Pandora's box re-opened

I was supposed to blog about the President's apology for her "lapse of judgment" talking with a Comelec official during the elections to "protect her votes". However, I was busy working and had not enough time to gather materials and write a fairly accurate opinion, at least from my layman's point of view, anyway. So, I had to pass on this "bloggable" phenomenon in Philippine politics. Last night, as I was watching the news, I heard that legal experts (that included Fr. Bernas, who was not present but submitted his opinion anyway) have presented their opinion on the matter of whether Congress should hear the tapes containing the conversations Gloria had with said Commissioner. Reading Sassy's entry on the matter gives an excellent opinion on the matter, The media proclaimed 'legal experts' say that the people's right to public information is paramount and, hence, there is no legal impediment to the playing of the tapes in the Congressional inquiry.

In the news last night, a Dean from a certain law school read his opinion in the hearing. (Neither the name nor the school stuck as I was doing something else. Multi tasking, hehe) If I remember correctly, (I couldn't find any copy hence couldn't verify it) his main contentions were that the tapes were no longer private since copies are all over the place, even citing ringtones in particular, and that since Gloria admitted it to be in her own voice, the right to privacy no longer holds. Maybe my interpretation/recollection of what he said was erroneous so I will welcome comments correcting my understanding.

In view of the fact that that was what I heard, and assuming that my interpretation is correct, then I am troubled by this turn of events. I have always believed that the Bill of Rights is sacred. Marvin Aceron another lawyer, puts it succinctly in his entry "Sun Tzu Advice No. 10: Time to use the "P" word" when he said The right to privacy has primacy

What is contained in Sec 3 of the Bill of Rights? It states that:
SEC. 3.
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.


If the President of the Philippines could not be protected by this right, what can I, an ordinary individual, have to hold on to?

Obviously, the contentions of these legal experts (I am assuming that they were expressing the same opinion as the news did not say someone had a dissenting opinion) are founded on the seemingly majority perception that Gloria cheated in the last elections and that this can be proven by the tapes. Hence, it is of their opinion that it was imperative for Congress to hear them in making the public's right to information rule over the Bill of Rights in spite of the fact that the taped conversations might not even fall within the purview of what information the public has a right to know. I have forgotten which among the rules of statutory construction should apply but when there are enumerations in the law, other similar items not written may be included. Hmm, probably, noscitur a sociis or "the context rule" (Sassy help!) But even then, the one that can only be included are those within the same context as those enumerated.

Now, going back to the arguments. "The tapes are no longer private because of the proliferation of copies of the same everywhere." Now, that is dangerous. It implies that If I wanted to violate the privacy of, say a philandering husband, all I have to do is put a bug on his phone and innocently distribute hundreds of copies to every Juan and Juana I meet together with an original copy which I put on his wife's door. This will of course be admissible evidence as it is now public property. Oh, maybe that is not a good example as I am not sure if the law works that way. Maybe if I change the word husband to a public official, say a mayor. Maybe that would work within my context. Is this how we shall interpret it? We may be opening another Pandora's box, don't you think?

Gloria may have cheated in the elections one way or another. Thanks to my boss who gave me a copy of Dr. Hans Koechler's report which can also be found here I am reminded that there had been allegations of cheating in Mindanao even right after the elections. Of course, it is now common knowledge that most of these so called leaders cheat one way or another, but I say, let's fight it using legal ways. I would like to believe that we are a country governed by laws. Unfortunately, we are being lured to the easier way of emotionalism, drama and fanfare. What a circus Philippine politics has become.

bloggers beware!

I received a message from my friend Batjay about a newstory of a Singapore student who may be facing legal consequences over a public blog containing
defamatory statements. This made the student, who is currently completing his Masters' degree in the United States to close his blog after he was threatened with legal action by A*Star (Agency for Science, Technology and Research) who stated that while it is for "diversity of views" still found the contents of the blog beyond what was acceptable. Read the story here

I am not aware if we have anything in the court dockets that concerns articles in blogs to this nature or something else. That would be along the turf of the Sassy Lawyer and La Vida Lawyer, Marvin Aceron. Assuming that there are no cases yet filed, I guess, the legalities concerning blogs are still unfamiliar territory to Philippine courts. Hence, Filipino blogging is still very much fair game.

As I have said in my interview with Ajay in that article she did featuring my blog, I do not believe in censorship as it is counter-productive and stifles the creativity of an
individual. However, I also leave it to the good judgment of the writer, yes, even of a blog, to know what to write and what not to. To paraphrase
Dean Alfar in his eloquent speech last Saturday at the iBlog summit held in UP, that once one puts up a blog, one owes it to his/her readers to come up with intelligent content in one's writing. Let's face it, a blog is part of a public domain and hence, we shall be accountable to what we say in our blogs.

I am a supporter of free speech but only when the writer/speaker focuses on ideas. To me, resorting to name calling and character bashing is a cheap shot and has no place in an intelligent discourse. I guess, the rule of thumb is, stick to the issue! Leave the name calling to people who are short sighted and have nothing to hold on to with their arguments. Arguing with them is an exercise in futility. It would be a lot better to pick up your guitar and sing rather than engage them to a lengthy, circular and useless debate.

By your leave, Sassy

I couldn't go to school today. I am down with the flu. I have been shivering lst night. The bad thing is the kids also have to miss school as nobody can drive them to school.

Anyway, I just realized that there might be teachers who do not actually know the extent of their responsibilities and the consequent liabilities they have as custodians of minors. AS the speaker in one of the seminars I attended said, "What you do not know might hurt you." It will if we don't know the responsibilities we are faced with.

Teaching is not solely about imparting knowledge but has legal responsibilities to their ward attached to it. Hence, I decided I would impart some of my knowledge about the liabilities of teachers. I just hope Sassy is reading this so that she can shed more light if there is something wrong with what I have written and can correct it.

Teachers have two basic duties. These are instruction, which is to impart knowledge and supervision, taking care of their students.

From various seminars and readings I had, specifically the annotated book of Atty. Ulpiano Ulan, the New Family Code differentiates the in loco parentis clause with that of the exercise given to teachers of minors which is special parental authority. While the former is applied in the case of death, absence, or unsuitabiltiy of the minor students' parents, it is not exercised when there is actual parental authority. There is a big difference in that special parental authority is exercised concurrently with actual parental authority. It rests on the theory that while the child is in the care and custody of the person exercising SPA the parents temporarily relinquish parental authority.

What this means is that teachers have civil obligations to their wards. There are four sources of liabilities. These are: fraud, the deliberate deception of others; delay, not doing what should be done on time, like giving of grades; negligence and contravention of the tenor of obligation. From among these sources, negligence is usually what teachers have been charged with.

There are four elements of negligence. These are 1. duty - it is the duty of every teacher to show reasonable care to all "foreseeable" persons and property; 2. breach - results whenever an individual fails to provide reasonable care to forseeable plaintiff; 3. causation - the teacher must have "caused" the damage for which the victim is seeking compensation; and, 4. injury- that there is actual injury, be it emotional or physical.

How do we safeguard our own interest as teachers, then? Do what we're supposed to do, never lose contact of our students, and make sure we practice reasonable diligence in inspecting property and equipment to ensure that such is in good working condition. This especially holds true with laboratories, and technical subjects like Work Ed. Our only defense against negligence is to prove that we have acted accordingly as any normal person culd have. With that, happy teaching ahead.