events: corona impeachment

 (DRAFT)

art. VII of the impeachment charge questions the manner in which a TRO was issued in favor of the former president GMA.


i find the following excerpt on the rule of law elucidating with regard to its due execution:

      " My second sub-rule is that questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion. Most modern commentators would not share to the full Dicey’s hostility to the exercise of official discretions. In the immigration field, for example, judges have routinely and gratefully invited the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion to grant leave to enter or remain to applicants who do not meet the tests for entry laid down in the immigration rules but whose personal history or circumstances demand  sympathetic consideration. But the essential truth of Dicey’s insight stands. The broader and more looselytextured a discretion is, whether conferred on an official or a judge, the greater the scope for subjectivity and hence for arbitrariness, which is the antithesis of the rule of law.25 This sub-rule requires that a discretion should ordinarily be narrowly defined and its exercise capable of reasoned justification. These are requirements which our law, in my opinion, almost always satisfies, because discretion imports a choice between two possible decisions and orders, and usually the scope for choice is very restricted. The grant of a civil injunction, it is always said, is discretionary. But if a clear violation of legal right is shown, and there is a clear risk of repetition injurious to the victim for which damages will not compensate, and there is no undertaking by the lawbreaker to desist, the trial judge ordinarily has no choice. His discretion can only, usually, be exercised one way. A second, very familiar, example is found in section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which provides:


      “In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.”


The use of the word “may” is relied on as conferring a discretion. But what the subsection does, I suggest, is to require an exercise of judgment, which may be difficult to make but which will determine the outcome: if the statutory condition is judged to be satisfied, the judge must refuse to allow the evidence to be given; if it is not, the subsection does not authorise the judge to exclude the evidence. For my third illustrative example I return to the immigration field. If an official were to grant leave to enter or remain to a person who did not meet the tests laid down in the immigration rules, but whose case presented no exceptional features whatever suggesting the need for special treatment, such decision would be incapable of rational justification and could not be defended as an exercise of discretion. There is in truth no such thing as an unfettered discretion, judicial or official, and that is what the rule of law requires."

granting that there was sufficient compliance with the requirements...primordial executive concerns through the Department of Justice should not have been easily dismissed. After all, situational realities, real dangers, possible adverse results are things which are well within the executive branch's' domain of certainty-determination.  not the courts' which by nature is insulated from the ever changing  realities of day to day-realities which are deemed- from moment to moment- uncertain.




reference:
      lord bingham on the rule of law

ISSUE: Lowering The Average

The only issue left regarding the 2007 bar examination was the lowering of the passing mark. Its been some seven years since the Supreme Court decided on it last. Now, what are the main scenarios that would instigate a negative reaction?

Questions, questions..
1. Was there a possibility that information as to the result was leaked in advance in order to favor a few selected candidates? This is not a far-fetched idea considering the state of advanced communications.Its also a fact that somehow someone happens to be well connected with the powers that be.

2. Under what possible circumstances na hindi nagkaroon ng piring ang katarungan?

3. Does the structural setup of the Examination Body ensure reasonable fairness?
It's who knows What and When.

This is not to degrade the level or quality of the passers. Here, the conduct of the Supreme Court may be questioned by the Legislature with respect to the Rules and Mechanics to ensure fairness in the function. Through a legislative act. I suppose. Even through a "legislative inquiry in aid of legislation." After all, the power of the purse has the right to know as to whether or not government funds are spent in furtherance of a good government act. The doctrine parens patria dictates that the children are treated equally without favoritism.

Does the judiciary have an exclusive domain? I should say no. They're separate yet meant to fuse and compliment each other. That is to correct lapses in any branch of government. It's who you know that matters? MBA( May Backer Ako)? Culture of corruption and institutionalized greed? They carry that kind of corrosive attitudinal substance in a Republic.

When things like these matters are questioned. It is not fair even to the passers. They have the effect of a Pyhrric and hollow victory. They are robbed of a once in a lifetime state of self-confirmation and validation.

Ever wondered why even the blind are able to acquire a driver's license in our country?

REFORMS, reforms?
Enough of the deity type of examiners correcting the notebooks. It should be broadly assimilated. Any lawyer should qualify in a Body of Correctors. After all, the law is suppose to be understood by even the least of educated or learned and by all. Surely every lawyer is qualified to correct.

It could be on a voluntary or with a little financial reward per booklet corrected. This would hasten the process and cut-down the very long agonizing wait for the results.

Avoid subjectivity by allowing the use of laptops and computer software in the actual examination. We are no longer in 1901. We are living in the age of rapid technological advances. Eliminating the very subjective 'hand-writing' factor. As an excuse for an examiner being in a bad mood.

Its not that I have a bad penmanship. On the contrary, it has received numerous praises and admirations to the point that it no longer affects me.


FUTURE PREJUDICE: The adjusted average would tend to affect future examinations like the following year's exams in case it would result in a average lower than that which was allowed this year. Indeed, if they go below the average passing mark relative to the number of examinees and the ration with this in relation to this years results then that would proly result for clamor for an adjustment from those who did not make it. Indeed this year's results cannot be higher than any succeeding result based on comparative statistical data.

So, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The result is a constipated effect.LOL.