Tuesday, October 24, 2017


What's in a name?

About twelve years ago, I was one of those hopefuls to have that coveted "Atty." attached to my name. Take note of the "period" (".")! My law professors told us students that when somebody completes law school, he or she has earned an ATTY to his or her name. Passing the bar gives that person the "." to attach to the name. And it is only when he or she has passed the bar exams that such right to use "ATTY."

Every waking day, during law school, I asked myself this question, "Why? Why am I doing this? Instead of enjoying life, here I am, being tortured."

Then God decided I deserved to have that title, and granted me my wish after taking the exams.

Eleven or so years later, I have come to realize what the title "Atty." entails.

1. It is definitely a privilege. People with legal issues look up to lawyers as their solutions to their their legal problems. Lawyers have the capacity to bring significant changes to the lives of people with legal issues.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Saan Aabot ang Isang Libo?

This morning, I was met with a lot of saddening news: the plight of typhoon victims, a killed soldier in Marawi, an accident between a bike and a motorcycle, and some more. What is greatly saddening is the news that the House of Representatives exhibited power tripping worthy of a separate Meralco transmission line.

I am appalled.

I am no fan of politicians. It is always so hard to decipher their actions knowing that majority of the decisions they make are targeted at preserving their votes in the future.

I am no fan of this current President of the Philippines. Imagine my kid asking me what P***** I** means. I answered that it was a bad word that is inappropriate for kids. And when I asked where he last heard it, he said, "President Duterte." How can I justify not using the word because it's bad only for him to hear it no less from the President himself.  I have learned to accept the fact that whatever he says would be interpreted correctly by the media, then his minions would later on come up with their own interpretations just to prove that their President meant something else and the media got it all wrong. Despite this, I believed that he should still be given a chance to prove his detractors, me included, wrong. Heck, I even tried to apply for work in a Presidential office just to understand his philosophy and attitude. 

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

Facts: Valenciano wrote several letters to former Chief Justice Renato S. Puno, complaining about the holding of masses during lunch break at the basement of the Quezon City Hall of Justice. He claimed that the religious icons placed there, the electric organ and other items related to the celebration of masses therein violated the separation of the constitutional provision on the separation of the Church and State. He also claimed, among others, that the choir rehearsals disturbed the other employees and that the other employees could no longer attend to their personal necessities as they cannot go to the lavatories which are located near the basement.

Issue: Whether there was a violation of the constitutional provision on the separation of the Church and State with the holding of masses during lunch break at the basement of the Quezon City Hall of Justice.

Held: There was no violation.

The present controversy did not involve a national or local law in conflict with the Free Exercise Clause. Valenciano was merely questioning the propriety of holding religious masses at the basement of the QC Hall of Justice.

By allowing the holding of masses, the Court could not be said to have established Roman Catholicism as an official religion or to have endorsed the same. It also allowed other religious denominations to practice their religion within the courthouses.

Thus, the holding of religious rituals at the Halls of Justice does not amount to a union of Church and State. While the Church and State are separate, the latter still recognizes the inherent right of the people to have some form of belief system. Such is enshrined in our Constitution.

Besides, allowing religion to flourish is not contrary to the principle of separation of Church and State.

In order to give life to the constitutional right of freedom of religion, the State adopts a policy of accommodation - a recognition of the reality that some governmental measures may not be imposed on a certain portion of the population for the reason that these measures are contrary to their religious beliefs. As long as it can be shown that the exercise of the right does not impair the public welfare, the attempt of the State to regulate or prohibit such right would be an unconstitutional encroachment.

There is in this case, merely an accommodation.

First, there is no law, ordinance or circular issued by any duly constitutive authorities expresslly mandating that judicial employees attend the mass.

Second, when judiciary employees attend the masses to profess their faith, it is at their own initiative and on their own free will.

Third, no government funds are being spent because the lighting and airconditioning continue to be operational even if there are no religious rituals being observed.

Fourth, the basement has neither been converted into a Roman Catholic Chapel not has it been permanently appropriated for the exclusive use of the faithful.

Fifth, the allowance of religious masses has not prejudiced other religions.