PAGUIA ON RIGHT OF REPLY BILL

Here is a brilliant legal comment from law professor Alan Paguia, who I now address as "Justice Paguia," a true legal luminary who loves the Rule of Law and follows it faithfully, unlike many lawyers who are simply infatuated with the law, cheat on it and fool around with it.

On Senator Aquilino Quilingquing Pimentel's Senate bill on the Right of Reply:

"If you criticize an individual on print, radio or television, the proposed law gives him the "right of reply." If the owner, editor or station manager fails or refuses to give equal space for reply when requested, that person incurs criminal liability, and a fine and/or an imprisonment of not more than 30 days." "What is wrong with this bill? As far as public officials are concerned, they are given the 'right,' instead of the 'duty to reply.' Thus, the bill weakens, instead of strengthens, public accountability."

Indeed, our senators should study this bill carefully, wouldn't you agree? What say you, "panyero" Leon Guerrero?

(Image from http://www.chanrobles.com/)

LIFT SUSPENSION ON ALAN PAGUIA

I was sent a copy recently of a 'MOTION TO LIFT SUSPENSION' on lawyer and law professor Alan Paguia, an esteemed friend and somewhat a teacher of mine who, for several years now has suffered from the cruelty and incompetence of then Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. by way of an indefinite suspension. Paguia's so-called crime? He simply questioned Davide and his fellow-justices of the Supreme Court on their participation in the big mistake that was EDSA DOS, which the SC could not really come up with a satisfactory reason and explanation. Hence, it was easier to "silence" an upright member of the bar by slapping him with a suspension order. Davide went on to be gifted with an appointment to the United Nations, while the other justices are enjoying their retirement benefits and favors from Malacanang for a job well done. In reality, those who should really be suspended get promoted, and those who really should be rewarded for honesty and hard work and uprightness get to be thrown at the bottom of the food chain. But that is to be expected from a sitting president who never won the hearts and votes of the Filipino people. Both Davide and Arroyo are by far the worst Chief Justice and President our country ever had, and history will never be kind to them, and to the key players of EDSA DOS. With permission from Prof. Paguia, I am re-printing the motion verbatim.



MOTION TO LIFT SUSPENSION

The UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL respectfully avers before the Honorable Court that:

Resolution, dated November 25, 2003

1. Counsel was penalized with INDEFINITE SUSPENSION by the Honorable Court per the Resolution, dated November 25, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt hereof, for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts of the land through the Office of the Court Administrator.

SO ORDERED."

2. What acts did the movant commit that led to his indefinite suspension? He made several public statements accusing the Justices of the Supreme Court of political partisanship when they swore in Vice President Gloria Arroyo as President, in substitution of President Joseph Estrada, during EDSA II, essentially upon his honest belief that such substitution is unconstitutional, considering the fact that President Estrada was not convicted in the impeachment case before the Senate.

Effects of Suspension

3. From November 25, 2003 up to this writing, more than five (5) years and two (2) months have passed, for the same period of time and running, movant has been effectively deprived of his professional source of livelihood.

4. In spite of his suspension, he continued his personal support for legal aid cases involving indigents, public school teachers, and public interest causes.

5. His suspension has strengthened his belief in the Filipino people, the Rule of Law, due process, equal protection, and the Supreme Court as the final dispenser of justice in this country. It has furthermore strengthened his belief in Almighty God as the ultimate source of justice.

Issue

6. WHETHER THE INDEFINITE SUSPENSION OF COUNSEL SHOULD CONTINUE?

Submission

7. The movant respectfully submits a negative answer.

7-a. The purpose of the suspension is to remind counsel of his duties as a lawyer and an officer of the Court. During the more than five (5) years and two (2) months of suspension, the purpose has been achieved. There appears no more useful purpose to continue his suspension from the practice of law.

7-b. Movant-counsel and his family have suffered enough.

7-c. The imposition of disciplinary measures, such as the subject suspension, is founded, not on the vindictive, but on the preservative principle. Unless his suspension is lifted soon by the Honorable Court, his years of training in the Ateneo Law School, both as student and as professor, his experience as trial lawyer in mostly legal aid cases and public interest causes, and his belief in upholding the Rule of Law regardless of the consequences, may be adversely affected. At 54 years of age, counsel continues to feel morally and professionally committed to help build a just and humane Filipino society.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, It is respectfully prayed that the undersigned counsel's INDEFINITE SUSPENSION from the practice of law be LIFTED.

January 26, 2008


ALAN F. PAGUIA

17 Dr. Lazcano Street
Quezon City

IBP Lifetime Member No. 717
ROA No. 32673

(Image from http://3.bp.blogspot.com/)

12 QUESTIONS ("IS IT TRUE ...")

In a previous post, I had made mention of a case involving Attorney Alan Paguia and the Supreme Court wherein the former asked a set of questions to the SC which to this day have not been satisfactorily answered. Instead, a continuing indefinite suspension for Paguia was rendered and is still in effect. Both teachers and students of the law may relate well to these questions and then say that indeed the Supreme Court should have come up with a better and acceptable response. It sets a bad precedent to future queries on the matter.

A re-print of the whole letter is as follows:

12 QUESTIONS
By Alan F. Paguia
Professorial Lecturer
Colleges of Law
Ateneo de Manila University
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

June 30, 2003

To: Chief Justice Hlario G. Davide Jr. and Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban
Supreme Court, Manila

Dear Sirs:

I humbly write this letter as a citizen to public officers. I understand that under the law, public officers are mandated to answer queries from the public within 15 working days. My queries are:

1. Is it true that the law strictly prohibits judges or justices from participating in partisan political activities?

2. Is it true that your honors participated in a partisan political activity during Vice-President Gloria Arroyo's oath-taking at EDSA on January 20, 2001?

3. Is it true that your honors attended and authorized the Arroyo oath-taking in your honors' official capacity as judicial officers?

4. Is it true that the basic law involved in the Estrada Vs. Arroyo controversy is Article Vll, Section 8 of the Constitution ("In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term.")?

5. Is it true that the sole constitutional ground invoked by Vice-President Arroyo for her oath-taking as President was 'Permanent Disabilty'?

6. Is it true that your honors authorized the oath-taking by Vice-President Arroyo at EDSA on that same ground of 'Permanent Disability'?

7. Is it true that Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. administered the said oath-taking at EDSA on that same ground of 'Permanent Disability'?

8. Is it true that your honors unquestioningly accepted Vice-President Arroyo's allegation of 'Permanent Disability' on the part of President Joseph Estrada?

9. Is it true that the administrative matter of administering the oath-taking at EDSA by the Chief Justice involved the performance of an official duty which ought to be consistent with the Constitution?

10. Is it true that there was never any proof of compliance with the constitutional requirements regarding the said 'Permanent Disability'? ("Written Declaration" by the President or majority of his Cabinet members.)

11. Is it true that your honors, as well as the other justices, later rejected that ground of 'Permanent Disability' and replaced it with a 'Resignation,' even as President Estrada never wrote any resignation letter?

12. Is it true that due process of law absolutely requires the 'Cold Neutrality' of an 'Impartial Judge' both in appearance and in substance, without which the proceedings are rendered 'void' or 'without effect' from the beginning?


Most respectfully,

Alan F. Paguia

(Image from http://www.answers.com/)