NOT TRUE NA KUNG WALANG CORRUPT, WALANG MAHIRAP

NOT TRUE NA KUNG WALANG CORRUPT, WALANG MAHIRAP: This has been our sad history everytime there is an election: the one running against the incumbent says, "Magnanakaw ang nasa gobyerno, iboto niyo ako". Then the next election is held and the challenger has the same call, "Magnanakaw ang nasa gobyerno, iboto niyo ako". We fall into the trap of traditional politics, if we debate whether Miriam is corrupt or not. Corruption is only an aggravating factor and is not the root cause of our people's poverty. Just try to imagine a government that does not steal at all yet land remains concentrated in the hands of a few; education remains the privilege of a few; workers remain exploited and paid starvation wages, the Philippines remains an agricultural country and continues to fail to industrialize, so our people are condemned to be perrenial OFWs; people remain powerless, without any meaningful participation in decision making; etc. That is why, it is not true "na kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap." By espousing an anti-corruption campaign, Miriam has proven that she is no different and is a trapo herself (October 27, 2015 post).

CONGRESS SHOULD NOW WORK ON THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAW WHICH WILL DETER EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS

The killings continue. Congress should now stop its investigations and proceed with the work of drafting and eventually enacting the law that will serve as a deterrent to to extrajudicial killings. Among others, said law hopefully should include the relevant provisions of the Philippine National Police Operational Procedures and these norms of conduct and procedures proposed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Hildawa vs. Minister of Defense (G.R. No. L-67766 August 14, 1985):
1. Police superiors are directed to exercise strict supervision and control over law enforcers ordered to make arrests, that they should not use unnecessary force and should comply strictly with the law, and accord to the suspects all their constitutional rights;
2. Whenever there is killing or infliction of injury, those responsible are hereby enjoined to immediately report the matter to their superior officers and the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) for investigation and appropriate action;
3. The National Police Commission as the entity charged with direct authority over the members of the Integrated National Police (now the PNP) should forthwith "investigate to find out who the assailant was and the reason for the death of the victim. It need not wait for a formal complaint to be lodged by the relatives of the deceased;"
4. Once the Identity of the killer(s) has been established and the latter having admitted that he is the author of the death of the deceased, the investigating officer should file a case in the proper court or tribunal which will determine whether or not the killing was made in self-defense, defense of relatives, defense of stranger or in the fulfillment of a duty," bearing in mind that "when a person is killed by another, the burden of proving self-defense or some other justification lies on the assailant. This is precisely what is needed: an automatic investigation of all killings which result either from police operations or are perpetrated by unknown hitmen. Most sadly, it is most unclear if there is an automatic investigation being conducted in these cases. The only way to deter or prevent extrajudicial killings is to make everyone aware that an investigation will automatically be conducted if killings result from police operations or are perpetrated by unknown hitmen, whether or not there are complainants. In the very first place, that a killing is extrajudicial is a conclusion that is arrived at only after an investigation. Every such killings thus should automatically be deemed as Deaths Under Investigation (DUI) and should automatically be investigated.

HYPOCRISY OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS

It is utter hypocrisy for private schools, particularly, COCOPEA, Atty. Estrada and Fr. Tabora to allege "...adverse financial impact of the implementation of the K to 12 program on private higher educational institutions (HEIs)." The private schools led by COCOPEA in the very first place, were the ones who drafted the K to 12 bill and pushed for the enactment of the law for their own private selfish interests (in conspiracy with DepEd and some legislators), as they made it sure that through said despotic and anti-democratic program, they will rake huge profits from government funds which will be paid to them instead of being used to build more classrooms, produce more books and increase the salaries of teachers. Fr. Tabora certainly remembers what he posted last January 18, 2011 as follows, "At a well-attended emergency meeting last night in the German Club convened by Jose Campos of PAPSCU, Chair of the COCOPEA Committee on Legislation, and by Fr. Joel Tabora, S.J., Chair of the COCOPEA Committee on Advocacy, the earlier-formulated draft of Proposed Legislation on the Implementation of K+12 was discussed and approved with relatively minor changes incorporated in the text below. Prior to the meeting, Fr. Tabora had spoken with Brother Armin Luistro on the drafted Bill; this draft represents substantially a framework of the K+12 reform. Atty. Estrada, who drafted and re-drafted the legislative proposal, will meet with the legal people of the DepEd in order to assure maximum coordination between the COCOPEA and the DepEd. The hope is that our Education President, Benigno Aquino III, shall certify this Bill as urgent" (https://taborasj.wordpress.com/…/proposed-bill-implementin…/).

REBUTTAL OF OSG ARGUMENTS FOR MARCOS BURIAL AT THE LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI

LETTER TO THE SC CHIEF JUSTICE REBUTTING THE OSG ARGUMENTS ON THE MARCOS LNMB BURIAL:
Last August 17, 2016, I submitted a letter to the Office of the Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the purpose of which is to support the Petitions which have been filed seeking to stop the burial of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. As a follow-up thereto (and to reinforce the arguments I have advanced in my previous letter, some of which are being reiterated here), may I respectfully be allowed to reply to the Comments of the Office of the Solicitor General to said Petitions as published in different newspapers and request that this Reply including my previous letter be noted and be made part of the records of the cases now pending before the Honorable Supreme Court.
This, I do pursuant to my sworn duty as a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, whose mandates most sadly are being seriously breached by the assailed Order of the President.
I do so likewise pursuant to our people’s right to the truth and to honor only those deserving their respect and veneration as well as the right not only of human rights victims but of the entire Filipino nation to be restored of their honor and dignity which the State as a matter of policy is mandated to value (Section 11, Article II, 1987 Constitution) but which were debased during the Martial law years.
I do so finally in representation of the generations still unborn who equally are entitled to said aforementioned rights and pursuant to my duty to pass to them the bitter lessons of Martial law (which the burial in a most deliberate effort to distort history is seeking to erase), lest for failure to learn history’s lessons, darkness may again rule this sad land of ours.
Our people, by reason of the violation of their aforementioned rights guaranteed by our Constitution and by International Law, most clearly will sustain legal injury if the former President’s remains are buried at the Libingan. Contrary then to the claim of the Office of the Solicitor General, Petitioners thus (or any Filipino for that matter) have legal standing to file the Petitions seeking to enjoin the burial of Marcos at the Libingan.
The OSG in a most desperate attempt to brush aside this issue, has claimed that it is a political question or one which is within the President’s powers, wisdom or discretionary authority to decide. This is not so as there are laws and thus judicially discoverable and manageable standards for the Honorable Supreme Court to resolve it (Vinuya, Et. Al. vs. The Honorable Executive Secretary, Et. Al, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010). Contrary then to the claim of the OSG, the issue of the Marcos burial at the Libingan is perfectly justiciable.
The standards set by law are most clear. It shall be the burial place of the mortal remains of only “those illustrious sons of the Philippines, who, on account of the patriotism, knowledge, or other salient qualities possessed by them in life, attracted to themselves the respect and veneration of their fellow citizens… deserve the honor and privilege of reposing in said pantheon” (Act No. 1856, 1908) or those “Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots” whose memory should be perpetuated “for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn” (Republic Act No. 289, 1948).
Thus, contrary to the claim of the OSG, the mere fact that Marcos is a President or soldier does not qualify him for burial at the Libingan.
It is not true as the OSG has alleged that the Libingan is not actually reserved for heroes or its purpose has neither been to confer the people buried therein with the title of ‘hero’ nor to require that only those buried therein should be treated as heroes. It is most clear in President Magsaysay’s Executive Order No. 77, s. 1954, that to honor the memory of our war dead, he saw it most “fitting and proper that their remains be interred in one national cemetery”, particularly, the Republic Memorial Cemetery. This was subsequently followed by his Proclamation No. 86, s. 1954 renaming said cemetery as “Libingan ng mga Bayani”, to make it truly “symbolic of the cause for which our soldiers have died” as well as “express the nation’s esteem and reverence for her war dead”.
President Ramos’s own Executive Order No. 131, s. of 1993 confirms this. It declares that our “National Artists and National Scientists are national heroes who, upon death, are entitled to state funeral” and thus the honor of being buried too at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
For all intents and purposes then, with the expansion of the coverage of the the Libingan ng mga Bayani so as to include the interment of the mortal remains of other illustrious sons and daughters of the Philippines, it has already become the National Pantheon, envisioned and referred to by Act No. 1856 and Republic Act No. 289, pursuant to which legal intent and spirit Presidents Magsaysay and Ramos have issued their aforecited Executive Orders and Proclamations. This thus belies the claim of the OSG that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is not the National Pantheon referred to by law. This, the Honorable Supreme Court cannot reasonably disregard or be oblivious about.
The Honorable Supreme Court cannot ignore and be oblivious of its own declaration acknowledging that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is “the memorial park for our national heroes… and should be respected as the fitting resting place of our fallen soldiers and martyrs” (Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Et. Al. vs. Yolanda Arquero, Et. Al., G.R. No. 161405, July 21, 2006).
That only those deserving the respect, veneration, esteem and reverence of our nation, who can serve as an inspiration and models for emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn as provided for in said laws are fit to be honored for burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is in fact reinforced by Armed Forces Regulations G 161-373 issued in 1986 as it prohibits “personnel who were dishonorably separated/ reverted/ discharged from the service and personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude” from being interred there. This, the Honorable Supreme Court likewise cannot disregard or be oblivious about. It thus cannot lawfully allow the burial of Marcos at the Libingan, solely based on the literal interpretation (which does utter violence to the spirit and intent of the law) that Marcos as argued by the OSG, was neither dishonorably discharged, nor was he was ever actually convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The Honorable Supreme Court most certainly cannot ignore and be oblivious of its numerous decisions which have indubitably established that Marcos was indeed a dictator who robbed our people of their basic rights and freedoms, who violated their human rights wholesale and who plundered the nation’s wealth.
That Marcos has not met the standards set by law and thus consequently is not deserving of the honor of being buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is impliedly admitted by the OSG itself when it declared that “as it is written now, Philippine history is on the side of… everyone who fought and died for democracy.” “No amount of heartfelt eulogy, gun salutes, holy anointment, and elaborate procession and rituals can transmogrify the dark pages of history during Martial Law.”
While his burial will not make him a hero, it will perpetrate the lie, in clear distortion of history and in utter disrespect of our heroes and the entire Filipino nation, that Marcos, the plunderer and violator of human rights, by reason of his burial at the Libingan is a hero. That is precisely what will happen when by reason of the burial being allowed, Marcos’s mortal remains will be paraded in our streets, with all the elaborate rituals which will follow making it appear that he is indeed a hero worth emulating.
The glorious and heroic struggle of our people against the Marcos dictatorship however is already part of our nation’s historical and cultural heritage which our Constitution and our laws direct the State to conserve and promote (Section 15, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution; Section 2(a), Republic Act No. 10066; Section 1, Republic Act No. 10086) and whose lessons on patriotism and nationalism, respect for human rights as well as the appreciation of the role of our national heroes is not only the constitutional duty of our educational institutions to inculcate (Section 3(2), Article XIV, 1987 Constitution) but also the duty of this generation to pass to the generations still unborn (lest for failure to learn history’s lessons, darkness may again rule our land).
More importantly, as I have already mentioned, it will seriously infringe on our people’s right to the truth under International Law and to honor only those deserving their respect and veneration as well as the right not only of human rights victims but of the entire Filipino nation to be restored of their honor and dignity which the State as a matter of policy is mandated to value (Section 11, Article II, 1987 Constitution) but which were debased during the Martial law years. The OSG thus totally misses the point when it considered the matter as simply involving compensation for human rights victims.
Contrary then to the claim of the OSG, President Duterte’s order to bury Marcos at the Libingan is clearly violative of the anti-dictatorship 1987 Constitution and thus is void. Being contrary to the standards prescribed by law (which is impliedly admitted by the OSG itself) it is illegal and by reason thereof amounts to an executive usurpation of legislative power, violative of the principle of separation of powers and thus is likewise void and must be set aside.

MARCOS BURIAL AT LIBINGAN, NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION; PEOPLE WILL SUSTAIN LEGAL INJURY

Last August 17, 2016, I wrote to you a letter in support of the Petitions seeking to stop the burial of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. As a follow-up thereto (and to reinforce the arguments I have advanced in my previous letter, some of which are being reiterated here), may I respectfully be allowed to reply to the Comments of the Office of the Solicitor General to said Petitions as published in different newspapers and request that this Reply including my previous letter be noted and be made part of the records of the cases now pending before the Honorable Supreme Court.
This, I do pursuant to my sworn duty as a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, whose mandates most sadly are being seriously breached by the assailed Order of the President.
I do so likewise pursuant to our people’s right to the truth (and to honor only those deserving their respect and veneration), which will be violated by said burial as it will perpetrate the lie that Marcos is a hero. I do so moreover pursuant to the right not only of human rights victims but of the entire Filipino nation to be restored of their honor and dignity (Section 11, Article II, 1987 Constitution) which were debased during the Martial law years.
I do so finally, pursuant to my duty to help preserve in our people’s collective memory as part of our nation’s historical heritage (and bequeathing it to the generations still unborn) the bitter lessons of Martial law (which the burial in a most deliberate effort to distort history is seeking to erase), lest for failure to learn from said lessons, tyranny may in the future again rule this sad land of ours.
Most evidently, our people, by reason of the violation of their aforementioned rights guaranteed by our Constitution and by International Law, will sustain legal injury if the former President’s remains are buried at the Libingan. Contrary then to the claim of the Office of the Solicitor General, any Filipino, including Petitioners, have legal standing to question said burial.
The OSG in a most desperate attempt to brush aside this issue, has claimed that it is a political question or one which is within the President’s powers, wisdom or discretionary authority to decide. This is not true since there are laws and thus judicially discoverable and manageable standards for the Honorable Supreme Court to resolve it (Vinuya, Et. Al. vs. The Honorable Executive Secretary, Et. Al, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010). Contrary then to the claim of the OSG, the issue of the Marcos burial at the Libingan is perfectly justiciable.
The standards set by law are most clear. The Libingan shall be the burial place of the mortal remains only of “those illustrious sons of the Philippines, who, on account of the patriotism, knowledge, or other salient qualities possessed by them in life, attracted to themselves the respect and veneration of their fellow citizens” (Act No. 1856, 1908) and those “Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots” whose memory deserve to be perpetuated “for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn” (Republic Act No. 289, 1948).
Thus, contrary to the claim of the OSG, the mere fact that Marcos is a President or soldier does not ipso facto qualify him for burial at the Libingan.
It is not true as the OSG has alleged that the Libingan is not actually reserved for heroes or its purpose has neither been to confer the people buried therein with the title of ‘hero’ nor to require that only those buried therein should be treated as heroes.
That such is the purpose of the Libingan is most clear in President Magsaysay’s Executive Order No. 77, s. 1954, honoring the memory of our war dead, finding it most “fitting and proper that their remains be interred in one national cemetery”, which he subsequently renamed through Proclamation No. 86, s. 1954 as “Libingan ng mga Bayani”, so as to make it truly “symbolic of the cause for which our soldiers have died” as well as to “express the nation’s esteem and reverence for her war dead”.
President Ramos’s own Executive Order No. 131, s. of 1993 confirms this. It declares that our “National Artists and National Scientists are national heroes who, upon death, are entitled to state funeral” and thus the honor of being buried too at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
For all intents and purposes then, the Libingan ng mga Bayani has already become the National Pantheon, envisioned and referred to by Act No. 1856 and Republic Act No. 289. It is precisely to realize the legal intent and spirit of said laws that Presidents Magsaysay and Ramos issued their respective Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations. It is therefore not true as claimed by the OSG that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is not already the National Pantheon referred to by said laws. This, the Honorable Supreme Court cannot reasonably disregard or be oblivious about.
The Honorable Supreme Court cannot ignore and be oblivious of its own declaration in the case of Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Et. Al. vs. Yolanda Arquero, Et. Al. (G.R. No. 161405, July 21, 2006), acknowledging that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is “the memorial park for our national heroes… and should be respected as the fitting resting place of our fallen soldiers and martyrs” (Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Et. Al. vs. Yolanda Arquero, Et. Al., G.R. No. 161405, July 21, 2006).
That only those deserving the respect, veneration, esteem and reverence of our nation, who can serve as an inspiration and models for emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn as provided for in said laws are fit to be honored for burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is in fact reinforced by Armed Forces Regulations G 161-373 issued in 1986, as it prohibits “personnel who were dishonorably separated/ reverted/ discharged from the service and personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude” from being interred there. This, the Honorable Supreme Court likewise cannot disregard or be oblivious about.
The Honorable Supreme Court most certainly cannot ignore and be oblivious of its numerous decisions which have indubitably established that Marcos was indeed a dictator who robbed our people of their basic rights and freedoms, who violated their human rights wholesale and who plundered the nation’s wealth. It thus, could not lawfully allow said burial, just because as argued by the OSG, Marcos was neither dishonorably discharged, nor was he was ever actually convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
That Marcos has not met the standards set by law and thus consequently is not deserving of the honor of being buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is impliedly admitted by the OSG itself when it declared that “as it is written now, Philippine history is on the side of… everyone who fought and died for democracy.” “No amount of heartfelt eulogy, gun salutes, holy anointment, and elaborate procession and rituals can transmogrify the dark pages of history during Martial Law.”
While burial at the Libingan will not make him a hero, it will perpetrate the lie, in clear distortion of history and in utter disrespect of our heroes and the entire Filipino nation, that Marcos, the plunderer and violator of human rights is a hero. That is precisely what will happen if the Honorable Supreme Court will allow said burial, thereby consequently giving the Marcoses the opportunity to parade the Dictator’s mortal remains in our streets, with all the rituals appropriate only for a hero, thus making it appear that he is indeed one worth emulating.
The people’s oppression under Martial Law and their glorious and heroic struggle against the ruthless Marcos dictatorship however are already part of our nation’s historical and cultural heritage which our Constitution and our laws direct the State to conserve and promote (Section 15, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution; Section 2(a), Republic Act No. 10066; Section 1, Republic Act No. 10086) and whose lessons on patriotism and nationalism, respect for human rights as well as the appreciation of the role of our national heroes are not only the constitutional duty of our educational institutions to inculcate (Section 3(2), Article XIV, 1987 Constitution) but also the duty of this generation to protect and preserve for future generations of Filipinos (Justice Padilla’s Concurring Opinion in Manila Prince Hotel vs. Government Service Insurance System, Et. Al., G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997), lest as already mentioned, for failure to learn history’s lessons about Martial Law, darkness may in the future again rule this sad land of ours.
Allowing the burial of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani will most clearly violate said constitutional mandates, thereby seriously infringing on our people’s right to the truth and to honor only those deserving their respect and veneration as well as the right not only of human rights victims but of the entire Filipino nation to be restored of their honor and dignity (Section 11, Article II, 1987 Constitution) which were debased during the Martial law years. The OSG thus totally misses the point when it considered the matter as simply involving compensation for human rights victims.
Contrary then to the claim of the OSG, President Duterte’s order to bury Marcos at the Libingan is clearly violative of what it has itself acknowledged as an anti-dictatorship 1987 Constitution and thus is void. Being contrary to the standards prescribed by law (which is impliedly admitted by the OSG itself) it is illegal and by reason thereof, amounts to an executive usurpation of legislative power, violative of the principle of separation of powers and thus is likewise void and must be set aside.
Oral arguments on the Petitions, originally set last August 24, 2016 was moved to August 31, 2016. I find this as a most strange coincidence since we will likewise be commemorating on said date:
1) The 109th birth anniversary of President Ramon Magsaysay who is responsible for giving the cemetery its current name, to precisely honor our true war heroes whose mortal remains are interred there;
2) The 39th death anniversary of Archimedes Trajano, who is one of our numerous hero-martyrs, who was tortured and murdered by the ruthless Marcos dictatorship and
3) The 33rd anniversary of the burial of Ninoy Aquino, whose heroic death spelled the beginning of the end of the Marcos dictatorship?
Is SOMEONE somewhere actually sending us a message that we should NEVER FORGET for whom the Libingan is truly for and why Dictator Marcos is most unworthy of being buried in those hallowed grounds?
I have a strong feeling that the true heroes of our race, like Magsaysay, Trajano and Ninoy will be with us on August 31, 2016 when the oral arguments are held.

DUTERTE ELECTION, NOT JUSTIFICATION OF MARCOS BURIAL AT THE LIBINGAN

ELECTION OF DUTERTE DOES NOT ALLOW HIM TO DEFY THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION BY ORDERING THE MARCOS BURIAL AT THE LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI: Associate Justice Perez during the oral arguments last August 31, 2016 rhetorically asked: Is not the election of President Duterte, the decision of the sovereign itself, to allow the Marcos’ burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani? I have heard that argument before from Duterte fanatics, i.e. that by reason of Duterte’s election, he can skip due process to wipe out criminality. Most sadly, Associate Justice Perez is utterly mistaken. President Duterte can only enforce the law and not defy it and the standards set by law are most clear. The Libingan shall be the burial place of the mortal remains only of “those illustrious sons of the Philippines, who, on account of the patriotism, knowledge, or other salient qualities possessed by them in life, attracted to themselves the respect and veneration of their fellow citizens” (Act No. 1856, 1908) and those “Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots” whose memory deserve to be perpetuated “for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn” (Republic Act No. 289, 1948).

These laws President Duterte cannot defy, more so the Constitution. While sovereignty indeed resides in the people, the people in ratifying the 1987 Constitution under which President Duterte was elected, have chosen a democratic form of government which among others is characterized by the principle of separation of powers. Duterte could not even enter on the execution of his office as President without first taking his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution. Thus, President Duterte’s Order to bury Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, being in clear contravention of the law which he is duty-bound to enforce, is most clearly a brazen and arrogant manifestation of abuse of power, an executive usurpation of legislative power, violative of the principle of separation of powers, in utter disregard of the will of the sovereign Filipino people who have vested legislative power in the Congress of the Philippines only.

THE LIBINGAN IS A HEROES CEMETERY, NOT JUST SOLDIERS' CEMETERY

THE LIBINGAN MOST CLEARLY IS NOT MERELY A SOLDIERS' MEMORIAL BUT A CEMETERY FOR HEROES WHICH THUS DISQUALIFIES MARCOS FOR BURIAL THERE: Justice de Castro in implying that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is just a soldier's memorial, appears to be supporting the view of the Office of the Solicitor General that it is not actually reserved for heroes (the OSG acknowledged and admitted that Marcos is not a hero). Presidential issuances however most clearly show that it is intended precisely as a cemetery for heroes pursuant to the pertinent laws on the matter, thus the very reason why President Magsaysay renamed it as such.

That such is the purpose of the Libingan is most evident in President Magsaysay’s Executive Order No. 77, s. 1954, honoring the memory of our war dead, finding it most “fitting and proper that their remains be interred in one national cemetery”, which he subsequently renamed through Proclamation No. 86, s. 1954 as “Libingan ng mga Bayani”, so as to make it truly “symbolic of the cause for which our soldiers have died” (namely, their heroism in defense of freedom and democracy) as well as to “express the nation’s esteem and reverence for her war dead”.
President Ramos’s own Executive Order No. 131, s. of 1993 confirms this. It declares that our “National Artists and National Scientists are national heroes who, upon death, are entitled to state funeral” and thus the honor of being buried too at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
For all intents and purposes then, the Libingan ng mga Bayani has already become the National Pantheon, envisioned and referred to by Act No. 1856 and Republic Act No. 289. It is precisely to realize the legal intent and spirit of said laws which reserve the National Pantheon only to those which can serve as an inspiration and as models for emulation, that President Ramos expanded the coverage as to who may be buried there to include National Artists and National Scientists who he declared are also national heroes.
The Honorable Supreme Court cannot ignore and be oblivious of its own declaration in the case of Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Et. Al. vs. Yolanda Arquero, Et. Al. (G.R. No. 161405, July 21, 2006), acknowledging that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is “the memorial park for our national heroes… and should be respected as the fitting resting place of our fallen soldiers and martyrs”.
That some who were buried there are not heroes does not depart from the fact that it is intended as its name connotes as a heroes cemetery and Marcos, the dictator, plunderer and human rights violator cannot at all be considered a hero. The laws are there and they provide standards as to who are deserving to be buried at the Libingan. Now that a legal dispute has arisen, it is the solemn constitutional duty of the Honorable Supreme Court to so interpret the law, apply the standards that they provide and stop the burial of Marcos at the Libingan.

DEATH PENALTY, NOT EFFECTIVE DETERRENT

The President wants to restore the death penalty to strike fear in the hearts of criminals. It fails to consider that crime has socio-economic causes like poverty and injustice. Ang taong nagigipit kahit sa patalim kakapit. People who are victims of injustice and cannot get justice from our legal system, will take the law into their own hands. It likewise fails to consider that what is lacking and what we need is a strict and consistent enforcement of the law through our justice system. This is what will effectively deter crimes and not any killing or death penalty.
What is needed is a strict and consistent enforcement of the law, so that people will know that when they commit a crime, there is certainty of punishment and there will be no escape from the long arm of the law.

THE DIGNITY OF THE ENTIRE NATION WILL BE DEBASED IF MARCOS IS BURIED AT THE LNMB

The Libingan ng mga Bayani is hallowed ground, for interred therein are the mortal remains of the Filipino people’s war heroes and martyrs who fought for our freedom during the Second World War. Previously named “Republic Memorial Cemetery”, the late President Ramon Magsaysay, saw it most fitting to rename it “Libingan ng mga Bayani”, to truly represent “the cause for which our soldiers have died” (namely the defense of our people’s freedom and democracy) as well as “express the nation’s esteem and reverence for her war dead” (Proclamation No. 86, October 27, 1954).
It is hallowed ground for it also keeps the mortal remains of other illustrious men and women of our nation, among them, our National Artists and National Scientists who are themselves our people’s national heroes deserving too of appropriate honors/ceremonies befitting their stature as declared by President Ramos in his Executive Order No. 131, s. 1993.
By reason of the fact of the burial of these national heroes of ours in this hallowed ground and through these Presidential Proclamations, the Libingan ng mga Bayani, for all intents and purposes, has already become our country’s National Pantheon envisioned by Act No. 1856 way back in 1908 and reiterated by Republic Act No. 289 in 1948, which laws clearly granted our people the right to honor only as heroes those deserving their respect and veneration; esteem and reverence and who can serve as inspiration and models for emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn.
It is these hallowed grounds, particularly, the memory of our national heroes which the President most sadly now seeks to desecrate when he recently issued his order allowing the burial at the Libingan of one acknowledged as one of the most corrupt leaders of the world, who has shamelessly plundered the people’s money and violated wholesale their human rights, which consequently will perpetrate the lie that he is a hero, in blatant violation of the right of the Filipino people, including the generations still unborn, to those whom they will honor only as heroes.
The dark years of the Marcos dictatorship which has in fact debased the honor and dignity of the entire Filipino nation and the people’s glorious and heroic struggle which eventually toppled it, is already part of the country’s historical and cultural heritage, which they have the right and duty to preserve in their collective memory, to enable them to pass it to the generations still unborn, lest failure to do so and thus learn from its lessons, may again allow tyranny to rule this sad land of ours.
The said Order of the President, sadly will likewise violate their right to restore their said debased honor and dignity as well as their right to the truth of their said historical heritage, as the burial will most evidently distort history as to who Marcos was to the Filipino people and thus consequently erase or at the very least dim from their collective memory what really happened during the martial law years.
By reason of the foregoing, said Order of the President is not only illegal but unconstitutional but a most great injustice to our people, an affront to their dignity as well as their right to the truth as regards their historical heritage, more particularly of the countless victims of human rights violations during Martial Law, whose “heroism and sacrifices”, have already been recognized by law and whose honor and dignity the State is legally mandated to restore (Republic Act No. 10368).
It is this most underserved illegal as well as unconstitutional burial which the Petitions now pending before the Honorable Supreme Court seek to prevent. Filipinos who may not be actually human rights victims of torture, murder, disappearance and illegal detention have themselves sustained legal injury and may in fact themselves file a Petition before the Honorable Supreme Court not only on behalf of themselves but in representation of the generations still unborn.
As early as 1948, our legislators have already the concept of intergenerational responsibility, the need to preserve and perpetuate the memory of our “national heroes and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn”. After all, the patrimony of the nation which our Constitution mandates us to conserve and develop “refers not only to our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race” and as Justice Padilla, adds in his Concurring Opinion in Manila Prince Hotel vs. Government Service Insurance System, Et. Al. ( G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997), also our historical heritage.
It is more importantly, on behalf of our children, our grandchildren, and the generations still unborn that this generation should oppose this burial, so that it will be forever be preserved in our people’s collective memory what really happened in those dark days of our history (which the burial seeks to erase), that never again should we allow tyranny to descend on this most unfortunate land of ours.

DRUG ADDICTS NEED TO BE HEALED, NOT KILLED

President Duterte was recently quoted to have said that he was willing to kill the 3 million drug addicts in the Philippines if it were the only way to solve the country’s drug problem (http://newsinfo. inquirer.net/820847/heil-digong).
But that is not the only way to solve the drug problem as the President most sadly falsely assumes. He fails to consider that drug addiction is a medical problem. Drug addicts need to be healed and not killed. His meting a death sentence on drug addicts is not only unjust but illegal. The law on the matter itself (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) does not consider them beyond salvation as the President seems to believe, for which extermination is the only solution, as Section 15 thereof most clearly provides that those who are apprehended or arrested, who are found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation. Indeed, the law itself provides that they should be rehabilitated and not exterminated. Yet sadly, we have death squads roaming around killing persons who are merely drug dependents, who may still be rehabilitated and thus positively contribute to the country’s well-being.

It should likewise be borne in mind that drug addiction may only be a symptom of a deeper problem. Studies show that persons with disability, wanting to numb the physical and/or emotional pain they experience end up with substance abuse (https://www.addiction. com/4012/substance-abuse-disability/). Thus, meting a death sentence on them is doubly illegal since their rehabilitation is in fact the Government’s concern as mandated by the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons.
Hitler did not only exterminate the Jews. He likewise also murdered mentally and physically disabled Germans whom he considered as burdens on society. This is the image of persons with disability which the Magna Carta precisely seeks to demolish, to accord to them the rights and privileges that they are entitled to as human persons and to break the social barriers which limit their fullest possible participation in the life of the community. Sadly, this very rationale of the law is being subverted by the President’s latest pronouncements on drug addicts.
We want our President to succeed as his success will ultimately redound to the people’s benefit. Instead of rationalizing and justifying his latest pronouncements, we who truly care for him and our people have to tell him that his view on drug addicts is a most grievous error.

BRILLANTES LAW: Deterrent to criminality

BRILLANTES LAW: Deterrent to criminality: What is lacking and what we need is a strict and consistent enforcement of the law through our justice system. This is what will effec...

Deterrent to criminality

What is lacking and what we need is a strict and consistent enforcement of the law through our justice system. This is what will effectively deter crimes and not any killing or death penalty.

What is needed is a strict and consistent enforcement of the law, so that people will know that when they commit a crime, there will be no escape from the long arm of the law. Our newly elected leaders likewise have to address the root causes of criminality like poverty and injustice. Many are driven to take the path of criminality because of poverty. Ang taong nagigipit kahit sa patalim kakapit. People who are victims of injustice and cannot get justice from our legal system, will take the law into their own hands.

Why TRO Against K to 12 Should Be Issued

BRILLANTES, ET. AL. vs. Aquino III, ET. AL. (Petition Against K to 12 of the Manila Science Parents, Teachers and Students. They will file a 4^th Motion to Resolve their prayer for a TRO on February 15, 2016).

4^th Most Extremely Urgent Motion to Forthwith Resolve Without Further Delay Prayer for the Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order; To Hear Case on Oral Arguments & to Include These Motions in the 2/16 Agenda of the Honorable Supreme Court En Banc.

When they filed their  instant  Petition  last  June 23, 2015, they already prayed for the ex parte issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, which will direct Respondents (DepEd) to immediately stop the implementation of the two (2) additional years of senior high school and allow the Grade Ten Students among them (as well as the class they represent) to take College Entrance Tests, lest the reliefs they are praying for in their instant Petition for said senior high school to be declared unconstitutional and thus for them to be allowed to enter college after four (4) years of high school be rendered ineffectual.

They pointed out that colleges and universities are already about to conduct their Entrance Tests. Thus, the  matter is of extreme urgency, such that unless a TRO is issued ex parte, grave injustice and irreparable injury will be caused to them before the matter can be heard on notice, since said Grade Ten Students will not be allowed to take said test. Most  sadly,  notwithstanding  said  extreme  urgency and grave injustice which provide valid grounds under the Rules, for the Honorable Court to issue said TRO ex parte, all that the Honorable Court did was to direct  Respondents to Comment on their Petition and their said prayer for a TRO within ten (10) days from notice thereof. To aggravate matters, the June 30, 2015 Resolution of the Honorable Court which issued said directive, was sent by registered mail to the parties only last July 13, 2015, thus further delaying compliance thereto by the Respondents, when the Honorable Court taking cognizance of the urgency of the situation, could have directed that it be served in such manner that it will reach Respondents the fastest possible time. 

Considering that the University of the Philippines as well as the other universities were already about to conduct their College Admission Tests, they filed last July 28, 2015 a Most Urgent Motion for Early Resolution of their said prayer for a TRO, arguing that the extreme urgency for its issuance is already beyond dispute, considering that without said TRO, Petitioner Students, a number of whom are poor but most deserving, will be denied the chance to qualify and thus avail of the quality education that the State University and other colleges and universities offer. They added that the very records of the Department of Education and the law itself show beyond dispute that the requirement for them to attend two (2) additional years of senior high school is unconstitutional and thus void. Most   sadly,  despite  the  fact  that  the  Honorable Court could already resolve their said most meritorious Motion for the ex parte issuance of a TRO, all that it did in its August 04, 2015 Resolution was to merely NOTE it.

Respondents however did not comply with the ten (1) day period given to them by the Honorable Court. They (through the Office of the Solicitor General)  instead asked for a one (1) month extension for the filing of their Comment to the Consolidated Petitions (or until September 05, 2015). In asking for that extension, they must certainly have already considered their alleged “heavy pressure of work” (which incidentally is not a valid justification, as it will only encourage needless delays) and thus could not use that as an excuse to ask for another extension.

Thus, herein Petitioners filed last September 17, 2015 a Vehement Opposition to Respondents’ 2^nd Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment with 2^nd Motion Urgent Motion for Early Resolution (of their prayer for the Immediate Ex Parte Issuance of a TRO). They added that even in the absence of said Comment, the Honorable Court will be able to judge based on the arguments they have advanced, that there is indeed sufficient and convincing proof beyond reasonable doubt and according to the rules of evidence, of the clear and unequivocal breaches of the Constitution, not only by DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 and Republic Act No. 10533 but also by their implementation. Having overcome their presumption of validity and constitutionality, justice but demands that their Motion for a TRO be forthwith resolved and be so resolved in their favor.

Most sadly, their plea still remained unheeded by the Honorable Court, with their said Vehement Opposition and 2^nd Most Urgent Motion for Early Resolution, again merely NOTED by the Honorable Court in its October 06, 2015 Resolution. Notwithstanding the fact that the Honorable Court in its September 15, 2015 Resolution, already issued a warning that no further extension will be given by it to Respondents and thus its Second Motion for Extension will be the last, Respondents in utter disregard of said warning, still asked for a third extension which the Honorable Court, most sadly granted just the same in its November 24, 2015 Resolution. It was only last October 30, 2015 or more than four (4) months since they filed their instant Petition that Respondents were able to file their Comment thereto.

Last  December  02,  2015,  they filed their Reply to Respondents’ Comment With 3^rd Most Urgent Motion to Resolve Prayer for a TRO, beseeching the Honorable Court that since Respondents’ Comment has already been filed and thus they have already been heard on the instant Petition, their prayer for the issuance of a TRO should already be acted upon[1], forthwith resolved and be so resolved without further delay in their favor.

While they were fully aware that the issuance of a TRO rests on the sound  discretion  of the  Honorable  Court, there was absolutely no more reason for the Honorable Court not to act on their said Motion, considering that Respondents have already been heard on their Petition through their Comment and they have already complied with the Order of the Honorable Court to file a Reply thereto.[2] They were expecting that at the very least, their 3^rd Most Urgent Motion for Issuance of a TRO will be included in the agenda of the Honorable Court’s remaining En Banc sessions last December 2015 and be deemed submitted for Resolution. They subsequently sadly learned however that it was only last January 12, 2016 that it was heard by the Supreme Court En Banc.

They eagerly waited for the Resolution of said January 12, 2016 session to be released, expecting that finally their Motion for the issuance of a TRO will already be resolved. Considering that the school year is about to end, indubitably establishing the most extreme urgency for the Honorable Court to already act on their said Motion and making the grave injustice and irreparable injury which they will suffer most imminent, they saw no valid reason why the Honorable Court may still suspend action on their said Motion for the issuance of a TRO.

Most sadly, notwithstanding the sense of urgency which is already tormenting them no end, the Honorable Court remained unmoved. As before, it simply NOTED without any action their said Reply and 3^rd Most Urgent Motion in its January 12, 2016 Resolution (which to this very late date, they still have to formally receive). They respectfully and humbly manifest that they are completely baffled by the continued inaction of the Honorable Court, despite the fact that their Motion for the issuance of a TRO is already most ripe for resolution and long overdue.

They  respectfully  wish  to  call  the  attention of the Honorable Court that since the school year is about to end, if it still does not resolve their prayer for a TRO, the Grade Ten Students among them, will suffer the grave injustice and irreparable injury of not being admitted to College next school year, despite the utmost merit of their said Motion for a TRO, thereby rendering ineffectual the judgment and reliefs they are praying  for in their instant Petition, among which, is for the two (2) additional years of senior high school to be declared unconstitutional and thus void. They beseech the Honorable Court to finally feel the extreme sense of urgency of the situation and to forthwith and without further delay, resolve their said Motion for issuance of a TRO no later than the first week of March 2016 or before the end of the current school year of 2015-2016, pursuant to their sacred constitutional rights to due process of law and for the speedy disposition thereof.

They  would  not  have  been   placed   in  this  most  dangerous situation and the Honorable Court would have resolved their Motion for a TRO much earlier, were it not for the most inordinate and unreasonable delay of Respondents in  filing their Comment to their instant Petition. With an Associate Solicitor assigned to Comment on each of the herein Consolidated Petitions and with the entire machinery of the executive and legislative departments at their disposal, there was absolutely no valid justification for their repeated Motions for Extension of Time to File Comment, considering that their instant Petition was filed way back in June 2015 and the other Petitions were filed much earlier in March 2015.

Most  sadly,  the  Honorable  Court has itself allowed said most inordinate and unreasonable  delay committed by the Respondents, considering that notwithstanding its warning that Respondents’ Second Motion for Extension will be the last, it still subsequently granted Respondents’ Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment. Moreover, the Rules allow the Honorable Court to issue orders expediting proceedings. Thus, it could have directed that its Resolutions be immediately served on the parties and be so served by personal service, considering that said Rules specifically direct that prayers for TRO be speedily acted upon in a summary hearing. As it stands now, it is already more than seven (7) months and their prayer for the issuance of a TRO has not even been submitted for Resolution. The earliest Petitions against K to 12 which were filed way back in March 2015, will in fact be celebrating already their first anniversary, with no clear resolution in sight as regards their similar prayers for issuance of a TRO.

Under   the  circumstances, by reason  of  extreme  urgency  and most imminent danger of the herein Grade Ten Students suffering the aforementioned grave injustice and irreparable injury, they respectfully beseech and appeal to the Honorable Court to forthwith and without further delay finally resolve their Motion for Issuance of a TRO and so resolve it in their favor. Their said Motion is no less important that the other Motions for a TRO that the Honorable Court expeditiously acted upon. As it now stands, if the Honorable Court still does not act on their said Motion, it will be most inevitable that millions of Grade Ten Students will be forced to attend senior high school in blatant violation of their sacred constitutional rights, which if not prevented, will likewise inevitably lead to the catastrophic unconstitutional massive displacement of College Teachers and Personnel and the equally catastrophic unconstitutional massive dropping out from school of high school students who will not be able to afford the further added expense of senior high school.  

They  were  fully  aware  that  they who are just ordinary parents, teachers and students are ranged against powerful forces, namely, the combined machinery of the executive and legislative departments which have colluded with private school interests in imposing on them this despotic and oppressive education program. In filing their Petition, they prepared for the worst, that is, for their prayer for a TRO will be denied and they, the Grade Ten Students among them, condemned to suffer two (2) additional years of Senior High School. They however dared to file their instant Petition and join the ranks of fellow parents, teachers and students who have long been fighting against this unconstitutional K to 12 education program as they remained hopeful, that the Honorable Court, pursuant to its solemn and sacred obligation under the Constitution will come to their aid and without further delay finally issue the TRO that they have been praying for.

It is now time for the Honorable Court to decide as there is no more other time: condemn them to two additional years of senior high school by denying the TRO that they have long prayed for or free them of said unnecessary and most unconstitutional burden by issuing said TRO and eventually granting their Petition to declare the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum and the two (2) additional years of senior high school they are assailing as well as the DepEd Order and law which serve as their bases to be unconstitutional.

They respectfully submit that  they have  more  than  adequately established facts for the Honorable Court to make a conclusive determination that they are entitled to the provisional reliefs they are praying for, particularly, undisputed facts (even admitted by Respondents) of material  and  substantial invasion of  their clear and unmistakable rights protected by the Constitution, which are directly threatened  (and in fact already violated) by the acts of Respondents, which they are seeking to enjoin and thus of the urgent and paramount necessity for the TRO to be issued to prevent serious and irreparable damage to them,[3] particularly the following:

Respondents, in a most brazen and arrogant manifestation of abuse of power, usurped legislative power, in utter disregard of the will of the people which has vested said power in the Congress of the Philippines only, by commencing through the assailed DepEd Order, to implement the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum in 2012, even if there was no enabling legislation yet for the implementation of said new curriculum [as the then existing law defined the system of education as consisting only of a ten (10) year basic education cycle and the bill proposing to extend said cycle to twelve (12) years was still being deliberated in Congress].

Respondents continued to encroach on the power of the legislature, by persisting to implement its K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum (which by its own admission, was formulated in consultation only with a pool of experts), without complying with the law’s very requirement to formulate the enhanced basic education curriculum, in consultation with national students organizations, national teachers organizations and parents-teachers associations. Without a valid curriculum, neither can the two (2) additional years of senior high school be implemented.

But even if Respondents eventually comply with said consultation requirement, the implementation of Senior High School cannot apply to herein Petitioners Grade Ten Students. This is for the reason that their right to complete only four (4) years of high school, has already been vested, since that was the law in place when they started their high school in 2012. Thus, to impose on them the added burden of going through two (2) additional years of senior high school is to divest them of their said right and in effect apply the law retroactively (which is unconstitutional).

In fact, the assailed Law cannot be implemented at all even prospectively, for being violative of the constitutional right to substantive due process of herein Petitioner Students, considering that, it is not reasonably necessary to decongest their curriculum nor to lengthen their basic education cycle, since by reason of their  higher mental capabilities as gifted students, they can master their heavier in scope and more advanced special science curriculum within four (4) years. Thus, to require them to attend two (2) additional years of senior high school is most arbitrary and oppressive, likewise violative of their constitutional right to be admitted to college free from any unfair and unreasonable admission and academic requirement.

It is violative too of the constitutional right to substantive due process of all Filipino students and thus is unduly oppressive too and an unwarranted intrusion into their right to education, particularly to be admitted to College free from any unfair and unreasonable admission and academic requirement, considering that it is not reasonably necessary to decongest their curriculum nor to lengthen their basic education cycle in order to improve student performance as studies show that some countries which have short cycles have high scores in Math, Science and English while others with longer cycles have low scores. The law fails to consider that there are other causes of lower educational outcomes, like poverty, lack of good teachers, classrooms and books. Thus, there is another alternative and less intrusive way of accomplishing the objective of the law rather than lengthening the basic education cycle, which is, to pour government funds to better learning materials, better teachers (through the increase of their salaries), more classrooms and thus as a whole, a better learning environment, instead of unconstitutionally wasting government funds to private schools, who are pushing for K to 12 solely for their purely private interests. Hence, it is unduly oppressive and an unwarranted intrusion into the right to education of the Filipino students.

Instead however of decongesting the curriculum which is the law’s avowed purpose, in order to give students more time to master the desired basic learning competencies, it made it more congested, by transferring general education subjects offered in college to Senior High School, thus defeating the very purpose of the law, thereby undermining the right of high school students to quality education. What the law authorizes is only the enhancement of the basic education curriculum and not to transfer general education to high school, which education is the exclusive obligation of tertiary education to provide. So burdening high school with general education subjects, thus, likewise amounts to an executive usurpation of legislative power.

There is thus no reasonable necessity to transfer college general education subjects to senior high school, which thus violates likewise the right to substantive due process of College Teachers. That such is not reasonably necessary is further evidenced by the fact that high school teachers have no competence to teach them and thus College Teachers will just the same be relied upon to teach them.  Worse, it will inevitably and necessarily result in the massive displacement of College Teachers in the hundreds of thousands, violative of the constitutional mandate on the State to afford full protection to labor, particularly their constitutionally guaranteed right to security of tenure.

The law itself admits that DepEd does not have the capacity to offer Grade 11 to all public school students. Thus it provides funding for them to enroll in private schools. The funding however will not cover the entire cost of private education, which is clearly violative of the constitutional mandate on the State to provide for free public secondary education (and thus of its duty to make education accessible to all). Thus, even with government funding, majority of the Filipino students will just the same not be able to afford private education and thus be forced to drop out from school. This is another reason why the law is unconstitutional as it violates the very purpose it seeks to achieve.

They sadly note that while the February People Power Revolution which is being commemorated this month, has supposedly ended dictatorship and restored democracy with its principle of separation of powers as a safeguard against abuse, an equally reprehensible virtual dictatorship exists today, namely, the collusion of the executive and legislative departments, together with private school interests, in the implementation of the unconstitutional K to 12 Basic Education Program.

These actions of Secretary Luistro, which are clearly violative of the Constitution and thus are void are all over the papers. Yet, neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives, ever registered any protest, over the encroachment of their constitutional prerogatives by the executive department, notwithstanding the fact that the law itself provides for the creation of a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to monitor the implementation of the law. Herein Petitioners have never imagined that such tyranny of the executive and legislative departments, which evidently are in collusion with each other, in perpetrating the grave injustice which the Filipino youth are being subjected to, would still befall them, many years after this country, in the words of a Chief Justice, has experienced “the wrenching pain of dictatorship” and has supposedly returned already to democracy.

The dictatorship at least exerted efforts to function under a cloak of legitimacy, no thanks to a Supreme Court then which in the words of a Chief Justice , did not have the moral courage to remind the dictator of his mortality and the inevitable historical damnation of despots and tyrants. Secretary Luistro however, perhaps certain that he can get away with it without any protest from the Legislature, in a most brazen and arrogant manifestation of abuse of power, proceeded to blatantly violate the Constitution, by implementing his K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum, without waiting for the law to be passed and persisted in implementing it in contravention of the very law he was supposed to merely enforce.

In the face of this grave injustice, the Honorable Supreme Court is their only hope, “as the last bulwark of democracy being the administrator of justice and the legitimate recourse of their grievances”. They  have  no  one  to  turn  to  and  seek aid from but from the Honorable Supreme Court. They thus implore and beseech the Honorable Supreme Court to come to their aid, pursuant to its solemn and sacred obligation under the Constitution. They implore and beseech the Honorable Supreme Court to forthwith and without further delay, immediately issue the Temporary Restraining Order they have long been praying for, so that the implementation of the K to 12 law be stopped, thus allowing the current Grade Ten students to take College Entrance Tests and eventually enter College next school year.

After the issuance of said TRO, so that they may be able to answer whatever questions or clarifications the Honorable Court may wish to propound and to definitively establish the merits of their Petition as well as to indubitably rebut Respondents’ vacuous arguments, they respectfully pray that their instant Petition be heard on oral arguments.

Finally, for purposes of expediting proceedings, they pray that the Honorable Chief Justice direct the immediate inclusion of the herein Motions in the agenda of the Honorable Court En Banc, to be held on February 16, 2016 and for all Resolutions of the Honorable Court to be personally served on herein parties. They cannot understand why it takes so long [some as long as two (2) months] for very simple Resolutions to reach them. In fact, to this very late date, they have not yet received the January 12, 2016 Resolution of the Honorable Court, whose directives they learned only of, as their undersigned counsel asked to have an advanced copy of it. 

---