proof of Estrada's secret bank account with deposits of hundreds of millions of pesos. The revolt convinced both police and military forces to withdraw their support from Estrada.

Quote from: islander on May 14, 2018, 12:37:23 PM
The third of these decisions validated the appointment of a chief justice despite its clear nullity under the Constitution. Two days after the 2010 presidential election and a month before her term was to expire, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed Renato Corona as chief justice. The appointment violated the literal prohibition in the Constitution which does not allow appointments three months before a presidential election and up to the end of the incumbent president's term. The Supreme Court created a virtual exception by declaring that the prohibition does not apply to appointments in the high court.

Quote from: islander on May 14, 2018, 12:37:23 PM
Now comes this fourth decision which, just like in the Estrada case, removed another impeachable official—Sereno—by judicial action. I had previously criticized the resort to quo warranto, and argued that the impeachment route should be followed. But beyond legalities, there are thorny issues that should have made the justices leave matters to the impeachment process, like the animosity toward Sereno because of her character and personality which gravely infuriate her colleagues, and the rancor over the ouster of then Chief Justice Corona, to mention a few.

heartbreaking.

Is another people power protest in the offing? No, if the question is based on the Sereno ouster alone. The anger generated is largely confined to the middle and upper classes, similar to the Corona appointment.

But the rage engendered among the rich converges with the seething resentment of the poor over the rising prices caused by the TRAIN Law, the military's simmering anger over the administration's blind obeisance to China, the bitterness over thousands of extrajudicial killings, the betrayal engendered by corruption revelations, the fury created by the closure of Boracay, and the gloom caused by the Kuwait fiasco.

There may be a perfect storm brewing on the horizon.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/

Estrada left Malacañang without clearly saying that he was resigning. The Supreme Court engaged in legal contortions when it ruled that Estrada had "constructively resigned" based on an interpretation of his words and actions, and an analysis of the diary of one of his officials.

The third of these decisions validated the appointment of a chief justice despite its clear nullity under the Constitution. Two days after the 2010 presidential election and a month before her term was to expire, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed Renato Corona as chief justice. The appointment violated the literal prohibition in the Constitution which does not allow appointments three months before a presidential election and up to the end of the incumbent president's term. The Supreme Court created a virtual exception by declaring that the prohibition does not apply to appointments in the high court.

Now comes this fourth decision which, just like in the Estrada case, removed another impeachable official—Sereno—by judicial action. I had previously criticized the resort to quo warranto, and argued that the impeachment route should be followed. But beyond legalities, there are thorny issues that should have made the justices leave matters to the impeachment process, like the animosity toward Sereno because of her character and personality which gravely infuriate her colleagues, and the rancor over the ouster of then Chief Justice Corona, to mention a few.

The first of these decisions resulted in giving validity to a void constitution. In 1973, while President Ferdinand Marcos ruled the Philippines under martial law, he issued a proclamation stating that the people had ratified a new constitution which made his dictatorial powers permanent.

The Marcos regime formed town assemblies, took pictures of people who were raising their hands while responding to the question of whether they wanted a free sack of rice, and the pictures were misrepresented as evidence that the people had approved the 1973 Constitution. When a case was filed questioning the proclamation, the Supreme Court gave validity to a constitution that was never ratified by the people.

The second of these decisions legitimated the removal of an elected president outside of the impeachment process. In 2001, there was a people power revolt (Edsa II) because the Senate, acting as an impeachment court trying then President Joseph Estrada, refused to open a sealed envelope widely suspected of containing proof of Estrada's secret bank account with deposits of hundreds of millions of pesos. The revolt convinced both police and military forces to withdraw their support from Estrada.

FLEA MARKET OF IDEAS

Is a perfect storm brewing?

By: Joel Ruiz Butuyan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
May 14, 2018

I was 500 kilometers away from Manila when the news broke that the Supreme Court had rendered a decision ousting its own head, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. I had just attended three court hearings, and I was preparing to enjoy a quiet weekend in Cagayan Valley, my home region.

News of the ouster flooded my Facebook feed with angry posts from friends. My absence from the capital city, where most of the outrage is expressed, afforded me with a vantage point that infused perspective, from a distance, to this controversy.

There have been four Supreme Court decisions that earned condemnation because of widespread belief that they weakened the foundations of our system of government.

Beagle rescued TWO DAYS before he was going to be euthanized snuggles his rescuer in heartwarming photo

-Gregory, a two-year-old beagle, was scheduled to be euthanized on May 3 but was luckily rescued two days before by HOUND Rescue and Sanctuary

-Gregory was placed on the euthanized list at FCDS because he has a heartworm

-Joe Kirk and his wife, Schenley, saw Gregory on the list and decided to take him until they can find a new forever home with him

-A family in Columbus has already reached out to the Kirks about adopting Gregory

By Minyvonne Burke
Dailymail.com
10 May 2018

A two-year-old beagle in Ohio has a new 'leash' on life after he was rescued just two days before he was supposed to be euthanized. 

The adorable pooch, named Gregory, was scheduled to be put down at the Franklin County Dog Shelter in Columbus on May 3 because he was heartworm positive.

Luckily for the stray, the owners of HOUND Rescue and Sanctuary saw the dog on the euthanasia list at FCDS and decided to take Gregory in until they could find a forever home for him.

Joe Kirk, co-owner of the center, picked up Gregory two days before he was going to be put down. 


more at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5715175/Dog-rescued-TWO-DAYS-going-euthanized-snuggles-rescuer-heartwarming-photo.html

This story and other "Voices from the Frontlines" dispatches form part of the state of press freedom report, "Speak Truth to Power, Keep Power in Check", produced by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, and Philippine Press Institute, to mark World Press Freedom Day on May 3, 2018.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

* Filipino journalist Manny Mogato and Reuters colleagues Clare Baldwin and Andrew R.C. Marshall were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting in April 2018 for "relentless reporting that exposed the brutal killing campaign behind Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs."

http://pcij.org/

Relationships anchored on trust and news sources will trust journalists who they think are fair, honest, and professional. That was what I realized when Reuters was doing the sensitive stories of uncovering the truth behind the drug war killings.

Reuters found sources inside the police who trusted journalists with information about the mechanics of the drug war, the rewards list and the staged encounters. These sources freely showed to Reuters journalists their mobile phones where text messages from senior regional officials ordering them to do things related to the drugs war.

These are courageous police officers who shared sensitive information to journalists who they believe can be trusted.

Philippine journalism is not perfect. It has many problems but if journalists would remain professional, fair, and not biased, and continue to uphold the truth, democracy will not die in this country. — PCIJ, May 2018

Yet still, corruption is a big problem in Philippine society, including in the press. There is real danger or risk that the system would suck in journalists, and prevent them from doing their watchdog role to report public-interest issues, and expose irregularities in the police force.

Close relationships and too much familiarity with news sources can be a problem when journalists choose to close their eyes on corruption and other wrongdoings.

But, keeping a professional distance from news sources, and guarding one's dignity and integrity will help build a reputation that can define a journalist's character.

As soon as Duterte assumed office in mid-2016, Reuters began looking into the bloody campaign against illegal drugs, reporting the tragic stories of victims, and putting names and faces to the statistics. But there are bigger stories to tell, such as finding out who are the people behind these killings?

This is where good old journalism techniques matter. I have covered the police and military beats for a long time, starting as a graveyard shift crime/police reporter for People's Journal Tonight in 1984 in one of the capital's crime-prone cities.

Journalism skills are learned in the police beat, especially at night when you are on your own but is still expected to deliver stories. There are no officials and spokesmen available at night so journalists have to be resourceful and cultivate their own sources inside the police and outside with people who interact with the police.

Voices from the frontlines:
Tragic stories built on trust

By Manny Mogato*
Senior Correspondent, Reuters

THE STORIES are tragic. They are horrifying and shocking. They are too compelling for any journalist to ignore.

But, as the bodies started to pile up, the stories became more difficult to report. Government officials seem to want to bury the victims as mere statistics in President Rodrigo Duterte's brutal war on drugs.

Journalists have had to rely on data-driven journalism and lots of leg work, devote many hours talking to victims, their families, witnesses, and police investigators; and review investigation reports and other documents; and immersing in the commuunity. Over time, it became more difficult to obtain documents because of official restrictions.

1 Star-Nosed Mole


FLPA/age fotostock

We'll finish this unnerving list with what might be the most underrated nightmare-dwelling animal alive. The star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata) can be found in wet low areas, typically in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States. Its main claim to fame is its strange pink fleshy ring around the snout, called the star. The star is jam-packed with nerve fibers and functions similar to our eyes: it paints a picture of the mole's surroundings by using its keen sense of touch. The giant claws are used for digging tunnels beneath swamps—the mole's primary habitat. The star-nosed mole is also considered the fastest eating mammal on Earth, consuming insects in less than 0.2 second. These guys are pretty interesting, but they still look like hairy aliens.

https://www.britannica.com/

2 Gavial


© Gerry Ellis Nature Photography

These crocodiles may appear to be just funny-looking cousins of the terrifying crocs we are more familiar with. However, their disproportionately long jaws are lined with 110 razor-sharp teeth. That's 30 more than the typical crocodile, and their teeth are much sharper. Gavials (Gavialis gangeticus) can grow to be 20 feet long and can weigh up to 350 pounds. They are found in India and Nepal, specifically in major northern river systems. Males exhibit a sexually dimorphic trait atop the end of their snout called a gahra (after a type of Indian pottery), from which the crocodile gets its name. These massive creatures don't attack humans but will feed on corpses set afloat during funeral ceremonies.

3 Shoebill


Lior

At first glance, this bird might not seem all that terrifying, but it is a giant carnivore, four feet tall (some have been recorded as reaching five feet tall), that is known to eat turtles, fish, and young crocodiles. The shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) has long thin legs as well as a disproportionately large head and bill. It lives in the swamps of eastern Africa and has been found to decapitate its prey before consuming it. When shoebills have offspring, they focus their attention on only the eldest. Should two eggs hatch, the parents reject the younger hatchling, and in some cases the elder attempts siblicide (killing of a sibling). The younger offspring is theorized to function as a backup in case something happens to the elder. This is thought to be a form of energy conservation, but it seems just plain evil. Look at that nightmarish grin.

4 Philippine Tarsier


© iNNOCENt/Fotolia

Philippine tarsiers (Carlito syrichta), or really just tarsiers in general, are some of the strangest looking extant mammals on Earth. With eyes that take up half of their head, tarsiers grow only to be the size of a human fist. Their heads can rotate 180 degrees—an evolutionary trait that surfaced in response to the fixation of their eyes in their head. They have powerful hind legs that allow them to jump up to three feet at a time. As suggested by the size of their optics, they have fantastic night vision—which at times results in their pupils covering the entirety of their eyes. There have been problems involving these fellows being illegally sold as pets. There's a market for everything—even scary-looking mini-mammals.

5 Japanese Spider Crab


© Rixie/Fotolia

These massive creatures are absolutely spine-chilling...or, in their case, exoskeleton-chilling. The Japanese spider crab (Macrocheira kaempferi) has a leg span of 10–12 feet. (That's twice the height of an average human!) Clearly deserving of their name, these arthropods resemble giant underwater spiders (yikes!) and feed on smaller crustaceans as well as plants. Japanese spider crabs were discovered in 1836 and are found mainly in waters surrounding the southern coast of Japan. They hang out at depths of 150–300 meters and are currently a subject of conservation efforts because of overfishing. They are actually considered a delicacy in many parts of Japan. Can you imagine ordering crab legs and being served one that's six feet long?

6 Blobfish


NOAA

If you haven't had nightmares about this guy already, you definitely will now. Named the "World's Ugliest Animal" of 2013, the blobfish (Psychrolutes marcidus) has made quite a splash (or maybe a flop) in the scientific and pop-cultural communities since its discovery in 2003. The blobfish is a gelatinous mass that floats above the ocean floor at depths of 600–1,200 meters. They have bones, but, because of the intense pressure they are exposed to at such depths, the bones are very soft and malleable. Since blobfish lack any substantial muscle, they feed only on crustaceans and other edible materials that happen to swim in front of their strange, strange mouths. Although these guys are absolutely ghastly looking on land and in observatories, their low-density flesh has led scientists to the understanding that they aren't as, well, "blobby" when deep underwater. Their amorphous tendencies may fascinate scientists, but to laypeople the blobfish is just unsettling. Talk about a face only a mother could love.

7 Gastric-Brooding Frog


Retama

Okay, this frog might not look all that grotesque, but it gives birth through its mouth. After the eggs are externally fertilized by a male, the female swallows her eggs. The eggs hatch as tadpoles in her stomach and grow until they become full-size frogs—and then mom regurgitates them up (ew!) over the span of a week. Unfortunately (or fortunately), these frogs went extinct in the 1980s. Scientists, however, are attempting to bring them back to life using a method of cloning called somatic cell nuclear transfer, because who doesn't love the idea of mouth-birthing Frankenstein frogs.

8 Red-Lipped Batfish


© Stephen Frink/WaterHouse

Red-lipped batfish (Ogcocephalus darwini) are by no means dangerous, but they are clearly a product of an evolutionary nightmare. This aptly named sea creature is found on ocean floors 3–76 meters deep and is known best for its bright red lips and the difficulty it has when swimming. Yes, you read that right—a fish that has difficulty swimming. Its fins serve as "legs," of sorts, on which the fish walks across the ocean floor. This striking red-lipped femme fatale of a fish is actually most likely a male—those red lips are thought to attract mates. I guess everyone has a type.

9 Velvet Ant


Walter Dawn

This insect may be only ¼ of an inch long, but do not be deceived: it packs quite a terrifying punch. The velvet ant (Dasymutilla occidentalis), despite its name, is actually a species of wasp. Because of high levels of sexual dimorphism, males have wings but females do not, giving the females an antlike appearance. Velvet ants can be found in the hotter portions of the Western Hemisphere. As if the existence of crawling wasps weren't enough to warrant night terrors, these freakishly fuzzy insects can deliver enough poison in one sting to subdue a cow—which weighs about 2,000 pounds, equivalent to 13 average-sized humans. Not only are the adult velvet ants terrifying, but even as larvae these bugs are nightmarish. When laying eggs, females seek out nests of other ground-dwelling insects. When the eggs hatch, the newborn velvet ants feed on the other insects' larvae. Yikes!

10 Animals Evolution Plucked Straight Out of a Nightmare

Kate Lohnes

From frogs that give birth through their mouths to crabs with 6-foot legs, these animals are some of the strangest you'll hopefully never have to see.

10 Yeti Crab


AP Images

Besides just looking strange, these crabs are exposed to some pretty extreme environments. Discovered in 2010, the yeti crab (Kiwa hirsuta) lives in thermal vents near Antarctica that reach temperatures of up to 720 °F (380 °C). Their white coloring and strange hair patterns are thought to be adaptations to these extreme environments. The thermal vents, while ridiculously hot inside, are surrounded by freezing waters. This forces all the yeti crabs to cram themselves into a small area. (One marine biologist found 600 of these crabs in one vent!) Females, however, must venture into the dangerously cold waters to brood, as the thermal vents are too high in sulfur content for the crabs' eggs to survive. The mother yeti crab rarely survives the cold water, usually dying of starvation after her children hatch. As for those hairy arms, they are a garden of sorts, growing bacteria that the crab then feeds on.

While many countries have come to understand freedom of expression as a common good—indeed, it is one of the rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—state censorship and regulation of the press have not entirely disappeared. The international organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF) monitors conditions for journalists around the world and ranks countries by their degree of media freedom. Countries that rank toward the bottom of RSF's list include those that maintain various forms of state media and impose restrictions on independent outlets, such as China, Russia, and North Korea.

https://www.britannica.com/

An early defense of press freedom was made by the poet John Milton in his 1644 pamphlet Areopagitica, written in response to the British Parliament's passage of a law requiring the government to approve all books prior to publication. "Truth and understanding," Milton argued, "are not such wares as to be monopoliz'd and traded in by tickets and statutes, and standards." This sentiment appeared to win legal recognition on the other side of the Atlantic when in 1733 New York newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger, in a landmark jury trial, was acquitted of seditious libel on the grounds that the articles he printed, which were harshly critical of New York's colonial governor, were nonetheless based on fact. Twenty-five years after the Freedom of the Press Act came into force in Sweden, the framers of the U.S. Constitution enshrined the same principle in the document's First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press."

The notion that the press should be free could have emerged only after the press itself had become commonplace. The invention of mechanized printing in the 15th century led to the proliferation of books, newspapers, and other publications that spread ideas faster and farther than ever before. However, because of the potential for these ideas to challenge official power structures, some political and religious authorities actively suppressed publications that they deemed subversive.

A Brief History of Press Freedom

John M. Cunningham
05/03/2018


© Photosani/Fotolia

On December 2, 1766, the Swedish parliament passed legislation that is now recognized as the world's first law supporting the freedom of the press and freedom of information. Narrowly, the Freedom of the Press Act abolished the Swedish government's role as a censor of printed matter, and it allowed for the official activities of the government to be made public. More broadly, the law codified the principle—which has since become a cornerstone of democracies throughout the world—that individual citizens of a state should be able to express and disseminate information without fear of reprisal.

Ireland, meanwhile, had effectively been an English colony since the 12th century, and after the emergence of Great Britain, it remained under the influence of the British crown. In 1801 it formally joined with Great Britain as a single political entity, which became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland—or the United Kingdom for short. However, the union lasted only until 1922, when Ireland (with the exception of six counties in the north) seceded. Ireland soon became a sovereign republic, and its former partner took on the official name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Great Britain, therefore, is a geographic term referring to the island also known simply as Britain. It's also a political term for the part of the United Kingdom made up of England, Scotland, and Wales (including the outlying islands that they administer, such as the Isle of Wight). United Kingdom, on the other hand, is purely a political term: it's the independent country that encompasses all of Great Britain and the region now called Northern Ireland.

https://www.britannica.com/

What's the Difference Between Great Britain and the United Kingdom?

John M. Cunningham


Union Jack flag of Great Britain, united kingdom
© Dawn Hudson/Dreamstime.com

The names Great Britain and United Kingdom are often used interchangeably. However, they are not actually synonymous. The reason for the two names, and the difference between them, has to do with the expansive history of the British Isles.

The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe. The largest of these islands are Britain and Ireland. (Smaller ones include the Isle of Wight.) In the Middle Ages, the name Britain was also applied to a small part of France now known as Brittany. As a result, Great Britain came into use to refer specifically to the island. However, that name had no official significance until 1707, when the island's rival kingdoms of England and Scotland were united as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

In the meantime, those worried about radiofrequency radiation from cell phones can take steps to limit exposure, according to the American Cancer Society.

They include using the speaker mode or hands-free devices while talking on the phone, in order to keep the phone away from your head. Try texting instead of talking, and try to simply limit your cell phone use, as well as the cell phone use of any children in your household.

https://edition.cnn.com/

What to do if you're worried

"One of the things that we found most interesting about our findings was that the malignant schwannomas -- even though they occurred in the heart and not in the head of these animals -- were in fact schwannomas," John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program and one of the authors of the reports, said when they were published in February.

"These experimental animal studies are but one approach to understanding whether exposures to radiofrequency radiation pose a risk to human health," Bucher said, adding that studies are continuing at the National Toxicology Program to examine changes on the molecular level in tissue samples from the rodents.

He added, "I have not changed the way I use a cell phone."

In the US, the Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program has conducted a series of animal studies assessing cell phone radiation exposure and potential health effects.

One report from that series, released in February, found a link between high levels of cell phone radiation and some evidence of carcinogenic activity in male rats, including a rare type of tumor called a schwannoma in their hearts.

No such findings were seen in female rats, and another report from the series found no such findings in mice being studied.

"For now, linking a rise in malignant brain tumors to mobile phone usage remains speculative and should not detract from encouraging lifestyle changes which are known to reduce cancer risk, such as adopting a healthy diet, reducing alcohol consumption and stopping smoking," he said.

In response to criticism that the study has received, Philips said that he would ask, what else could be contributing to the increase in brain tumor incidence?

"It has to be a fairly universal thing or change in lifestyle that would cause such a trend," he said.
The number of mobile phone subscribers worldwide is estimated to be 5 billion, according to GSMA, a trade association that represents the interests of mobile operators.

In the UK, about 93% of adults own or use a cell phone, according to the National Health Service. Similarly, the vast majority of Americans, 95%, own a cellphone of some kind, according to the Pew Research Center.

"Firstly, this paper does not attempt to link the rise in mobile phone use with a rise in brain tumor incidence directly," said Shahab, who was not involved in the study.

"There are statistical techniques available to do this, for instance using time-series analysis, which attempt to link changes in a putative risk factor with changes in the outcome of interest over time. This was not done here," he said. "Second, even if such a link were found, correlation does not imply causation."

In other words, just because a rise in brain tumor incidence appeared to occur at the same time as a rise in cell phone use, that does not mean one caused the other.

"While mobile phone usage in the population increased from less than 15% to 95% over the time period studied, we do not see the same increase in malignant brain tumors. This suggests that the strength of any effect, if present, would have to be small," Shahab said.

"I was very surprised by how big the rise is and how consistent it is over the years," Philips said. "The statistics are phenomenally tight."

The researchers wrote in the study that ionizing radiation, especially from X-rays used in CT scans, has the most "supportive evidence" as a possible factor behind the rise in glioblastoma diagnoses.

The researchers also mentioned atomic bomb testing fallout, particularly ingesting or inhaling radioactive substances, as a possible factor, and they mentioned traffic-related air pollution in addition to cell phone use.

"This paper provides evidence for a rise in specific malignant brain tumors in England, showing that incidence has more than doubled over the last two decades. What the analysis does not show is that this rise is caused by mobile phones. This is for a number of reasons," Lion Shahab, senior lecturer in epidemiology and public health at University College London, said in a written statement released by the Science Media Centre.

Cell phones emit radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing radiation, and the tissues in our bodies closest to the phone can absorb this energy. Second, our use of cell phones has increased rapidly. Lastly, the number of phone calls we make and the length of those calls also have increased.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration notes that since cell phones emit low levels of radiofrequency energy that are non-ionizing, they're not considered strong enough to permanently damage our biological tissues.

There's a rise, but should cell phones take the fall?

The new study included cancer registration data for malignant brain tumors diagnosed in England from 1995 to 2015. Within those data, which came from the UK Office of National Statistics, there were 81,135 diagnosed cases.

While comparing new case numbers in 2015 with those in 1995, the researchers found an additional 1,548 aggressive glioblastoma multiforme tumor cases annually.

Around the world, research into cell phone radiation and a potential link to cancer risks has left more questions than answers.

Some studies have found no relationship between cell phone radio frequency and certain health problems, such as increased risks of tumors, while others suggest the opposite.

"I am not convinced that the statistical analysis in this paper is sufficient to identify any cause of the increase in tumors. The authors do imply that other tumor types have decreased in incidence and there are a number of ways in which such findings can be explained," Malcolm Sperrin, director of the Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in the UK, said in a written statement released by the independent Science Media Centre. He was not involved in the new research.

There are three main reasons why people are concerned that cell phones might have a link with cancer or other health problems, according to the National Cancer Institute in the United States.

"The paper itself is not about cell phones; it's just about this change in the tumors ... but cell phones seem like really they're the most likely cause," said Alasdair Philips, lead author of the study and a trustee of Children with Cancer UK.

The tumors "primarily are in the frontal and temporal lobe areas, by your ear and forehead," which raises the cell phone suspicion, he said.

Yet, he added, since brain tumors are very rare, his suspicion should not raise alarm, because even if cell phone use could raise your brain tumor risk, "it's still a very low risk of you individually getting a brain tumor," he said. "My advice would be if you're going to have a long call, make sure it's hands-free, but I wouldn't panic about it, either."

Several experts in the UK have cautioned that although the study found evidence of an increase in brain tumors, the suggestion that cell phone use could be responsible is not proven.

Brain tumors on the rise in England, raising cell phone concerns

By Jacqueline Howard, CNN
May 2, 2018

_____

Story highlights

The incidence rate for glioblastoma more than doubled in England between 1995 and 2015, a study finds

The study questions whether cell phone use was a factor; experts warn that there is no evidence

CT scans also believed to be possible contributing factor, study says

_____

(CNN)The incidence rate of aggressive malignant brain tumors in England has more than doubled in recent decades, and a new study questions what could be driving that rise.

The rate of glioblastoma climbed from 2.4 to 5.0 per 100,000 people in England between 1995 and 2015, according to the study, published Wednesday in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health.

The data analyzed in the study only reflect trends in brain cancer cases and do not shed light on why these trends could have occurred, but the researchers pointed to examples of lifestyle factors that they think could have played a role.

Among those factors, they briefly referenced previous studies on cell phone use possibly being associated with brain tumors and changes in the brain.

Fast Facts

What to bring: Passport
Dress Code (South Korea): No ripped pants, shorts, skirts or camouflage
Rules (South Korea): No waving, pointing, signaling or photography (without permission)
When to book: Roughly one week ahead
When to go: Tuesday-Friday
Best seasons: Spring or fall
Top sites: Joint Security Area, Freedom Bridge, Infiltration Tunnels, Mount Odu Observatory

https://edition.cnn.com/

"It's odd to see any situation where North Korea displays a more relaxed attitude than South Korea."
Simon Cockerell, Koryo Tours

Cockerell believes cultural exchange may improve humanitarian efforts to elevate the lives of struggling North Korean villagers.

"North Korea is a very complicated place -- a very confusing, frustrating and complex country. Both it and the people who live there deserve a closer look and a more thoughtful understanding than the usual broad-strokes version usually portrayed," says Cockerell.

"Of course, just going on a quick trip won't make everything crystal clear, but it can start a process of learning and understanding."

The DMZ's destiny


DMZ, South Korea, Imjingak
Civilians covered a barbed-wire fence with prayer ribbons near the DMZ.
Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images AsiaPac/Getty Images

Despite the current air of optimism on the peninsula, some experts believe the DMZ isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

"I think it's highly unlikely the DMZ will disappear. While everyone looks very friendly at the moment I would expect any move to actually remove the DMZ would take a long time to happen," says Cockerell.

"It has been there for decades, after all. And while both sides, rhetorically at least, rail against it, it does serve a useful purpose for political propaganda.

"There have been proposals to turn the DMZ into a nature reserve or a peace park, but I would expect the trust levels needed to remove the DMZ to take quite a bit more time."

If tensions continue to ease between North and South Korea, Cockerell says it's possible the two countries will grant broader access to travelers and residents in the future.

North vs South


DMZ, South Korea, Goseong Unification Observatory
A tourist poses by the Goseong Unification Observatory.
Carl Court/Getty Images AsiaPac/Getty Images

While there may be a few surprises, the DMZ is not the kind of place where an average tourist can, or should, wander off.

On both sides of the border, travelers must stay with their guides and military escorts at all times. You'll also be asked to sign a form that indemnifies authorities should you veer from the pack or chance upon a landmine. But when it comes to codes of conduct, it may surprise some travelers to learn that the southern side of the DMZ is stricter than the northern side.

On the South Korea side, travelers must follow a strict dress code -- no sandals, camouflage, shorts or ripped jeans -- as well as abstain from waving, signaling, pointing or taking pictures without permission.

"It's odd to see any situation where North Korea displays a more relaxed attitude than South Korea -- clearly South Korea is the more open society," says Cockerell. "But that place exists, and it is Panmunjom."

Unexpected experiences

Some tours also provide the chance to speak -- or go hiking -- with North Korean defectors to better understand what life is like across the border.

"There are some farmers living within the DMZ on the North side," says Cockerell. "By and large, North Korean lives are very difficult."

Even though you're tethered to a guide, the broader DMZ experience can pack in a few surprises, from the unexpected wildlife to a contemporary art museum, a three-hole golf course and the off-chance celebrity sighting.

And if you would like to see a few aspects of the zone sans tour guide, you can visit the powerful DMZ Museum or Unification Tower -- both of which are open to independent travelers on the South.

"I have been to the DMZ over 169 times and I have many great memories from this area," says Cockerell.

"The strangest thing that ever happened was when Dennis Rodman sang 'Happy Birthday' to Kim Jong Un in 2014. That was unexpected and very unusual!"