Current state of PH media

witnesses’ testimonies with their respective judicial affidavits, and documentary and object evidence (Section 6, Rule 7).

Hence, some say that today, a Motion for Bill of Particulars has been rendered toothless.

While this view may be partly true, judicial affidavits and evidence attached to the pleadings may be vague, defective, or completely irrelevant.

The Motion for Bill of Particulars, therefore, remains to be a potent procedural tool to address vague, indefinite, uncertain or general allegations in pleadings, thereby preventing surprises during trial. In contrast, the Motion for Bill of Particulars is submitted in criminal cases before arraignment by the accused or before the reading of the criminal information to him or her.

“The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired” to allow the prosecution to remove any defects in the information (Section 9, Rule 116).

“During arraignment, the accused is granted the opportunity to fully know the precise charge that confronts him and [is] made fully aware of possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him… thus [it] ensures that an accused [is] fully acquainted with the nature of the crime imputed to him in the Information…” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).

“A concomitant component of this stage of the proceedings is that the Information should provide the accused with fair notice of the accusations made against him, so that he will be able to make an intelligent plea and prepare a defense… the Information must [also] provide some means of ensuring that the crime for which the accused is brought to trial is in fact one for which he was charged…” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).

“In other words, the Information must permit the accused to prepare his defense, ensure that he is prosecuted only on the basis of facts presented, enable him to plead jeopardy against a later prosecution, and inform the court of the facts alleged so that it can determine the sufficiency of the charge” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).

“If the Information fails to comply with this basic standard, it would be quashed on the ground that it fails to charge an offense. Of course, an Information may be sufficient to withstand a motion to quash, and yet insufficient [to] inform the accused of the specific details of the alleged offenses” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).

“In such instances, the Rules of Court allow the accused to move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial… [A] bill of particulars details items or specific conduct not recited in the Information but nonetheless pertain to or are included in the crime charged” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).

“Its purpose is to enable an accused [to accomplish the following]: to know the theory of the government’s case; to prepare his defense and to avoid surprise at the trial; to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense; and to compel the prosecution to observe certain limitations in offering evidence” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).

If there is a defect in the criminal information or if the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the court shall order an amendment of the information instead of quashing it, as is stated under Rule 117 on the Motion to Quash. The Motion to Quash shall be granted only in the event that the prosecution fails to make the amendment or cure the defect despite the amendment (see Section 4, Rule 117).

Hence, “the general function of a bill of particulars, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, is to guard against surprises during trial. It is not the function of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the prosecution… [nor] to include in the bill of particulars matters of evidence relating to how the people intend to prove the elements of the offense charged…” (Enrile v. People et al., G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015)

THERE’S good news and bad news on the state of Philippine media in the 2023 report by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Its assessment of the popularity of the major news outlets and platforms noted that radio and television “remain the most popular media overall,” with GMA Network having the “dominant audience share,” while “many of the longest established media brands, such as GMA Network and the Philippine Daily Inquirer, have relatively high levels of trust.”

The report said trust in the news has been boosted “to some extent” by the COVID-19 pandemic, with many Filipinos coming to rely more on news media. Philippine media as a whole gained an overall trust rating of 38 percent in 2023 from 27 percent in 2020. Based on the trust scores per brand, GMA Network got the highest at 74 percent, followed by newspapers Inquirer, Manila Bulletin, and the Philippine Star and radio stations dzRH and dzBB, and TV5 network all at 68 percent.

However, the report observed that certain independent media outlets, “respected for their reporting” on people in power, were “often actively” distrusted by supporters of powerful politicians. These media organizations were also subjected to coordinated harassment, the report said.

The report painted a ‘largely grim’ picture of the overall state of Philippine media. But how will the government’s communications team respond to the report?

An example cited was the online news site Rappler, which obtained a trust rating of 47 percent and a distrust rating of 11 percent.

Online sites and social media, the Reuters report added, were the “most popular” sources

Puzzling 180-degree turn

WHAT should we make of Sara Duterte’s recent pronouncement that House Speaker Martin Romualdez had absolutely no part in her decision to run for the vice presidency in the May 2022 national elections?

Here’s what she actually said on June 7: “It was Sen. Imee Marcos who eventually persuaded me to run as vice president—and it was a decision sealed only after President Bongbong Marcos agreed to the conditions I set before running for VP...There was no Speaker Romualdez in the picture.” But in a speech she delivered during the oathtaking of the Leyte congressman in Tacloban last year, Sara expressed her gratitude to Romualdez for being one of her campaign managers: “I made sure that I will be with you today so I can express my thankfulness for your support to my candidacy. And not only that, but for your love, your genuine love of my person.”

And more: I’d like to personally thank, publicly thank, Congressman Martin Romualdez for taking me in (as) Lakas-CMD (Christian Muslim Democrats) and accepting the challenge to be one of my two campaign managers during the last elections… It was not without irritations and challenges, but you did very well.”

The 180-degree turn on her part a year later is puzzling, to say the least.

Observers believe it has politics written all over it. But let’s not speculate on the reasons for her surprising volte-face.

Rather, we should probably listen to what Romualdez’s colleagues in the House have to say on this issue.

Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. (Cavite), former president of the National Unity Party (NUP), said Romualdez has “held his horses and remained focused on his job as the leader of the House of Representatives amid this political rift…He never fired back with insults of his own. That shows strength of character.”

The lawmaker also pointed out that Romualdez “never said a bad thing about the vice president despite being the obvious subject of her vicious insinuations,” adding the Speaker “tremendously helped in pushing for the vice-presidential candidacy of Duterte, who was eventually recruited to join Lakas.” House Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe (Zamboanga City, 2nd District) also vouched for Romualdez’ leadership of the House and his ability to secure “multi-partisan support” and seemingly rise above political discord.

The lawmaker also hinted at “premature partisanship,” saying these are “distractions” to the efforts of the House super majority to quickly pass all of Marcos’ priority measures. For his part, Rep. LRay Villafuerte (Camarines Sur), also a former president of the NUP, emphasized that “improving the lives of all Filipinos, as committed by President Marcos, is the priority in the House on the watch of Speaker Martin in lieu of divisive politics, hence the need for greater unity.”

Then there’s also Rep. Dan Fernandez (Sta. Rosa City), who said Duterte, “who ran and won on a platform espousing unity,” should “join the president in translating this call for unity into action.”

Fernandez, chairman of the House committee on public order and safety, said he agrees with Vice President Duterte in expressing full support for the Marcos administration, but that such declaration is “better fleshed out if it is devoid of political bickering…We should instead work together and keep a laser focus on what needs to be done to ensure a vibrant and prosperous future for all Filipinos.”

In a speech she delivered during the oath-taking of the Leyte congressman in Tacloban last year, Sara expressed her gratitude to Romualdez for being one of her campaign managers

Other House leaders, meanwhile, have reaffirmed their support for the Speaker and would rather help him shepherd priority legislation than engage in political mudslinging.

Senior Deputy Speaker Aurelio Gonzales Jr. cited the 33 bills approved on third and final reading by the chamber and forwarded to the Senate. Only nine of the 42 priority bills remain pending, according to the lawmaker.

Gonzales, who replaced former president Arroyo as senior deputy speaker in the House, lauded the Speaker for what he called a very productive legislative output. “We are focused on matters that are important to our people and to the Marcos administration,” he said.

“One thing is clear: Speaker Martin has created an atmosphere of certainty and trust. His strong, compassionate leadership brought all of us together to work on a single vision: to pass measures focused on achieving a prosperous, inclusive and resilient Philippines,” he noted.

Rep. Johnny Pimentel of Surigao del Sur reminded both administration and opposition lawmakers that “leadership movements” have of news in the country while TV and radio news “remain important” to those who were not online.

TikTok has “grown the fastest” among social media platforms, being accessed now by 21 percent of news consumers compared to only 2 percent in 2020.

But there’s also bad news, with the report saying that Red-tagging, killings, and the use of “lawfare” against journalists have not abated in the country even with the change in the country’s leadership.

The country’s media landscape remained “largely grim” despite the change of administration.

“Attacks on journalists, which escalated during the six-year presidency of Rodrigo Duterte, have not let up since Ferdinand Marcos Jr.” defused “tensions” in the chamber.

According to the report, dozens of violations of press freedom have been recorded under the current administration, with 75 cases monitored between June 2022 and April 2023.

The “systematic Red-tagging” of journalists also persisted, according to the report, targeting those in mainstream and alternative media organizations.

The use of “lawfare” or legal action against Filipino reporters, has also increased, the report said, prompting journalists to seek help from lawyers’ groups in launching “Project Lawfare” to defend journalists from lawsuits.

“Let us not exaggerate this anymore,” he said.

“We have so much work to do in Congress to be able to fulfil the President’s agenda of economic renewal and prosperity for all Filipinos.”

Speaker Martin Romualdez has apparently chosen to keep quiet amid the political tumult and would rather concentrate on the tasks at hand.

He commended the joint efforts of the country’s economic managers, lawmakers, and stakeholders for their contributions to economic and social development.

“As the House amply demonstrated, we remain committed to implementing policies that will further stimulate economic activity, attract investments, and generate employment opportunities for our fellow Filipinos,” Romualdez said, adding distractions would not hamper House efforts to offer appropriate and timely solutions to issues affecting the lives of Filipinos.

(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)

More Opinion Online

(www.manilastandard.net)

Why BBM must stay at DA

IT APPEARS the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) is wasting millions of pesos of public funds for legal fees paid to private lawyers.

The national government is always represented in court cases by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), particularly when an agency of the national government is sued.

This is manifest in cases filed before the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals where the constitutionality of a statute enacted by Congress or an executive order issued by the President of the Philippines is directly challenged.

I know this for a fact, considering that I have already challenged the constitutionality of many statutes, as well as circulars issued by officials of the government before the courts of law.

With respect to criminal cases, it is the Department of Justice (DOJ), through its prosecutors, that investigates criminal complaints and, upon a finding of probable cause, files criminal cases in court in the name of the People of the Philippines. The DOJ prosecutes the criminal case until the conviction of the accused, or his acquittal, as the case may be.

Facing aging with confident grace

Anomaly: BSP hires expensive, private lawyers to prosecute its cases

If the accused is convicted in the trial court and he elevates his case to the Court of Appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, the OSG takes over the case on behalf of the People of the Philippines.

That’s because the OSG is the counsel of the State in all criminal cases pending appeal before higher courts.

Government-owned and controlled corporations, and a number of specialized administrative agencies are, however, defended in court by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), an agency under the DOJ.

Cases handled by the OGCC are mostly civil in nature, like suits involving civil damages or breach of contract.

As far as I know, the OSG and the OGCC do not charge any professional legal fees, or what lay people refer to as “attorney’s fees” from the national government for its legal services.

That’s because it is their duty under the law to serve as the counsel for the government.

That rule notwithstanding, I understand that lawyers from the OSG and the OGCC who appear in court are given a “representation allowance” for their trouble.

This is where the BSP enters the picture. The BSP is arguably the government agency that enjoys the biggest funding in the country, and

While he’s at it, President Marcos should fire Bruce Tolentino, the BSP Monetary Board member who criticized the president’s Kadiwa project last month, but ended up taking back what he said the BSP governor is the highest paid government official in the land.

When incumbent Finance Secretary Benjamin Diokno was still BSP governor under President Rodrigo Duterte, the Commission on Audit (COA) reported that his salaries and allowances for the year 2020 was a whopping P19.79million. Wow!

That amount more than doubled in 2021 when the COA revealed that Diokno received P41-81million likewise in salaries and allowances. He also has extensive perks and privileges as BSP governor!

Pastilan, Dodong! The BSP governor draws a government compensation higher than the official salaries and allowances the President of the Philippines is entitled to! That is an anomaly by itself!

Here’s the bigger anomaly.

The BSP has an extensive legal department with many well-paid lawyers to represent it in court. It may also be represented in court by either the OSG or the OGCC, depending on the nature of the case.

In the course of its operations, the BSP places erring or failing banking institutions under “prompt corrective action”or PCA.

To all intents and purposes, banks placed under PCA are suspended from operating, and its officers are often made to face criminal charges in court.

To prosecute PCA cases, the BSP hires bigtime, expensive private law firms.

Inevitably, the millions of pesos the BSP pays to these expensive private law firms are taken from public funds, to the prejudice of the taxpayers.

Why the BSP hires expensive private law firms when it can be represented by either its own legal department, or by the OSG or the OGCC, is obviously a waste of valuable public funds.

It is an anomalous practice that must be stopped immediately.

Even assuming that the BSP charter allows it to hire expensive private law firms to do its work, the arrangement is still anomalous because it is a waste of public funds.

The arrangement itself encourages graft, in that the BSP is likely to choose its “favorite” private law firms, possibly in exchange for a “valuable consideration.”

Considering the millions of pesos involved here, why isn’t the BSP’s selection and hiring of expensive private law firms subject to the procurement law?

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Congress should end this anomaly.

While he’s at it, President Marcos should fire Bruce Tolentino, the BSP Monetary Board member who criticized the president’s Kadiwa project last month, but ended up taking back what he said.

Highly-paid BSP officials like Tolentino who make reckless public statements against the government do not deserve to stay in office.