February 7, 2017

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno

Supreme Court

Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind Delorino

Office of the Court Administrator

RE: On the Night Court Protest

I am the one and only first level court Judge who challenged the legality of
night court operations that existed for decades under six (6) former Chief
Justices (1991 - 2012).

I did not commit Gross Insubordination, Gross Misconduct and Violation of

Code of Judicial Ethics on my night court protest.

A legal complication in the issuance of the questioned Administrative Order

19-2011 that to follow it will expose me as a Judge to criminal liability for
violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(a), to quote:

RA No. 3019, Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to

acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful: XXX

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an

act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by
competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of
the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commit such violation or offense. XXX

Also, to follow it will expose me as a Judge to administrative liability under

Republic Act No. 6770, Section 19 that provides:

Administrative Complaints. — The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints

relating, but not limited to acts or omissions which:

(1) Are contrary to law or regulation;

(2) Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;
(3) Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency's functions,
though in accordance with law;
(4) Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts;

i
(5) Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose;
or
(6) Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.

I will not subscribe to the arguments of four judges and seventy court
employees to follow first an illegal order before protesting because of
Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3 (a) and Republic Act No. 6770,
Section 19 (1,2,3,4,5 and 6).

The night court operation is illegal.

Some of the rights of the accused who were charged with cases covered by
the Summary Procedure are impaired by the operation of night courts. The
1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure provides the procedure to be
followed in commencing a criminal action. Under Section 12 thereof, it
states: " xxx (b) If commenced by information . - When the case is
commenced by information , or is not dismissed pursuant to the next
preceding paragraph, the court shall issue an order which, together with
copies of the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the prosecution,
shall require the accused to submit his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of
his witnesses as well as any evidence in his behalf, serving copies to the
complainant or prosecutor not later than ten (10) days from receipt of said
order. The prosecution, may reply affidavits within ten (10) days after receipt
of the counter-affidavits of the defense. In view of this, the accused cannot
be immediately arraigned on the same day,' of his arrest at night. Neither
can this Court order the arrest of the accused for the purpose of his
arraignment at night. Section 16 of the same Rule declares:" The Court shall
not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever
required. Release of the person arrested shall be either on bail or on
recognizance by responsible citizen acceptable to the court." Neither can
the police officers apprehend and detain the accused charged with cases
covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure for the sole purpose of
attending the hearing at night by the court without being liable for Arbitrary
Detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code. Said article
provides the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period ( 4 months and
1 day to 6 months) to prision correctional in its minimum period (6 months
and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months) of imprisonment, if the detention shall
not exceed in three (3) days, committed by a police officer or employee who
detains a person without any legal ground. There is no legal basis to detain
the accused by the police officer at night before the night court opens to
hear the cases because the accused is not required to post bail at all.

The night inquest without the corresponding release of the accused charged
with cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure is questionable
exposing the public prosecutor to criminal and administrative liabilities.
Inquest is an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public
prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained

2
without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose
of determining whether or not said persons should remain under custody
and correspondingly be charged in court (Section 1, DOJ Circular No. 61 ,
September 21, 1993). The inquest prosecutor determines the legality of the
warrantless arrest of an arrested and detained person. When the
warrantless arrest was improperly made, the inquest prosecutor shall,
among others, recommend the release of the arrested and detained person.
On the other hand, when the warrantless arrest was properly made, the
inquest prosecutor shall inform the arrested and detained person if he wants
to avail a preliminary investigation, in which case, he shall execute a waiver
of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. If the said
arrested and detained person did not avail a preliminary investigation or did
not execute a waiver, the inquest prosecutor shall proceed with the inquest.
If the inquest prosecutor finds probable cause, he shall prepare the
information which shall indicate the offense committed and the amount of
bail recommended, if bailable. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
Court effective January 1, 1985 as amended in 1988 and October 1, 1994,
Rule 113, Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful - "A peace officer
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) when, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been
committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and (c ) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling
under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7." When a person
is lawfully arrested without a warrant for an offense cognizable by the
Regional Trial Court the complaint or information may be filed by the
offended party, peace officer or fiscal without a preliminary investigation
having been first conducted, on the basis of the affidavit of the offended
party or arresting officer or person. However, before the filing of such
complaint or information, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary
investigation by a proper officer in accordance with this Rule, but must sign
a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended(Section 7, Rule 112, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure Court
effective January 1, 1985 as amended in 1988 and October 1, 1994).

Under the Old Rule, it is silent as to the person arrested without warrant for
an offense cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Court or first level courts.
Thus, it necessarily follows that inquest can be conducted only on cases
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. The Rules on Criminal Procedure
was amended in 2000. The provision of Rule 112, section 11 was also
amended which read as follows: "When a person is lawfully arrested without
a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation,
the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of

3
such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance
with existing rules, xxx Before the complaint or information is filed, the
person arrested may ask for a preliminary , investigation in accordance with
this Rule, but he may sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, xxx After the filing of the complaint or information in
court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5)
days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for preliminary investigation
with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this
rule." What are the cases subject to preliminary investigation under the New
Rule? The answer is in Rule 112, Section 1 that states:" a preliminary
investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or
information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least
four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. "
Under the Old Rule, the offense covered is six (6) years or more. Thus, now
the inquest can be conducted only where the penalty is four (4) years, two
(2) months and one (1) day and above. Thus, the public prosecutors cannot
conduct inquest of the night arrests of the suspected criminals because the
penalty involved in cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure is
not more than six (6) months.

The jurisprudence of Luz vs. People, G.R. No. 797788, February 29,
2012 supported one of the legal arguments of my letter dated February
2,2011 to court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez and a letter dated
February 11, 2011 addressed to former Department of Tourism Secretary
Alberto Lim. In this landmark case, it was held:

XXX under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and traffic Code, the
procedure for dealing with traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender but
the confiscation of the driver's license of the latter. At the time that he was
waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket, petitioner could not be said
to have been "under arrest.” There was no intention on the part of PO3
Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him into custody. Prior
to the issuance of the ticket, the period in which at the police station may be
characterized merely as waiting time. In fact, as found by the trial court,
PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason they went to the police
substation was that petitioner had been flagged down "almost in front" of
that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they were
waiting there. There was no intention to take petitioner into custody. It also
appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012,which was violated by
petitioner, the failure to wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is
penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need
not be issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized
by a fine only. It may be stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless
arrest be made for such an offense. Now to relate this jurisprudence with
the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, one of the offenses under
the same Rules is violation of traffic laws, rules and regulations [Section 1,
B (1)
RRSP] that is covered by A.O. No. 192011. XXX Therefore, the arrest and
detention of nighttime violators of traffic law, rules and regulations for

4
the night court operation under A.O. No. 19-2011 are illegal.

The Office of the Pasay City Prosecutor filed an Omnibus Motion 1. to

withdraw the motion to set for arraignment / hearing; and 2. to admit
amended information dated August 11, 2011 to prove that there is no
bail required for cases covered by Rules on Summary Procedure thus
there can be no hearing of accused arrested and detained during
nighttime, it is illegal to conduct night court hearing. The copy of the
motion was previously submitted to the Office of the Court
Administrator. My court also issued an Order dated August 15, 2011
granting said motion copy furnished to Assistant Court Administrator
Thelma Bahia. The copy of the order was previously submitted to the
Office of the Court Administrator.

The motion to set for arraignment / hearing was for night court, it was
withdrawn because the lawyer for the accused questioned the Office of the
City Prosecutor why his client was detained when he was accused with
criminal cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure where no bail
required. I remembered he threatened to sue the Office of the City
Prosecutor about it.

Under Section 1, Rule XVII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of

the Administrative Code of 1987, heads of department or agencies are
mandated to require all officers and employees under him to strictly observe
the prescribed government office hours. Likewise, Section 5, Rule XVII of
the same Omnibus Rules stipulates that: "Officers and employees of all
departments and agencies, except those covered by special laws, shall
render not less than eight (8) hours of work a day for five days a week or a
total of forty (40) hours a week, exclusive of time for lunch. As a general
rule, such hours shall be from eight o'clock in the morning to twelve o'clock
noon and from one o'clock to five o'clock in the afternoon on all days except
Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays." The foregoing provisions of law lay the
ground rules on government officer hours. It mandates an eight-hour daily
work schedule, or a total of forty hours a week, for all government
employees, exclusive of the lunch break. With due respect, the night
court duty gravely violated this rule.

In PNB vs. PEMA and CIR, G.R. No. L-30279, July 30, 1982: Why is a
laborer or employee who works beyond the regular hours of work entitled to
extra compensation called in this enlightened time, overtime pay? Verily,
there can be no other reason than that he is made to work longer than what
is commensurate with his agreed compensation for the statutorily fixed or
voluntarily agreed hours of labor he is supposed to do. When he thus
spends additional time to his work, the effect upon him is multifaceted: he
puts in more effort, physical and/or mental; he is delayed in going home to
his family to enjoy the comforts thereof; he might have no time for

5
relaxation, amusement or sports; he might miss important prearranged
engagements; etc., etc. It is thus the additional work, labor or service
employed and the adverse effects just mentioned of his longer stay in his
place of work that justify and is the real reason for the extra compensation
that he called overtime pay. Overtime work is actually the lengthening of
hours developed to the interests of the employer and the requirements of
his enterprise. It follows that the wage or salary to be received must likewise
be increased, and more than that, a special additional amount must be
added to serve either as encouragement or inducement or to make up for
the things he loses which we have already referred to. And on this score, it
must always be borne in mind that wage is indisputably intended as
payment for work done or services rendered. With due respect, the night
court duty gravely violated this jurisprudence.

However, none of the judges and court personnel reporting for night court
duties can avail of overtime pay because of Sections 278 and 283, Chapter
4, Volume I, Government Accounting and Auditing Manual for lack of
urgency of work completion. A night court duty is a violation of constitutional
rights under Article II, Section 18 and Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987
Constitution.

Judges and court personnel ordered to render night court duties from 4:30
p.m. to 11:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday are not paid with overtime pay by
the Office of the Court Administrator.

There is no proof the four Judges and sixty-two court personnel

rendered night court duties pursuant to Administrative Order No. 19-
2011. For accepting city allowance in the amount of more or less
P2,000 per month without rendering night court duties, because they
did not submit the proofs of attendance like the copies of the calendar
of night court cases, court orders issued during nighttime, time cards
and attendance sheets to the Office of the Court Administrator and the
Office of the City Mayor. There are also eyewitnesses for their non-
attendance. We witnessed that there are no judicial workers at 6:00
p.m. and onwards during the days (Monday and Wednesday) I taught
at University of Pasay in 2011. They did not stay in the night court from
4:40 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. thereby they violated Administrative Order No.
19-2011.

The four Judges and sixty-two court personnel violated:

Republic Act No. 3019 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In

addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing
law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and
are hereby declared to be unlawful: XXX (e) Causing any undue injury to
any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to

6
officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with
the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. XXX

RA No. 3019, Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to

acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:

(а) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an

act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by
competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of
the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commit such violation or offense. XXX

Republic Act No. 6770, Section 19, Administrative Complaints. — The

Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited to acts or
omissions which:

(1) Are contrary to law or regulation;

(2) Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;
(3) Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency's functions,
though in accordance with law;
(4) Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts;
(5) Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose;
or
(б) Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.

Our court submitted Night Court Duties Attendance Sheets from July
8, 2011 until October 7, 2011 to the Office of the Court Administrator
prove that there are no hearings conducted by night court when there
are public funds disbursed by the Office of Pasay City Mayor thereby
prejudicing the State in violation of:

Republic Act No. 3019 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In

addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing
law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and
are hereby declared to be unlawful: XXX

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions. XXX

Our court staff who signed the night court attendance sheets and who
allowed themselves to be persuaded, induced, or influenced with night court

7
duties of the Office of the Executive Judge violated:

RA No. 3019, Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to

acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an

act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by
competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of
the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commit such violation or offense. XXX

The letter of transmittal received by Assistant Court Administrator

Thelma Bahia on October 13, 2011 and the Night Court Duties
Attendance Sheets from July 8, 2011 to October 7, 2011 were
previously submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator.

The night court operations were suspended upon the recommendation

of Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez that was approved by
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno according to the news report by
Manila Standard Today on January 26, 2015. The printout of the news
report was previously submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator.
Thus, there are no factual and legal bases to penalize me for writing the
night court protest copy furnished to the concerned parties as part of due
process because they can also be subjected to administrative, civil and
criminal liabilities on night court operations.

The legal philosophy of following first an order that is patently illegal is

wrong and unjust, it contrary to numerous jurisprudences that an illegal act
is void, it produces no legal effect. Let’s say Honorable Court Administrator
Jose Midas Marquez issued an administrative circular that orders all Judges
to impose bail to all accused charged with offenses covered by the Rules on
Summary Procedure during nighttime arrest, it is wrong to follow first the
illegal order before protesting it. Another example is Honorable Chief Justice
Maria Lourdes Sereno’s administrative order to jail all accused whose cases
are covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure when no bail is required,
it is wrong to follow first the illegal order before protesting it. It’s similar to an
order to kill all nighttime violators by the Supreme Court, Judges have to
follow it first by killing them then protesting later, this is definitely illegal and
irrational. Judges kept killing nighttime violators until the death toll reached
10,000, they will not stop until there’s order to stop killing by authorities who
granted their protests. What is the point of protesting when I already
followed the illegal order under protest? Then the protest will be moot and
academic because of the compliance of the protested act whether legal or
illegal.

As to writing to my protest letter to former Honorable Department of Tourism

8
Secretary Alberto Lim, it is not prohibited by the Constitution, statute or
jurisprudence.

There is nothing illegal to address the night court protest letter to

former Honorable Department of Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim
because he is the requesting authority on the implementation of the
night court operation. He is one of the major stakeholders of the night
court operations. He has in his power, the right to request for the withdrawal
of the night court duties upon finding any merit of my protest letter to him.
Another reason why I wrote to him was because my first letter dated
February 2, 2011 to the Honorable Court Administrator Jose Midas
Marquez was disregarded as proven by timeline of events. The Office
of the Executive Judge made night court assignments on February 9,
2011 that I received on February 11, 2011 thus I wrote a letter dated
February 11, 2011 to the Office of the Secretary of the Department of
Tourism. A copy of the Memorandum of the Office of the Executive Judge
dated February 9, 2011 with date of my receipt on February 11, 2011, same
date of my night court protest letter to the former Honorable Department of
Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim was previously submitted to the Office of the
Court Administrator to prove lack of bad faith on my part because my writing
to him is really to ask help to withdraw his request for night court duties. As
a lowly ranked Judge, I thought about former Honorable Department of
Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim who may be able to change night court duty
as evidenced by my letter asking him to reconsider.

The OCA, four Judges and seventy court personnel failed to present proof
that the protest letter to night court was ill-motivated when written and given
to it, OCJ, DOT and SIDMS, Pasay Station, the latter two (2) are
stakeholders in the establishment of the night court thus these institutions
deserve to be informed of the legitimate grounds of opposing it from me, as
a judge who is directly affected with its implementation without any study
conducted and as a Filipino citizen who has a civic duty to do so, on behalf
of the public whose interest is at stake, especially that government funds
are disbursed for the night court operation that lacked legality, rationality
and productivity. There are no law and jurisprudence that prohibit the writing
of the protest letter to OCA, OCJ, DOT and SIDMS, Pasay thus there is no
legal basis to penalize me for doing it in the interest of the public.

There is no violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for writing a

protest letter with words “ineffective and non-functional”, “a waste of time for
all”, and “a form of exploitation for workers” among others because the
words employed are constitutionally protected speech, those words are
found in Philippine jurisprudences. There is no proof presented by OCA,
four Judges and seventy court personnel that those words are
intended to denigrate the Office of the Chief Justice and the Office of
the Court Administrator. The words in the protest letter to the night court
are reasonable that should not be sanctioned, otherwise, it is infringement
of one’s constitutional right to free speech that will give rise to torts and
damages under our New Civil Code.

9
My letter to former Honorable Department of Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim
is not sanctionable because it is protected by the following legal doctrines:
(1) The Doctrine of Supremacy of the Constitution; (2) Doctrine of
Marketplace of Ideas; (3) Doctrine of Privileged Communications; (4) The
Principle of Totality and the Spirit of the Letter; (5) The Weight of Evidence
and Burden of Proof; and (6) The Doctrine of the Exercise of Judicial
Restraint. All the seventy-four complainants failed to submit any proof
of bad faith on my part to write the night court protest letter.

In A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, October 12, 2010, when Honorable Justice

Mariano Del Castillo was charged with an administrative case that involves
intellectual dishonesty, he was exonerated and his case dismissed because
of absence of disreputable motives, with more reason in this administrative
matter on night court case, I was charged with an administrative case that
involves intellectual honesty, I must be exonerated and my case be
dismissed because of absence of disreputable motives, too. I am entitled to
the judicial liberality given to Honorable Justice Mariano Del Castillo. There
must be no double standard of justice.

All the seventy-four complainants failed to present proof that I was

impelled with disreputable motives in writing the night court protest
letter to the Department of Tourism and SIDMS, Pasay that are major
stakeholders. If I wrote the night court protest letter to the Department of
Agriculture or Department of Environment and Natural Resources, I must be
dismissed and disbarred. It is not so in this case.

The elements of Insubordination are:

(1) There is refusal to obey;

(2) The refusal to obey is willful or intentional;

(3) The willful or intentional refusal to obey must be characterized by a

wrongful and perverse attitude; and

(4) There is lawful and reasonable order of superior officer (Micro Sales
Operation Network vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 155279, October 11, 2005, 472
SCRA 328, 335-336).

10
There was no refusal to obey because I have a night court protest.
Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 47, Pasay City court employees reported to
night court duties. . There was no proof presented by complainants about it.

There was no willful and intentional disobedience because my night court

protest has legal bases. My letter to the Honorable Office of the Court
Administrator said that I will report for night court duty once I receive a copy
of Your Honors’ Decision on my protest. There was no proof presented by
complainants about it.

There was no willful or intentional refusal to obey that must be characterized

by a wrongful and perverse attitude because my night court protest has
legal bases. There was a legal justification for it. There was no proof
presented by complainants about it.

The elements of Gross Misconduct are:

(1) There must be corruption;

(2) Clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule
must be manifest;

(3) The intention to violate the law of flagrant disregard of the established
rule must be manifested.

Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an

official who unlawfully or wrongfully uses his station or character to procure
some benefit for himself, contrary to the rights of others (See Salazar, et al.
vs. Sheriff Barriga, A.M. No. P-05-2016, April 19, 2007, 521 SCRA 449,
453-454).

There was no corruption on my protest to the night court case. There was
no proof presented by complainants about it.

11
There was no clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
established rule that was manifested on my protest to the night court case.
There was no proof presented by complainants about it.

There was no intention to violate the law of flagrant disregard of the

established rule that was manifested on my protest to the night court case.
There was no proof presented by complainants about.

There is absence of proofs of all the elements for Gross Misconduct and
Gross Insubordination.

Also, my night court protest is an exception to Himalin vs. Balderian, AM

No. MTJ-03-1504 because the factual settings of our case are different
from it, that my protest must be resolved first before I am required to follow it
please. In the landmark case of Ynot vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74457, March 20,
1987, the Supreme court notes that "if the petitioner had not seen fit to
assert and protect his rights as he saw them, this case would never have
reached us and the taking of his property under the challenged measure
would have become a fait accompli despite its invalidity. We commend him
for his spirit. Without the present challenge, the matter would have ended in
that pump boat in Masbate and another violation of the Constitution, for all
its obviousness, would have been perpetrated, allowed without protest, and
soon forgotten in the limbo of relinquished rights. The strength of democracy
lies not in the rights it guarantees but in the courage of the people to invoke
them whenever they are ignored or violated. Rights are but weapons on the
wall if, like expensive tapestry, all they do is embellish and impress. Rights
as weapons must be a promise of protection. They become truly meaningful
and fulfill the role assigned to them in the free society if they are kept bright
and sharp with use by those who are not afraid to assert them" in this
particular administrative charge.”

Thank you.

Judge Eliza B. Yu

12