We are sorry, the requested page does not exist
Prosecutors reject Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’
Federal prosecutors on Thursday rejected Donald Trump's attempt to have election conspiracy charges dismissed on the grounds that he enjoys immunity for actions he took while in the White House. "No one in this country, not even the president, is above the law," special counsel Jack Smith's team wrote in a 54-page motion filed with the judge presiding over the landmark case. Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, is to go on trial in Washington in March of next year for allegedly conspiring to subvert the results of the November 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden. The former president's lawyers, in a motion two weeks ago to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, argued that the charges should be thrown out because Trump is "absolutely immune from criminal prosecution." Prosecutors in the special counsel's office dismissed that argument and urged Chutkan to deny Trump's request. "He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans," they said. "No court has ever alluded to the existence of absolute criminal immunity for former presidents. "The implications of the defendant's unbounded immunity theory are startling," they added. "It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member," they said, or "a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary." Trump's bid to invoke the presidential immunity defense is seen as a long shot by legal observers but it could result in a delay to the start of the trial as the argument potentially winds its way up to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court. Trump's attempts to use the "absolute immunity" defense in other cases have been rebuffed by judges, but the nation's highest court has never ruled directly on whether a former chief executive is immune from criminal prosecution. Trump is the first former US president to face criminal charges. 'Unsettled question' Trump's attorneys, citing a Supreme Court case involving former president Richard Nixon, said the law provides "absolute immunity" to the president "for acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his official responsibility." As chief executive, they argued, Trump had a responsibility to "ensure election integrity" and was within his rights to challenge the results of the 2020 vote. "As President Trump is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for such acts, the Court should dismiss the indictment," they said. While making the argument that Trump cannot be prosecuted, his lawyers acknowledged the Nixon case they cited involved the civil liability of a former president and not alleged criminal conduct. "The question remains a 'serious and unsettled question' of law," they said. The case before Chutkan accuses Trump of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding -- the January 6, 2021 joint session of Congress that was attacked by a mob of Trump supporters. Other criminal cases against Trump include racketeering charges in Georgia for allegedly conspiring to upend the election results in the southern state and a trial in Florida in May 2024 on charges of mishandling top-secret government documents. Trump and his two eldest sons are also currently involved in a civil fraud trial in New York for allegedly inflating the value of their real estate assets to receive more favorable bank loans and insurance terms. The post Prosecutors reject Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Nonexistent marriage
Is a marriage, void from the beginning, a valid defense in the prosecution for bigamy even without a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of either the first or second marriages of the accused? This is the question resolved in this case of Rudy......»»
CA junks hazing accused’s inhibition plea
The Court of Appeals has denied the plea of one of the accused in the fatal hazing of University of Santo Tomas freshman law student Horacio Castillo III seeking to compel Regional Trial Court of Manila City Branch 20 acting presiding judge Shirley Magsipoc- Pagalilauan to inhibit from the case. In a 75-page decision promulgated on 22 September 2023 and written by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio Santos, the appellate court’s First Division held that the claim of Ralph Trangia that the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to inhibit has no basis. The CA also did not give weight to Trangia’s claim the alleged failure of the judge to address the issues he raised in his demurrer to evidence shows that she would not be able to decide with utmost partiality. It added that after a careful review of the record of the case and the applicable laws and jurisprudence, it finds that petitioner failed to prove his allegation that the court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied his motion for inhibition. “Rather it is evident that petitioner’s claim of bias and partiality is merely based on the denial of his Demurrer to Evidence, which in itself is not sufficient to prove that the court a quo acted with bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose,” said the CA’s decision. “For these reasons, the Court rules that petitioner miserably failed establish that the court a quo acted with manifest impartiality in issuing the assailed Orders,” it added. In denying Trangia’s demurrer, the Manila RTC in an order dated 4 February 2022 held that the evidence presented by the prosecution established all the elements of the offense of hazing as well as the presence and participation of all accused, including petitioner, during the hazing of Castillo by members of the Aegis Juris Fraternity. To recall, Trangia — one of the accused in the death of Castillo — has sought the inhibition of Pagalilauan at the CA on the ground of alleged partiality in denying his motion for demurrer evidence last 24 February 2022, which seeks the immediate dismissal of the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. On 10 March 2022, the respondent judge issued an order denying Trangia’s motion prompting the latter to move for the reconsideration of the said order but the same was denied on 28 March 2022. This prompted Trangia to elevate his plea before the CA arguing that Pagalilauan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his motion for inhibition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration considering that she showed partiality in denying his demurrer to evidence despite clear showing that the prosecution failed to prove its case against him. The post CA junks hazing accused’s inhibition plea appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Gag Trump, prosecutor asks court
Former United States president Donald Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric have gotten prosecutors threatened and may influence jurors and witness testimony, a special counsel argued in seeking a gag order on him. Special Counsel Jack Smith made the request on Friday ahead of Trump’s trial for election subversion. Smith enumerated Trump’s menacing comments posted on social media since his 1 August indictment for allegedly upending the results of the 2020 US election in a concerted effort that led to the violent 6 January 2021 attack by his supporters on the Capitol. “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” read one of Trump’s posts. Trump, who is running for president in next year’s election, also labeled trial judge Tanya Chutkan a “fraud” and “Trump-hating,” Smith’s office a “team of thugs” and Washington “filthy and crime-ridden” with a population “over 95 percent anti-Trump,” Smith added. Trump’s statements “could have a material impact on the impartiality of the jury pool while simultaneously influencing witness testimony,” Smith’s filing with the Washington federal court stated. “It is clear that the threats are prompted by the defendant’s repeated and relentless posts,” the filing added. The ex-president is also accused of seeking to disenfranchise American voters with his false claims that he won the November 2020 presidential election. Trump has pleaded not guilty, and has formally asked Chutkan to recuse herself from the case, accusing her of bias against him. WITH AFP The post Gag Trump, prosecutor asks court appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Fortun files case at QC PLEB vs QCPD, re gun-toting incident
Atty. Raymond Fortun, acting as a concerned citizen, has filed a case with the Quezon City People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) over the weekend, against personnel of QCPD Traffic Sector 4 of Kamuning in relation to the viral gun-toting incident that happened last August 8. Fortun filed the charges against P/Staff Sergeant Darwin Peralta, P/SSg. Joel Aviso, and P/Executive Master Sergeant Armando Carr, all from the QCPD Traffic Sector 4 of Kamuning. The lawyer charged them with Oppression, Irregularities in the Performance of Duties and Incompetence, under Rule 21 of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular 2016 – 002. Fortun said that it appears the cyclist and ex-policeman Wilfredo Gonzales were first brought to the QCPD Kamuning Police Station 11, since the incident was first considered as a mere traffic incident by the first responders of QCPD Galas Police Station. Eventually, no charges were filed in Kamuning, and the parties were instead referred to the Galas Police Station late in the evening. “Despite the clear and imbalanced status of the parties, the same police officers failed to protect the rights of the cyclist when they failed to provide a legal counsel for him so that the latter would be duly appraised of his rights. Further, they failed to secure the CCTV footages in the area in order to ferret out the real facts in the conflicting statements made by the parties. Finally, and for reasons known only to them, and despite there being sufficient basis to do so, the same police officers failed to file the appropriate charges,” Fortun explained. On the other end, Mayor Joy Belmonte lauded this act of Atty. Fortun. “What we need now are little acts of heroism from ordinary Filipinos to stand up for what is right to exact accountability from those in power. This move of Atty. Fortun in filing a case with our PLEB is a vote of confidence that here in Quezon City, we will get things done. The proper process in the proper forum, which is the PLEB, will now take its course,” Belmonte said. “This incident also highlights the need to institutionalize the presence of PLEB in other cities and municipalities to hear and decide the complaints filed against erring policemen. I am confident that the case filed in the PLEB will be handled without fear or favor,” she added. Meanwhile, PLEB Chairman and Executive Officer Atty. Rafael Vicente Calinisan said, “The institutions, particularly the PLEB, are in place so that the community will feel safe and secure in their homes. We commit to serve as an effective watchdog against abusive cops, and at the same time serve as partners to our men in uniform towards nation-building.” “As far as the case filed by Atty. Fortun is concerned, we promise to act on this case with absolute dispatch,” Calinisan added. The PLEB is the check and balance mechanism created by Republic Act 6975 or An Act Establishing the PNP Under A Reorganized Department of the Interior and Local Government and For Other Purposes as amended by R.A. 8551 (The PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998) where ordinary citizens are empowered against erring policemen. PLEB can summarily dismiss, demote, suspend and reprimand abusive policemen. The post Fortun files case at QC PLEB vs QCPD, re gun-toting incident appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Sandigan okays accused as state witness
The Sandiganbayan has granted prosecutors’ bid to present accused-turned-witness Constante Cabitac to testify against his co-defendants, father and son, Edgardo Zaragoza and Zuriel, both former mayors of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, for their graft and malversation charges involving P81 million in 2016. In a 27-page resolution promulgated on 18 August, the anti-graft court’s Second Division discharged Cabitac as an accused to be a witness for the state in the instant case against Zaragoza’s and two others, granting the prosecution’s motion to discharge. To recall, the Sandiganbayan last May junked the same motion filed by the prosecution, saying it found no cogent reason to grant the plea. The Zaragozas, Cabitac, and municipal accountant Melody Cadacio and education research assistant Mario Cabinte were sued by Narvacan’s incumbent mayor, Luis Singson, for allegedly misappropriating P81 million that the municipality earned as a part of the excise tax on locally manufactured cigarettes. The sum was intended for the Federation of Farmers of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. They were charged with malversation of public funds and violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). Cabitac, the president of the Narvacan Farmers Association, who was previously allowed to testify, disclosed that he was forced to encash checks more than 10 times, including a P35 million check in exchange for grocery allowance, that resulted in the alleged misappropriation of P81 million in public funds. In granting the prosecution’s motion, the Sandiganbayan said there was “absolute necessity” for the testimony of Cabitac. “The Court finds merit in the prosecution’s assertion that there is an absolute necessity to utilize accused Cabitac as witness for the State,” the court said. “Cabitac’s testimony shows first-hand knowledge and direct participation in the misappropriation of funds, although according to him, it was upon the instruction of accused Zuriel Zaragoza, who was the mayor at that time,” it added. Moreover, the Sandiganbayan ruled that nobody appears to be in a better position to testify on the case than Cabitac, president of the farmers federation, to which said funds were issued. “Accused Cabitac’s testimony would supply the necessary evidence to link accused Zaragozas, Cadacio, and Cabinte to the offenses charged,” it said. The post Sandigan okays accused as state witness appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Respect for all individuals
In a Per Curiam decision (a decision unanimously and easily reached) that was dated 11 April 2023 but was made available to the public on 17 August 2023, the Supreme Court penalized five lawyers for posting what it found to be inappropriate and disrespectful comments on their Facebook accounts. Four of the lawyers, whose names we will not mention so as not to add to their public humiliation, were reprimanded with stern warnings, but their fifth colleague was dealt the heavier punishment of a P25,000 fine and a stern warning. The Supreme Court found all of them in violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. What is Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? It states: Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. The Supreme Court cited a case where it stated: “Lawyers, as keepers of the public faith, are burdened with a high degree of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal affairs with great caution.” In this instance, the Supreme Court found that insulting and degrading comments were posted against a member of the Judiciary with undertones aimed at members of the LGBTQIA+ community. It is worth noting that this cast a bad light on all lawyers, regardless of their field of practice. The posted comments appearing on the thread where the five conversed included: “The joke among lawyers is that sa Taguig sa 2nd floor puro may sira ulo mga judge, sa baba bakla at mga corrupt.” In English, this translates to: “In Taguig, on the 2nd floor, the judges are all insane, and down below they are gay and corrupt.” I wish to emphasize that neither I personally, nor my family, friends, and schoolmates who practice law, make jokes about judges in Taguig or any member of the Judiciary for that matter. Nor will I call them insane and corrupt without proof, even if their views are very different from mine. More importantly, I do not think I will ever make any derogatory statements toward any member of the LGBTQIA+ community. Those who are in this group have the right to express themselves under their constitutionally protected freedom of expression. The Supreme Court cited several other jurisdictions in proving the point of respecting all individuals regardless of belief or sexual orientation. It also reiterated the principle of non-discrimination and equality. I wholeheartedly agree with all the sources and legal provisions cited by the Supreme Court. But I do wish to stress that, while these pieces of information are all great materials and are worth reading, respect in our everyday life does not have to be based on any opinion, writing, or legal provision. It is just the most basic building block of any relationship regardless of who is involved. Whether you are dealing with a superior at work or simply showing appreciation for a waitress at your favorite restaurant, respect is fundamental and an absolute must. In today’s jargon among teenagers, “Matic yan!” (that is, it is automatic and needs no explanation). While I also strongly believe in the freedom to criticize others when appropriate, such expression must always be based on proven circumstances, ventilated in the proper forum, and accomplished with respectful language. Making statements that are unfounded, unsubstantiated, or unfair, more so those which tend to demean through innuendo a whole group of individuals or typecast them as evil just because they are different, should be strictly avoided. Specifically regarding the LGBTQIA+ community, we’ve come a long way from the time when they were not accepted or treated properly by society and I am happy for this progress. There is still much work to be done but I am thankful for the continued improvements in society towards understanding the differences between heterosexuals and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. We are certain that there will still be areas where many of us will find ourselves in a discussion or debate involving matters which we do not fully understand. When that happens — and it will happen — the proper thing to do is always to go back to the basics or fundamentals — RESPECT not just for others, but for all! The post Respect for all individuals appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Fear no China
One could find reason to disagree with the view that a warship of the Philippine Navy at Ayungin Shoal had been deliberately run aground as a “symbol of Philippine sovereignty over that area.” The ongoing word war between Beijing and Manila only strains diplomatic relations and bilateral cooperation through confrontational media hype over deference to China as the “natural leader of the Third World.” A few well-defined observations may be drawn and serious questions may be raised. China’s averment of the Philippines’ commitment to remove the BRP Sierra Madre, beached the past 24 years, and the latter’s refusal since it never expressed any commitment to do so only aggravates the growing tension that has hogged the headlines recently and instilled an ideological clash of world views. Wasn’t there a “bilateral code of conduct” signed to put to rest such a dispute or conflict, at least in the case of Mischief Reef? Call to mind that in November 1995, Chinese President Jiang and President Fidel V. Ramos, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Osaka, reportedly discussed the joint development of marine resources in the disputed regions. Ramos also proposed an “interim solution” where “each littoral state assumes stewardship over the sea closest to it without prejudice to the sovereignty claims.” In fact, when a new Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States was signed in 1999, the Philippines practically shelved its plans to strengthen its fortifications in the Spratlys. Whereas China would want the Sierra Madre removed to bring Ayungin Shoal back to its unoccupied state, an irreverent National Security Council official only amplified the rhetoric by saying that such removal is tantamount to “abandoning our sovereign rights and jurisdiction over West Philippine Sea.” It must invite a congressional review as to whether or not — using the same ploy at Scarborough Shoal — another Philippine Navy ship (LST 507) was towed away when the China Coast Guard made a veiled threat to blow it up. It becomes understandable why the China Coast Guard that monitors its claim over the South China Sea deems in accordance with “maintaining China’s ‘national face’ on the world stage” its response to Philippine vessels on a resupply mission to the Sierra Madre. China also believes that the “introduction of third-party forces will only complicate the situation,” its reference to the G7 (US, UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, France, Germany) — consequent to President Benigno Aquino’s unilateral move “to humiliate China before the global public.” Note that Chinese nationalism cannot be undermined as the prime mover behind its tough stance against “recalcitrant neighbors” (e.g. Vietnam). The truth is that we failed to reach a level of “bilateral harmony” with China’s rise, a thing that Malaysia has done so effortlessly. If scholars are to be believed, the dynamics in play differ, viz., Malaysian politicians aim at giving face to China while Filipino politicians actively aim at destroying China’s public image to the pitch of a “global flashpoint.” Still, it’s best not to miss the forest for the trees. It sounds like a child’s game for the country’s national security official to unabashedly dismiss as a “figment of the imagination” the statement made by China’s envoy of a purported Philippine commitment to tow its grounded navy vessel from Ayungin. The dilapidated hulk is in a dismal state — gaping holes, corroded decks, unseaworthy, even worse than a decommissioned ship. How can you call that a “symbol of Philippine sovereignty?” Wherever these unfolding developments lead, the absolute fact remains that there is no single navy, marine, or soldier that the China Coast Guard has killed. If the Sino-Malaysian relationship resulted in highly profitable bilateral relations over the past four decades, why don’t we reconfigure Philippine threat perceptions of China precisely “to deny any external power’s hegemonial grip on the regional order,” as scholars suggest? Ought we follow what Brantly Womack describes as the “positive equilibrium between asymmetrical neighbors,” as well as Malaysia did? Perhaps let’s write new laws, draw new maps, then build installations over our territorial claims?” The post Fear no China appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Six white US police officers admit torturing Black men
Six white Mississippi police officers tortured two innocent Black men using a sex toy, Tasers and a sword in an hours-long attack that ended with one man shot through the mouth and neck, the US Department of Justice said Thursday. The brutal assault, and its subsequent cover-up in which the men left one victim bleeding as they hid evidence of their crimes, is the latest race-tinged stain on US policing. "The defendants in this case tortured and inflicted unspeakable harm on their victims, egregiously violated the civil rights of citizens who they were supposed to protect, and shamefully betrayed the oath they swore as law enforcement officers," said Attorney General Merrick Garland. Five now-former members of Mississippi's Rankin County Sheriff's Department and one former member of the Richland Police Department pleaded guilty Thursday to multiple charges including civil rights conspiracy, deprivation of rights under color of law and obstruction of justice. All six acknowledged that while responding to a report of suspicious activity on January 24 this year, they kicked in a door at a house and began a sustained and unprovoked attack on two Black men there. They handcuffed the men and racially abused them, warning them to "stay out of Rankin County," the DoJ said. "The defendants punched and kicked the men, tased them 17 times, forced them to ingest liquids, and assaulted them with a dildo," a press release said. They also hit one man multiple times with a metal sword and a wooden kitchen implement, the DoJ said. Deputy Hunter Elward, 31, removed a bullet from the chamber of his gun and forced his weapon into one man's mouth before pulling the trigger. "Elward racked the slide, intending to dry-fire a second time. When Elward pulled the trigger, the gun discharged. The bullet lacerated (the victim's) tongue, broke his jaw and exited out of his neck," the DoJ said. As their critically injured victim lay bleeding, the men set about planting evidence to justify their actions. "Remarkably, the victim survived the shooting even though these defendants left him lying on the floor gushing blood for a considerable amount of time... because they were too busy developing a false story to try and cover up their misconduct," prosecutor Kristen Clarke told reporters. "The actions of these defendants not only caused significant physical, emotional and psychological harm to the victims, but also caused harm to the entire community, who feel they cannot trust the police officers who are supposed to serve them and leaving other police officers to try to mend the communal wounds inflicted by these defendants," said Clarke. "This trauma is magnified because the misconduct was fueled by racial bias and hatred." Elward, Brett McAlpin, 52, Christian Dedmon, 28, Jeffrey Middleton, 46, Daniel Opdyke, 27 and Joshua Hartfield, 31, pleaded guilty to all charges against them. Dedmon, Elward, and Opdyke also pleaded guilty to three other felony charges stemming from another episode of brutality against a white man in December. All six are due to be sentenced November 14. Horrifying episodes of police abuses against minorities in the United States burst into the public consciousness with unwelcome frequency, with victims like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor symbols of what critics say is wrong with the US model of law enforcement. The post Six white US police officers admit torturing Black men appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Absolute community
This is a case about the prohibition on the gratuitous disposition by the husband or wife of the property acquired during their marriage......»»
Hold import permits
The government’s mettle and political will stand to be tested following Mr. Marcos Jr.’s “no import policy” amid the widespread devastation of Luzon’s vegetable farms. Not only vegetables. Other agricultural produce, including even fisheries, will likely be in short supply in the wake of typhoon “Egay” and the ongoing monsoon-induced rains. Supply shortfalls will most likely trigger inflation in the coming months. Mr. Marcos Jr., who is also the agriculture boss, vows immediate remedial measures to stabilize food supplies and head off possible higher prices of staples. Remedial measures — of which “the no import policy” is the immediate visible response — which include definite actions aimed at unscrupulous food importers who use natural disasters as cover for unbridled smuggling. Even as the Chief Executive stands firm, he qualifies this by saying, “We will not import any agricultural products unless we see the supply is so low that prices will become out of reach of ordinary consumers.” Nothing is inherently wrong with importation if low supplies are the case. But the Chief Executive must accurately determine, before import permits are issued, which food supplies are actually depleted and not just artificially created. Which only means that Mr. Marcos Jr. and his officials have to hold in abeyance all issuances of food import permits by government agencies until further notice. Often found spurious and used to smuggle billions in agricultural products, such import permits are now the subject of an intense fact-finding probe by the Department of Justice. “We will trace where each import permit ended up,” said Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, referring to permits issued by the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, and the Bureau of Customs as the targets of intense scrutiny. Mr. Remulla hopes the fact-finding on agricultural smuggling will be over in the “next two weeks,” though the difficult filing of economic sabotage charges against smugglers and hoarders might take at least two months. We certainly hope Mr. Remulla more than fast-tracks the probes. Not only because his boss wants an end to spurious permits but also because many people are largely incredulous that government is seemingly toothless against hoarders and smugglers, failing to actually put these criminals behind bars. It’s no ordinary issue. Farmers’ groups and even senators pointedly lament the fact that none of the publicly named smugglers and hoarders have been found guilty. It’s a sad state of affairs where even strong evidence that surfaced during congressional hearings was often deemed insufficient. “None have proceeded beyond the preliminary investigations. All [of the cases] have been dismissed,” as one farmers’ group leader laments. This, despite the passage seven years ago of Republic Act 10845, or the Anti-Agricultural Smuggling Act. Will Mr. Remulla and his boss pull off a miracle? Will they be able to muster the mettle and political will against well-entrenched smuggling syndicates? At any rate, appalling indeed it is that unscrupulous individuals and syndicates, likely with the connivance of government bureaucrats, are making a killing with spurious importations at the expense of Filipino consumers. Syndicates that by the way allegedly include a powerful Chinese mafia as exposed by Albay Rep. Joey Salceda late last year. Referring to “class A information” from well-placed sources, Mr. Salceda declared with absolute certainty that a syndicate led by Chinese nationals was behind the smuggling into the country of prime agricultural products. “This mafia is in control of agricultural smuggling in the country at every stage of the smuggling process, from transport to arrival to import permits and sanitary inspection,” Salceda said. “They have people on the ships, at the ports, the inspections, the quarantines, the warehouses, and the economic zones. It’s very pervasive,” Salceda had said. Moreover, not only is this alleged mafia engaged in the unbridled large-scale smuggling of billions of pesos worth of vegetables from China, but the mafia is also “strangling the supply” of major agricultural products. We cannot allow this massive problem to go on. The post Hold import permits appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Trump-appointed judge, to preside over his case
When Aileen Mercedes Cannon was appointed a judge by Donald Trump three years ago, she could hardly have imagined she would preside over his trial. But on Friday she set May 20, 2024 as the date to start the unprecedented federal criminal prosecution of a former president in her small Fort Pierce, Florida courtroom. Her assignment to the high-stakes trial has added another layer of controversy to the case, in which Trump is charged with 37 counts of willfully keeping highly classified US documents in his Mar-a-Lago, Florida home, obstruction of justice, and lying to federal law enforcement officials. Some of the charges bring up to 20 years in prison, with Cannon to decide the sentencing if a jury finds Trump guilty. The pressure is even higher because the trial will start in the middle of an already intense battle before the November 2024 presidential election, with Trump leading the race for the Republican nomination. It remains to be seen how Cannon will accommodate the courtroom requirements and election campaign needs of the man who gave her the job. Lifetime appointment Cannon was relatively young -- 38 years old -- when Trump nominated her to the lifetime position in 2020. Born in Cali, Colombia, she grew up in Florida. Her mother immigrated to the United States from Cuba as a child. Cannon obtained her undergraduate degree at Duke University and her law degree from the University of Michigan, routinely ranked among the top 10 law schools in the country. A member of the Federalist Society, which brings together conservative attorneys, judges, and law experts, Cannon worked for three years at a private law firm in Washington and for seven years as an assistant US attorney prior to becoming a judge. Random pick Her selection to handle the Trump case was random, blindly drawn from the pool of several active federal judges in the Justice Department's southern Florida district. Some legal experts have argued she should have recused herself because she allegedly displayed bias towards Trump last year when she was assigned a lawsuit he filed over the FBI raid to recover the Mar-a-Lago documents. She has broad powers to determine the pace of the trial, and her 20 May start date comes smack in the middle of the presidential campaign. If the trial is ongoing and Trump wins the November 2024 election, he could conceivably take action to intervene or even pardon himself upon taking office. Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia University, said the presiding judge wields enormous power over a trial and plays a critical role in how it unfolds. "Even in a run-of-the-mill case, the judge can have a significant and sometimes even dispositive effect on proceedings," Richman said. Others contend that Cannon will ensure that he gets a fair shake. "It's impossible now for Trump to complain that he's got a judge that is biased against him," said Edward Foley, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University. Thomas Holbrook, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said Cannon is in a "tough position." "Almost no matter what she does, she's going to either feed into existing concerns about her potential bias or disappoint Trump supporters," Holbrook said. The post Trump-appointed judge, to preside over his case appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Teves seeks Degamo murder raps dismissal
The camp of embattled Negros Oriental Third District Representative Arnolfo Teves Jr. on Monday filed a motion to dismiss the multiple murder complaints filed against him in relation to the murder case involving Governor Roel Degamo and several others. Teves’ legal counsel Atty. Ferdinand Topacio explained that the motion to dismiss was primarily based on the argument that there is an absence of probable cause and even a lack of “reasonable certainty of conviction” to hold his client responsible for the killings that occurred on 4 March. Topacio said they filed the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the arguments solely revolve around the absence or lack of probable cause, and if Department of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla complies with his change in quantum or standard before filing the case. He added that it should not only be probable cause, as it should also have reasonable certainty of conviction and they will demonstrate that there is no reasonable certainty of conviction, let alone probable cause. The key reasons that form the basis of the stance of Teves’ camp was highlighted by Topacio in defending the submission of the motion to dismiss which include the recantation of the suspect; the statements made by the suspects linking Teves to Degamo’s murder are hearsay and the suspects’ statements were given without the presence of their chosen legal counsel. Topacio said that even assuming that the recantation has no effect — even in their original statements — there is no strong evidence pointing to Teves as the mastermind behind Degamo’s killing. Meanwhile, Remulla announced on Monday that investigators have gathered independent evidence to hold accountable the individuals responsible for the assassination of Degamo and several others. This comes in light of some suspects retracting their previous statements. But Remulla refrained from divulging further details regarding the evidence, citing the need to preserve the integrity of the ongoing investigation. “We possess various independent pieces of evidence. These details will be disclosed at a later stage,” Remulla said. The DoJ chief also downplayed the significance of the recantation made by the suspects involved in the killing Degamo, stressing that recantations are generally disapproved of and should not be taken as absolute truth. The post Teves seeks Degamo murder raps dismissal appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Tribune, Marcos share good gov’t journey (17)
“Without fear or favor,” was how former Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. chose the Daily Tribune motto in justifying his vote for the acquittal of Chief Justice Renato Corona in the 2012 impeachment trial. Marcos was one of three senators, the others being Miriam Defensor Santiago and Joker Arroyo, who voted to acquit, against 20 who voted to convict Corona. The senator-judges voted only on article 2 of the original eight charges in the impeachment complaint, which was Corona’s “failure to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth as required under the Constitution.” When Corona passed away in 29 April 2016, Marcos said that he had been a victim of a “great injustice.” “It is unfortunate that at the time of his death, he was still under this cloud that had remained above him since the impeachment trial,” Marcos lamented. He stressed that Corona was clearly a casualty of “selective justice.” History validated the points Marcos made as it was revealed that money was passed around, straight from a Palace slush fund, to influence the vote to oust Corona. In defense of his vote in the impeachment court, Marcos cited Lady Justice who “wears a blindfold for a reason.” “She is to render judgment based on law and evidence without regard to the circumstances and personalities of the parties involved,” he noted. He said that like Lady Justice, the senator-judges were bound to dispense justice “without fear or favor.” “An impeachment trial is sui generis. But, be that as it may, the Bill of Rights stands supreme over all the powers of government, including the power to impeach, and nowhere is this precept more opposite than in this case, where the government has mustered all the resources at its disposal not only to secure evidence against the chief justice but further to ensure his conviction,” Marcos had noted. He indicated that the crucial issues that had piqued the interest of the senator-judges, as well as of the public, “were outside the original ambit of the impeachment complaint” and were raised only after the filing of the complaint. “Evidence in some of these issues came from questionable sources, beginning with the unidentified ‘little lady’ who supplied documents anonymously, leaving them on gates and in mailboxes.” The “little lady” was later identified as a journalist who was doing errands for the Liberal Party to pin Corona and fulfill the wish of the late President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III to have the chief justice removed. Marcos said that “at the expense of the sub judice rule, evidence was presented to the public on several occasions even before they were formally offered before this court.” “Worse, information was grossly exaggerated with the apparent intention to predispose the public mind against the chief justice,” Marcos pointed out. He cited as an example the Land Registration Authority report with the “discredited” list of 45 properties and the unauthenticated Anti-Money Laundering Council report claiming that the chief justice had $10 million. Fair, impartial and just Still, Marcos said the chief justice sufficiently addressed the accusations against him with regard to the filing of his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the disclosure of his real properties and peso deposits. Relative to his dollar deposits, the chief justice believed that he was under no legal duty to declare them pursuant to Republic Act 6426 which affords absolute confidentiality to all foreign currency depositors, Marcos indicated. “In view of the ambiguous situation created by the concurrent application of the 1987 Constitution, the SALN law and the FCDU law, and absent a determinative judicial pronouncement that resolves the contrary positions in this legal issue, the chief justice must be presumed to have acted in good faith,” Marcos said. He pointed out that “it has been held that not all omissions and misdeclarations in the SALN amount to dishonesty.” “When the furor has died down and this political storm has subsided, I know that like Lady Justice we shall find solace in the fact that this decision, though it may be not popular, was fair, impartial and just,” Marcos declared. The post Tribune, Marcos share good gov’t journey (17) appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Thai PM bet faces suspension
Thailand’s frontrunning candidate for prime minister found himself facing disqualification and possible charges Wednesday as the Election Commission alleged he violated campaign rules for parliamentarians. The EC recommended Wednesday to the Constitutional Commission Pita Limjaroenrat’s suspension as a member of parliament after its investigation determined he owns a defunct broadcast company which is not allowed for MPs. “The Election Commission has considered the issue... and perceives that the status of Pita Limcharoenrat is considered to be voided, according to the Thai Constitution,” EC said in a statement Wednesday, adding that it had concluded its probe. Move Forward Party’s Pita accused the EC of “abuse of power.” “The decision to submit a case to the court saying there was enough evidence, without informing him of any charges and not allowing him a chance to explain as under the regulations set by the EC... is an abuse of power under the criminal code,” MFP said in a statement. Chairman Ittiporn Boonprakong confirmed to Agence France-Presse the body’s recommendation. The EC stated that Pita is the holder of iTV shares during the election registration date. If found guilty in court, he could be barred from politics while facing up to 10 years in prison. Pita says he inherited the shares in the television station, which has not broadcast since 2007, from his father. The decision throws yet another hurdle ahead of Pita’s path to the premiership. Although backed by an eight-party coalition, he is still 64 votes short of the absolute majority required to surpass the junta-appointed senators. Many oppose Pita and his party because of their determination to amend Thailand’s tough royal defamation laws that protect King Maha Vajiralongkorn and his family. The post Thai PM bet faces suspension appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Void marriage
Dear Atty. Peachy, My first wife and I got married in 2007. My wife was two months pregnant then. It was a rushed marriage as our parents wanted us to be married before our child is born. We did not get a marriage license but, somehow, our parents were able to arrange a marriage with the city mayor officiating it. Our marriage immediately turned sour but my wife and I continued living together for the sake of our son. About nine years after getting married, I was offered by our company a position in Cebu. I immediately accepted the position. Apart from getting a higher salary package, I thought that the transfer will give me the much-needed space that my wife and I need. I continued sending support to my wife and son and visits them whenever I can. Two years ago, having in mind that my first marriage was, in fact, void as it lacks the essential requisite of having a valid marriage license, I married my longtime partner in Cebu. About a month ago, after learning about my subsequent marriage, I received a call from my first wife who threatened me that she will file a criminal case of bigamy against me and my current wife. She was inconsolable even after I explained to her that our marriage was, in fact, void and that, despite this, I will continue to support her and our son. I told her that I am in the process of having our marriage declared void. She said that even if I will be able to have our marriage declared void, the same cannot be a valid defense in a bigamy case since I contracted my second marriage without a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of our marriage. Is she correct? Ariel *** Dear Ariel, You are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab initio first and subsequent marriages in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. The same rule now applies to all marriages celebrated under the Civil Code and the Family Code. In the case of Pulido vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. 220149, 27 July 2021), the Supreme Court revisited and examined its earlier pronouncements that a judicial declaration of the absolute nullity of a prior void ab initio marriage secured prior to remarriage is required before a prior void ab initio marriage may be considered a valid defense in the prosecution of bigamy. The Supreme Court held that: “in criminal prosecutions for bigamy, the accused can validly interpose the defense of a void ab initio marriage even without obtaining a judicial declaration of absolute nullity.” Atty. Peachy Selda-Gregorio The post Void marriage appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
DoJ: Teves raps ‘non-transferable’
Department of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla on Thursday said that there is no way that the multiple murder complaints against suspended Negros Oriental Third District Representative Arnolfo Teves Jr. can be transferred to the Office of the Ombudsman. The DoJ chief’s statement comes after the camp of Teves sought the recusal of the Department of Justice from handling the case involving the assassination of Negros Oriental Governor Roel Degamo and the subsequent deaths of 10 civilians. Remulla stressed that only judges can be removed from a case through a motion for inhibition. “We are not judges,” Remulla said. To recall, the lawmaker — represented by Atty. Ferdinand Topacio — has requested an immediate transfer of the case to the Office of the Ombudsman, a non-political entity headed by former Supreme Court associate justice Samuel Martires. Topacio expressed concern about their camp receiving a fair treatment from the DoJ, regardless of which prosecutors handle the cases and stressed that appealing the resolution of prosecutors to the Secretary of Justice would be futile due to Remulla’s alleged bias. “If you win and appeal to the SoJ (Secretary of Justice), what will happen to your appeal? It’s an exercise in futility. So that is our plea here. Perhaps, there may be some shred of decency and fair play in the secretary, that he refers it to the Ombudsman since we have grounds to conduct a preliminary investigation under the law,” Topacio said. To recall, Teves and several other respondents have been charged with 10 murder, 14 frustrated murder, and four attempted murder in the deaths of 10 persons and injuries sustained by 18 others. The DoJ’s panel of prosecutors has started its preliminary investigation. Teves has been out of the country even after his travel abroad expired on 9 March 2023. He has been tagged as “one of the masterminds” in the Degamo killing although he consistently denied the allegations. The solon failed to attend the preliminary investigation conducted last 13 June. The panel of prosecutors set another investigation on 27 June. The post DoJ: Teves raps ‘non-transferable’ appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Phl judge steps down from jailed Duterte critic’s case
The lawyers for jailed Philippine human rights activist Leila de Lima vowed to win her freedom after a judge who recently denied her bail quit the trial on Friday. De Lima, one of the most outspoken critics of former president Rodrigo Duterte and his deadly anti-drug war, has been in prison for more than six years on narcotics-related charges. She says the three charges -- two of which have been dismissed -- were fabricated to silence her. Romeo Buenaventura, the judge in the trial over the remaining charge, stepped down on Friday, saying his decisions in the case are "vulnerable to charges of bias and partiality", according to a copy of the ruling seen by AFP. The case will now be assigned to a new court that de Lima's lawyers said will hopefully grant bail, which Buenaventura had denied on 7 June. De Lima's lawyer Filibon Tacardon told AFP that the campaigner is "steadfast in her resolve that her vindication is near". Buenaventura faced calls from de Lima and other defendants to recuse himself on the grounds that he had failed to disclose that his brother had served as a lawyer for a prosecution witness who had since recanted his testimony. The judge has rejected allegations of bias. De Lima, 63, is accused of taking money from inmates inside the largest prison in the Philippines to allow them to sell drugs while she was the justice minister from 2010 to 2015. Multiple witnesses, including prison gang bosses, died or recanted their testimonies, resulting in the dismissal of two charges against de Lima. The mother of two still faces life in prison if she is convicted on the remaining charge. Since President Ferdinand Marcos came into office in June last year, there have been renewed calls from human rights groups, foreign diplomats and politicians for de Lima's release. While in jail, she suffered various health problems including one that required surgery. In October 2022, she was briefly taken hostage during an attempted breakout by three detained Islamist militants. Before her arrest in February 2017, de Lima had spent a decade investigating "death squad" killings allegedly orchestrated by Duterte during his time as Davao City mayor and in the early days of his presidency. The post Phl judge steps down from jailed Duterte critic’s case appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Trump indicted in classified documents probe
Donald Trump said Thursday he has been indicted over his handling of classified documents after leaving office, the US ex-president's most serious legal threat yet as he pursues a second White House term. "The corrupt Biden Administration has informed my attorneys that I have been Indicted, seemingly over the Boxes Hoax," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform as he broke the bombshell news of a historic moment for the United States: the first time a sitting or former commander-in-chief has faced federal charges. There was no immediate confirmation from the Justice Department. Trump attorney Jim Trusty told CNN that his client has been indicted on seven charges including the willful retention of documents in violation of the Espionage Act, making false statements, obstruction of justice and a count of conspiracy. Though the precise details of the charges were not immediately clear, people familiar with the matter told The New York Times the conspiracy charge was related to obstruction of justice. In his post, Trump, who is running for president again, said he has been summoned to a federal courthouse in Miami next Tuesday -- the day before his 77th birthday. His announcement came a day after US media said federal prosecutors had informed his lawyers that he is the target of the probe into his handling of classified documents. Trump was already the first former or sitting president to be charged with a crime -- in his case over election-eve hush money payments to a porn star who said she had an affair with him. That indictment was handed down by Manhattan's district attorney in March. In a statement after his initial online posts, the Trump campaign lashed out at what it called an "unprecedented abuse of power," and called for the indictment to be thrown out. 'Dark day' In a defiant video released after he shared the news, Trump repeatedly declared his innocence and framed the indictment as a form of election interference by a Justice Department "weaponized" by the Biden administration. "They come after me because now we're leading in the polls again by a lot against Biden," Trump said in the clip. "Our country is going to hell and they come after Donald Trump... We can't let this continue." Fellow Republicans swiftly stood by him, including Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy, who has had a rollercoaster relationship with Trump. "Today is indeed a dark day for the United States of America. It is unconscionable for a President to indict the leading candidate opposing him," McCarthy said in a statement. "I, and every American who believes in the rule of law, stand with President Trump." Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a rival for the GOP presidential nomination, echoed Trump's claims of a "weaponized" DOJ, adding on Twitter that he would "excise political bias" if elected president. The Twitter account of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee posted a repeated Trump slogan: "WITCH HUNT." Special counsel Jack Smith, named by US Attorney General Merrick Garland, has been looking into a cache of classified documents that Trump had stored at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida after leaving the White House. The FBI carted away some 11,000 papers after serving a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago in August, and obstruction-of-justice charges could be a result of his resisting efforts to recover the trove. Trump eventually turned over 15 boxes containing almost 200 classified documents to the National Archives in January 2022 but was subpoenaed for any outstanding records in his possession. When asked about the charges Thursday night, Smith's spokesman Peter Carr told AFP: "We are declining to comment." The White House said it learned of the indictment from media coverage and a spokesperson declined to comment on the news, noting that the DOJ "conducts its criminal investigations independently," CNN reported. Mounting legal woes Some Democratic lawmakers spoke out following Thursday's revelation. Trump's indictment "is another affirmation of the rule of law," House Democrat Adam Schiff said. "For four years, he acted like he was above the law," he added. "But he should be treated like any other lawbreaker. And today, he has been." Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the documents case, telling a Fox News town hall event on June 1 that "everything I did was right." But he has openly acknowledged taking and storing the documents, undermining his lawyers' suggestion that he took the stash inadvertently in the confusion of a chaotic departure. "This evidence just adds to the mound of stuff that already exists, and no one piece is the 'be all and end all,' but when you put them all together, the case is so strong," former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks told MSNBC. "You cannot imagine his getting away with this." The latest indictment comes with Trump facing numerous other probes as he bids to be the Republican nominee to challenge Joe Biden for the presidency in 2024. Smith is also looking at whether Trump should face charges over the 2021 US Capitol riot, and Georgia prosecutors are investigating whether Trump illegally attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election outcome there. Trump has already been charged with dozens of financial crimes as part of the alleged hush money scheme to silence the porn star, and is due to go on trial next March, in the middle of primary election season. The post Trump indicted in classified documents probe appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Prosecutors tell Trump lawyers he is target of classified docs probe: reports
US prosecutors have told Donald Trump's lawyers that he is the target of a probe into his handling of classified documents after leaving the presidency, in a sign he might be indicted, US media reported Wednesday night. The notice came from the office of special counsel Jack Smith, The New York Times, CNN and other news outlets said, and gives the clearest sign yet that prosecutors are moving closer to charging the former president, who is seeking a return to the White House in 2024. The Times, citing "two people familiar with the matter", said it was not clear when Trump's team had been told he was the subject of the investigation. Special counsel Smith, named by Attorney General Merrick Garland, has been looking into a cache of classified documents that Trump had stored at his Mar-a-Lago residence after leaving the White House. The FBI carted away some 11,000 papers after serving a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago in August, and Trump could face obstruction-of-justice charges after spending months resisting efforts to recover the trove. Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. "No one has told me I'm being indicted, and I shouldn't be because I've done NOTHING wrong," Trump posted on his Truth Social network Wednesday. "I have assumed for years that I am a Target of the WEAPONIZED DOJ & FBI," said Trump, who has already been indicted in a separate case. Investigators have been scrutinizing several suspected attempts to obstruct them from getting access to documents and footage from a security camera near the storeroom at Mar-a-Lago where documents were kept. Trump has openly acknowledged taking and storing the documents, undermining his lawyers' suggestion that he took the stash inadvertently in the confusion of a chaotic departure. Meanwhile, investigators have obtained an audio recording of Trump in which he acknowledged he held onto a classified Pentagon document after he left the White House, according to US media. On Monday, US media also reported that Trump's lawyers met with Justice Department attorneys. John Rowley, James Trusty and Lindsey Halligan were seen by reporters arriving at the DoJ building in Washington but did not make any comment. The Washington Post reported at the time that Trump's lawyers had come to make their case that their client should not face any charges. One expert told MSNBC that Wednesday's news would suggest an indictment is in the offing. "If a prosecutor tells you that you are the target of their investigation, it means they expect to indict you," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said. "When I was on the other side of the aisle, when I was a federal prosecutor, when I told someone they were a target, that's what I meant." 'Dramatic and divisive' Trump has already been charged with dozens of financial crimes as part of an alleged hush-money scheme to silence a porn star claiming she had sex with him, and is due to go on trial next March, in the middle of primary election season. The former president is facing a growing list of Republican primary opponents, including his former vice president Mike Pence, who avoided taking an absolute position when asked about the probe during a CNN town hall interview Wednesday night. "Let me be clear that no one's above the law," Pence said. "I would just hope there would be a way for them to move forward without the dramatic and drastic and divisive step of indicting a former president of the United States," he added. Fellow 2024 candidate and former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson took a stronger tack, urging Trump to drop out of the presidential race. "Donald Trump is the target of an ongoing criminal investigation and he should step aside & put the good of the country above his candidacy," he tweeted Wednesday night. In addition to the hush-money and documents probes, Trump is being investigated over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the southern state of Georgia and his involvement in the January 2021 storming of the US Capitol by his supporters. Other politicians have been found to have kept government documents at their private homes in recent months. In January, Garland named a separate special counsel to examine whether President Joe Biden violated any law after the discovery of some classified documents at his former office and in the garage of his home in Wilmington, Delaware. Pence was recently cleared of any wrongdoing over materials he uncovered at his home in Indiana. The post Prosecutors tell Trump lawyers he is target of classified docs probe: reports appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»