We are sorry, the requested page does not exist
RCBC to surrender trust license
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) is looking to surrender its license to engage in trust and other fiduciary business as part of its efforts to make RCBC Trust Corp. a stand-alone trust entity......»»
Globe gets P5 billion from sale of towers
Telco-to-tech provider Globe Telecom Inc. raised almost P5 billion from the sale of towers in the first quarter, providing it with some of the capital needed to upgrade services and pay debts......»»
PLDT puts up new unit for data centers
Telco leader PLDT Inc. has formed a new unit under its technology arm, delegating it with the task of building and operating data centers......»»
Año urges rebels to surrender, avail themselves of amnesty program
Año urges rebels to surrender, avail themselves of amnesty program.....»»
15 more BIFF terrorists surrender to military
Fifteen more members of the outlawed Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters surrendered to the military in Datu Piang, Maguindanao del Sur on Monday......»»
DMW wants strict adherence to seafarer right of refusal clause
DMW wants strict adherence to seafarer right of refusal clause.....»»
[WATCH] Carpio on People’s Initiative: ‘Nothing to do with economic provisions’
'There is no law to implement the people’s initiative clause of the Constitution,' Carpio tells Rappler.....»»
What is a right of first refusal and how does it work?
This question was asked in response to yesterday’s story about the possible existence of a “right of first refusal” clause in the shareholders’ agreement for investors in the Light Rail Manila Corp......»»
DA to draft procurement guidelines for agricultural crises
The Department of Agriculture announced on Wednesday that they are in the process of drafting the Implementing Rules and Regulations for a law clause, seeking to stabilize necessities and commodities supply while protecting consumers from unjustified price hikes during food shortages......»»
No rematch clause for Inoue vs Tapales
The handlers of Naoya Inoue, the Japanese “Monster,” must be so confident of victory over Filipino Marlon Tapales that they didn’t opt for a rematch clause in the fight contract......»»
No rematch clause for Inoue vs Tapales
The handlers of Naoya Inoue, the Japanese “Monster,” must be so confident of victory over Filipino Marlon Tapales that they didn’t opt for a rematch clause in the fight contract......»»
Pasko na naman sa Snow World Manila
PASKO na naman sa Snow World Manila na ngayon ay bukas na araw-araw mula 2:00 p.m. hanggang 10:00 p.m.. Sa buong Kapaskuhan, madarama ninyo ang malamig na simoy ng hangin at ang pagbagsak ng tunay na snow sa loob lamang ng Snow World. Makikita rin ninyo ang mga mapaglarong snowmen at reindeer ni Santa Clause na nakasingkaw ….....»»
Road rage incidents a security threat — expert
Road rage incidents last year was 12 percent higher than the previous years and should be taken as a security threat, a psychology expert from the Quezon City Rehabilitation Center said Tuesday. At the Quezon City Journalist Forum, Dra. Ana Victoria Faltado said there were 15 recorded deaths and 222 injuries “because of aggressive driving” that led to road rage incidents. “It (aggressive driving) has become the common cause of traffic altercation,” Faltado said noting that incidents are higher in Metro Manila because of urbanization. “Eight out of 10 (drivers) exhibit aggressive behavior, while nine out of 10 tends to be aggressive,” she added. “It is now a security threat. Socially it’s a psycho-cultural problem. There is a need for stricter traffic laws implementation,” Faltado explained. 2nd District Councilor Rannie Ludovica, on the other hand, who headed the Council Committee on Public Order and Safety said he had already filed an “anti-road rage” measure to prevent it from happening around the city’s jurisdiction. Ludovica said the ordinance carries a penalty of P5,000 to both the “aggressor” and the “victim.” “Once na nagtalo sa kalye, obstruction na sa traffic ang result. We leave the imprisonment clause to the discretion of the court, as there are other charges to be slapped against them, we have LTO rules that they also violated for sure,” Ludovica explained, adding that the measure however will still have to go into process like calling for a public consultations first of all sectors concerned. “What we have arrived first are the factors behind it (road rage). Economic, cause everything now has become expensive. Most common is under the influence of liquor and drugs. But the biggest factor is that the driver or would be road rager has a love problem,” Ludovica explained. For Dra. Fataldo, to prevent irritation on the road, the driver should have to “take a deep breathe” and “turn your radio to listen to a good music.” The post Road rage incidents a security threat — expert appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
MIF Law nullification: Remote or certain?
In recent months, the Maharlika Investment Fund Law has stirred considerable controversy and debate in the Philippines. Enacted to promote economic development and address pressing issues in the country, this law has faced legal challenges and criticism from various quarters. The question that looms large is whether the Supreme Court will likely nullify this law. The Maharlika Investment Fund Law, also known as Republic Act 11954, was passed by the Philippine Congress and signed into law by the President on 18 July 2023. Its primary objective is establishing a government-managed investment fund to promote economic development, infrastructure projects, and poverty alleviation. The law outlines the creation of the Maharlika Investment Fund, or MIF, and its funding sources, including contributions from government agencies, public enterprises, and certain revenue streams. The MIF Law faced legal challenges from various individuals, groups, and organizations almost immediately after its enactment. Critics have argued that the law violates the Constitution on several grounds, including the separation of powers, the fiscal autonomy of local government units, and the due process clause. Let’s examine these legal arguments in more detail. Critics contend that the law violates the principle of separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to control and manage the funds allocated under the MIF. They argue that the legislature should have greater oversight and control over the allocation and disbursement of public funds. As the Constitution guarantees, local government units or LGUs in the Philippines enjoy fiscal autonomy. Opponents argue that the MIF law encroaches upon this autonomy by diverting funds that could otherwise be allocated to LGUs for their own development projects. Some critics also claim that the law’s provisions lack clarity and transparency, potentially leading to the arbitrary and unfair allocation of funds. They argue that this lack of due process could result in mismanagement and corruption. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether or not to nullify the Maharlika Investment Fund Law will depend on several factors, including legal arguments, political considerations, and the interpretation of the Constitution. The Court will carefully consider the legal arguments presented by both sides. It will assess whether the law indeed violates constitutional principles such as the separation of powers and fiscal autonomy. The strength and persuasiveness of these arguments will be pivotal. It may also examine previous decisions and legal precedents to guide its decision-making process. If there are past cases that bear similarities to the issues raised in the MIF law, these could influence the Court’s stance. While the Court is an independent institution, it operates within a political context. Public opinion and the perception of the law’s impact on society may indirectly influence the Court’s decision, as judges may be mindful of the broader implications of their ruling. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution will play a central role. Justices may have differing views on interpreting constitutional provisions, which could lead to a split decision. Offhand, what are the chances then of the MIF Law being nullified? If the legal challenges successfully demonstrate that the law indeed violates fundamental constitutional principles, such as the separation of powers or the fiscal autonomy of LGUs, then the chances of nullification increase. However, if the Court finds that the law is consistent with the Constitution, it will likely be upheld. The political climate and public sentiment may also be influential factors. If there is widespread public support for the law and the government’s efforts to promote economic development, the Court may consider that when rendering its decision. Conversely, if there is strong opposition and concerns about the law’s impact on governance and fiscal management, the Court may be more inclined to scrutinize it closely. The prospects, therefore, of the Supreme Court nullifying the MIF Law are uncertain and will depend on a range of legal, political, and constitutional factors. Therefore, it is essential to remember that the Court’s decision should be based on thoroughly examining the law’s compliance with the Philippine Constitution, rather than political or public pressure. Ultimately, the judiciary’s role is to uphold the rule of law and protect the constitutionality of legislation, ensuring that justice prevails in the Philippines. The post MIF Law nullification: Remote or certain? appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Cebu mayor vetoes bid livestream ordinance
The local government of Cebu City announced on Tuesday that Mayor Michael Rama has vetoed the proposed ordinance to livestream the bidding processes of the Bids and Awards Committee. Rama said the measure violates the Data Privacy Act of 2012, supersedes the implementing rules and regulations of the Government Procurement Reform Act, and compromises the general welfare clause provided under the Local Government Code. He also stressed that the proposed ordinance would have ended up violating the bidders’ right to privacy, as personal and sensitive pieces of information embedded in their technical, financial, and other related documents would be read out loud during the opening of their bids. “The subject ordinance clearly runs counter and anathema to the explicit provisions as well as the spirit, intent, and purposes of the Data Privacy Act of 2012. Consequently, it is also prejudicial to the welfare of the bidders,” Rama said. To recall, South District City Councilor Rey Gealon proposed the ordinance dubbed as the “Live Streaming of the Bidding Process of the Bids and Awards Committee of the City of Cebu” which was passed by the City Council. “I strongly believe that the ‘general welfare clause’ invoked by the good mayor to defeat the ordinance is the same clause I relied upon as author to uphold the primordial right of the people to know how the bidding process is undertaken towards the utilization of public funds,” the councilor said. “Having merely noted the mayor’s veto during the regular session, this ordinance, whose noble intention is the pursuit of transparency and accountability, is killed,” he added. The vetoed ordinance covers all modes of procurement recognized under the Government Procurement Reform Act, including emergency procurement and other alternative modes. It also covers the procurement of goods, infrastructure projects, and even consulting services. The post Cebu mayor vetoes bid livestream ordinance appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
ICC, an int’l interloper
As this columnist repeatedly articulated in this column and other communication platforms, the ruling by the International Criminal Court or ICC on the appeal of the Philippine government to stop its probe on the drug killings would be denied, in the same predictable way it denied the Solicitor General’s request for deferment of the former’s investigation as well as its thumbing down of the motion for reconsideration filed by the same government official following the denial of his request for suspension of the aforesaid investigation. It’s deja vu. That has been the glaring handwriting on the wall. The assaulting demeanor against our sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the insulting intransigence of ICC’s insistence that it has jurisdiction over the Philippines despite the fact that the Rome Statute creating it was never published in the Official Gazette, a constitutional requirement under the due process clause, for its enforcement, was too evident to escape notice. The absence of publication of the source law was fatal because its commission was the operative act that would give a legal imprimatur to its operation in the country. Moreover, the withdrawal of the Philippines as a member of the ICC absolutely divested its jurisdiction over the former, even assuming that by a convoluted legal theory, it acquired an incipient jurisdiction over the Philippines. It was so naive if not dumb for those who pursued vigorously, but wrongly, the submissions made to the ICC and hoped to get a favorable decision. The ruling of the ICC rejecting the appeal, among others, rationalizing its decision, states that the “Philippines Implicitly admits its jurisdiction” when the latter filed its deferral request, motion for reconsideration, and appeal, effectively arguing that the Philippine government’s participation in its processes resulted in it waiting for its opposition to its jurisdiction, thereby placing itself within the sphere of ICC’s jurisdiction. That argument could be correct if the ICC has jurisdiction in fact and in law, but as repeatedly asserted ad infinitum, ex propio vigore, it never acquired jurisdiction, and if indeed, assuming arguendo, that it assumed jurisdiction, the Philippines’ withdrawal as members-state of the International Criminal Court wrote finis to whatever pretension or hallucination it has on jurisdiction. The participation of the Philippine government while it is monstrously wrong and helped the ICC add another bogus justification to its non-binding ruling has no legal effect whatsoever because all the proceedings undertaken by a court that has no jurisdiction over the subject matter create no legal obligation, the same being null and void from its inception. The government should completely ignore the ICC and slam its pompous, unwelcome, and unlawful interference with the country’s domestic affairs. It should arrest and jail any of its functionaries who will attempt at conducting any investigation within the country or serve any summons, warrant of arrest, or whatever processes it will issue for — or against any citizen or government instrumentality. It should not allow it to use our country to justify its useless and vexing existence. The post ICC, an int’l interloper appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
DoH: Covid-19 policies for the ‘common good’
The Department of Health on Friday welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision junking the petitions against Covid-19 policies that were implemented at the height of the pandemic. In a statement, Health Secretary Ted Herbosa said, “All regulations and policies implemented during the pandemic were enacted with the utmost consideration for the common good.” Herbosa is a former advisor to the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases which was responsible for the country’s Covid-19 policies. On Thursday, the Supreme Court dismissed three petitions that sought to challenge the legality of the policies that were implemented by the IATF and other government agencies during the Covid-19 pandemic. Among the policies questioned in the petitions was IATF Resolution 148-B which required establishments to have mandatory RT-PCR tests every two weeks at their own expense for their eligible on-site employees. The petitioners said the Covid-19 policies violated their right to life and liberty without due process of law, impaired their right to travel, as well as being an infringement on the equal protection clause for applying only to those without access to private vehicles, and being discriminatory against the unvaccinated. The High Court, however, said the petitions were dismissible. “The Court held that the petitions were dismissible for violating the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts as the resolution of the issues raised therein required the determination and adjudication of extremely technical and scientific facts that necessitates the conduct of a full-blown proceeding before a court of first instance,” it said. The Health department expressed its gratitude to the Supreme Court. “Moreover, the DoH expresses profound gratitude for the favorable ruling rendered by the esteemed Supreme Court concerning the matter at hand,” the department said. “Upon official receipt and comprehensive review of the decision, the DoH Office of the Secretary, together with the Office for Legal Affairs, shall expeditiously issue a further statement to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s pronouncement toward this matter,” it added. The post DoH: Covid-19 policies for the ‘common good’ appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
DOH: COVID-19 policies during pandemic for ‘common good’
The Department of Health on Wednesday welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to junk petitions against COVID-19 policies that were implemented during the height of the pandemic. In a statement, Health Secretary Ted Herbosa stressed that “all regulations and policies implemented during the pandemic were enacted with the utmost consideration for the common good.” Herbosa previously served as an advisor to the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases, which was responsible for the country’s COVID-19 policies. On Thursday, the Supreme Court dismissed three petitions that sought to challenge the legality of the policies that were implemented by the IATF, and other government agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the policies questioned in the petitions was the IATF Resolution 148-B which requires establishments to have mandatory RT-PCR tests every two weeks at their own expense for their eligible on-site employees. Petitioners argued that COVID-19 policies violated their right to life and liberty without due process of law, impaired their right to travel, as well as an infringement of the equal protection clause for applying only to those without access to private vehicles, and is discriminatory against the unvaccinated. The High Court, however, said that petitions were dismissible. “The Court held that petitions were dismissible for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts as the resolution of the issues raised therein required the determination and adjudication of extremely technical and scientific facts that necessitates the conduct of a full-blown proceeding before a court of first instance,” it said. The Health department expressed its gratitude to the Supreme Court. “Moreover, the DOH expresses profound gratitude for the favorable ruling rendered by the esteemed Supreme Court concerning the matter at hand,” the agency said. “Upon official receipt and comprehensive review of the Decision, the DOH Office of the Secretary, together with the Office for Legal Affairs, shall expeditiously issue a further statement to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s pronouncement towards this matter,” it added. The post DOH: COVID-19 policies during pandemic for ‘common good’ appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
DoH welcomes SC ruling junking petitions vs Covid-19 policies
The Department of Health on Wednesday welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to junk petitions against Covid-19 policies that were implemented during the height of the pandemic. In a statement, Health Secretary Ted Herbosa stressed that “all regulations and policies implemented during the pandemic were enacted with the utmost consideration for the common good.” Herbosa previously served as an advisor to the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases, which was responsible for the country’s Covid-19 policies. On Thursday, the Supreme Court dismissed three petitions that sought to challenge the legality of the policies that were implemented by the IATF and other government agencies during the Covid-19 pandemic. Among the policies questioned in the petitions was the IATF Resolution 148-B which requires establishments to have mandatory RT-PCR tests every two weeks at their own expense for their eligible on-site employees. The petitioners argued that Covid-19 policies violated their right to life and liberty without due process of law, impaired their right to travel as well as infringed on the equal protection clause because it supposedly applied only to those without access to private vehicles, and was discriminatory against the unvaccinated. The High Court said the petitions were dismissible. “The Court held that petitions were dismissible for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts as the resolution of the issues raised therein required the determination and adjudication of extremely technical and scientific facts that necessitates the conduct of a full-blown proceeding before a court of first instance,” it said. The Health department expressed its gratitude to the Supreme Court. “The DOH expresses profound gratitude for the favorable ruling rendered by the esteemed Supreme Court concerning the matter at hand,” the agency said. “Upon official receipt and comprehensive review of the Decision, the DOH Office of the Secretary, together with the Office for Legal Affairs, shall expeditiously issue a further statement to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s pronouncement towards this matter,” it added. The post DoH welcomes SC ruling junking petitions vs Covid-19 policies appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
SC junks petitions against Covid-19 issuances
The Supreme Court en banc dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the numerous regulations issued by the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases in the country in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, and those issued by local government units and government agencies. The SC in its resolution, dated 11 July, in the cases of G.R. 258619 (Montemayor, Jr. v. Inter-Agency Task Force on Covid and Emerging Infectious Diseases, et al.), G.R. 258746 (Passengers and Riders Organization [Pasahero], Inc., et al. v. Duque III, et al.) and G.R. 260327 (Perlas III, et al. v. The Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases, et al.), the Court unanimously voted to dismiss the consolidated petitions for violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The petitioners assailed the validity of several issuances by the IATF in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as those issued by local government units and government agencies, specifically: IATF Resolution No. 148-B, 148-G, 149, 150, 155, 163 and 164; IATF Guidelines on Nationwide Implementation of Alert Level System for Covid-19 Response dated 27 February 2022; MMDA Resolution No. 22-01; DoTr D.O. No. 2022-001; DILG Memorandum Circular Nos. 2022-002 and 2022-008; LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2022-001; DepEd-DoH Joint Memorandum Circular No. 001, Series of 2022; DOH Department Circular No. 2022-0131; and Makati City Ordinance No. 2022-005. IATF Resolution No. 148-B, requires all public and private establishments to require its eligible employees who are tasked to do on-site work to be vaccinated against Covid-19 or else subject themselves to RT-PCR testing every two weeks at their own expense, among others. The petitioners collectively contended that the foregoing issuances trampled on their right to life and liberty without due process of law, constituted an impairment of their right to travel, as well as an infringement of the equal protection clause for applying only to those without access to private vehicles, and is discriminatory against the unvaccinated. They averred that the impugned measures embody a mandatory vaccination policy considering that the use of public transportation is an essential part of Filipino life. The SC held that petitions were dismissible for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts as the resolution of the issues raised therein required the determination and adjudication of extremely technical and scientific facts that necessitates the conduct of a full-blown proceeding before a court of first instance. The post SC junks petitions against Covid-19 issuances appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»