PEOPLE AS JUDGES, FISCALS
Berteni "Toto" Cataluña Causing delivers the welcome address of the First Jury Convention in April 2011 at the University of the Philippines-National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-NCPAG).
My New Year Offer:
PEOPLE AS JUDGES, FISCALS
By BERTENI "TOTO" CATALUÑA CAUSING
President, Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement, Inc. (HMMI)
The Filipino people elect their President. This is their most direct act of exercising their sovereign or original powers to execute the laws faithfully, defend the Constitution, and run the day-to-day affairs of the government on behalf of the nation or the State.
Ang mga taong Filipino ang pumipili ng kanilang Pangulo. Ito ay kanilang paglalasap na parang sila na rin mismo ang gumaganap ng kapangyarihan sa pagpapatupad ng batas, sa pakikipaglaban para sa Konstitusyon, at pagpapatakbo ng pag-araw-araw na gawain ng pamahalan sa pangalan ng tao, bansa o estado.
Ang mga taong Filipino ang pumipili ng kanilang Pangulo. Ito ay kanilang paglalasap na parang sila na rin mismo ang gumaganap ng kapangyarihan sa pagpapatupad ng batas, sa pakikipaglaban para sa Konstitusyon, at pagpapatakbo ng pag-araw-araw na gawain ng pamahalan sa pangalan ng tao, bansa o estado.
The Filipino people elect their representatives to the House of Representatives and to the Senate. This is their most direct act of exercising their sovereign or original powers to make laws.
Ang mga taong Filipino ang pumipili ng kanilang mga representante sa House of Representatives at sa Senado. Ito rin ay kanilang paglalasap na parang sila na rin mismo ang gumaganap ng kapangyarihan sa pagsasagawa ng mga batas.
Ang mga taong Filipino ang pumipili ng kanilang mga representante sa House of Representatives at sa Senado. Ito rin ay kanilang paglalasap na parang sila na rin mismo ang gumaganap ng kapangyarihan sa pagsasagawa ng mga batas.
 |
| The author, taken Dec. 29, 2011 |
Is it not revolting that the people have no right who should be appointed in the Judiciary when the power to judge and interpret belongs to them in the first place?
Is it not revolting that the people have no right to choose who should be the Chief Justice and the justices of the Supreme Court, no right to choose who should be the justices of the collegiate courts, and no right to choose who should be the judges for all other courts?
Hindi ba nakakarebelde sa kunsensya na ang mga tao ay walang karapatang pumili ng kanilang Chief Justice at Justices ng Supreme Court, walang karapatang pumili kung sino ang kanilang mga justice sa mga collegiate courts, at walang karapatang pumili kung sino ang kanilang mga huwes sa bawat hukuman?
How more revolting it is when the people would see judges deciding wrongly and deliberately not doing the duty to decide issues of facts and laws correctly, resulting in the guilty escaping punishment and the innocent getting punished?
Mas gaano pa kasakit sa kunsensya kung nakikita ng mga Filipinong mamamayan ang mga huwes na gumagawa ng mga maling desisyon at sadyang hindi pagtupad sa tungkulin na desisyonan ng tama ang mga usapin sa kung ano ang nangyari at kung ano ang pagpapataw ng batas, na mga gawaing nagreresulta sa hindi pagpaparusa sa mga may kasalanan at pagpapataw ng parusa sa mga inosente?
Mas gaano pa kasakit sa kunsensya kung nakikita ng mga Filipinong mamamayan ang mga huwes na gumagawa ng mga maling desisyon at sadyang hindi pagtupad sa tungkulin na desisyonan ng tama ang mga usapin sa kung ano ang nangyari at kung ano ang pagpapataw ng batas, na mga gawaing nagreresulta sa hindi pagpaparusa sa mga may kasalanan at pagpapataw ng parusa sa mga inosente?
Corollary to this, how more revolting it is to see the prosecutors offices or the so-called "fix-cals" more often decide not to file charges upon the lure of money and influences or file cases at the urgings of money and influences?
May kinalaman pa rito, gaano pa karimarim sa kunsensya na makikita ang mga tanggapan ng prosekyutor o yaong mga tinatawag na "fix-cals" na mas madalas magdesisyon na huwag magsampa ng kaso sa korte dahil lamang sa pera at impluwensya o di kaya ay magsampa ng kaso dahil sa pera at implewensya?
If the trust of the people in the judges and prosecutors have been abused blatantly or secretly, is it now time for the people to take that power back?
May kinalaman pa rito, gaano pa karimarim sa kunsensya na makikita ang mga tanggapan ng prosekyutor o yaong mga tinatawag na "fix-cals" na mas madalas magdesisyon na huwag magsampa ng kaso sa korte dahil lamang sa pera at impluwensya o di kaya ay magsampa ng kaso dahil sa pera at implewensya?
If the trust of the people in the judges and prosecutors have been abused blatantly or secretly, is it now time for the people to take that power back?
Kung ang tiwala ng tao sa mga huwes at prosekyutor ay inaabuso ng harap-harapan o patago, hindi ba na ngayon na ang panahon para bawiin ng tao ang kapangyarihan sa paghusga?
Is it time for the people to decide to take that power back and let the people themselves decide the issues of facts in the cases in all courts so that what is left for the judges and justices to do is only to apply the laws on those facts found by the people?
Panahon na ba para bawiin ng tao ang nasabing kapangyarihan at sila na mismo ang magdidesisyon sa mga usapin "kung ano ang nangyari" sa mga kaso na nililitis sa korte, para naman na ang gagawin na lamang ng mga huwes ay ang pagsabi kung papaano ang epekto ng mga batas sa mga "nangyari" na sinabi ng tao?
Panahon na ba para bawiin ng tao ang nasabing kapangyarihan at sila na mismo ang magdidesisyon sa mga usapin "kung ano ang nangyari" sa mga kaso na nililitis sa korte, para naman na ang gagawin na lamang ng mga huwes ay ang pagsabi kung papaano ang epekto ng mga batas sa mga "nangyari" na sinabi ng tao?
 |
| My partners in jury advocacy: Bgy Chair Romeo de Leon and Atty. Ronaldo E. Renta |
WHY NOT JOIN US FIGHT TO INSTALL THE PEOPLE'S COURT SYSTEM, WHICH WE CALL "JURY SYSTEM?"
BAKIT DI SUMAMA SA AMING LABAN NA ITAYO ANG HUKUMAN NG MAMAMAYAN, NA AMING TINATAWAG NA "JURY SYSTEM"?
In the Jury System, it is the jurors of the grand jury or the investigating jury, composed of the people raffled from the voters' list and whose names and faces are hidden from the public, that decides who shall be charged in court for crimes and who to be spared from among those proposed to be charged by the police or anybody or the prosecutor.
Sa Jury System, ang mga hurado ng grand jury o investigating jury, na binubuo ng mga tao na pinili sa listahan ng mga botante na tinatago ang kanilang pangalan at mukha, ay siyang nagdi-desisyon kung sino ang dapat kakasuhan ng kasong krimen at sino ang hindi dapat mula sa mga pinipresenta ng pulis o mga nag-aakusa o mga prosekyutor mismo.
JUST IMAGINE that if it were the jurors of people who decided whether to charge Gloria Arroyo for electoral sabotage and retired General Jovito Palparan for kidnapping of UP students, THERE COULD have been no suspicion that politics intervened.
ISIPIN NA LANG kung ang mga hurado ng mga tao mismo ang nag-desisyon na kakasuhan si Gloria Arroyo ng kasong electoral sabotage at kakasuhan si dating Heneral Jovito Palaran sa pangingidnap sa dalawang estudyante ng University of the Philippines, WALA SANANG SUSPETSA NA PULITIKA LAMANG ANG MGA ITO.
In the Jury System, it is the jurors of the trial jury that adjudges whether the accused is guilty of the act accused them of doing. The judge of the court merely determines the punishment and executes the judgment. Like in the Grand Jury system, the names and faces of the jurors in the trial jury are to be hidden from the public.
Sa Jury System, ang mga hurado ng paglilitis ang naghuhusga kung ang akusado ay gumawa talaga ng mga gawaing krimen na inaakusa sa kanya. Ang huwes ay magsasabi na lamang kung ano ang parusa at siyang magpapatupad ng hatol.
To empower the people of the power to judge is enough as a justification. The fact that the power to judge belong to the people is enough to justify that the actual exercise of the power to judge be placed in the hands of the people through their representative-jurors raffled from them and later interviewed and screened.
Ang pagbibigay ng kapangyarihan sa tao sa paghusga ay sapat nang dahilan. Ang katotohanan na sila naman ang nagmamay-ari ng kapangyarihang ito ay sapat na basihan para ilagay sa kanilang mga kamay ang aktwal na paggaganap ng kapangyarihang maghusga sa pamamagitan ng kanilang representante na napili mula sa kanila sa pamamagitan ng raffle at dagdag na pag-interview at pagpipili.
Sa Jury System, ang mga hurado ng paglilitis ang naghuhusga kung ang akusado ay gumawa talaga ng mga gawaing krimen na inaakusa sa kanya. Ang huwes ay magsasabi na lamang kung ano ang parusa at siyang magpapatupad ng hatol.
To empower the people of the power to judge is enough as a justification. The fact that the power to judge belong to the people is enough to justify that the actual exercise of the power to judge be placed in the hands of the people through their representative-jurors raffled from them and later interviewed and screened.
Ang pagbibigay ng kapangyarihan sa tao sa paghusga ay sapat nang dahilan. Ang katotohanan na sila naman ang nagmamay-ari ng kapangyarihang ito ay sapat na basihan para ilagay sa kanilang mga kamay ang aktwal na paggaganap ng kapangyarihang maghusga sa pamamagitan ng kanilang representante na napili mula sa kanila sa pamamagitan ng raffle at dagdag na pag-interview at pagpipili.
 |
| The author lectures jury on his birthday guests |
The issue of who between the judge or the jury is better in making judgment is irrelevant when the people who own the power to judge are called upon to be the themselves the judges. This is just like saying that it does not matter who performs the job better, the owner of a house cannot be questioned if he or she decides to be the one to actually do the cleaning of his or her house instead of household helpers.
Ang debate kung sino sa dalawa--judge o jury--ang mas magaling sa paghuhusga ay hindi mahalaga kung ang mga tao mismo na may-ari ng kapangyarihan sa paghusga ang siyang tatawagin para gaganap na sila na mismo ang manghusga. Ito ay kapareho lamang sa pagsasabi na hindi na mahalaga kung sino ang mas magaling, ang may-ari ng bahay ay hindi matutuligsa kung siya na mismo ang naglinis ng kanyang bahay at hindi ang kanyang mga katulong.
On the issue of efficiency of the judges, Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement, Inc. (HMMI) argues that the records show that more than 60% of the appealed decisions of the judges of the trial courts are reversed by the Supreme Court.
Sa isyu ng kagalingan ng mga huwes, inaargumento ng HMMI na ang mga talaan at datos ay nagpapakita na sobra pa sa 60% na inapelang desisyon ng mga huwes ng trial courts ang binaligtad ng Supreme Court.
One more very relevant factor here is that the opportunities for the rich and influential to dictate the judges and fiscals or prosecutors or the ombudsman are removed. The other materiality is that it is much harder to dictate the jury of people whose names and faces are hidden; JUST LIKE RAISING THE BAR FOR THE EVILDOERS TO HURDLE.
Ang isa pa sa pinakamahalaga dito ay ang pagtanggal ng mga pagkakataon para ang mga mayayaman at maimpluwensya ay makapagdikta sa mga huwes at mga fiscal o prosekyutor o ombudsman. Ang isa pang napakahalaga ay ang katotohanan na lubhang mahirap maka-dikta sa mga hurado ng tao na ang kanilang pangalan at mukha ay nakatago; KAPAREHO LAMANG ITO SA PAGPAPATAAS NG PADER NA TATALUNIN NG MGA MASASAMANG URI.
CAN WE DO THIS?
KAYA BA NATIN ITO?
It is said that no amount of security can prevent a determined assassin. This means that if you who believe with us are determined, no one can prevent us from succeeding in establishing the JURY SYSTEM.
Sinasabi na walang anumang sistema ng pagbantay ang makakapigil sa determinadong mamamatay-tao. Ibig sabihin nito, kapag tayo na kayo na naniniwala kasama namin ay determinado, walang makakapigil sa atin na maatim ang tagumpay sa pagpapatayo ng JURY SYSTEM.
(BEFORE PROCEEDING, PLEASE LISTEN TO THE FOLLOWING VIDEO PRESENTATION OF THE JURY SYSTEM)
The people: the original power
The people are the sovereign or original powers because it is them who form the state.
It is them who decide what to do with the state.
It is them who approve or ratify their constitution.
It is them who say what kind of government will be instituted to implement their dreams for them and for the nation or state.
It is them who give name to the country or state.
It is them who decide how should the relationship among them be regulated through the civil laws and commercial laws.
It is them who decide what acts should be punished and SHOULD judge who are guilty of those acts.
When it is said "it is them" the author refers to the collective mass of people consisting of the majority among them.
In short, ALL POWERS emanate from the people.
It is a good thing that the Constitution that the people ratified contains a statement in Article II, declaring that the "SOVEREIGNTY RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE AND ALL POWERS EMANATE FROM THEM."
Knowing that the people as a collective body is the source of all powers, including judicial powers, is it not but proper that the people now take back that power to judge who is guilty and who is not?
Hindi ba mas nararapat na bawiin na ng tao ang kapangyarihan sa paghuhusga?
Di ba mas angay nga bawion na sa mga tawo ang kusog ug katungdanan sa paghusga?
Di ba mas angay guid nga bawion na sang mga tawo ang kusog kag katungdanan sa paghusga?
 |
| Jury advocates (from left): Willy Irinco, Hernz Cuare and Atty. Cirilo P. Sabarre Jr. |
What do people say in the Constitution
about trials, judgments
Unfortunately, however, the 1987 Constitution that was ratified by the people in 1986 did not contain the provision on who shall try and decide cases, including issues on crimes.
In that constitution they approved with 17,059,495 votes as against 5,058,714 who voted "no" in the February 2, 1987 plebescite, the people simply left in the hands of the Judiciary, represented by the Supreme Court, the decision on how to organize the system of trials and judgments.
The people through Section 14 of Article VIII of that constitution directed that all decisions of the courts shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and laws upon which the decisions are based.
Additionally, the people commanded that all appointments to the judges and justices of the courts lower than the Supreme Court shall be done by means of recommendations from the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and appointment by the President.
But there is nothing in the Constitution that the people said the trial and judgment shall exclusively be made by the judges themselves.
With respect to this, the people merely said that the judgments of the lower courts must be rendered in 90 days from the day the cases are declared submitted for decisions; one year for the collegiate courts such as the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals; and two years for the Supreme Court.
Given these circumstances, it is very much possible for the Supreme Court to issue new rules of trial and judgments that are consistent with the command that decisions should state clearly and distinctly the facts and laws upon which the decisions are based.
So why not join us in compelling the Supreme Court to rewrite the Rules of Court to provide jury trials?
The same cannot be said completely of the prosecutorial system. There is a law that provides the exclusive power of the Ombudsman to charge for crimes of corruption and offenses committed in relation to public functions. There is also that Constitutional provision that says that the exclusive power to charge for election offenses belongs to the Commission on Elections alone. There is also that Administrative Law that vests exclusive power to the Department of Justice and its prosecutor's offices the power to decide to charge or not to charge persons on other crimes that are actually common.
But in some this can be remedied by the passage of new laws to revoke giving exclusive power to judge to the hands of the grand juries or investigating juries of people.
It takes a constitutional amendment to get from the Comelec that power to charge for election offenses and give that power to the jury of people.
It takes also a constitutional amendment to get from the Ombudsman that power to charge for corruption crimes and crimes done in relation to the official functions and give the same to the jury of people.
.
Movers behind the Jury System proposal
The Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement, Inc. (HMMI) and all its allied pro-jury organizations and leaders are insisting that the only way to give the people the way of exercising more directly their power to judge is to INSTALL THE PEOPLE'S JUSTICE SYSTEM (JURY SYSTEM).
Ang Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement, Inc. (HMMI) at ang lahat nitong kasama na mga pulungan at mga pinuno ay nag-iinsiste na ang tanging paraan na maibigay sa tao ang pagganap at pagpasya sa kapangyarihan sa paghusga ay ang PAGPAPATAYO NG HUKUMAN NG MAMAMAYAN (JURY SYSTEM).
Fighting for this system of justice along with HMMI are: (a) Katarangungang Pansambayanan Inc. (KPI) that actively campaigns for jury system in Cagayan and neighboring provinces and cities; (b) Philippine Jury International that has been renamed Philippine Jury Initiative, being actively led by Daisy Brett-Holt in the United Kingdom; and (c) Philippine International Jury Advocates that is still being organized.
Ang mga katulong ng HMMI ay: (a) Katarunganng Pansambayanan, Inc. (KPI) na aktibong nangangampanya sa Cagayan at karatig lalawigan at siyudad; (b) Philippine Jury International na pinalitan ang pangalan sa Philippine Jury Initiative na pinamumunuan ni Daisy Brett-Holt sa United Kingdom; at (c) Philippine International Jury Advocates International na kasalukuyang inoorganisa.
There are also other groups advocating jury system and these are: (a) Philippine Jury Campaign International; (b) Philjury; and (c) Katarungan ng Lahing Kayumanggi, Inc. (KKK).
PLEASE JOIN THIS NOBLEST CRUSADE OF OUR LIFETIME.
SUMALI SA PINAKADAKILANG KRUSADA SA ATING BUHAY.
PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO OF SUPPORT FOR EMPOWERING THE FILIPINO PEOPLE
So why not join us in compelling the Supreme Court to rewrite the Rules of Court to provide jury trials?
The same cannot be said completely of the prosecutorial system. There is a law that provides the exclusive power of the Ombudsman to charge for crimes of corruption and offenses committed in relation to public functions. There is also that Constitutional provision that says that the exclusive power to charge for election offenses belongs to the Commission on Elections alone. There is also that Administrative Law that vests exclusive power to the Department of Justice and its prosecutor's offices the power to decide to charge or not to charge persons on other crimes that are actually common.
But in some this can be remedied by the passage of new laws to revoke giving exclusive power to judge to the hands of the grand juries or investigating juries of people.
It takes a constitutional amendment to get from the Comelec that power to charge for election offenses and give that power to the jury of people.
It takes also a constitutional amendment to get from the Ombudsman that power to charge for corruption crimes and crimes done in relation to the official functions and give the same to the jury of people.
.
 |
| With three datus of Blaan supporting jury system |
Movers behind the Jury System proposal
The Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement, Inc. (HMMI) and all its allied pro-jury organizations and leaders are insisting that the only way to give the people the way of exercising more directly their power to judge is to INSTALL THE PEOPLE'S JUSTICE SYSTEM (JURY SYSTEM).
Ang Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement, Inc. (HMMI) at ang lahat nitong kasama na mga pulungan at mga pinuno ay nag-iinsiste na ang tanging paraan na maibigay sa tao ang pagganap at pagpasya sa kapangyarihan sa paghusga ay ang PAGPAPATAYO NG HUKUMAN NG MAMAMAYAN (JURY SYSTEM).
Fighting for this system of justice along with HMMI are: (a) Katarangungang Pansambayanan Inc. (KPI) that actively campaigns for jury system in Cagayan and neighboring provinces and cities; (b) Philippine Jury International that has been renamed Philippine Jury Initiative, being actively led by Daisy Brett-Holt in the United Kingdom; and (c) Philippine International Jury Advocates that is still being organized.
Ang mga katulong ng HMMI ay: (a) Katarunganng Pansambayanan, Inc. (KPI) na aktibong nangangampanya sa Cagayan at karatig lalawigan at siyudad; (b) Philippine Jury International na pinalitan ang pangalan sa Philippine Jury Initiative na pinamumunuan ni Daisy Brett-Holt sa United Kingdom; at (c) Philippine International Jury Advocates International na kasalukuyang inoorganisa.
There are also other groups advocating jury system and these are: (a) Philippine Jury Campaign International; (b) Philjury; and (c) Katarungan ng Lahing Kayumanggi, Inc. (KKK).
May
iba pang grupo na aktibong nangangampayan ng jury system at ito ay: (a)
Philippine Jury Campaign International; (b) Philjury; at (c) Katarungan
ng Lahing Kayumanggin, Inc. (KKK).
PLEASE JOIN THIS NOBLEST CRUSADE OF OUR LIFETIME.
SUMALI SA PINAKADAKILANG KRUSADA SA ATING BUHAY.
PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO OF SUPPORT FOR EMPOWERING THE FILIPINO PEOPLE
Comments