"Kabuhayan, Karapatan, Katarungan"

A Forum on Economic, Social and Cultural rights

Violations and Remedies

 

Guest speaker: Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno

 

Malcolm Hall, UP College of Law

UP Diliman campus

 

August 28, 2009

 

 

 

We will study all these angles whether, in light of our laws, in light of our present rules, the writ of amparo can be expanded to extend its coverage on these various socioeconomic and cultural rights of the people.

 

----- Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno

 

■  Inquirer: SC eyes ‘amparo’ for squatters

■  Bulatlat: SC to work for social justice -CJ Puno

 

....I only have one concrete proposal which is not only both procedural and substantive, but also fundamental and structural. With your permission, Honorable Chief Justice, colleagues and friends, ..... allow me to propose in this forum the adoption and promulgation not only by the Supreme Court but by our people of what I call the write of Andres Bonifacio.

 

----- UN Ad Litem Judge Romeo T. Capulong

 

/p

/p
           
SC Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno
     

 

Sama-samang Pagkilos para sa Pagpapalapit ng Hustisya*
ni Punong Mahistrado Reynato S. Puno
Korte Suprema


Una sa lahat, nais ko pong magpasalamat sa Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan o BAYAN, sa National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers at sa mga iba
pa nating kasama rito, sa inyong pagtugon sa ating katatapos pa lamang na
Forum on Increasing Access to Justice: Bridging Gaps and Removing
Roadblocks.


Umani ang nasabing pagpupulong ng mga mungkahi buhat sa iba't
ibang stakeholders ng ating justice system, partikular sa hanay ng mga
mahihirap at abang sektor ng lipunan hinggil sa kanilang mga hinaing
tungkol sa access to justice.


Kabilang sa mga rekomendasyon na nakalap buhat sa ginanap na
Forum ay ang paglibre o hindi pagsali sa pagbabayad ng docket fees, bail
bonds o piyansa sa mga espesyal na kaso ng mga marginalized sectors,
kabilang na ang mga kapatid nating indigenous peoples o mga katutubo.
Ang isa namang panukala ay ang pagpapababa ng mga bayad para sa
paghain ng habla sa ating mga korte, ang pagbawas sa bilang ng hinihinging
kopya ng mga pleadings o papeles na inihahain sa korte, at ang pagbawal sa
pagbenta ng mga transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) nang kada pahina
dahil na rin sa dagdag gastos na dulot nito.


* Kabuhayan, Karapatan, Katarungan: A Forum on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights sponsored by BAYAN, NUPL & the University Student Council People’s
Struggle Committee, Malcolm Hall, U.P. College of Law, August 28, 2008.
 

Iminungkahi rin ng mga lumahok sa Forum ang pagtatatag ng mga
legal clinic na mayroong mga programang naglalayong maiangat ang antas
ng kaalaman ng mga mahihirap at mga komunidad, at ang
pakikipagtulungan sa Public Attorney's Office, Commission on Human
Rights, at Integrated Bar of the Philippines upang lalong matupad ang
layuning ito.


Sa nasabing Forum, hiningi rin ang tulong ng korte upang ibsan ang
mga suliraning dulot ng language barrier o balakid na dala ng pagkakaiba sa
wika o pananalita lalo na ng mga indigenous peoples o mga katutubo at ng
mga tagapagpatupad ng batas, mga abogado, at mga huwes.
Marami pa pong mga mungkahi ang inani ng Forum na ito at ang iba
ay dapat bigyan ng aksyon ng ibang sangay ng ating pamahalaan. Sa
kasalukuyan, pinag-aaralan nang mabuti ng Korte Suprema ang natanggap
na mga mungkahi na nasa kapangyarihan nito para tugunan.
Susuriin din po namin ang mga kaisipan na lumutang sa inyong
pulong ngayong umaga. Katulad ng mga nabanggit kanina ng National
Union of Peoples’ Lawyers o ng National Federation of Small Fisherfolk
Organizations in the Philippines, ng Kalikasan People’s Network for the
Environment, ng Salinlahi o Alliance for Children’s Concern, at ng iba pa
nating mga kasama ngayon, pag-aaralan namin ang pag-amyenda sa
pamamaraan ng mga hukuman upang tugunan ang nasabing SLAPP cases o
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation na ginagamit upang ligaligin,
guluhin, at pigilin ang mga nagtataguyod ng mga karapatang konstitusyonal
na pang-ekonomiya, pang-pamayanan, at pang-kultura. Kasama na rin dito
ang SLAPPBack action para sa bayad-pinsala laban sa mga nagharap ng
SLAPP cases na napawalang saysay. Pag-aaralan din namin ang mga
pamamaraan sa iba’t-ibang lugar sa Amerika, Canada, at Europa, kung saan
hango ang SLAPP cases at SLAPPBack actions.


Aming sinusuri din ang pagbibigay-luwag sa mga alituntunin ng mga
hukuman upang ang mga karaniwang mangingisda at kanilang mga
organisasyon ay payagang tumayo bilang mga complainants sa mga kasong
may kinalaman sa pangingisda at sa kalikasan; ang pagpapahintulot sa
paghain ng torture cases sa kahit saang hukuman, nang hindi kailangang
isaalang-alang ang tirahan ng defendant; ang pagpapalawak sa saklaw ng
Writ of Amparo sa pamamagitan ng pagsasailalim rin sa proteksyon nito ng
mga karapatang pang-ekonomiya, pang-pamayanan, at pang-kultura,
kabilang na ang proteksyon laban sa demolisyon at ang pagpapalapit ng mga
iba pang judicial structures sa mga kapos-palad.


Kanina ay binabasa ko iyong Philippine Daily Inquirer. Doon sa
pahina 7 ay sinasabi: “CHR sees big drop in Extra Legal Killings.” Ang
sabi ni Chairperson Leila de Lima ay ito: “Overall there has been a very
significant drop in the incidence of extra-judicial killings by as much as 70%
from 2007-2008 compared to the 2005-2006 period.” The news item also
quoted Philip Alston, who “noted improvement in the situation after the
Supreme Court introduced new rules that force the army to go beyond
denials and probe allegations against troops and produce evidence.”
 

Habang pinag-aaralan ang mga iba’t ibang mungkahing ito, ang
inyong Korte Supreme ay ipinatutupad na ang ibang mungkahing maaari
nang ipatupad. Isa sa mga hakbang na ito ay ang pagbibigay ng panibagong
sigla sa proyektong Justice on Wheels.


Ang Justice on Wheels ay isang malaking bus na maaring maging
dalawang hukuman. Ang mobile court system na ito ay itinatag upang
tulungang mailapit ang hustisya sa mga kapatid nating mahihirap. Kasama
sa mga layuning ng mobile court system ang makapagbigay ng mabilis at
libreng solusyon sa mga usaping legal sa pamamagitan ng conciliation,
mediation, o adjudication.

 

Sa ngayon, ang mga mobile courts na ito ay ipinadadala sa mga pook
kung saan napakaraming kaso sa mga hukuman, upang makatulong sa
mabilis na pag-usad ng mga kaso ng mga mahihirap nating kababayan. Ang
mobile courts na ito ay ipinadadala din sa mga munisipalidad na walang mga
regular na korte, sa mga detention centers, at mga youth reception centers.
Dinadala rin ang mobile courts na ito sa mga lalawigan kung saan malayo
ang mga hukuman sa mga litigante.

 


 

 

 

 

Nitong Enero ng taong ito, ang Mobile Court Annexed Mediation
System ay dinala natin sa Taytay, Cainta, Antipolo, at San Mateo sa
lalawigan ng Rizal; at sa San Jose Del Monte, Pandi, at Baliuag sa lalawigan
naman ng Bulacan. Naging maganda ang nagawa ng ating mobile courts.
Sa isang libo, apat na raan at limampu't pitong (1,454) kaso na sumailalim sa
kanilang mediation, isang libo, tatlong daan at dalawampu't siyam (1,329) sa
mga ito ang matagumpay na naresolbahan – nagtala ng walumpu't limang
porsyento o eighty-five percent (85%) na success rate.
Noong nakaraang buwan, ang Justice on Wheels ay ipinadala sa
Manila City Jail at Manila Youth Reception Center upang mapabilis ang
pagdinig sa kaso ng mga nakapiit doon. Nang araw din na iyon, labindalawa
sa mga nakapiit ang pinalaya buhat sa city jail, samantalang lima naman ang
iniutos na pawalan mula sa pangagalaga ng youth facility. Naibigan ni
Mayor Lim ang ginawa ng Justice on Wheels kaya’t sa susunod na linggo ay
magkakaloob sila ng dalawang bus upang mapalakas ang ating Justice on
Wheels Program.


Sa buwan na ito, tinungo ng Justice on Wheels ang Caloocan City
Jail, kung saan tatlumpu't siyam (39) na mga bilanggo ang pinalaya. Ayon
sa Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), ang Caloocan City
Jail ang may pinakamabigat at pinakamaraming bilang ng mga kaso sa
National Capital Region (NCR), at tinatayang mayroon ditong isang libo
anim na raan at dalawampu't walong (1,628) bilanggo.


Dinala rin ang Justice on Wheels sa Quezon City, kung saan duminig
ito ng may isandaang (100) kaso ng mga bilanggo. Dalawampu't siyam (29)
na mga bilanggo ang pinawalan matapos dinggin ang kanilang mga kaso. Sa
tulong ng Pamahalaang Lungsod, nagsagawa rin doon ng inspeksyon ng mga
piitan at naghatid ng serbisyong medikal-dental ang volunteer doctors at
mga dentista ni Mayor Belmonte.


Dinala rin namin ang Justice on Wheels sa Visayas, doon sa Cebu
Provincial Jail. Pitumpu't isang (71) bilanggo ang napalaya nang tapusin
ang kanilang mga kaso. Samantala, isang libo pitong daan at animnapu't
dalawang (1,762) bilanggong may karamdaman ang nilapatan ng lunas sa
pagbisita ng mga doktor na kasama ng Justice on Wheels.


Dinala rin namin ang Justice on Wheels sa Kalibo, sa lalawigan ng
Aklan, na naitalang pinakamalubhang nasalanta ng nagdaang bagyong
Frank. Tumigil ang mga gulong ng hustisya doon nang liparin ng malakas
na hangin ang bubong mismo ng ating Hall of Justice at bahain ang court
records. Ipinadala roon ang mobile court upang duminig ng mga kasong
nakabinbin habang ang ating mga korte ay humahanap ng kanilang
paglilipatan.

 

Sa susunod pong linggo ay dadalhin namin ang ating Justice on
Wheels sa Mindanao naman. Pupunta ito sa Davao del Sur, Davao del Norte
at sa Saranggani. Mayroong nagpapayo na huwag munang dalhin ang
Justice on Wheels sa Mindanao dahil sa nangyayaring gusot doon. Sa aming
palagay, ito ay hindi sapat na dahilan upang ang ating Justice on Wheels ay
tumigil sa paghahatid ng mabilis na hustisya sa ating mga kababayan sa
Mindanao. Justice does not stop even at the sound of gunfire.


Isina-pinal na rin po noong ika-dalawampu't tatlo (23) ng Hunyo ng
Supreme Court Technical Working Group ang balangkas ng Rule of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases. Sa ilalim ng panuntunang ito, pipili ang
Korte Suprema ng pilot courts kung saan maaaring idulog ang mga maliliit
na usaping legal na karaniwang kinasasangkutan ng mga mahihirap at hindi
na nangangailangan ng legal representation at masalimuot na rules of
procedure. Sa pamamagitan ng sistemang ito, mailalapit ang mabilis na
hustisya sa mga tao, lalo na sa mga kapos-palad na hindi kayang tustusan
ang napakamahal na halaga ng mga paglilitis, lalung-lalo na ang mabagal na
paglilitis. Saklaw ng Rule na ito ang mga kasong sibil na nakahain sa firstlevel
courts na may kinalaman sa salapi, kung saan ang halaga ng claim ay
hindi hihigit sa isandaang libong piso (Php100,000).


Ang mga small claims courts ay matatagpuan, at tunay na
nagtagumpay, sa mga bansang Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New
Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, United Kingdom, at United
States. Nais nating dalhin sa ating bansa ang tagumpay ng mga small claims
courts upang ibsan ang napakarami at tumataas pang bilang ng mga kaso sa
ating hukuman, at upang bigyan ang ating mga kababayan -- lalo na ang
mahihirap -- ng pag-asa sa kanilang paghahangad na makamtan ang mabilis
na hustisya.


Sa kasalukuyan, hawak na ng Supreme Court en banc ang balangkas
ng Rule na ito hinggil sa small claims courts, at inaasahan kong mai-propromulgate ito sa lalong madaling panahon.Ito ay ilan lamang sa mga ginagawa at patuloy na pinag-aaralan ng ating Korte Suprema upang mailapit ang hustisya sa ating mga kababayan at upang mabigyan ng buhay ang kanilang social and economic rights. Gayunpaman, kami sa Korte Suprema ay isa lamang sa mga sangay ng pamahalaan na dapat tumugon sa pagtataguyod ng socio-economic rights ng ating mga kababayan. Kaya naman tinatawagan namin ang iba pang mga sektor ng lipunan upang tumulong at makilahok sa ating laban upang mabigyang katuturan ang pagnanais na pagkakapantay-pantay ng mga mahihirap sa ating bansa. Nawa'y marami pa ang tumugon at sa kanikanilang mga paraan ay makatulong upang maiangat ang kalagayan ng mga nangangailangan gaya ng ginagawa ninyo ngayon. Ang inyo pong Korte Suprema ay maaasahan ninyo na gagawa ng lahat na kaya nitong gawin upang ang “social justice” na isang mandato ng ating Saligang Batas ay magkaroon ng saysay sa buhay ng ating mga kababayan. Maraming salamat at mabuhay kayong lahat.

 

Download speech in PDF format

 

     
UP College of Law Dean Prof. Marvic Leonen BAYAN Chair Dr. Carol Araullo KMP Chair Rep. Rafael Mariano
           

 

In light of economic crisis, Bayan urges SC to review trade and investment policies

News Release
August 28, 2008

The umbrella group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan is urging the Supreme Court to review trade and investment policies as well as previous court rulings that may have compromised the people’s social, economic and cultural rights.

The call was one of several recommendations issued by various groups in a forum on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights held at the Malcom Hall of the University of the Philippines College of Law. The activity was attended by Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno who gave the keynote address and who received the reports coming from various sectoral groups. The forum was jointly organized by Bayan and the National Union of People’s Lawyers.

The activity sought to provide a venue for marginalized sectors to give proposals to the Supreme Court on how to expand and enhance the poor’s access to justice as well as providing a framework on how social, economic and cultural rights are being violated under the Arroyo regime. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to which the Philippines is a signatory, is the framework being used in the discussions.

In its report submitted to Puno, Bayan asserted that trade and investments agreement such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-World Trade Organization (GATT-WTO), the Mining Act of 1995 and the Malampaya natural gas project have impacted negatively on the poor and marginalized. Many of these policies have upheld the “globalization” paradigm which sought to open up the country to investments and trade, effectively removing protections for the domestic economy and national patrimony.

The Supreme Court had previously issued rulings upholding the constitutionality of the above policies. In 1997, the SC ruled that the GATT-WTO was constitutional since provisions of the 1987 Constituion relating to the formation of a self-reliant and independent economy were said to be “not self-executing principles ready for enoforcement by the courts.”
 

 

Bayan cited that in the years that the Philippines has been a member of the WTO, the country experienced record-levels of poverty, unemployment as well as severly undermined agriculture and industry. These conditons warrant the review of the SC decision of 1997.

In reference to the energy crisis, Bayan also called the Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Mining Act of 1995, one of the legal basis used in the operation of the Malamapya gas project. The group said that the Mining Act allowed Malampaya to be under the effective control of foreign interests, in direct violation of constituional provisions which assert that national patrimony should be under the exclusive control of the Filipinos. The group said that in the light of the current oil and energy crisis, state control over valuable natural resources becomes and important issue.

The forum also featured inputs from Atty. Romeo Capulong, chair of the NUPL and Dr. Carol Araullo, chair of Bayan.

Other recommendations from the organizers include:

1. Undertake measures to ensure that the country’s main economic planners, trade negotiators, and parliamentarians responsible for crafting socioeconomic policy are fully aware of their obligations and commitments under the Covenant.
 

2. Conduct a formal review of the consistency of the country’s foreign trade and investment policies with its human rights obligations, and assess the extent to which these have supported and/or undermined the capacity of the Philippines to meet its commitments under the Covenant.
 

3. Promote the concept of rights among citizens where they become aware of their legal entitlements as well as of the legal obligations of the State towards them.
 

4. Undertake measures to facilitate public scrutiny of economic policies according to an explicit economic, social and cultural rights framework.#

 

           
           

Various sectors made their reports and submitted them to the Chief Justice for consideration

           

 

Access of the Poor to Justice in an Elite-Dominated Constitutional
Government and Society

by Romeo T. Capulong

In his speech on June 30, 2008 on the topic of our forum this morning, our keynote speaker, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, noted that “the poor complain that the playing field in our justice system is tilted against them.” He attributed this complaint to a variety of reasons, one of which is that judges “decide cases without considering their social context.” Allow me to add my piece to this keen observation by saying affirmatively that this complaint is true and unquestionably supported by empirical data and experience. This is particularly true in the struggle of poor Filipinos against economic, social and cultural injustice.

My topic in the program is to define the framework of this struggle from the perspective and aspirations of the oppressed and exploited poor under the prevailing economic, social and cultural order or, more appropriately disorder, to borrow the terminology of a perceptive political analyst. At the outset, I wish to make it clear, that just like the other participants, I am keenly aware of the limitations of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court to widen the access of the poor to our justice system. But at the same time, I think we can now agree that our discussions and proposals cannot be confined to procedural issues and remedies. And to achieve what I consider as our minimum objective of identifying the barriers to the poor’s access to justice and their causes and remedies, we can set aside the fine distinction and lump together both procedural and substantive matters. In fact, our thesis should be to make all the three branches of government under the tripartite system work together to address this fundamental problem of inadequate and, in most cases, lack of access of the poor to redress injustices committed against them by the rich and the powerful.

We all know that we live and suffer in a stratified society and under a government that is dominated by a tiny elite. This tiny elite has a monopoly of political power and economic resources which they use and often abuse to tilt the scales of justice in their favor. We have a long history of anti-colonial and neo-colonial struggle against foreign domination, particularly against the United States, transnational corporations and multi-lateral institutions whose means and machinery of control are increasingly becoming more sophisticated and effective.

We are endowed with rich natural resources but millions of Filipinos are mired in deep and widespread poverty under a system characterized by a backward, agrarian and pre-industrial economy that serves the narrow interests of foreign and domestic elites. We have not been allowed to develop as a people and to chart our own future. An overwhelming majority of our people continue to be disenfranchised and victimized by human rights abuses, oppression and exploitation. Our elections are a farce in which the people are given the illusion that they are participating in a meaningful process. In reality, they are not being offered real choices in terms of adopting a pro-poor and pro-Filipino program of government and choosing leaders who will represent their genuine interests. Our electorate are being deceived, taught and induced to sell their votes, cheated, intimidated or sometimes killed. We have been electing to office different factions of the Filipino elite alternating in power in a vicious cycle of self-interest, mutual accommodation, constantly shifting personal and political loyalties and dynasty-building. The result is a government that is perennially unable to provide the most basic needs of the poor in health care, education, shelter and livelihood.
 

I venture the view that this, in brief, is the social context suggested by Chief Justice Puno in understanding the problems of the judiciary and the variety of reasons why justice and equity for the poor in their true meaning remain “an ideal that is far from the reality of their everyday lives.” I respectfully submit that the bench and the bar as well as policy-makers should have as their guiding and over-riding principle the foregoing social context in the following cases and conflicts involving the poor:


1. The peasants in their struggle for genuine land reform and their legal battle against land-grabbing and eviction in the name of so-called development by land-grabbers masquerading as property developers;

2. The workers in their struggle for decent wages and working conditions and in their struggle to organize trade unions and associations that empower them and represent their genuine interests;
 



3. The urban poor and informal settlers, oftentimes disparagingly called “squatters,” in the defense of their right against summary eviction and for adequate relocation site, housing and livelihood;

4. The migrant workers in the defense of their human rights under national and international law in the host country and in their struggle against the apathy and callousness of their own government to their problems as migrant workers and to the problems that beset their families in the homeland;

5. The small fisherfolk in their struggle to defend their fishing grounds against the intrusions of local and foreign fishing magnates;

6. The indigenous people in the defense of their ancestral domain against land-grabbers and local and foreign mining companies;

7. Political victims of violations of human, civil and political rights such as extra-judicial killings, involuntary disappearances, torture, illegal arrests and arbitrary detention committed by the state through its police, military and paramilitary forces; and

8. The public in general on legal issues like environmental protection and consumer rights.

There is almost unanimity on the ills that afflict our judicial system and the problems of the marginalized poor in accessing this system to enforce or defend their economic, social and cultural rights. I fully agree with the Chief Justice that the following are seemingly insurmountable problems waiting for immediate short-term solutions: “lack of knowledge of their rights under the law, lack of resources to fight for their rights, exorbitant cost of justice, lack or ineffective legal representation, delays in the dispensation of justice, complex and incomprehensible legal procedure, anti-poor laws, judges who decide cases without considering their social context, etc.” With due respect, may I add to this list three major weaknesses and vulnerabilities that pervade and continue to deteriorate in our courts and among the judges today. And these are: (1) bribery and corruption; (2) political and other forms of undue pressure; and (3) our sub-culture of pakiki-sama and utang na loob.

To be candid, the victims of these judicial afflictions are generally the defenseless poor – those who belong to the marginalized sectors I just mentioned who are forced to go to court either to defend or to assert their economic, social and cultural rights against formidable adversaries who have unlimited resources and the full support of the government, including the military, police, local officials and private armies.

I believe that there are two ways of addressing the multi-level barriers that impede the poor’s access to justice. One is to consider simple measures and remedies that are doable in the short term. Judging from the inputs of the first forum and this forum, the concrete proposals have been comprehensive because they are anchored on actual experience. The other way of addressing these barriers is to examine scientifically their roots and be part of the wider national struggle to dismantle these roots that afflict not only the justice system but more importantly, the whole Philippine society. I think no one will disagree with the proposition that our problems in the judiciary, in the legislature, in the executive branch, in the rest of our institutions and processes are inextricably intertwined and will defy lasting solutions unless we dismantle the prevailing unjust social and economic order and establish a truly free, democratic and sovereign nation. And this is the reason why, as a concluding part of my brief presentation, I only have one concrete proposal which is not only both procedural and substantive, but also fundamental and structural. With your permission, Honorable Chief Justice, colleagues and friends, without sounding sarcastic or skeptical because I am coming to you with clean hands and absolute sincerity allow me to propose in this forum the adoption and promulgation not only by the Supreme Court but by our people of what I call the writ of Andres Bonifacio.

Thank you.
August 28, 2008.

Presented at the forum Kabuhayan, Karapatan, Katarungan sponsored by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) and the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, Malcolm Hall, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City

 

Download speech

 

           
     
           
           

 

Opening Remarks
“KABUHAYAN, KARAPATAN, KATARUNGAN”
A Forum on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:
Violations and Remedies
28 August 2008

ni Dr. Carol Araullo, Bayan Chairperson

Binabati ko po ang ating panauhing pandangal, si Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, and ating keynote speaker na si Judge RT Capulong, ang ating host na si Dean Marvic Leonen, mga kasama sa pakikibaka para sa hustisyang panlipunan, mga kaibigan at panauhin.

Una sa lahat nais kong pasalamatan si Chief Justice Puno, sa pagpapaunlak niya sa imbitasyon ng Bayan at NUPL na dumalo sa porum na ito, makinig sa mga inihandang mga sektoral at multisektoral na mga position paper hinggil sa usaping ESCR at “access to justice” ng mga inaapit pinagsasamantalahan sa ating lipunan at sa huli’y magbahagi ng kanyang malalim at mapanuring pagtingin sa mga pinaksa ng ating porum.

Ikinagagalak namin sa Bayan na naidaos na rin sa wakas ang porum na ito bilang pagtugon at pagsalubong sa kakaibang mga inisyatiba ni CJ Puno upang higit na mailapit sa mamamayan at ituntong sa kanilang mga kongkretong sitwasyon at mga pang-araw-araw na buhay ang mga gawain ng mga korte ng bansa kasama na ang Korte Suprema.

 

 

 

Sa totoo lang, matagal-tagal anng naghahanda ang mga samahang masa sa ilalim ng Bayan at ng mga public interests lawyers ng NUPL at PILC. Ito’y mula pa nung 2 linggo bago idinaos ang SC Forum sa parehong paksa, sa ika-1 ng Hulyo, sa taon ding ito. Matapos makibahagi sa forum ng Korte Suprema, minabuti namin na magdaos rin ng kahalintulad na forum kung saan mas maluwag at mahusay na mailalahad ng mga progresibong samahang masa at ng mga abugado nila, batay sa mahaba at masalimuot na praktika, ang sariling pagsusuri sa mga problema sa ESCR at kung ano ang nakikita nilang mga solusyon para higit na mailaban at matamasa ang mga karapatang ito sa ating mga korte.

Nagtulong-tulong ang marami upang gawing malaman at makabuluhan ang forum natin ngayong umaga. Ito’y isang aktibidad na kaiba sa mga maraming nakaraang forum ng Bayan, sa tindi ng paghahanda ng mga pambansang tanggapan ng Bayan at NUPL at sa pagpapakilos sa malaki-laking bilang ng mga sektoral na lider masa at mga makabayang abugado.

Sana’y marami tayong matutunan, mabuksan ang ating mga isipan at sa bahagi ng Bagong Alyansang Makabayan at ng Punong Mahistrado ng Korte Suprema, sana’y magtuloy-tuloy ang dyalogo batay sa prinsipyo ng taus-pusong paglilingkod sa sambayanan.

Magandang umaga po sa inyong lahat!

           
BONUS TRACKS
     

PILCs' Atty. Romeo T, Capulong and NUPL's Neri Colmenares at Malcolm Hall, with the Holmes' quote made famous at the Estrada impeachment trial by San Beda lawyer Sen. Raul Roco

Top photo: Reps. Satur Ocapo and Liza Maza with UP College of Law Dean Marvic Leonen
◄ The UP College of Law, Malcolm Hall

 

 
 

Google