The day before the Judgment Day…

haiz, la lng..just want to share…magulo ang araw ko today… maybe it’s because of the sub-conscious feeling of anxiety…i can’t seem to do my thing right…i’ve been trying to read sumthing for the whole day and somehow, i get distracted every now and then…i used to focus well with what I am doing, but today is different. It’s like I want to do so many things at a very little time. I feel like a convict in line to death row…

And yes…tomorrow is the judgment day (release of grades for 1st sem of law school)….and still, i can’t make my student login account work…the heck! I am praying to pass all subjects, and at the same time i don’t want to expect too much and break my heart later on…but i also don’t want to count it in as a failure coz it might come true..hehehe…waaahhh….i am starting to get paranoid for tomorrow. haiz….may God be with all ALS students tomorrow. haiz…haiz…haiz…

Add comment November 8th, 2007

Citizen Joseph Ejercito Estrada

The life of Mr. Joseph Ejercito Estrada is full of surprises and the whole Philippines witnessed the ups and downs he went through in life. From being the famous action star, he entered the world of politics, which made him and broke him, at the same time. I, personally, pity the plight that he had to go through. Many believe that Estrada is, indeed, a good man but was too kind and gullible, thus, was swayed easily by people surrounding him.

He was born in April 19, 1937. His birthplace, Tondo, is one of the poorest parts of Manila, the capital of the Philippines. Took up Engineering at Ateneo de Manila. He was expelled. His family was displeased with his dropping out of college and his involvement in a street gang that they forbade him from using his family name, thus, he adopted the surname “Estrada” (Spanish for ‘road’) as a last name.

He used to work as an ambulance driver before trying his hand on acting. When he entered the showbizness, he often played heroes of the downtrodden classes, which gained him the admiration of a lot of the nation’s many unschooled and impoverished citizens. This later proved advantageous to his political career. He was the first actor to be inducted in the FAMAS Best Actor Hall of Fame of the Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences in 1982. He also became a Hall of Fame awardee as a producer. A double feat that no one has ever achieved such so far. He played the lead role in more than 100 movies, and was producer of over 70 films.

Estrada entered politics in 1967 by running for mayor of San Juan. He came to be known as the ‘Man of the Mass’. He had a heart for the poor and the downtrodded loved him, making him win as the President of the Philippines in 1998. As a President, he faced a lot of criticisms. A lot of people questioned his capabilities to run the country, some even attacked his personal capacity and background, but one thing is for sure, he did really won the 1998 election with the mass support he got. Later in 2001, he was accused for corrupt practices with his involvement in some jueteng money and was imprisoned for six years until his final verdict, which affirmed his conviction last Sept. 12, 2007.

Sandiganbayan declared him not guilty on the count of perjury but was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on his plunder case and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua (or imprisonment of 20 to 40 years, carrying with it the accessory penalty of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon ~ Art. 41 of RPC)

Upon the imposition of the final verdict against the former president, Estrada even told the AFP that he was resigned for the latest drama in his presidency, the last and best performance of all. While the prosecution’s lead counsel Dennis Villa-Ignacio (by beloved professor in Criminal Law 1 at the Ateneo Law School, Rockwell) proudly asserted: “It shows that our judicial system really works.This is the last chance for the state to show that we can do it, that we can charge, prosecute and convict a public official regardless of his stature.”

However, another episode arose from the supposed ending of Mr. Estrada’s story. He was recently granted pardon by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and again many people criticized the grant given to him. From the standpoint of SP Villa-Ignacio, he told us once, in class, that he has no problem with the grant of pardon if ever, it is up to the President. For them, they have proven that there is still justice and that what’s most important is that the money that Estrada got from illegal transactions be recovered and be given back to the the sovereign, where it truly belongs. After all things said and done, the end is yet to be uncovered. We all have to be part of this ending, not by doing protests and creating noise that put no end to controversies, but by starting peace within ourselves. If the real players in the battle can forgive and time can heal, who are we to play the judge. I am no Estrada fan nor a supporter. I was one among the first who condemned and hated him from the day he stepped his foot at Malacañang. But nothing has happened, and nothing will happen if we’ll all stay in one corner and gnashed our teeth in dismay for the government or for the people in the government. We’ll have to step up and take our own roles as part of this State. Mind you, but we all have a role to play (or at least a role not to play). Everyone simply wants peace and order for the nation.

Oppositions may play an important role at times but too much oppositions brings out nothing. Our government is being crippled by too much criticisms that it is no longer able to do its job, which the people elected are well capable of doing, but they can’t because of too much politicking, publicity, criticisms, etc. The People Power we had, indeed proved a lot about the sovereign’s capacity to oust an unwanted or improper official. But even that power, when put into abuse as a threat to all officials, becomes evin in itself. We scare away good servants. We drive away sincere public service. And worst of all, we throw justice away to the pit of greed and self-interest. I am not saying that we should all forgive Estrada and put behind the wrong things he has done to the country. But it might be helpful to look forward than backwards, and help each other to move on and sail the country back on its way. IT IS TIME TO GO! As the former Pres. Estrada has gone away from his jail. It is time for the Philippines to head on from the bad memories of the past. We must all take our role and take the lead…on our own little way.

Add comment October 30th, 2007

It ain’t over ’til it’s over…

Finals is almost done…except for one paper and defense left for thurs…but ‘exams’ is generally over…but i don’t know what exactly to feel about the recent series of exams…maybe i am still stunned with what happened. Things happened so fast and i don’t know if it was ‘fast good’ or ‘fast bad’. heheh…

I’m slowly getting the hang of law school…the world of uncertainty…im coming to realize that law school is indeed a perfect example of the application of everything in philosophy that Loyola school taught its students.

In philosophy, i learned about ‘MERON’, which means plain existence.
‘Ang pagmemeron ng tao na basta na lamang nandyan…pero ano ang meron? Meron bang wala sa meron? Meron bang wala? O maging ang wala ay meron?’ This is where the first discussion on philosophy classes normally revolve…’ANO ANG MERON?’

At the end of it all, after a very thoughtful and almost crazy thinking, it would turn out that the question is simply wrong…because we cannot quantify nor qualify mere existence with the question ‘what’ or ‘ANO?’. That’s how crazy law school is, as it turns out to me…we are made to think things not just out of the box or the books…but even out of this world…but i guess that is what truly makes a good lawyer…being able to anticipate all kinds of attacks. But im telling you, its no joke! We are made to read a pile of readings reaching to one’s waist…to be asked one question regarding an exact phrase from among all those readings…what the heck right? imagine, from all those readings…teachers expect us to remember one single phrase, ‘verbatim’. Duh! But that’s life of law…we have no choice but to strive harder and try to grab all knowledge we can, hoping that the next question would be covered with up to where our studying managed to cover.

This may seem like an exaggeration but this is exactly what we, or at least I, experienced. One sentiment I have is that it is ok for me to read such pile of readings if the question to be asked is at least within the readings. But the sad part is that, sometimes, even though you were successful in reading all the required documents, the question would still not be found there. Or it still needs processing before you can get to the answer…law school requires not only knowledge, but wisdom and understanding… of ALL the matters required…meaning everything in the world. hahaha!

Learning doesn’t stop inside the classroom or the law school. It is only the beginning and is without end…just like ‘MERON’ in philosophy. One must grab all opportunities to learn something new, may it be about things not necessarily connected with law, since law school is about the study of life and living. How people evolve, how they (must) relate to each other, and everything else related to life or living. At the end of it all, the recent finals is not yet final but just the first among the unending series of tests which a law student must take to become a lawyer and will continue until forever, while we are still sane.

I realize that the path I chose to take is no joke…and I am willing to take up the extra-mile, if God permits me…

Add comment October 25th, 2007

LAWYER STORY OF THE YEAR, DECADE AND PROBABLY THE CENTURY.

Charlotte , North Carolina .

A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and
expensive cigars, then insured them against, among
other things, fire.

Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile
of these great cigars and without yet having made
even his first premium payment on the policy the
lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company.

In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were
lost “in a series of small fires.”

The insurance company refused to pay, citing the
obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars
in the normal fashion.

The lawyer sued and WON!

(Stay with me.)

Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the
insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The
judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a
policy from the company, which it had warranted that
the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would
insure them against fire, without defining what is
considered to be unacceptable “fire” and was
obligated to pay the claim.

Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal
process, the insurance company accepted the ruling
and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the
cigars lost in the “fires”.

NOW FOR THE BEST PART..

After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance
company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!

With his own insurance claim and testimony from
the previous case being used against him, the lawyer
was convicted of intentionally burning his insured
property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and
a $24,000 fine.

This is a true story and was the First Place
winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.

Add comment October 24th, 2007

Pirated DVDs For Sale (Ispoof Materials for Persons Report)

Add comment October 23rd, 2007

Gomez vs. Ventura and Board of Medical Examiners (54 Phil. 726)

[G.R. No. 32441. March 29, 1930.]

DOMINADOR GOMEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HONORIO VENTURA, Secretary of the Interior of the Government of the Philippine Islands, and the BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, defendants-appellees.

Jose Varela Calderon, for appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for appellees.

SYLLABUS

1. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; CHARGES AGAINST PRACTICING PHYSICIANS. — The law (sec. 12, Act No. 3111) does not require that the charges against practicing physicians be preferred by a public officer or by any specified person; it even permits the Board of Medical Examiners itself to require its executive officer to prefer said charges. From the wording of the law we infer that any person, including a public officer, may prefer the charges referred to. The fact that the charges were filed by the assistant fiscal of the City of Manila does not deprive the Board of Medical Examiners of jurisdiction to hear said charges and to take the proper action according to law.

2. OPIUM; OPIUM LAW. — The matter contained in section 9 of the Act No. 2381 (Opium Law) as to prescriptions of opium is not foreign to the end pursued in said Act, and in view of the provision of said section it cannot be maintained that Act No. 2381 includes more than one subject. The provisions contained in that section are simply details and means conducive to the ultimate purpose of said Act, which details and means need not be stated in the title of the Act for the very reason that, properly speaking, they are not foreign matter.

3. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; POWERS. — The powers vested in the Board of Medical Examiners to suspend or revoke a physician’s certificate of registration and the authority granted the Secretary of the Interior to confirm or reverse the decision of said board of examiners, partake of a quasi-judicial character, that is, involve the use of discretion. For this reason, the exercise thereof cannot be reviewed by mandamus, which is the nature of this cause on is merits.

 

D E C I S I O N

ROMUALDEZ, J p:

In this cause, the plaintiff prays for judgment, as follows:

“1. Annulling and setting aside the aforementioned investigation proceedings, and particularly the decision of the Board of Medical Examiners of the Philippine Islands dated March 30, 1926, forever revoking the plaintiff’s license to practice medicine and surgery.

“2. Ordering the defendants to restore the plaintiff to his status before the investigation and the decision of March 30, 1926, that is, as if there had never been an investigation and an adverse decision.

“3. Ordering said defendants to issue in favor of the plaintiff a license for the practice of medicine and surgery in the Philippine Islands, such as he had prior to the investigation and adverse decision.

“4. Granting the plaintiff any other proper legal remedy.” (Pages 5 and 6, bill of exceptions.)

The defendants answered with a general denial and prayed that the complaint be dismissed. After trial the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint with costs against the plaintiff.

Counsel for plaintiff contends that the court below erred:

“1. In holding that Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix of the City of Manila was authorized to appear and institute administrative proceedings against Dr. Dominador Gomez before the Board of Medical Examiners of the Philippines.

“2. In not holding that Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix, of the City of Manila, had no personality nor power to institute administrative proceedings against Dr. Dominador Gomez before the Board of Medical Examiners of the Philippines.

“3. In admitting in its decision that section 9 of Act No. 2881, known as the Opium Law, is valid.

“4. In not holding that section 9 of Act No. 2381, known as the Opium Law, is unconstitutional, and therefore null and void.

“5. In holding that section 9 of Act No. 2381, known as the Opium Law, is in force.

“6. In not holding that section 9 of Act No. 2381 has been repealed, even on the supposition that it was valid.

“7. In rendering the judgment appealed from.

“8. In denying the notion for avoidance, and for a new trial, filed by the appellant.”

The first two assignments of error relate to the validity of the charges against the plaintiff, preferred by Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix of the City of Manila, who, according to the plaintiff is not authorized by law to file charges with the Board of Medical Examiners, which therefore acquired no jurisdiction over the matter.

According to section 780 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3111, the procedure to be observed in revoking a certificate of registration is the following:

“Proceedings for revocation of a certificate of registration shall be begun by filing a written charge or charges against the accused. These charges may be preferred by any person or persons, firm or corporation, or the Board of Medical Examiners itself may direct its executive officer to prepare said charges. Said charges shall be filed with the executive officer of the Board of Medical Examiners and a copy thereof, together with written notice of the time and place when they will be heard and determined, shall be served upon the accused or his counsel, at least two weeks before the date actually fixed for said hearing.” (Sec. 12, Act No. 3111.)

The law does not require that the charges be preferred by a public officer or by any specified person; it even permits the Board of Medical Examiners itself to require its executive officer to prefer said charges. From the wording of the law we infer that any person, including a public officer, may prefer the charges referred to in the abovequoted provision. Wherefore, the fact that the charges were filed by Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix of the City of Manila, does not deprive the Board of Medical Examiners of jurisdiction to hear said charges and to take the proper action according to law.

The appellant contends in his third and fourth assignments of error that section 9 of Act No. 2381 is null and void on the ground of unconstitutionality, since said section is foreign to the subject of said Act, in violation of section 3 of the Jones Law prohibiting the enactment of any bill embracing more than one subject and providing that the subject be expressed in the title of the bill.

Our opinion is that the matter contained in section 9 of Act No. 2381 is not foreign to the end pursued in said Act, and that in view of the provision of said section it cannot be maintained that Act No. 2381 includes more than one subject. The penalty provided in said section for the physician or dentist who prescribes opium for a patient whose physical condition does not require the use of said drug, is one of the means employed by the Legislature to attain the purpose of Act No. 2381, which is, to prohibit unnecessary use of opium; it is one of the details subordinate to the purpose in view. Such punishment is not the end contemplated in Act No. 2381, but, as we have just said, it is a means employed to regulate the use of opium.

In passing said Act No. 2381, the Legislature merely exercised the police power expressly granted by the Act of Congress of March 3, 1905, for the protection of the health, comfort, and general welfare of the people of the Philippine Islands.

“ID.; ID.; POWER OF PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE TO LEGISLATE UPON THE SUBJECT. — The Philippine Legislature is expressly authorized by the Act of Congress of March 3, 1905, to adopt legislation upon the importation and sale of opium in the Philippine Islands. The purpose of such legislation was to protect the health, comfort, and general welfare of the people of the Philippine Islands. Such legislation was an exercise of the police power of the State.” (United States vs. Wayne Shoup, 35 Phil., 56.)

And, as we have stated, the provisions contained in section 9 of Act No. 2381 relative to physicians and dentists, are simply details and means conducive to the ultimate purpose of said Act, which details and means need not be stated in the title of the Act for the very reason that, properly speaking, they are not foreign matter.

“The general purpose of these provisions is accomplished when a law has but one general object, which is fairly indicated by its title. To require every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishment of this general object to be provided for by a separate act relating to that alone, would not only be unreasonable, but would actually render legislation impossible.” (Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, pp. 296-297.)

“The constitutional requirement is addressed to the subject, not to the details of the act. The subject must be single, the provisions, to accomplish the object involved in that subject, may be multifarious. . . . None of the provisions of a statute will be held unconstitutional when they all relate, directly or indirectly, to the same subject, have a natural connection, and are not foreign to the subject expressed in the title. As very frequently expressed by the courts, any provisions that are germane to the subject expressed in the title may properly be included in the act.” (I Sutherland on Stat. Const., par. 118.)

In order to hold that section 9 of Act No. 2381 is unconstitutional on the ground alleged by the plaintiff, the violation of the constitutional provision must be substantial and manifest. It is not so in the case at bar.

“2. To warrant the setting aside of statutes because their subjects are not expressed in the titles, the violation of the rule must be substantial and plain.” (Posadas vs. Menzi, Decision of the United States Supreme Court, page 388, No. 11, May 15, 1929, United States Supreme Court Advance Opinions.)

At all events the validity of this Opium Law, Act No. 2381, has already been upheld by this court, not only in the above cited case, United States vs. Wayne Shoup, supra, but also in the subsequent case of United States vs. Jao Li Sing (37 Phil., 211).

Passing to the fifth and sixth assignments of error, wherein counsel for appellant contends that even granting that section 9 of Act No. 2381 is valid, it was repealed by Act No. 2493 and later by section 780 of the Administrative Code, we note, first, that there is no express repeal of section 9 of Act No. 2381. Secondly, it cannot be held that it has been impliedly repealed, for the reason that the provisions of section 9, Act No. 2381, are neither contrary to, nor incompatible with, the provisions of section 780 of the Administrative Code, as amended. Upon this point, we approve and adopt the following statements made by the trial judge:

“Counsel contends, in support of the above, that Act No. 2493 being complete, and ‘covering the field’ by implication repealed all laws relating to the practice of medicine, powers of the Board of Medical Examiners and allied matters; hence, the said law, expressly providing the causes for revocation of medical licenses, necessarily excluded all others, even though embodied in prior enactments.

“Act No. 310 provided that the Board of Medical Examiners could revoke licenses for ‘unprofessional conduct,’ without defining the term. Act No. 1761 (the Opium Law) provided that illegally prescribing opium should be cause for revocation of medical licenses. Clearly, the Opium Law did not repeal Act No. 310. Act No. 2381 — also an Opium Law — in its section 9, repeated the provision as to doctors and dentists. The repetition did not repeal Act No. 310. Act No. 2493, section 11 (Ad. Code, sec. 780), provided that certificates of physicians are revokable for ‘unprofessional conduct,’ without defining the phrase. In other words, so far as revocation of licenses is concerned, Act No. 2493 is a mere reënactment of Act No. 310. The reënactment of the said portion of Act No. 310 did not repeal section 9 of the Opium Law. If said section 9 has been repealed, it must be by Act No. 3111, which amends Act No. 2493 (Ad. Code, sec. 780), by an addition after the words ‘unprofessional conduct’ of the following:

“‘The words “unprofessional, immoral, or dishonorable conduct” as used in this chapter shall be construed to include the following acts: (1) Procuring, aiding or abetting a criminal abortion; (2) advertising, either in his own name or in the name of any other person, firm, association, or corporation, in any written or printed paper, or document, of medical business in which untruthful or improbable promises are made, or being employed by, or in the service of any person, firm, association or corporation so advertising, or advertising in any obscene manner derogatory to good morals; (3) habitual intemperance or addition to the use of morphine, opium, cocaine, or other drugs having a similar effect; (4) conviction of a crime or misdemeanor involving dishonorable conduct; and (5) willfully betraying a professional secret.’

“It cannot be seriously contended that aside from the five examples specified there can be no other conduct of a physician deemed ‘unprofessional.’ Nor can it be convincingly argued that the Legislature intended to wipe out all other forms of ‘unprofessional’ conduct theretofore deemed grounds for revocation of licenses. The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius should be applied only as a means of discovering legislative intent and should not be permitted to defeat the plain indicated purpose of the Legislature. It does not apply when words are mentioned by way of example, or to remove doubts. (See Cyc., 1122.) If, therefore, there exists ‘unprofessional conduct’ not specified in the laws, with more reason does the criminal use of opium remain a specific cause for revocation of license.” (Pages 11, 12 and 13, bill of exceptions.)

As to the seventh and eighth assignments of error, we find the judgment appealed from correctly rendered, and the motion of avoidance and new trial properly denied.

As the Attorney-General correctly observes, the powers vested in the Board of Medical Examiners to suspend or revoke a physician’s certificate of registration and the authority granted the Secretary of the Interior of confirming or reversing the decision of said board of examiners, partake of a quasi-judicial character, that is, involve the use of discretion. For this reason, the exercise thereof cannot be reviewed by mandamus, which is the nature of this cause on its merits.

“As in the case of courts and judicial officers, it is a rule of general application that mandamus will, not lie to review or control the acts of executive officers and boards of state and federal governments in respect of matters as to which they are vested with discretion. In other words, they cannot be compelled to act or render a decision in any particular way, and this is so, even though the exercise of this discretion requires the construction and interpretation of statutes. Where public officials exercise their discretion, it is said that their conclusions, although disputable, are impregnable to mandamus.” (38 C. J., 659-660.)

That this action is really a mandamus proceeding, appears clearly from the terms of the complaint filed herein.

Finding no merit in the assignments of error, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Villamor, J., reserves his vote.

Add comment September 21st, 2007

Statutory Construction, here we come…

Finally…after 3 resets for the midterm schedule on Statutory Construction, the agony is going to end today…so what does Construction mean? Nahh..not the building…Statutory Construction, as defined in Caltex vs. Palomar, is “an art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where the intention is rendered doubtful, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in law.”

The minds of our legislators are but finite and cannot encompass all possible cases into the statutes or laws they enact, thus, there are times where the law is ambiguous in its applicability to certain cases, and so we need construction and interpretation. Laurel’s book on Statutory Construction defines construction as “the drawing of conclusions with respect to subjects that are beyond the direct expressions of the text, from the elements known and given in the text, while interpretation is the process of discovering the true meaning of the language used.” The interpretation goes to explain and dig deeper the meaning of the text or languages used while construction goes beyond the language and tries to see the intent of the framers and whether the case falls within the ambit of the law.

The very long case of Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit ng mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc. points out the steps in interpreting the content of laws, namely, (1) Verba Legis or the plain meaning of the text as how a normal individual would interpret and understand it, (2) Ratio Legis Est Anima or through digging up the intent of the framers when they constructed the law, (3) Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat, meaning the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and other parts of the Constitution must be looked upon in order to see the real meaning and intent of a law, and lastly, (4) it may be determined by looking through the plethora of cases or jurisprudence as to how such law was interpreted.

Statutory Construction is trying to listen to what the law really tell.

2 comments August 17th, 2007

May tatalo ba dito? heheh ^_^

1. I couldn’t care a damn!

2. What’s your next class before this? (wag na lang kaya tayong pumasok?)

3. Nothing in this world is perfect except the word “change”

4. Can you repeat that for the second time around once more from the top? (redundant ba ito?)

5. My dad brought home a lot of hand-me-downs! (Translation: Daming
pasalubong ng tatay ko…)

6. Standard and Chartered Bank

7. I’m very iterated!!! (ha? ok.)

8. I’m sorry, my boss just passed away. (translation: kakadaan lang ng boss nya…)

9. Hello, my boss is out of town. Would you like to wait? (now why didn’t i think of that?)

10. What happened after the erection of Mayon Volcano? (they had babies?)

11. Don’t touch me not! (e di wag)

12. Hello?… For a while, please hang yourself… (suicide hotline?)

13. It’s spilled milk under the bridge.

14. Don’t change anything! Keep it at ease. (yeah… right)

15. Hello McDo? Mag-i-inquire lang ako kung magkano ang kidney meal? (yung pang-batang pagkain…)

16. You!!! You’re not a boy anymore! You’re a man anymore!

17. Out of fit ako these days eh… (translation: di sya nakakapag-exercise. ..)

18. Come, let’s join us!

19. Bring down the house down!

20. I’m the world champion of the World!!!

21. Beneath the Belt! (malalim nga to)

22. Can you repeat it once again?

23. Mukhang haggard-looking. (stresstabs lang yan)

24. Do you have more brighter ideas?

25. Halatang obvious naman yata.

26. Wag ka nang photo-conscious! (or camera-shy ba dapat yon?)

Add comment August 14th, 2007

MGA SABLAY NA HIRIT…

“Well well well. Look do we have here!”

“It’s a no-win-win situation.”

“Burn the bridge when you get there.”

“Anulled and void.”

“Mute and academic.”

“C’mon let’s join us!”

“If worse comes to shove.”

“Are you joking my leg?”

“It’s not my problem anymore, it’s your problem anymore.”

“You can never can tell.”

“Been there, been that.”

“Forget it about it.”

“Give him the benefit of the daw.”

“It’s a blessing in the sky.”

“Right there and right then.”

“Where’d you came from?”

“Take things first at a time.”

“You’re barking at the wrong dog.”

“You want to have your cake and bake it too.”

“First and for all.”

“Now and there.”

“I’m only human nature.”

“The sky’s the langit.”

“That’s what I’m talking about it.”

“One of these days is not like the other.”

“So far, so good, so far.”

“Time is of the elements.”

“In the wink of an eye.”

“The feeling is actual.”

“For all intense and purposes.”

“I ran into some errands.”

“Hi. I’m , what’s yours?”

“What is the world is coming to?”

“What is the next that is?”

“Get the most of both worlds.”

“Bahala na sila sa mga batman nila.”

“Whatever you say so.”

“Base-to-base casis.”

“My answers have been prayered.”

“Please me alone!”

‘It’s as brand as new.”

“So… what’s a beautiful girl like you?….”

“I can’t take it anymore of this!”

“Are you sure ka na ba?”

“Can’t you just cut me some slacks?”

Add comment August 14th, 2007

MESSAGE TO THE INCOMING 2007 FRESHMEN

By: Dean Cesar L. Villanueva

I formally welcome each of you to the Ateneo Law School.

Although each of you have an individual basis for choosing to be in the Ateneo, there can be no doubt that you are in for an entirely new, and ultimately life-changing, experience under the Juris Doctor (J.D.) program of the Law School. Since its introduction in the Philippine legal educational system in 1988 and with its first graduates in 1991, the J.D. program has shown remarkable consistency and excellence in the field of legal education: highest passing percentage in the annual Bar Examinations (with always an Atenean in the top ten placers); awards and honors in international moot court competitions; annual crop of leading legal articles embodied in the J.D. theses, and annual public service by J.D. students through clinical legal education, apprenticeship and human rights internship. The J.D. curriculum has become the gold-standard in legal education in the country.

But being in the Ateneo Law School comes with a heavy price. The rigors and demands of the program would take its toll on many of you: long hours of studies, almost unbearable course loads, and sometimes almost unbearable professors. There are those among you who have never received a failing mark in life, who will come out more than satisfied with receiving passing grades in some of the heavy courses. There are many of you who will realize soon enough that past honors, achievements and distinctions in high school or college would amount to nothing, and cannot overshadow your daily output and grind in the Law School. The Ateneo program would demand from each you so much more than what you thought you could possibly give; to reach out beyond what you thought was possible to reach; to become the best of what you possibly can be as a person.

Why is the Ateneo Law system seemingly so harsh, and at times, almost unforgiving? Each of you are asked to join the ranks of “Atenean lawyers� faithful to the Mission of the Law School: to be “men and women not only skilled in the science and art of the law, but also imbued with a burning passion for justice and the fervent series to serve others.� The Law School demands from each of you “intellectual rigor in the tradition of Jesuit education . . . a thorough grasp of the nature and ends of law, the ability to express legal conviction in forceful oral and written communication, and sensitivity to the role of law as an interment of service towards individuals and of social engineering.�

If during the study of the Law you cannot make the ultimate sacrifice of losing yourself into the becoming the best law student you possible can and then more, then there is little hope that as a professional you would be the best lawyer to champion justice for your clients and for our society. Not many of you can make that transformation: many are called but few are chosen. For those of you who will dedicate their whole being to making that happen, four years from now you shall find yourself in the rank of a select group of Atenean men and women who upon receiving their Ateneo diploma would know by their whole being that the have, if they so wish, the capacity to change Philippine society.

I bid you God’s blessings into a journey that you have embarked on. You must be willing to let your old self die in the process of studying law in the Ateneo, for it is only in such dying that you can transform yourself God’s instrument for bringing good into the legal world.

Add comment August 8th, 2007