Statement
I accept the wisdom of the Supreme Court to suspend me for one year. All lawyers are under the disciplinary power of the Court and I am no exception.
Back in 2018 to 2019, I was fighting for the life and liberty of my brother. And my family’s safety and reputation.
I felt helpless and powerless except for my small voice on social media. We were nobodies and I was screaming against the void.
If being suspended is the price I have to pay for defending my family, then it is a price I will pay in any lifetime.
I recognize that words, contained in a tweet, have power and my choice of words should have consequences. All lawyers should be held accountable for their words and actions.
That is why I prostrate myself to the Supreme Court for disciplining me and in the same vein, I beg the Honorable Court to resolve the pending disbarment cases of former President Rodrigo Duterte and Vice President Sara Duterte, to show that indeed, no one is above the law.
And to our dear Senator-Judges, if a lawyer like me can be suspended for cursing, then a Vice President like Sara Duterte should likewise be answerable not just for cursing but for threatening the life of the President and the First Lady.
Accountability should apply to all, big or small.
#Accountability
The Supreme Court handed down a one-year suspension to Atty. @jesusfalcis.
His offense? A 2018 tweet where he fiercely defended his brother by using vulgar language (“Paky* kayo mga g*ga”!).
The High Court ruled it as simple misconduct and declared that the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) strictly mandates lawyers to maintain dignified language, even on personal social media accounts.
Okay, if the baseline for "dignity of the profession" is THAT strict, how on earth is Vice President Sara Duterte, who is also a lawyer, still holding onto her law license?
If we are talking about actual violations, her verbatim, public receipts are entirely unhinged.
Let us enumerate some:
1. Sara Duterte didn't just casually throw bad words around.
In her streamed press briefings, she completely abandoned any shred of professional decorum and screamed on live broadcast:
“P*tang ina mo BBM! P*tang ina mo Liza! P*tang ina mo Martin! P*tang ina ninyong lahat!”
“Binastos pa nila sa pagsisinungaling nila na kesyo taksil, kesyo corrupt, abusado. P*tang ina ninyo, sino ang corrupt?”
2. Let's NEVER forget when she was a city mayor and an active member of the bar.
Instead of upholding the law, she literally used a court sheriff as a human punching bag!
She grabbed him and repeatedly punched him in the face and head on camera just for executing a lawful court order.
Kagalang-galang yarn?
3. She openly admitted on live television to hiring an assassin to target the country's top leaders if a supposed plot against her succeeded:
“I’ve talked to a person. I said, if I get killed, don’t stop until you k*ll BBM, Liza Araneta, and Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke."
4. She casually bragged during a press conference about threatening to desecrate a former president's remains:
“Isang beses, sinabihan ko talaga si Sen. Imee. Sabi ko sa kanya, kung hindi kayo tumigil, huhukayin ko 'yang tatay ninyo, itatapon ko siya sa West Philippine Sea!”
5. She publicly detailed her thoughts of extreme physical violence against the sitting president:
“I wanted to remove his head. I realized the relationship was already toxic... [I] just imagine myself cutting his head."
An ordinary attorney gets a one-year suspension for typing profanities on Twitter to protect his sibling.
Meanwhile, a high-profile lawyer and the sitting Vice President can publicly brag about hitmen, look at a camera to detail cutting off the President's head, threaten to dig up a former president’s corpse, physically assault a court sheriff, and scream “p*tang ina ninyong lahat" on live broadcast with zero professional consequences!
Hello, IBP? Ano na?
The CPRA allows you to initiate disbarment proceedings motu proprio when a lawyer's misconduct is THIS flagrant and very public!
The rules apparently apply to everyone except her.
Time to strip her of that license!
###
Sibakin si Jonvic Remulla
Litisin si Sara Duterte
Arestuhin si Bato Dela Rosa
Patalsikin si Alan Peter Cayetano
SLAP them for slapping the Filipino people in their faces.
#ParaSaPilipinas
'SINO BA ANG PINOPROTEKTAHAN NG SENADO NGAYON? HINDI BA ANG PANSARILI NILANG INTERES?'
Economist and former finance undersecretary Cielo Magno lashes out against the Senate on Wednesday for supposedly protecting senators with vested interests. | via @edjreports
Facebook post ni Dean Mel Sta. Maria:
CAN ANY SENATOR BE ARRESTED INSIDE THE SENATE PREMISES FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?
YES. The reasons can easily by explained.
FIRST. Is the Senate building being rented? If yes, then the people are paying for the rental. Is the Senate building owned by the government? If yes, then it belongs to the People. There is no law expressly making the premises of the senate a safe haven for fugitives or those charged with the commission of a crime.
SECOND. No senator has any proprietary interest in that building. No senator owns it. It is not a fortress designed to protect erring people from authorities or a foreign embassy where Philippine Law has waived jurisdiction. A criminal or a fugitive from justice can be arrested inside the building.
THIRD. A senator is only immune from arrest while the Senate is in session and if the penalty of the alleged crime is below six (6) years imprisonment. According to Republic Act No. 9851, crime against humanity where death occured is punishable by reclusion perpetua ( 40 years).
FOURTH. Republic Act No. 9851 provides that the Philippines can allow an international tribunal to investigate or try a persons charged of crime against humanity if it is already investigating or trying such persons and, if need be, deliver the said persons to the tribunal. ( Section 17) . This is in accordance with the generally accepted principle of law declaring that crime against humanity is a universal crime. By the way, generally accepted principles of law according to our constitution are adopted by our country as part of the law of the land.
FIFTH. The warrant of arrest of the ICC is valid. The bill of rights of the Constitution provides that no one can be arrested without a warrant of arrest issued by a judge. The word "judge" is not qualified and hence it can refer to a local judge or a foreign judge whose jurisdiction the Philippines has accepted.
SIXTH. Crime against Humanity involves an international element where the Executive Department must be given the greatest respect in its determination and enforcement. Foreign policy, peace and order, apprehension of a fugitive are executive functions. The Legislature should not interfere in the performance of such executive functions as this would violate the separation of powers.
SEVENTH. NBI personnel are within their rights to run after a fugitive from justice or persons charged with a crime. Also, there is a presumption of regularity of government enforcements.
EIGHT. The Senate must NOT coddle and protect a fugitive. That is obstruction of justice. No one is above the law.
NINTH. There is no law expressly providing a so-called " Senate Protective-Custody" as an exemption to the enforcement of a warrant of arrest.
TENTH. Unless stopped by the Supreme Court, the enforcement of a valid arrest must proceed. No one is above the law.