Efraim Genuino, The embattled former chair of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp.

(Pagcor), and his children, Erwin and Sheryl Genuino-See, have accused the Department of Justice (DoJ) of discrimination and persecution as they seek the lifting of the hold departure order (HDO) issued against them nearly two weeks ago. Its in violation of the Constitution and there is no law that authorizes the DoJ to issue the HDO and to include any person in the watch list, Ramon Esguerra, one of the lawyers of the Genuinos, told reporters in an interview. Esguerra said that the Genuinos, sooner or later, would have to travel abroad because of their businesses. The lawyer said his clients would never go into hiding and would face the accusations against them squarely. In a letter to Chief State Counsel Ricardo Paras, Esguerra and lawyer Benjamin Santos said the HDO violated the Genuinos right to travel and the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution. We submit that the issuance of the subject HDO, repugnant as it is to the Constitution, is without any justification at this time, and there is no reason to restrict our clients liberty to travel, they said. The lawyers said their clients have no intention to frustrate the ends of justice in any way. The issuance of the subject HDO only causes great prejudice to them. This should not be allowed. Esguerra and Santos said that a preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint filed against the Genuinos by the current Pagcor officials had not even begun. Plunder, malversation Genuino and his children have been given by state prosecutors until Aug. 9 to submit their counteraffidavits on the charges of plunder and malversation filed against them by Pagcor, led by its chair Cristino Naguiat Jr. Naguiat claimed that under Genuino, some P186 million worth of Pagcor funds were misused from 2003 to 2010. Among these was the alleged funding of the Bida party-list group in the 2010 elections wherein See was its first nominee. The lawyers also took note that the HDOs were issued only against the Genuinos and seven of their corespondents when there were 27 of them named in the complaint. This is pure discrimination and a blatant defilement of our clients basic constitutional right to equal protection, they said. Same day The lawyers added that a check with Paras office showed that the chief state counsel issued the HDO on the same day that Naguiat formally sought the same against the Genuinos. Your haste, albeit uncharacteristic and undue, is apparent, they said. In arguing for the lifting of the HDO, the Genuinos lawyers cited a Supreme Court circular that provided that HDOs could be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive

jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and decisions that defined the scopes and limits of the issuance of HDOs. High court circular The lawyers assailed DOJ Circular No. 041-10, which was the basis of Paras issuance of the HDOs against the Genuinos. The circular was issued on June 7, 2010, noting that while the Supreme Court had said that HDOs could only be issued by RTCs, the high tribunal was silent on cases being prosecuted in lower courts and government prosecution offices. The circular gave the secretary of justice, among others, the power to place on the HDO persons who are being investigated by government prosecution offices and courts lower than the regional trial court. Tool for abuse Esguerra and Santos said that the circular can be a tool for abuse as an HDO can be issued with the mere filing of a criminal complaint without waiting for the finding of probable cause or even without the threats against national security, and public health and safety, as noted in a Supreme Court decision as the only basis for executive or administrative authorities to prevent someone from traveling abroad. The circular violates a citizens constitutional right to travel and violates the rights of a person facing criminal prosecution to due process and to be presumed innocent, the lawyers said. Moreover, they lamented that the HDO against the Genuinos highlights the alleged intent and inclination of Paras office to not only prosecute but persecute our clients. The lawyers said they learned that through a department order, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima had assigned two state prosecutors to Pagcor to help it find evidence of probable misuse of its funds. Case build-up In an interview, De Lima defended the department order she issued as one of the policies that was being institutionalized within the DOJ in connection with case build-ups. Thats one of the things I introduced in the department. These are prosecutors different from the prosecutors who will be handling the PI (preliminary investigation) of a particular case. What is questionable is if the same prosecutor or prosecutors who help in the case build-up are also the prosecutors who will be conducting the PI. Then there will be an issue of objectivity and impartiality, she said. De Lima also said that it was the Genuinos right and prerogative if they would want to question the HDO all the way to the Supreme Court. She said the arguments raised by the Genuinos lawyers would be duly considered by Paras office. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net

Enrile: Only Military can Stop Corona Impeachment Trial The Senate is not under any pressure to complete the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, which begins on January 16, within a certain time frame, or to deliver a specific verdict, according to Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile. In a radio interview Sunday, Enrile cautioned both Malacaang and the Supreme Court against meddling in the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice. The Senate President said that no one could dictate terms on him, only God and the people. But he conceded, The only one that can stop us is the might of the military. He said he did not think the high court would heed a petition to issue a temporary restraining order against the Senate trial. It is the Senate that is tasked to conduct the trial and neither the executive nor the judiciary could dictate the outcome or time frame of the exercise, declared Enrile. The Senate President assured the public that he would not side with anyone, saying he respected both the executive branch and the Supreme Court. But I hope they will understand that we were tasked not by the Supreme Court or the executive but by the people to be the judges in this case before us. They should understand and accept this. We will do our job and they cannot meddle, he said in Filipino. President Benigno Aquino IIIs allies in the House of Representatives filed the impeachment complaint against Corona after the Supreme Court issued a restraining order against Malacaangs move to stop former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from leaving the country. What is important for the Senate is to ensure that the impeachment trial is orderly, calm, not rowdy and not rude, and that we would follow the rules. If the process would be quick or slow, that would be the responsibility of the lawyers of the House and the lawyers for the accused, Enrile said. Enrile described as ordinary and natural the bid of Coronas lawyers to seek the dismissal of the impeachment complaint due to its supposed failure to meet Constitutional requirements. If Coronas arguments prove to be right, the Senate has no choice but to return it to the House, otherwise the trial shall proceed, Enrile said. While the Senate will conduct a preliminary hearing on the issue of whether or not the complaint against Corona was complete, this would be a short proceeding, Enrile said. Enrile also said he would not allow chatty lawyers. They must get to the point, he said. Enrile is a former trial lawyer. Titignan ko ang galing ng mga abogadong ito [I will see how good these lawyers are], he said.

Question on Corona UST Degree Linked to Impeachment Questions about the doctorate in law degree that the University of Santo Tomas conferred on Chief Justice Renato Corona last year may be linked to hisimpeachment trial in the Senate, Supreme Court administrator and spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said Monday. It comes at the most interesting time. Maybe its all part of it, Marquez said at a press briefing. However, the court official declined to directly comment on the allegation that Corona earned his doctorate degree, summa cum laude, even without meeting USTs requirements. Academic freedom The UST has already spoken. I hope that puts to rest all the issues surrounding it, Marquez said. Lets leave that to the age-old (educational) institution. It has already answered that and we have to respect the academic freedom of UST. On January 1, the Philippine Daily Inquirer ran a banner story, written by Marites Daguilan Vitug of www.rappler.com, which said that Corona did not submit a dissertation. The story also claimed that he should not have qualified for honors because he overstayed as a doctoral student. Reacting to Vitugs story, UST said the university allowed Corona to submit a requirement equivalent to a dissertationa scholarly treatise on any subject related to his field, to be delivered in a public and eventually published. He dutifully fulfilled these in 2010, UST said. But the university did not answer Vitugs claim that Corona overstayed in the doctoral program and should not have qualified for honors. Reactions online Whether UST broke its own rules in granting Corona his doctorate degree drew diverse reactions online. On Twitter, user @tonyocruz believed it was USTs prerogative: theres no more debate about Coronas doctorate. UST has academic freedom to grant it, in *any* legal manner it sees fit. User @bethangsioco tweeted: I honestly think that CJ Coronas Ph.D. wouldnt have been ds big an issue if UST responded early enuf & if what it did is legit, walang isyu. User @anjo_david: Anong agenda ng rappler para kwestyunin ang Ph.D. ni Corona at ang UST? Makaka-apekto ba ito sa impeachment trial? #justthinking If anything, Vitug should be spared from criticism for putting this out in the open, according to Inquirer.net user Observer18: If not for Ms Vitugs article, we would not know that Corona did not write a dissertation, and his Ph.D. was given after UST bent its own rules If its not for this report, UST would never reveal the truth that it afforded Corona a special treatment. Another user, Tonypogi, shared his opinion on the exchange of both parties: If you read Ms. Vitugs article and compare it to the reply of UST, you will see that all UST did was to cover its behind. What Miss Vitug alleges is that UST made a precedent in especially accommodating the Chief Justice. In so doing, the University broke its own tradition.

UST: CJ Corona Earned PH.D

The University of Santo Tomas (UST) has denied it broke academic rules when it granted a doctorate in law, summa cum laude, to Chief Justice Renato Corona reportedly even without a dissertation and urged the press not to drag institutions like UST to the impeachment controversy. There is no truth to the allegation that the University of Santo Tomas broke its rules to favor Chief Justice Renato Corona who graduated with the degree of Doctor of Laws from the University, UST said in a statement. It added that Corona had enrolled in all of the requisite subjects leading to the doctorate, attended his classes, passed them and delivered a scholarly treatise for his dissertation in a public lecture. UST said it had been declared by the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) an autonomous higher educational institution (HEI) according to the following criteria: long tradition of integrity and untarnished reputation, commitment to excellence, and sustainability and viability of operations. As an autonomous university and no less than the cradle of higher education in the Philippines and the oldest university in Asia, the University of Santo Tomas knows academic rules and sees to their proper observance, said UST, which is closing this month its yearlong quadricentenary celebration. It was founded by the Dominicans in 1611. As an autonomous HEI, the University of Santo Tomas enjoys an institutional academic freedom to set its standards of quality and excellence and determine to whom it shall confer appropriate degrees, said UST. Expanded accreditation Additionally, it said it had been deputized by CHEd to implement the Expanded Tertiary Education Equivalency and Accreditation Program (Eteeap). This means it can grant academic degrees to individuals whose relevant work experiences, professional achievements and stature, as well as high-level, nonformal and informal training are deemed equivalent to the academic requirements for such degrees. It said CHEd had accepted USTs policies and programs to implement the Eteeap when the UST Graduate School conferred a doctorate degree in literature on theater icon, Naty Crame Rogers, who was nominated for the National Artist award. Coronas track record But Coronas doctorate wasnt part of the Eteeap, UST pointed out. It said Corona had the track record as a lawyer, as an academician (he obtained two Masters degrees, one from Harvard University) and as the Chief Justice of the Philippines, and could have easily qualified for the Eteeap. But he did not, UST said. He painstakingly completed the 48 units course work in the Ph.D. in Law curriculum by regularly attending classes and fulfilling all the requirements in the subjects that he took. He also underwent the required written comprehensive examination and passed this with excellent results. Equivalent requirement According to the statement, the UST consultant for graduate law programs had requested that the dissertation requirement be waived for Corona, but the UST Graduate School Faculty Council turned this down. It imposed on the Chief Justice an equivalent requirement: to write a scholarly treatise on any subject related to his field, to be delivered in public and eventually published, said UST.

He dutifully fulfilled these in 2010. The quality and relevance of his paper, his answers to the questions raised during the public forum, and the eventual publication of his paper were all evaluated and for which he was given the necessary credits equivalent to a dissertation. Needless to say, since the university is an autonomous HEI, the other issues raised (his residency, the academic honor he received) are moot because these come under the institutional academic freedom of the University of Santo Tomas, the UST statement said. Rappler.com questioned UST said it did not reply to Marites Vitugs query because it was at a loss on how to respond to online journalism. It added that Vitug should have made the proper disclosure that she has had a run-in with Corona and the Supreme Court that may cast some reservation about the objectivity of her article. Does anyone claiming to be an online journalist given the same attention as one coming from the mainstream press? the statement said. We understand that while Miss Vitug used to be a print journalist, shes part of an online magazine, Newsbreak, which has reportedly been subsumed into www.rappler.com. Whats that? Is that a legitimate news organization? What individuals and entities fund Newsbreak and Rappler? Do these outfits have editors? Who challenged Miss Vitugs article before it went online so as to establish its accuracy, objectivity and fairness? Why was there no prior disclosure made? What gate-keeping measures does online journalism practice? UST side not taken UST added that the Philippine Daily Inquirer should have gotten its side before it rushed to print Vitugs online article virtually word for word and in its New Years edition yet, even adopting her rather judgmental title as banner headline. The university said that while it was being accused of breaking academic rules to favor Corona, the press should also take care not to shortcut its own rules. We also would like to see that rules on fact-checking, objectivity and fairness are observed, so that no reputation, whether of an individual or an institution, is compromised.