Tag: Supreme Court

Posted on

On the SC Petition vs the P89.9B Realigned PhilHealth ‘Excess’ Funds

Image: Inquirer.net

I hope the SC petition vs the realigned P89.9B PhilHealth “excess” funds has emphasized to assail the congressional insertion in the Special Provision under the Unprogrammed Fund of the GAA, thus amending RA 7875 (Health Insurance Act) a Special Law as amended by RA 10606, further amended by the UHC Law (RA 11223).

Every lawmaker knows that the Special Law must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to, or a qualification of, the general act like the GAA.

Needless to say, a general law cannot amend a special law.

Related: On Diverting PhilHealth’s ‘Unutilized’ P89.9B Gov’t Subsidy

Posted on

Editorial: Walking dead pork [Tribune]

From Daily Tribune: While the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the Priority Development Assistance Fund and similar discretionary lump sums in the budget that gave legislators authority to implement government projects were illegal, the pork barrel has been resurrected in different forms over the years.

Continue reading “Editorial: Walking dead pork [Tribune]”

Posted on

Editorial: Undying hunger for pork [Tribune]

Ping Lacson is an avowed enemy of the pork barrel system and other forms of wrongdoing.

From Daily Tribune: “It is not the obligation of congressmen and senators to distribute these subsidy programs. (The) mandate of Congress in the budget process is to authorize and legislate and not to implement,” said former Senator Ping Lacson, who was known as a budget watchdog.

Continue reading “Editorial: Undying hunger for pork [Tribune]”

Posted on

On the Supreme Court’s Rules Regarding the Anti-Terrorism Law

As an author and principal sponsor of the measure, I could not agree more with the Supreme Court’s rules in its interpretation of the law. Aside from the other safeguards provided in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 against possible abuse by law enforcement agents, we have effectively amended the Anti-Wiretapping Law which only requires a regional trial court judge to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct technical surveillance on persons suspected of committing certain crimes.

As far as violations of the ATA, a division of the Court of Appeals now has the authority to issue that judicial warrant. The arrest and detention without judicial warrant is akin to citizen’s arrest which is already allowed under existing jurisprudence. We merely extended the allowable period of detention due to the unusual nature of the crime of terrorism which could arbitrarily endanger the lives of innocent civilians more than the violations of the Revised Penal Code and other special laws.

Still, compared to other jurisdictions, the Philippines’ Anti-Terrorism Law has one of the shortest reglementary periods of detention of arrested terrorists.

*****

Posted on

Kapayapaan ang Nanaig Laban sa Karahasan! Ping, Kinilala ang Desisyon ng SC sa Anti-Terrorism Act

Nanaig ang kapayapaan laban sa karahasan!

Kinilala ni Senador Ping Lacson nitong Huwebes ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema hinggil sa mga petisyon laban sa Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

“Peace wins over terror. Yan ang maliwanag diyan,” saad ni Lacson sa lingguhang LACSON-SOTTO “Meet the Press” forum. Kasalukuyang tumatakbo si Lacson sa pagka-Pangulo sa ilalim ng Partido Reporma

Related: Peace Wins Over Terror! Lacson Welcomes SC Ruling on Anti-Terrorism Act
Continue reading “Kapayapaan ang Nanaig Laban sa Karahasan! Ping, Kinilala ang Desisyon ng SC sa Anti-Terrorism Act”