1) Should the government adopt a media blackout as an exception to the

freedom of the press in times of highly critical-sensitive situations?

YES:
In a world of capitalism, Media unrestrained will never sacrifice a good scoop.
Remember ABS CBN justified, "di naman kami binawalan ng mga pulis".
In the recent Hostage crisis at Intramuros, many have commented that there should
have been a media blackout. Obviously, the aired coverage of the failed operations
have irked the ire of many Chinese and other people all over the world, all of these
caused by the alleged medias irresponsible live telecast of the hostage crisis.
There are many ways to honor the freedom of the press and the right to information
without the media unintentionally meddling in or aggravating crisis situations. An
example: News of the loss of over 4,000 lives when UK ship RMS Lancastria was
sunk during the war was voluntarily suppressed to prevent it affecting civilian morale,
but was published after it became known overseas.
Media blackout refers to the censorship of news related to a certain topic, for any
reason. A media blackout may be voluntary, or may in some countries be enforced
by the government or state. The latter case is controversial in peacetime, as some
regard it as a human rights violation and repression of free speech.
Media blackouts are used, in particular, in times of declared war, to keep useful
intelligence from the enemy. In some cases formal censorship is used, in others the
news media are usually keen to support their country voluntarily as in the UK D-
(later DA-) Notice system in the Second World War.
Some examples of media blackout would include the media bans of southern Japan
during the droppings of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the lack of
independent media correspondence from Iraq during the Persian Gulf War, and the
media blackouts in totalitarian states like China that frequently take place when
embarrassing events transpire.
During World War II, the US Office of Censorship sent messages to newspapers and
radio stations, which were acted on by recipients, asking them not to report any
sightings or explosions of fire balloons, so the Japanese would have no information
on the balloons' effectiveness when planning future actions. As a result the
Japanese only learned the fate of one of their bombs, which landed in Wyoming, but
failed to explode. The Japanese stopped all launches after less than six months. The
press blackout in the U.S. was lifted after the first deaths from fire balloons, to
ensure that the public was warned, though public knowledge of the threat could have
possibly prevented the deaths.
A media blackout was used during the 2005 New York City transit strike to allow for
more effective contract negotiation between the two sides of the dispute.
[5]
Most
typically, the more freedom of the press that any particular country has, and the
more sensational the story, the more likely it is that at least one news organization
will ignore the "blackout" and run the story.
The 2008 abduction of Canadian journalist Mellissa Fung was given a media
blackout out to assure her safe return. All media sources obliged making the
Canadian public unaware of the fate of Fung.
In football, a press or media blackout is also referred to as a silenzio stampa
(literally press silence) from the corresponding Italian phrase. It specifically refers to
when a football club or national team and the players refuse to give interviews or in
any other way cooperate with the press, often during important tournaments, or
when the club feels that the media does not depict the club and their activities in an
objective way. The phrase silenzio stampa was born during the 1982 FIFA World
Cup, when the Italian team created a news blackout due to rumors and untrue
stories circulating in the press.
Media blackout is obviously practiced in our more advanced brother nations in the
international community. It is done not to suppress any constitutional right, but
understandably for the good of their constituents and their country. In most crisis
situations, theres no more time to filter or choose what matters must be telecast or
not. The safest and most prudent measure during such situations is to have a media
blackout be imposed. This is also done to get everyone out of the way, which
includes mediamen who almost always get in the way of rescue operations, then
wash their hands when something goes wrong because of their contributory
interference.


NO:
Theres no need to kill the mosquito with a cannonball. Media blackout is not the
exact solution to such crisis situations, as it would be too drastic and almost
inhumane. We only need to have reasonable boundaries to also accommodate the
constitutional right of the freedom of the press. Strong and clear guidelines must be
laid on the table as constraints to our media and at the same time as the sufficient
basis to penalize those who cross the line.
On June 22, 2009, when news came that New York Times reporter David Rohde
had escaped from his Taliban captors, few knew he had even been kidnapped,
because for the seven months he and two Afghan colleagues were in the Taliban's
hands, The Times kept that information under wraps. Out of concern for the
reporter's safety, The Times asked other major news organizations to do the same;
NPR was among dozens of news outlets that did not report on the kidnapping at the
urging of Rohde's colleagues. Kelly McBride, who teaches ethics to journalists at the
Poynter Institute, says she was "really astounded" by the media blackout. "I find it a
little disturbing, because it makes me wonder what else 40 international news
organizations have agreed not to tell the public," she tells NPR's Melissa Block.
McBride says the blackout could hurt the credibility of news organizations. "I don't
think we do ourselves any favors long term for our credibility when we have a total
news blackout on something that's clearly of interest to the public," she says.

Some media critics have questioned whether the 2000 Wichita Massacre received
little to no coverage in the mainstream media due to political correctness regarding
the race of the perpetrators and the victims. Such critics also cite the 2007 Murders
of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Media blackout was done during the Marcos regime. We were not informed of all the
evil doings of the Marcoses cronies until a brave intellectual by the name of Benigno
Aquino stood up against them and attracted medias attention and unintentional
cooperation. He was a dead man walking right from the start of his dream. Point is,
due to media blackout, our country was in the dark as to the mysterious
disappearances of vigilantes, the unconscionable amassing of wealth by the
Marcoses which was unbelievably exponential and accumulated unknown to us all,
and the widespread abuse of peoples rights in many parts of our nation which went
on, unnoticed by the world.
A hot issue now in the US is the Gulf spill at Houston, Texas. As posted at
newscaster Glenn Beck:
Why is the media being kept from covering the BLACK PANTHERS oil spill?
Here are a few things. First, a pilot wanted to take a photographer from the Times-
Picayune of New Orleans to snap photographs of the oil slicks blackening the water.
Response from a BP contractor who answered the phone last month of the
command center was swift and absolute. Permission denied.
OK. All right. That's the contractor. I think I understand that. What about the
government? The New York Times reported that the owner of the seaplane that was
set to go out with a photographer - he said, "We were questioned extensively, who
was on the aircraft, who did they work for. The minute we mention the media, the
answer was, 'Not allowed.'"
The Times article continued, "Last week, Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida,
tried to bring a small group of journalists with him on a trip that was taking he was
taking them through the gulf on a coast guard vessel. Mr. Nelson's office said the
coast guard agreed to accommodate reporters and camera operators. But at about
10:00 p.m. in the evening before the trip, someone from the Department of
Homeland Securities Legislative Affairs Office called the senator's office to tell him
that no journalist would be allowed."
America, the founders knew that the republic could not stand without checks and
balances, without three equal branches the judicial, the legislative and the
executive branch. But you also needed a free press.
Checks and balances. We have the most radicalized president this nation has ever
seen. And the media is not telling you that they are being forced to sit on the
sidelines in the biggest national disaster in this country's 234-year history.
You get the picture.
Media blackout, as can be deduced from the examples of those who concur with it,
was used only at the most extreme of circumstances. If we refer to the recent
hostage crisis staged at Intramuros, the media could have been restrained, their
telecast filtered, but to have ordered a complete media blackout would have sent a
bad message to Hongkong and to the rest of the world who were all watching. It
would give out the wrong signal; that the government is hiding something, as
claimed by the media at the US regarding the oil spill. Many theories would be
formulated, there might be some who would take advantage of the situation to create
a rally or commit acts of terrorism. The possibilities are endless. The solution is to
set limits on live telecasts, not a media blackout.



2) Should drunk driving be made a criminal offense?
YES.
Sec. 56 of Republic Act 4136, as amended by PD 1950 did not alter the provisions
regarding drunk driving, and provides for the penalty:
(f) Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor or narcotic drug, a fine
of not less than two hundred pesos or more than five hundred pesos, or
imprisonment of not more than three months, or both, at the discretion of the Court.
This provision may be so far the statutory punishment for drunk driving, without
prejudice to local ordinances in some Local Government Units containing additional
penalties or fines for such offense.

In a country where the most popular Filipino athlete endorses its most popular beer,
(Paccquiao and San Miguel Beer) the drunk-driving offense of Mel Gibson seems
less controversial than his vitriolic, anti-Semitic outburst at law-enforcement officials
who accosted him.

But the United States government takes drunk driving very seriously. Gibson is, in
fact, facing criminal charges for driving under the influence of alcohol and having an
open container of liquor in his car.

Driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) is considered a
crime in every state in the US. Just to clarify though, driving after consuming alcohol
is not necessarily illegal unless the persons ability to drive is impaired, as defined by
law. Driving while having an open container of liquor inside the vehicle is, however,
an outright violation in certain jurisdictions, obviously in Malibu, where Gibson was
arrested.

Gibson was caught speeding, and so, regardless of whether there was an open
container of liquor in his car or not, he had to be tested as mandated by US laws. In
the US, if the police see you driving erratically or violating traffic laws, they can
automatically submit you to various tests, which determine the amount of alcohol in
your blood. A blood-alcohol test by means of a "breathalyzer" and/or urine sample is
expressed in terms of milligrams of alcohol per milliliters of blood, or as a
percentage. (10 mg/100 ml = 0.01 g/100 g = 0.01%). I think most, if not all, US states
have an illegal limit of .08%. I believe Gibson was determined to have .12 percent of
alcohol in his blood.

Here in the Philippines, there are also drunk-driving ordinances in most cities, with
penalties that include fines, suspension of ones driving license and jail terms. But,
as we all know, enforcement is not as strict as it is in the US.

Ex-President and now Pampanga Congressman Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is
pushing for House Bill 382, which she co-authored with son Camarines Sur
Representative Diosdado Dato Arroyo, to penalize drunk driving. Five similar bills
were filed authored by Diwa partylist Representative Emmeline Aglipay, Eastern
Samar Representative Ben Evardone, Iloilo Representative Augusto Syjuco,
Antipolo Representative Romeo Acop, and Pasay City Representative Imelda
Calixto-Rubiano.

In 2009, Arroyo said statistics in the country showed a 6.2-percent increase in
alcohol-related road accidents resulting to death, physical injuries and damage of
properties.

While other countries have institutionalized their policy regarding driving under the
influence of alcohol (DUIA), the Philippines has seemingly remained reserved and
lenient in punishing drunk drivers, she said.

The provisions in Republic Act 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code are
insufficient in defining what constitutes drunk driving.

Under the proposed measure, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUIA) Act of
2010, a person can be charge of drunk driving when operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated or when the drivers blood alcohol concentration level is 0.06 or more.

It also provides that every applicant for a drivers license shall complete a course on
driving and safety matters including the hazards of driving under the influence of
alcohol.

All drivers involved in vehicular accidents resulting to loss of lives or serious physical
injuries will be subjected to chemical tests for the presence of alcohol.

The bill imposes a penalty of P5,000 and two months suspension of driver's license
for first offense. For second offense, the penalty shall be P6,000 in fine and three
months suspension of drivers license. For third offense, the penalty shall be P7,000
and six months suspension of drivers license and for succeeding offenses, the
penalty shall be P7,000 and automatic revocation of drivers license.

Foreigners often make comments that drunk-driving laws here are a joke. Its also a
culture thing, they say. Filipinos take pride in being able to hold their liquor. They say
it seems to be a macho thing for most Filipino males to be able to drink and drive,
mocking the popular admonition, "Dont drink and drive."

Technically, theres not even a national law against drunk driving. If I recall correctly,
Senate President Manny Villar introduced a bill for the purpose when he was still
chairman of the Senate finance committee. Under his bill, Villar proposed that
persons found guilty for the first time of drunk driving must face a suspension of their
drivers license for one year and be made to pay a fine of P1, 000. On the second
offense, a fine of P5, 000 and a five-year suspension of the drivers license will be
imposed. I dont recall the bill having gone past the committee level though.

In Makati, Jejomar Binay wants to be stricter not only against drunk driving but also
"drugged driving." Last year the Makati City Council passed an ordinance imposing a
fine of P2, 500 or imprisonmentor bothon persons who drive their vehicles while
under the influence of drugs or liquor.

The city government acquired testing kits to be used in checking the blood-alcohol
level of intoxicated or drugged drivers. Suspected drivers can also be taken to the
Ospital ng Makati, which now conducts testing on a 24-hour basis. So Makati traffic
officers dont need to rely only on physical manifestations of being intoxicated or
drugged, which might not be able to hold up in court when cases are filed against
those caught red-handed. Just like in the US, the testing is mandatory if you are
caught violating traffic or driving errantly.


NO.
To begin with, how do law enforcers determine if drivers are driving over the legal
limit here? How many cities and municipalities equip their traffic enforcers with
breathalyzers, for instance? Are they capable of conducting blood tests to determine
if the driver is over the statutory amount? Or do they just rely on smelling drivers,
judging their conduct, language (slurred speech, e.g.) and motor movements to
determine if they are indeed drunk?

In Makati, drivers who register a .13-percent blood alcohol level are considered unfit
to drive and will be charged according to the drunk-driving ordinance. Interestingly,
Gibson would not have been legally drunk in Makati. (Maybe, Filipinos really have a
high tolerance for alcohol, otherwise how do you explain the more lenient standards
for blood alcohol tests?)

Has the city ordinance encouraged more people in Makati to drink moderately and
more responsibly? Obviously, it hasnt put a stop to drunk driving altogether. That
might be an impossible task. But even making a dent on the drunk-driving culture
would take time, relentless enforcement coupled with a serious information drive.

Binay directed the Makati Police Department, the citys Department of Public Safety
and the barangays to strictly enforce the ordinance, particularly in the vicinity of
Makatis bars and entertainment establishments. Bar owners were asked to inform
their clients about the ordinance against drunk driving, and its corresponding
penalties.

Apparently, the advisories failed to reach former Pangasinan congressman Ranjit
Shahani, who figured in a car accident in Makati some time ago. Ranjit was allegedly
drunk when he rammed another car head-on. Worse, he could only present an
expired students license (way back in 1992) to the responding officers. Obviously,
there was an internal settlement afterwards.

This, along with many other similar incidents, only highlights the need for a strongly
enforced drunk-driving law that would lead to fewer alcohol-related accidents and
fatalities. Making it a crime would be timely if our traffic enforcers, not only in certain
cities but nationwide if possible, were equipped with appropriate gear to effectively
apprehend violators. Making this violation a crime without proper implementation
would definitely amount to failure in dealing with the problem.



4) Should nation-states be obliged to give asylum as part of international
responsibility?
YES.
Right of asylum (or political asylum, Greek: [1]) is an ancient juridical
notion, under which a person persecuted for political opinions or religious beliefs in
his or her own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, a foreign
country, or Church sanctuaries (as in medieval times). This right has its roots in a
longstanding Western traditionalthough it was already recognized by the
Egyptians, the Greeks and the HebrewsDescartes went to the Netherlands,
Voltaire to England, Hobbes to France (followed by many English nobles during the
English Civil War), etc.; each state offered protection to foreign persecuted persons.
Political asylum is similar, but not identical, to modern refugee law, which deals with
massive influx of population, while the right of asylum concerns individuals and is
usually delivered in a case-to-case basis. There is overlap between the two because
each refugee may demand political asylum on an individual basis.
Many ancient peoples, including the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Hebrews,
recognized a religious "right of asylum," protecting criminals (or those accused of
crime) from legal action to some extent. This principle was later adopted by the
established Christian church, and various rules developed to qualify for protection
and just how much protection it was.
The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the
1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation
concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where
repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the defoul
refugee) is a person who is outside their own country's territory (or place of habitual
residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected
grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or
participation in any particular social group or social activities.
Since the 1990s, sexual persecution has come to be accepted in some countries as
a legitimate category for asylum claims, when the claimant can prove that the state
is unable or unwilling to provide protection.
The December 10, 2003 law has limited political asylum in France, giving two main
restrictions:
it invented the notion of "internal asylum": the request may be rejected if the
foreigner may benefit from political asylum on a portion of the territory of the
state
the OFPRA (Office franais pour la protection des rfugis et apatrides -
French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons [2]) now
makes a list of allegedly "safe countries" which respect political rights and
principles of liberty. If the demander of asylum comes from such a country,
the request is treated in 15 days, and receives no social assistance
protection. They may contest the decision, but this does not suspend any
deportation order. The first list, enacted in July 2005, included as "safe
countries" Benin, Cape Verde, Ghana, Mali, Mauritius Island, India, Senegal,
Mongolia, Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia and Croatia. It had the effect of reducing
in six months by about 80% the number of applicants from these countries.
The second list, passed in July 2006, included Tanzania, Madagascar, Niger,
Albania and Macedonia.
[2]

Thus, although the right of political asylum has been conserved in France in spite of
the various anti-immigration laws, it has been restricted to some extent. Some
people claim that, apart from the purely judicial level, the bureaucratic process is
also used to slow down and ultimately reject what might be considered as valid
requests. According to Le Figaro, France granted 7,000 people the status of political
refugee in 2006, out of a total of 35,000 requests; in 2005, the OFPRA in charge of
examining the legitimacy of such requests granted less than 10,000 from a total of
50,000 requests.
[3]

Numerous exiles from South American dictatorships, in particular from Augusto
Pinochet's Chile and Argentina, were received in the 1970s-80s. As a current
example, since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, tens of homeless Afghan asylum
seekers have been sleeping in a park in Paris near the Gare de l'Est train station.
Although their demands haven't been yet accepted, their presence has been
tolerated. However, since the end of 2005, NGOs have been noting that the police
separate Afghans from other migrants during raids, and expel in charters those who
have just arrived at Gare de l'Est by train and haven't had time to make the demand
for asylum (a May 30, 2005 decree requires them to pay for a translator for helping
them in official formalities.)
In the 19th century, the United Kingdom accorded political asylum to various
persecuted people, among whom were many members of the socialist movement
(including Karl Marx). With the 1845 attempted bombing of the Greenwich Royal
Observatory and the 1911 Siege of Sidney Street in the context of the propaganda of
the deed anarchist actions, political asylum legislation was restricted.
The United States honors the right of asylum of individuals as specified by
international and federal law. A specified number of legally defined refugees, who
apply for refugee status overseas, as well as those applying for asylum after arriving
in the U.S., are admitted annually.
The laws of state responsibility are the principles governing when and how a state
is held responsible for a breach of an international obligation. Rather than set forth
any particular obligations, the rules of state responsibility determine, in general,
when an obligation has been breached and the legal consequences of that violation.
In this way they are "secondary" rules that address basic issues of responsibility and
remedies available for breach of "primary" or substantive rules of international law,
such as with respect to the use of armed force. Because of this generality, the rules
can be studied independently of the primary rules of obligation. They establish:
(1) the conditions for an act to qualify as internationally wrongful,
(2) the circumstances under which actions of officials, private individuals and other
entities may be attributed to the state,
(3) general defences to liability and
(4) the consequences of liability.
Traditionally, the term "state responsibility" referred only to state responsibility for
injuries to aliens. It included not only "secondary" issues such as attribution and
remedies, but also the primary rights and duties of states, for example the asserted
international standard of treatment and the right of diplomatic protection. Early efforts
by the League of Nations and private bodies to codify the rules of "state
responsibility" reflected the traditional focus on responsibility for injuries to aliens.
[3]

The League's 1930 Codification Conference in The Hague was able to reach an
agreement only on "secondary" issues such as imputation, not on substantive rules
regarding the treatment of aliens and their property.
According to the Draft Articles, an internationally wrongful act must:
be attributable to the state under international law; and
constitute a breach of an international obligation of the state.
"Breach of an international obligation" is defined as "an act ... not in conformity with
what is required ... by that obligation. The obligation may derive from a treaty, from
custom, or from a general principle of law. Furthermore, the state cannot avoid
responsibility by declaring something legal under its own domestic law.
Before a state can be held responsible for any action, it is necessary to prove a
causal connection between the injury and an official act or omission attributable to
the state alleged to be in breach of its obligations. This has become an increasingly
significant contemporary issue, as non-state actors such as Al Qaeda, multinational
corporations, and non-governmental organisations play greater international roles,
and as governments privatise some traditional functions.
The state is responsible for all actions of its officials and organs, even if the organ or
official is formally independent and even if the organ or official is acting ultra vires.
Persons or entities not classified as organs of the State may still be imputable, when
they are otherwise empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority, and
act in that capacity in the particular instance. Persons or entities not performing
public functions may equally be imputable, if they in fact acted under the direction or
control of the State. Where there is a breakdown of normal governmental authority
and control, such as in so-called "failed states", the actions of those acting as the
"government" in a de facto sense will be acts of the state. The acts of an
"insurrectional or other movement that becomes the new government of an existing
state or succeeds in establishing a new state" can also be attributed to the state.
This is also the case where a state acknowledges and adopts the conduct of private
persons as its own.

NO.
Some

believe that the development in the 20th century of bilateral extradition treaties
has endangered the right of asylum, although international law considers that a state
has no obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, as one principle
of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its
borders. Indeed, a state granting the right of sanctuary to an asylee will summarily
and categorically reject a request of the country they fled from to extradite them,
regardless of any extradition treaty. This is due to the fact that to be granted
sanctuary by a state indicates that the state granting sanctuary regards the asylee
as being illegally persecuted by the nation they fled from. Rendering the true victim
of persecution to their persecutor is a particularly odious violation of a principle
called non-refoulement, part of the customary and trucial Law of Nations.
A corollary of this principle is that the granting of asylum is tantamount to accusing
(or at least strongly implying that) the nation an asylee fled from is illegally
persecuting the asylee, and thus the granting of asylum by one state to a citizen or
citizens of a particular state may be considered an unfriendly deed by the country
the asylee(s) fled from, and retaliation, through the exercise of the right of reciprocity
or the right of reprisal may occur. For example, the Government of Cuba has granted
asylum to a number of persons that the Federal Government of the United States
considers domestic terrorists or criminals. This has caused outrage in the United
States, and resulted in the Federal Government of the United States listing Cuba as
a state sponsor of terrorism. Similar grievances exist on the Cuban side, with the
United States having granted asylum to a number of individuals which the
Government of Cuba considers criminals, traitors, or terrorists, possibly as an
exercise of the right of reciprocity, or the right of reprisal; however, the Government
of Cuba apparently has not added the United States to its list of state sponsors of
terrorism - if it indeed keeps such a list, though Fidel Castro has certainly named the
United States and its leaders as "terrorist(s)" or the equivalent on numerous
occasions.
As noted in the article specifically about asylum and refugees in the United States,
since World War II, more refugees have found homes in the U.S. than any other
nation and more than two million refugees have arrived in the U.S. since 1980.
During much of the 1990s, the United States accepted over 100,000 refugees per
year, though this figure has recently decreased to around 50,000 per year in the first
decade of the 21st century, due to greater security concerns. Still, of the top ten
countries accepting resettled refugees in 2006, the United States accepted more
than twice as many as the next nine countries combined. As for asylum seekers, the
latest statistics show that 86,400 persons sought sanctuary in the United States in
2001.
Despite their generosity, there are serious problems with the U.S. asylum and
refugee determination processes. A recent empirical analysis by three legal scholars
described the U.S. asylum process as a game of refugee roulette; that is to say that
the outcome of asylum determinations depends in large part on the identity of the
particular adjudicator to whom an application is randomly assigned, rather than on
the merits of the case. The very low numbers of Iraqi refugees accepted between
2003 and 2007 exemplifies concerns about the United States' refugee processes.
The Foreign Policy Association reported that "Perhaps the most perplexing
component of the Iraq refugee crisis... has been the inability for the U.S. to absorb
more Iraqis following the 2003 invasion of the country. To date, the U.S. has granted
less than 800 Iraqis refugee status, just 133 in 2007. By contrast, the U.S. granted
asylum to more than 100,000 Vietnamese refugees during the Vietnam War."
Despite their apparent concreteness, the international standards stated in some
rules regarding state responsibility as to aliens involve important ambiguities, and
their application will often require significant fact-finding and judgment. Most rules
state responsibility involving private acts already arise under primary rules. For
example, environmental and human rights agreements require states to prevent
abuses by private parties.
If the general elements to establish state responsibility are established, the question
arises as to whether any defences may be available to the respondent state.
The breach of an international obligation entails two types of legal consequences.
Firstly, it creates new obligations for the breaching state, principally, duties of
cessation and non-repetition, and a duty to make full reparation. Article 33(1) of the
Draft on State responsibility of the US characterises these secondary obligations as
being owed to other states or to the international community as a whole. These
articles indirectly acknowledge in a savings clause also that States may owe
secondary obligations to non-state actors such as individuals or international
organisations.
Second, the articles create new rights for injured states, principally, the right to
invoke responsibility and a limited right to take countermeasures. These rights,
however, are heavily state-centred and do not deal with how state responsibility is to
be implemented if the holder of the right is an individual or an organisation. The
principal element of progressive development in this area is Article 48, which
provides that certain violations of international obligations can affect the international
community as a whole such that state responsibility can be invoked by states on
behalf of the larger community. This provision picks up on the ICJ's celebrated
suggestion in Barcelona Traction that some obligations are owed erga omnes,
toward the international community as a whole.
[19]

If illegal actions are continuing, the state has a duty to cease. The state also has
duties to make reparation, which could involve restitution, compensation, or
satisfaction. Remedies will be dependent on the particular forum, such as the United
Nations, International Court of Justice, World Trade Organisation, International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, International Criminal Court.
Including the provision on asylum as part of international responsibility would make
countries hesitant of entering into treaties, and would surely put stress on the
international relationships between and among countries. Without proper guidelines
and clear boundaries as to the rules on asylum, the international community will be
on its toes every now and then due to refugees and how they must be treated.

5) Should the government bailout banks and financial institutions?
Yes:
A bailout is an act of giving capital to an entity (a company, a country, or an
individual) that is in danger of failing, in an attempt to save it from bankruptcy,
insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin; or to allow a failing entity to fail gracefully
without spreading contagion.
A bailout could be done for mere profit, as when a predatory investor resurrects a
floundering company by buying its shares at fire-sale prices; for social improvement,
as when, hypothetically speaking, a wealthy philanthropist reinvents an unprofitable
fast food company into a non-profit food distribution network; or the bailout of a
company might be seen as a necessity in order to prevent greater, socioeconomic
failures: For example, the US government assumes transportation to be the
backbone of America's general economic fluency, which maintains the nation's
geopolitical power. As such, it is the policy of the US government to protect the
biggest American companies responsible for transportationairliners, petrol
companies, etcfrom failure through subsidies and low-interest loans. These
companies, among others, are deemed "too big to fail" because their goods and
services are considered by the government to be constant universal necessities in
maintaining the nation's welfare and often, indirectly, its security.
Emergency-type government bailouts can be controversial. Debates raged in 2008
over if and how to bailout the failing auto industry in the United States. Those against
it, like pro-free market radio personality Hugh Hewitt, saw this bailout as an
unacceptable passing-of-the-buck to taxpayers. He denounced any bailout for the
Big Three, arguing that mismanagement caused the companies to fail, and they now
deserve to be dismantled organically by the free-market forces so that entrepreneurs
may arise from the ashes; that the bailout signals lower business standards for giant
companies by incentivizing risk, creating moral hazard through the assurance of
safety nets (that others will pay for) that ought not be, but unfortunately are,
considered in business equations; and that a bailout promotes centralized
bureaucracy by allowing government powers to choose the terms of the bailout.
Others, such as economist Jeffrey Sachs have characterized this particular bailout
as a necessary evil and have argued that the probable incompetence in
management of the car companies is insufficient reason to let them fail completely
and risk disturbing the (current) delicate economic state of the United States, since
up to three million jobs rest on the solvency of the Big Three and things are bleak
enough as it is. In any case, the bones of contention here can be generalized to
represent the issues at large, namely the virtues of private enterprise versus those of
central planning, and the dangers of a free market's volatility versus the those of
socialist bureaucracy.
Furthermore, government bailouts are criticized as corporate welfare which
encourages corporate irresponsibility.
Governments around the world have bailed out their nations' businesses with some
frequency since the early 20th century. In general, the needs of the entity/entities
bailed out are subordinate to the needs of the state.
From the many bailouts over the course of the 20th century, certain principles and
lessons have emerged that are consistent:
Central banks provide loans to help the system cope with liquidity concerns,
where banks are unable or unwilling to provide loans to businesses or
individuals. Lending into illiquidity, but not insolvency, was articulated at least
as early as 1873, in Lombard Street, A Description of the Money Market, by
Walter Bagehot.
Let insolvent institutions (i.e., those with insufficient funds to pay their short-
term obligations or those with more debt than assets) fail in an orderly way.
Understand the true financial position of key financial institutions, through
audits or other means. Ensure the extent of losses and quality of assets are
known and reported by the institutions.
Banks that are deemed healthy enough (or important enough) to survive
require recapitalization, which involves the government providing funds to the
bank in exchange for preferred stock, which receives a cash dividend over
time.
If taking over an institution due to insolvency, take effective control through
the board or new management, cancel the common stock equity (i.e., existing
shareholders lose their investment), but protect the debt holders and
suppliers.
Government should take an ownership (equity or stock) interest to the extent
taxpayer assistance is provided, so that taxpayers can benefit later. In other
words, the government becomes the owner and can later obtain funds by
issuing new common stock shares to the public when the nationalized
institution is later privatized.
A special government entity is created to administer the program, such as the
Resolution Trust Corporation.
Prohibit dividend payments, to ensure taxpayer money are used for loans and
strengthening the bank, rather than payments to investors.
Interest rate cuts, to lower lending rates and stimulate the economy.
NO.
Signals lower business standards for giant companies by incentivizing risk
Creates moral hazard through the assurance of safety nets
Promotes centralized bureaucracy by allowing government powers to choose
the terms of the bailout
Increases government control over businesses.
Instills a corporatist style of government in which businesses use the state's
power to forcibly extract money from taxpayers.
Paul Volcker, chairman of Barack Obama's White House Economic Recovery
Advisory Board, said that bailouts create moral hazard: they signal to the firms that
they can take reckless risks, and if the risks are realized, taxpayers pay the losses,
also in the future. "The danger is the spread of moral hazard could make the next
crisis much bigger".
On November 24, 2008, American Republican Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
wrote, "In bailing out failing companies, they are confiscating money from productive
members of the economy and giving it to failing ones. By sustaining companies with
obsolete or unsustainable business models, the government prevents their
resources from being liquidated and made available to other companies that can put
them to better, more productive use. An essential element of a healthy free market,
is that both success and failure must be permitted to happen when they are earned.
But instead with a bailout, the rewards are reversed the proceeds from successful
entities are given to failing ones. How this is supposed to be good for our economy is
beyond me.... It wont work. It cant work... It is obvious to most Americans that we
need to reject corporate cronyism, and allow the natural regulations and incentives
of the free market to pick the winners and losers in our economy, not the whims of
bureaucrats and politicians."
In 2002, World Bank reported that country bailouts cost an average of 13% of GDP.
In 2008 Irish banks suffered substantial share price falls due to a lack of liquidity in
finance available to them on the international financial markets. Currently, solvency
is being revealed as the most serious concern as doubtful loans to property
developers, still undeclared in bad debt provisions, come into focus.
During 19911992, a housing bubble in Sweden deflated, resulting in a severe credit
crunch and widespread bank insolvency. The causes were similar to those of the
subprime mortgage crisis of 20072008. In response, the government took the
following actions:
[15]

Sweden's government assumed bad bank debts, but banks had to write down
losses and issue an ownership interest (common stock) to the government.
Shareholders were typically wiped out, but bondholders were protected.
When distressed assets were later sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and
the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in
the companies in public offerings.
The government announced the state would guarantee all bank deposits and
creditors of the nations 114 banks.
Sweden formed a new agency to supervise institutions that needed
recapitalization, and another that sold off the assets, mainly real estate, that
the banks held as collateral.
This bailout initially cost about 4% of Sweden's GDP, later lowered to between 02%
of GDP depending on various assumptions due to the value of stock later sold when
the nationalized banks were privatized.
In response to widespread bank insolvency as a result of the Savings and Loan
crisis, the United States established the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) in 1989.
In September 2008, as stock markets plunged and credit markets around the globe
seized up, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and the chairman of the Federal
Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, came up with a proposal for a sweeping $700 billion
bailout of the nation's financial institutions. They acted after a series of ad-hoc
bailouts and government-brokered sale of investment banks like Bear Stearns and
Merril Lynch and of giant lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier that year
had failed to stem growing fears on Wall Street. Those fears had turned to near-
panic after the failure of Lehman Brothers and the government rescue of the
American International Group within days of each other.
Mr. Paulson's proposal, labelled the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was backed by
President George W. Bush, both presidential candidates and the Democratic
leadership in Congress, but opposed by most Republicans. Passed on a second
attempt, it led to a series of enormous loans to banks that inflamed widespread
public anger but were later widely credited as being one of the crucial factors in
helping to avert a global depression. Over the next three months, Mr. Paulson
handed out $350 billion in capital injections to banks, rather than his original plan to
buy so-called toxic assets, primarily mortgage-backed securities, that were weighing
down bank balance sheets. The Federal Reserve also cut interest rates essentially
to zero, bought hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities and
took a wide range of extraordinary measures to provide liquidity.
In the spring of 2009, the Federal Reserve conducted a stress test of banks that had
received aid and ordered a few to increase their capital reserves. President Barack
Obama's treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, who as head of the New York Fed
had been deeply involved in the 2008 bank rescues, announced a plan to use the
remaining TARP funds in partnership with private investors to buy as much as $2.5
trillion in toxic assets. But banks, who were rebounding by that time, steered clear of
the program.
Banks began repaying the Treasury in June 2009 and by the end of the year even
troubled institutions like Citigroup and the Bank of America had made deals to exit
the program. The auto industry, which has received $80 billion from the fund so far,
and the American International Group, which was given $48 billion under the
program in addition to billions in other aid, accounted for most of the money that has
yet to be recouped. Treasury officials said in December 2009 that the government
would earn $19 billion on profit from the bank loans, which when set against
expected losses on money given to General Motors and Chrysler would leave the
total loss from the program at $42 billion.
Despite the fact that banks have paid back most of the money, and that the bailout is
widely credited with having helped to prevent a financial calamity, support for it has
become among the biggest issues in the 2010 midterm elections, a powerful way to
attack what some see as government excess, misplaced priorities and a loss of trust
between voters and elected officials.
In June 2010, Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration proposed to
wind down the deeply unpopular program early. Spending authority under the
Troubled Asset Relief Program would be redirected instead to pay for the financial
regulation legislation nearing the finish line. That would produce $11 billion in
savings that the Democrats planned to use to replace a bank tax that had drawn the
opposition of moderate Republicans whose votes were on the regulatory overhaul.
The proposed bailout of failing financial institutions has the Republican and
Democrat Parties looking like they are about to switch roles again as they did at the
turn of the last century. In a sweeping move toward socialism, our Republican
president, his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Republican Congressional
leadership are leading efforts to try and push through the largest bailout of big
business since the Great Depression. The Bush administration additionally wanted
to exempt executives making millions of dollars a year from any ramifications,
allowing them to continue to receive their gargantuan salaries paid for by the
taxpayers. Democrats in Congress rejected that provision. A bipartisan
Congressional plan was crafted over the weekend to provide certain preferred failing
financial institutions with $700 billion in taxpayer funds. The bill was vetoed by the
House yesterday, but it could return.
Over the past eight years while Bush has been in office, Republicans have gradually
became disgruntled with him as government spending increased at alarming levels
the biggest increases in history. This final slap in the face dramatically increasing
spending and government regulation in the free market is the last straw for many
Republicans, who wonder what happened to the conservative principles Bush ran for
office on.
Lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac chose to give loans to high-risk
consumers; borrowers they knew were likely to default. 15% of their total mortgages
went to subprime loans. They calculated that the government would bail them out if
the homeowners defaulted. In 2004, Freddie Mac Chief Risk Officer wrote a memo
warning the company that its problematic loans were endangering the company, but
it was ignored. Like other financial institutions suffering collapse currently, Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac are now under investigation for misleading investors about
their assets and pushing agencies to inflate their ratings. Last year, Freddie Mac was
charged with securities fraud, resulting in its executives paying hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fines and restitution.
There is a prevailing liberal mentality that everyone in America is entitled to own a
home. This entitlement attitude is what helped lead to this collapse. The vast
majority of people around the world cannot afford to own their own home, and in
third world countries are lucky if they even have a place to live with the amenities we
expect in the western world. Its unrealistic to expect every American to own their
own home when there are millions of people elsewhere who would be grateful just
for an apartment with working facilities.
As for the financial institutions, let them fail at another financial institution will buy
them out, as always happens when a company goes under. Bank of America is
currently making plans to buy out Countywide Financial, another lender which
gambled in risky subprime loans. What is so wrong with allowing the wealthy banks
and their shareholders to suffer the consequences of their poor investments? Isnt
the whole point of the stock market the risk of losing money in a gamble? According
to Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, she is receiving hundreds of calls from constituents
saying things like, We pay our bills. Why cant Wall Street pay theirs? An
overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the bailout. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.,
said that of 3,500 calls his office has received on the bailout, only 95 said they
support it.
Why did the government decide to bail out AIG, an insurance company, but not
Lehman Brothers, a bank that has been in business for over one hundred years?
AIG is currently being investigated by the FBI for fraud, for overvaluing its Alt-A and
subprime mortgage-backed securities. Milton Friedman once wrote, and current
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke agrees, that the Great Depression was
caused by the Federal Reserve manipulation of moneys choosing to aid certain
banks over others. This is strikingly similar to what were seeing proposed today as
having the government bail out certain mammoth financial institutions but not others.
Democrats are scrambling to get Republicans to vote with them for the bailout,
hoping for cover when the voters realize down the road that it was a bad idea.
Democrats know the bailout isnt going to do any good, but when the economy
inevitably rebounds, they can point to the bailout as the reason why and take credit.
President Bush said in a speech to the American public this week that the bailout
wasnt just about helping big business, but was necessary to help out families
affected by the big firms losses. This is a false dichotomy, since it assumes there
arent other resources available to help out homeowners in danger of foreclosure. In
reality, today there are plenty of consumer credit programs, churches, charities, and
solid lending institutions willing to step in on a micro or macro level to ameliorate the
losses.
Now were finding out that the bill includes a clause that directs 20% of any profits
from the bailout into a Democrat slush fund at the Housing Trust Fund which funds
such groups as the anti-American National Council of La Raza and ACORN,
considered by many to be the most corrupt voting registration organization in the
country.
Rep. Mike Pence from Indiana and Sen. Richard Shelby from Alabama are two of
the House Republicans leading the opposition to the bailout. Former Speaker of the
House Newt Gingrich is also speaking out, suggesting that a loan instead of a flat
giveaway would be better. Gingrich has called for Paulsons resignation. Rep. Ron
Paul is all over the airwaves saying I told you so. According to WorldNetDaily, at
least 165 economists have signed a letter addressed to Congress warning of pitfalls
in the bailout plan, regarding its fairness, ambiguity, and long-term effects. We can
only hope that cooler heads in the Republican Party, perhaps McCain, prevail and
Congress backs off from this foolish plan. The economy always rebounds in a free
market society it was government that caused the Great Depression.

6. Has GMA been a good President?
Maria Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (born April 5, 1947) is a Filipino politician who
served as the 14th President of the Philippines from 2001 to 2010, as the 12th Vice
President of the Philippines from 1998 to 2001, and is currently a member of the
House of Representatives representing the 2nd District of Pampanga. She was the
country's second female president (after Corazn Aquino), and the daughter of
former President Diosdado Macapagal.
Gloria Arroyo, a practicing economist, has made the economy the focus of her
presidency. Economic growth in terms of gross domestic product has averaged 5.0%
during the Arroyo presidency from 2001 up to the first quarter of 2008. This is higher
than previous recent presidents when compared to the 3.8% average of Aquino, the
3.7% average of Ramos, and the 2.8% average of Joseph Estrada. The Philippine
economy grew at its fastest pace in three decades in 2007, with real GDP growth
exceeding 7%. Inflation during the Arroyo presidency has been the lowest since
1986, averaging 2.5%.
A professor of economics, Arroyo entered government in 1987, serving as assistant
secretary and undersecretary of the Department of Trade and Industry upon the
invitation of President Corazn Aquino. After serving as a senator from 1992 to
1998, she was elected to the vice presidency under President Joseph Estrada,
despite having run on an opposing ticket. After Estrada was accused of corruption,
she resigned her cabinet position as Secretary of Social Welfare and Development
and joined the growing opposition to the president, who faced impeachment. Estrada
was soon forced from office by the EDSA Revolution of 2001, and Arroyo was sworn
into the presidency by Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. on January 20, 2001. She
was elected to a full six-year presidential term in the controversial May 2004
Philippine elections, and was sworn in on June 30, 2004. Following her presidency
she was elected to the House of Representatives, making her the second Philippine
president - after Jose P. Laurel - to pursue a lower office after their presidency.
She was born as Mara Gloria Macaraeg Macapagal to politician Diosdado
Macapagal and his wife, Evangelina Macaraeg-Macapagal. She is the sister of Dr.
Diosdado "Boboy" Macapagal, Jr. & Cielo Macapagal-Salgado. She spent the first
years of her life in Lubao, Pampanga with her two older siblings from her father's first
marriage. At the age of four, she chose to live with her maternal grandmother in
Iligan City. She stayed there for three years, then split her time between Mindanao
and Manila until the age of 11. She is fluent in English, Tagalog, Spanish and
several other Philippine languages, most importantly, Kapampangan, Ilokano, and
Cebuano.
In 1961, when Arroyo was just 14 years old, her father was elected as president.
She moved with her family into Malacaang Palace in Manila. A municipality was
named in her honor, Gloria, Oriental Mindoro. She attended Assumption Convent for
her elementary and high school education, graduating valedictorian in 1964. Arroyo
then studied for two years at Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign
Service in Washington, D.C. where she was a classmate of future United States
President Bill Clinton and achieved consistent Dean's list status. She then earned
her Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Assumption College, graduating
magna cum laude in 1968.
In 1968, Arroyo married lawyer and businessman Jose Miguel Arroyo of Binalbagan,
Negros Occidental, whom she had met while still a teenager. They had three
children, Juan Miguel (born 1969), Evangelina Lourdes (born 1971) and Diosdado
Ignacio Jos Mara (born in 1974). She pursued a Master's Degree in Economics at
the Ateneo de Manila University (1978) and a Doctorate Degree in Economics from
the University of the Philippines (1985). From 1977 to 1987, she held teaching
positions in several schools, notably the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo
de Manila University. She became chairperson of the Economics Department at
Assumption College.
In 1987 she was invited by President Corazn Aquino to join the government as
Assistant Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry. She was promoted to
Undersecretary two years later. In her concurrent position as Executive Director of
the Garments and Textile Export Board, Arroyo oversaw the rapid growth of the
garment industry in the late 1980s.
Senator
Arroyo entered politics in the 1992 election, running for senator. At the first general
election under the 1987 Constitution, the top twelve vote-getting senatorial
candidates would win a six-year term, and the next twelve candidates would win a
three-year term. Arroyo ranked 13th in the elections, earning a three-year term. She
was re-elected in 1995, topping the senatorial elections with nearly 16 million votes.
As a legislator, Arroyo filed over 400 bills and authored or sponsored 55 laws during
her tenure as senator, including the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law, the Indigenous
People's Rights Law, and the Export Development Act.
The 1995 Mining Act, which allows 100% foreign ownership of Philippine mines, has
come under fire from left-wing political groups.
Vice Presidency
Arroyo considered a run for the presidency in the 1998 election, but was persuaded
by President Fidel V. Ramos and leaders of the administration party Lakas-Christian
Muslim Democrats to instead seek the vice-presidency as the running mate of its
presidential candidate, House Speaker Jos de Venecia, Jr. Though the latter lost to
popular former actor Joseph Ejrcito Estrada, Arroyo won the vice presidency by a
large margin, garnering more than twice the votes of her closest opponent, Estrada's
running mate Senator Edgardo Angara.
Arroyo began her term as Vice President on June 30, 1998. Historically, she was the
first and only to date female Vice President of the Philippines. She was appointed by
Estrada to a concurrent position in the cabinet as Secretary of Social Welfare and
Development.
Arroyo resigned from the cabinet in October 2000, distancing herself from President
Estrada, who was accused of corruption by a former political supporter, Chavit
Singson, Governor from Ilocos Sur. She had initially resisted pressure from allies to
speak out against Estrada, but eventually joined calls for Estrada's resignation.
First Term (2001-2004)
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo being sworn in as president by Chief Justice Hilario Davide
Jr. in January 2001.
The last quarter of 2000 up to the first week of January 2001 was a period of political
and economic uncertainty for the Philippines. On January 16, 2001, the
impeachment trial has also taken a new direction. Private prosecutors walked out of
the trial when pro-Estrada senators prevented the opening of an evidence (a brown
envelope) containing bank records allegedly owned by President Estrada. With the
walk out, the impeachment trial was not completed and the Filipinos eventually took
to the street to continue the clamor for President Estrada's resignation.
From January 17 to 20, 2001, hundreds of thousands of Filipinos gathered at
Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA), the site of the original People Power
Revolution. The clamor for a change in the presidency gained momentum as various
sectors of Philippine society professionals, students, artists, politicians, leftist and
rightist groups joined what became known as EDSA II. Officials of the
administration, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine
National Police (PNP) also withdrew their support for President Estrada.
Days after leaving Malacaang Palace, President Estrada's lawyers questioned the
legitimacy of Arroyo's presidency before the Supreme Court. He reiterated that he
did not resign as president and that at most, Arroyo was just serving in an acting
capacity. The high court, however, voted unanimously in upholding the legitimacy of
Arroyo's succession. As a consequence, Estrada no longer enjoys immunity from
charges being filed against him.
In the last week of April 2001, the Sandiganbayan ordered the arrest of Estrada and
his son, Senator Jinggoy Estrada, for plunder charges. A few days later, Estrada
supporters protested his arrest, gathered at the EDSA Shrine, and staged what they
called, EDSA III comparing their actions to the People Power revolution of 1986
and January 2001.
Thousands of protesters demanded the release of Estrada. Eventually, they also
called for the ouster of Arroyo and the reinstatement of the former. On May 1, 2001,
they marched towards Malacaang to force Arroyo to give in to their demands.
Violence erupted when the protesters attempted to storm the presidential palace and
the military and police were forced to use their arms to drive them back. Arroyo
declared a state of rebellion because of the violence and prominent political
personalities affiliated with Estrada were charged and arrested. The so-called EDSA
III was the first serious political challenge to the Arroyo presidency.
Second Term (2004-2010)
On June 30, 2004, in a break with tradition, Arroyo first delivered her inaugural
speech at the Quirino Grandstand in Manila. She then departed for Cebu City for her
oath taking, the first time that a Philippine president took the oath of office outside of
Luzon.
Angara gave President Arroyo a passing grade of six from the scale of 1-10 in
grading the Arroyo government. In term of improvement and progress of the nation,
she has done several projects. She is a working President and she is really focused
in improving the country, Angara said in a radio interview on Sunday. The lawmaker
also said that PGMA has had more achievements than failures, despite her political
mistakes. Angara also said that it would be unfair to criticize President Arroyo
because of the P340-billion budget deficit left by her administration. He said that, in
terms of economy, the countrys growth has never been negative under the Arroyo
regime. Mrs. Arroyo has recorded a 37 quarters of uninterrupted economic growth
despite of the world economic crisis.
In her message on the occasion of the DAs anniversary, President Arroyo said that
the shift in spending in agriculture from providing dole-outs to farmers to investing
more in infrastructure has helped sustain the growth of the Philippine farm and
fisheries sector in the long term.
This is the goal of the FIELDS program, the President said. Along with the DA,
and in cooperation with the local government units and the private sector, we carried
out our twin goals of food sufficiency and being free from food imports.
FIELDS stands for the six areas of agriculture where President Arroyo has focused
the unprecedented level of public spending on her watch:
Fertilizer; Irrigation and other rural infrastructure; Extension and education services
for farmers; Loans; Dryers and other postharvest facilities; and Seeds and other
genetic materials.
President Arroyo said her administration doubled spending on agriculture, which
reached P21 billion on her watch, as compared to the P11 billion during the Ramos
administration and P17 billion during the term of her predecessor, Joseph Estrada.
The increase in funding paved the way for the expansion of farm areas to 1.6 million
hectares; P465 billion worth of loans to farmers; and the conduct of 23,000 training
workshops for farmers and agricultural workers, she noted.
More than one million hectares were opened for agribusiness development from
2005 to 2009, which led to the creation of more than 2.5 million jobs, the President
said.
Her administration was also able to construct more than 18,000 kilometers of farm-
to-market roads, along with cold chain systems nationwide, more than 80 bagsakan
or drop-off centers and more than 500 barangay bagsakans, which provide farmers
with a steady market for their produce and consumers with affordably priced basic
goods.
The President said the Philippines was weathering the global economic storm
because of strong economic fundamentals.
She added that the economy continued to grow as neighboring countries fell into
recession. Revenue measures spared the country from global financial shock.
The government built major infrastructure projects, including expressways, farm-to-
market roads, airports, seaports, and improved the roll-on, roll-off (ro-ro) system.
The tourism industry almost doubled to $5 billion in the last four years.
The government program Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino benefited 700,000 families.
Around a million farmers received lands through the Comprehensive Land Reform
Program (CARP). President Arroyo urged Congress to extend program and to
condone P42 billion in agrarian liabilities.
Despite the increase in the prices of commercial rice, the government was able to
maintain at P18.25 per kilo the price of the staple sold by the National Food Authority
(NFA).
The President said the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) kept power
rates low, adding that almost all of the villages around the country have electricity.

Government was able to lower debt to GDP ratio from 78 percent of the GDP in
2000 and to 55 percent in 2008. GDP is gross domestic product, the value of all
goods and services produced in a country in a year.
Government corporations debt dropped from 15 percent to 7 percent.
The Arroyo administration built 95,000 classrooms, added 60,000 teachers to the
workforce and allocated P1.5 billion for teachers training.
The President promised to work on additional collection of sin taxes to fund
educational projects.
The President said her foreign trips were able to improve the conditions and wages
of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs). Plus, international engagements brought in
more foreign investments into the country.
The government is poised to resume peace talks with communist rebels and
Muslim separatists.
Without mentioning specific future political plans, the President said she would step
down from the stage but would continue serving the people after 2010.
The President challenged presidential candidates to give the electorate real
choices.
She also encouraged Filipinos to unite and work together.
President Arroyo thanked the people for allowing her to serve them for nine years.


NO
The Social Weather Stations public opinion group has conducted quarterly surveys
tracking the net satisfaction rating ("satisfied" rating minus "dissatisfied" rating") of
President Arroyo. She began her presidency in the first quarter of 2001 with a net
satisfaction rating of +24. Her rating first dipped into the negative in the first quarter
of 2003, making Arroyo the only president to achieve a negative net satisfaction
rating in SWS opinion polling. Her rating rebounded well into the positive in 2004, in
time for the presidential election where she won election to a new six-year term.
However, net satisfaction sunk back into negative territory in the fourth quarter of
2004, and has remained negative since, dipping as low as -38 in the second quarter
of 2008. Her net satisfaction rating in the first quarter of 2009 was -32.
Oakwood Mutiny
Main article: Oakwood mutiny
The Oakwood mutiny occurred in the Philippines on July 27, 2003. A group of 321
armed soldiers who called themselves "Bagong Katipuneros"
[10]
led by Army Capt.
Gerardo Gambala and Lt. Antonio Trillanes IV of the Philippine Navy took over the
Oakwood Premier Ayala Center (now Ascott Makati) serviced apartment tower in
Makati City to show the Filipino people the alleged corruption of the Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo administration. They also stated that they saw signs suggesting
that the President was going to declare martial law.
2004 Presidential Election
Article VII Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution explicitly states that the president of the
Philippines can only serve for one term. However, the same provision also implicitly
states that a president's successor who has not served for more than four years can
still seek a full term for the presidency. Although Arroyo falls under this category, she
initially announced on December 30, 2002 that she will no longer seek the
presidency. She emphasized that she will devote her remaining months in office to
serving the people and improving the economy of the Philippines.
In October 2003, Arroyo changed her mind and announced that she will run for the
May 2004 presidential elections and seek a direct mandate from the people. She
explained that, "there is a higher cause to change society...in a way that nourishes
our future". With her decision, the initial criticisms hurled against Arroyo centered on
her lack of word of honor.
As predicted by SWS exit polls, Arroyo won the election by a margin of over one
million votes against Poe. However, the congressional canvassing was quite
contentious as opposition lawmakers in the National Board of Canvassers argued
that there were many discrepancies in the election returns and that insinuations of
cheating were raised. On June 23, 2004, Congress proclaimed Arroyo and Noli de
Castro as president and vice president, respectively.
Allegations of cheating against Arroyo gained momentum one year after the May
2004 elections. In a press conference held on June 10, 2005, Samuel Ong, former
deputy director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) claimed to have audio
recordings of wiretapped conversations between Arroyo and an official of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Virgilio Garcillano, a former COMELEC
commissioner, would later be identified as the official talking to Arroyo. According to
Ong, the recordings allegedly proved that Arroyo ordered the rigging of the national
elections for her to win by around one million votes against Poe.
The recordings of Ong became known as the Hello Garci controversy and triggered
massive protests against Arroyo. Key members of her cabinet resigned from their
respective posts and urged Arroyo to do the same. On June 27, 2005, Arroyo
admitted to inappropriately speaking to a COMELEC official, claiming it was a "lapse
in judgement". She, however, denied influencing the outcome of the elections and
declared that she won the elections fairly. Arroyo did not resign despite the
pressures coming from various sectors of society.
The Hello Garci controversy became the basis of the impeachment case filed
against Arroyo in 2005. Attempts to impeach Arroyo failed later that year. Another
impeachment case was filed against Arroyo in 2006 but was also defeated at the
House of representatives.
In October 2007, lawyer Alan Paguia filed an impeachment complaint against Arroyo
in connection with the issue of bribery. Paguia's complaint was based on the
revelation of Pampanga Gov. Ed Panlilio that various governors received half a
million pesos from Malacaang. The impeachment case, as of the middle of October
2007, has already been referred to the House of Representatives Committee on
Justice.
State of Emergency
Main article: 2006 state of emergency in the Philippines
On February 24, 2006, a plot to take over the government was uncovered by
authorities, allegedly headed by Gen. Danny Lim and other rightist military
adventurists. General Lim and some of his men were arrested. To face the threat
posed by enemies of the state, Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 (PP
1017) and used it as basis in declaring a state of emergency throughout the
Philippines. According to Arroyo, this declaration was done to quell the military
rebellion, stop lawless violence, and promote peace and stability. PP 1017 also
empowered the government to enforce warrantless arrests and take over strategic
private utilities companies.
On February 25, 2006, the police raided the office of the Daily Tribune, a newspaper
known as a critic of the Arroyo administration. The government then issued a
journalism guidelines to address the threat posed by critics in the media. Presidential
Management Staff chief Michael Defensor said that the guidelines were necessary in
order to cope with the emergency situation.
The state of emergency existed for about one week with the purpose of curbing
further violence, illegal rallies, and public disturbance throughout the Philippines. The
police and the military dispersed demonstrators and protesters, especially those
along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA). Aside from General Lim, prominent
personalities were also arrested in connection with their alleged participation in the
attempt to overthrow the government. Among those arrested were:
1. Col. Ariel Querubn - leader of a group of Philippine Marines who engaged
the government in a political stand-off at Fort Bonifacio on February 25, 2005
2. Randy David - led a protest rally without securing the necessary permit
3. Crispin Beltran - party-list representative of Anakpawis charged with inciting
to sedition and rebellion
4. Batasan Five - party-list representatives charged with rebellion and were
placed under the custody of the House of Representatives; Bayan Muna's
Teodoro Casio, Satur Ocampo, and Joel Virador; Gabriela's Liza Maza, and
Anakpawis' Rafael Mariano
PP 1017 was lifted on March 3, 2006 but members of the opposition, private
lawyers, and concerned citizens challenged its constitutionality before the Supreme
Court. On May 4, the high court declared the proclamation constitutional. However, it
also said that it was illegal for the government to implement warrantless arrests and
seize private institutions and companies.
House of Representatives
In November 2009, Arroyo formally declared her intention to run for a seat in the
House of Representatives representing the 2nd District of Pampanga, making her
the second Philippine President - after Jose P. Laurel - to pursue a lower office after
the expiration of their presidency. A petition seeking to disqualify Arroyo from the
race was dismissed by the Comelec for lack of merit, a decision which was later
affirmed by the Supreme Court.
[14]
With little serious competition, she was elected to
congress in May 2010 with a landslide victory.
[15]
After receiving final military honors
at the inauguration ceremony of incoming President Benigno Aquino III, she headed
straight to Pampanga for her own oath-taking as congresswoman.
Despite being considered the strongest contender for Speaker of the House, Arroyo
declined to seek the position, hoping instead to take on a role similar to Sonia
Gandhi, who was influential as merely the head of her party. On her first day as a
lawmaker, Arroyo and her son Dato filed a resolution calling for Congress to call a
constitutional convention to propose amendments to the existing constitution.

Health
On July 3, 2009, it was announced that Arroyo had undergone a biopsy to examine
lumps discovered in her breast and groin.
[20][21]
Press Secretary Cerge Remonde
stated that the results of the biopsy were negative.
[20][21]
Remonde also denied
reports published in July 3, 2009 editions of the Manila Bulletin and the Philippine
Star that Arroyo had undergone surgery for the removal or repair of breast silicone
implants.

Charter Change

Arroyo currently spearheads a controversial plan for an overhaul of the constitution
to transform the present unitary and presidential republic with a bicameral legislature
into a federal parliamentary government with a unicameral legislature.


7. Are truth and reconciliation commissions the best way for countries to deal
with violent pasts and political crimes?

YES.
A truth commission or truth and reconciliation commission is a commission
tasked with discovering and revealing past wrongdoing by a government (or,
depending on the circumstances, non-state actors also), in the hope of resolving
conflict left over from the past. They are, under various names, occasionally set up
by states emerging from periods of internal unrest, civil war, or dictatorship. South
Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established by President Nelson
Mandela after apartheid, is popularly considered a model of Truth Commissions,
rarely if ever

achieved in other parts.
On February 8, voting 16-2, the Senate passed on final reading the Anti-Terrorism
Act, euphemistically titled, the Human Security Act of 2007. A day after, the
bicameral conference committee of both Houses of Congress adopted the Senate
version in full. Eventually, both the Senate and the Lower House ratified the
bicameral report in a two-day special session called for by President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo. In a matter of days, on March 6, 2007, Arroyo signed the bill into
law. The bill was passed into law ahead of other more important and urgent pieces
of legislation such as the P125 wage increase, the compensation bill for Marcos
human rights victims and the bill allowing cheaper medicines.

Contrary to statements by opposition senators who initially fought the bill but
eventually voted in favor of it, the new law is not toothless. It is replete with
provisions that violate fundamental civil, political and human rights found in the Bill of
Rights of the Philippine Constitution and in international human rights and
humanitarian law conventions.

Prior to the signing of the Anti-Terror Act, the US-Arroyo regime has already
unleashed the military, paramilitary and police forces on the people and spurred
them to commit the most despicable human rights violations and even crimes
against humanity including massacres, assassinations, abductions, illegal detention
and torture and the displacement of people from their homes and land with the use
of armed force.

Such atrocities are clearly in line with the regimes counter-insurgency program
called Oplan Bantay Laya (OBL) I and II that is based on the regimes boast of
defeating the armed revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party of the
Philippines (CPP) by the end of its term in 2010.

The Human Security Act provides the legal teeth long sought by the military and
police forces in committing with impunity acts of state terrorism.

The main objective of the Act is to further suppress the people's movement for
national liberation and democracy and the broad range of forces opposing the US-
Arroyo regime including the opposition, dissenters and the independent media, even
without resorting to a declaration of martial law.
1. Dangerously vague definition
The definition of terrorism is deliberately made vague and overbroad.
Section 3 of the terror law defines terrorism as an act of sowing and
creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand.

The parameters of what constitutes this vague and loosely defined crime of
terrorism will eventually be determined by Malacanang through the Justice
Department and its notoriously unjust secretary, Raul Gonzalez, and the
newly formed Anti-terrorism Council which includes the right-wingers and
fascists in the Cabinet Oversight Committee on Internal Security such as
Executive Secretary Gen. Eduardo Ermita and National Security Adviser
Norberto Gonzales.

With this kind of definition and the people that will determine its application,
Arroyo can use the law as an instrument to quell legitimate expressions of
political dissent and social protest. For example, mass actions calling for the
ouster of Arroyo are already labeled as part and parcel of destabilization
plots and conspiracies to commit rebellion; thus, it would be easy for the
government to classify them as coercing the government to give in to an
unlawful demand. Workers strikes have also been categorized by the Arroyo
regime as terroristic and tantamount to economic sabotage.

Constitutional experts have asserted that the law is void because it is vague.
At the heart of the debate on the new terror law is the basic definition of
terrorism from where abuses will inevitably arise. To date, there is yet no
internationally accepted definition of terrorism. The term "terrorism" has been
used by imperialist states and their allies during the Cold War era to
demonize and delegitimize national liberation movements waging armed
revolution against colonialism and neocolonialism. Back then and even up to
now, one mans terrorist could be another mans freedom fighter.
Were "terrorism" to be properly defined to refer to systematic and deliberate violence
used solely or mainly against civilians or entire communities of people, imperialist
wars of aggression and state terrorism would then be recognized as the worst kinds
of terrorism by the sheer amount of death and destruction as well as socio-cultural
degradation inflicted on entire peoples and civilian populations.

The number of less than 3000 civilian death casualties in the 9/11 attacks is small in
comparison to the 1.5 million Iraqi death casualties in the US-UK war of aggression
and sanctions against Iraq and the more than 650,000 Iraqi civilian death casualties
in the second war of aggression and occupation of Iraq.

State terrorism or the rule of open terror within particular states is another form of
terrorism. It usually entails the repression of the entire people through massacres,
assassinations, illegal detention and torture and the displacement of people from
their homes and land with the use of armed force . By making "terrorism" as a catch-
all crime that is too vague and too broad, the imperialists and their puppet states
have messed up the clear distinction between common crimes and political offenses.
The punishment for political crimes is usually lighter than common crimes because
the former are considered socially motivated rather than driven by self-interest and
may be open to political solution through negotiations and satisfaction of social
demands. But the US has made it a point to define terrorism as the threat or use of
violence against persons and property to "advance social and political objectives". It
is hell-bent on criminalizing as "terrorism" the people's struggle for national and
social liberation.
Judging from the recent pronouncements and practice of the regime, the first
casualties of the proposed bill would be members of revolutionary armed
movements, like the CPP/NPA/NDF and the MILF. This would be contrary to
established Philippine jurisprudence such as the Hernandez Doctrine, which states
that all acts in pursuit of ones political beliefs are absorbed in one crime of rebellion
and cannot be divided into several common crimes.
The Arroyo government has long been itching to tag the CPP-NPA-NDF as terrorist
organizations. There have also been actuations on the part of the Arroyo regime
tagging the MILF as a supporter of so-called terrorist organization like the Jemaah
Islamiya. Also in danger of being tagged as terrorists are groups which state
agents have already labeled as communist front organizations and enemies of the
state. These include legal and legitimate peoples organizations, which are already
facing various forms of harassment under the present system.
Apart from a vague definition of terrorism, Sec. 17 of the proposed bill allows for the
proscription of alleged terrorist organizations on the mere application by the
Department of Justice before any Regional Trial Court. All it takes is for Raul
Gonzales to file a case before any RTC and an organization, association or group of
persons may be declared as a terrorist and thus, outlawed.

Subsequently, it would also be easy to arrest and detain indefinitely individuals as
officers and members of "terrorist" organizations or as accomplices and accessories
in the commission of "terrorism". Members of an already proscribed organization can
be easily subjected to rigorous surveillance and punitive sanctions. These make the
Anti-Terror Act a bill of attainder, which criminalizes and punishes individuals on the
basis of guilt by association.
2. Violation of rights
Suspects of terrorism will be denied their right to due process and
presumption of innocence. As mentioned, the Anti-Terror Act provides for the
easy proscription or illegalization of organizations and individuals. Detention
beyond 48 hours is easily justified and legalized, more than enough time to
torture and even murder a detainee. Other violations made easy include
indefinite detention on the non-bailable charge of terrorism, the freezing and
confiscation of financial assets, the easy incrimination of so-called
accomplices and accessories, the unlimited intrusions of surveillance into
privacy and family life, the oppressive restraints even on those released on
bail, extraordinary rendition and so on.

Under Sec. 19, in the event of actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects
may be detained for 72 hours without warrant. With the proven track record
of Philippine governments, starting with the Marcos Dictatorship all the way to
the current US-Arroyo regime, to manufacture scenarios that would justify a
police crackdown or the mobilization of military troops to quell any form of civil
disturbance, it would not be difficult for the government to manufacture an
actual or imminent terrorist attack.

Also, (m)unicipal, city, provincial or regional human rights commission
officials are authorized to order the detention of suspected terrorists beyond
48 hours. This is a clear violation of the Sec. 18, Article VII of the
Constitution which provides, During the suspension of the privilege of the
writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within
three days, otherwise he shall be released. Not even the Commission on
Human Rights on any level, can circumvent this constitutionally guaranteed
safeguard.

Section 26 states: Restriction on the Right to TravelIn cases where
evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged is granted... bail, the
court shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or
city where he resides. He or she may also be placed under house arrest by
order of the court While under house arrest, he or she may not use
telephones, cell phones, emails, computers, the internet or other means of
communications with people outside his residence until otherwise ordered by
the court. Thus, even in cases where the evidence is weak and bail is
allowed, suspects are still faced with the prospect of being held
incommunicado while under house arrest.

The new law can violate a persons right to privacy. Section 7 legalizes the
surveillance of terror suspects. Authorities may intercept and record all
communications of suspected terrorists and their alleged conspirators.
Wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance need only the approval
of any competent Regional Trial Court. The power to eavesdrop is easily
subject to abuse. We only have the Hello Garci scandal to remind us of how
wiretapping has been abused by the military in the past.

Under Sec. 27, bank deposits, accounts and records of suspected terrorists
and their alleged conspirators may be examined by authorities. The key
concept here is that even mere suspects can be subjected to bank
examinations. All pertinent information involving a suspected account,
including transactions with other accounts, can also be examined by the
authorities. .

Section 57 of the law says that it bans extraordinary rendition but actually
authorizes it under certain conditions. The practice of extraordinary rendition
allows terror suspects or vital witnesses to be rendered or transferred to a
foreign government as part of investigations into terrorism. Under the new
law, a person may be extraordinarily rendered to a foreign country if his or her
testimony is vital in a terror-related police probe or in other legal proceedings.
The Philippine government will merely require an official assurance that the
rights of the terror suspect will be respected by the requesting country.

In the worst practices of extraordinary rendition, people can be snatched and
brought to a foreign land and charged with the crime of terrorism or be forced
to take part in other legal proceedings. This extrajudicial process has often
been accompanied by torture. Extraordinary rendition has been a well-
documented practice employed by the US Central Intelligence Agency
against suspected terrorists.

3. Anti-Terrorism Council
The anti-terror law will give rise to a fascist council tasked with overseeing the
implementation of the law. Section 53 provides for the creation of the Anti-
Terrorism Council composed of the executive secretary, secretaries of justice,
interior and local government, national defense, foreign affairs, finance and
the national security adviser. The National Intelligence Coordinating Agency
serves as the council's secretariat.

Most of the members of the Anti-Terrorism Council are already part of the
notorious Cabinet Oversight Committee for Internal Security (COC-IS).
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and
Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales are the masterminds of repressive
policies and measures such as the Oplan Bantay Laya, Proclamation 1017,
Calibrated Preemptive Response policy and Executive Order 464. The three
are now joined by newly appointed Defense Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane,
a retired general linked to the Garcillano scandal. The Foreign Affairs
Secretary Alberto Romulo on the other hand has proven to be a staunch
supporter of United States foreign policy even if these are inimical to the
interests of the Filipino people.
The Councils functions include: directing the arrest of suspected terrorists,
recommending the proscription of suspected terrorist organizations, speedy
investigation and prosecution of all persons accused or detained for the crime
of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism; freezing bank accounts and
funds of suspected terrorists; and establishing and maintaining a database on
terrorism.

3. Peace talks
The enactment of Anti-Terror bill and the expected proscription of the CPP and NPA
as terrorist organizations essentially forecloses the possibility of meaningful peace
negotiations leading to a negotiated political settlement between the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the
Philippines (NDFP), Whether the NDFP is proscribed by the Arroyo regime as
"terrorist" or not, it will find negotiations impossible with the reactionary Philippine
government after the proscription of the CPP and NPA as "terrorist".
According to NDFP Chief Negotiator Luis Jalandoni, The Arroyo regime has scuttled
the peace talks. It has declared its militarist plan to destroy the revolutionary
movement before 2010. It has flagrantly violated the Comprehensive Agreement on
Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) by
committing crimes against humanity, perpetrating extrajudicial killings of more than
830 unarmed civilians, enforced disappearances on about 200 persons and
frustrated killings on more than 350 persons, among other gross human rights
violations.
The Arroyo regime has also charged those involved in the peace negotiations on the
side of the NDFP with rebellion, thereby violating the Joint Agreement on Safety and
Immunity Guarantees (JASIG). Also in flagrant violation of the JASIG, it has
summarily executed Sotero Llamas, Political Consultant of the NDFP, and caused
the involuntary disappearance of NDFP Consultants and their immediate families
and staff, namely, Rogelio Calubad and his son Gabriel; Prudencio Calubid, his wife
Celine Palma and two companions, Leopoldo Ancheta and Philip Limjoco.
Despite not being tagged yet as terrorists, the MILF and MNLF have in the past been
linked by the government to the Abu Sayyaf and Jamaah Islamiya said to be
operating in Mindanao. The terrorist tag is intermittently used by the US-Arroyo
regime to blackmail the MILF into a disadvantageous position, if not eventual
capitulation, in its stalled peace negotiations with the government.

5. State terrorism
The Anti-Terror law will nourish the monster that is state terrorism. The law
contemplates a state of fascist rule without the necessity of declaring outright martial
law.

The US-Arroyo regime will use the Anti-Terror Law as a legal bludgeon to intensify
its all-out war policy against the armed revolutionary movement, to persist with
impunity in extrajudicial killings and other human rights violations and to create a
climate of fear and heighten political repression against its fiercest critics and the
struggling masses of the people.

Within the context of Bush regimes global war of terror, Arroyos own anti-terror
campaign is itself a form of terrorism. No less than the Philippine Supreme Court
Chief Justice Reynato Puno said that the mindless war on terror has caused much
of the human rights violations in the country today.

In many places in the world, the bitter experiences with the so-called US-led war on
terror has caused the worlds people to clamor for a review if not reversal, of
repressive laws and policies instituted in the name of ant-terrorism. The US
Supreme Court for example has struck down as unconstitutional some of the
practices employed by the Bush regime against US citizens and other nationals such
as wiretapping and arbitrary arrest and detention.

Since the September 11 attacks in New York, the US government has been waging
a so-called war on terrorism which involved the invasion and occupation of
Afghanistan and Iraq. The so-called war on terror is premised on what are now
considered as lies of the Bush administration. This includes the lie that weapons of
mass destruction were present in Iraq.

The war on terror has been discredited as being nothing more than a justification
for and continuation of US imperialist aggression and expansionism. In the course of
this war, peoples lives are being destroyed and their rights systematically violated.

The Arroyo regime has chosen to give its all out support for the US war on terror
despite the worldwide condemnation and rejection of this policy. Arroyo has
sponsored the ASEAN covenant against terrorism which gives the US a new
platform for intervention in Southeast Asia. The covenant calls on ASEAN members
to enact their own terror laws

Taken in the broader context of the crisis of the Arroyo presidency, the approval of
the terror measure is also a move to get continued US support for the Arroyo
administration government by showing the Philippine governments unconditional
endorsement of the US terror war.

The HSA is also a means for the Arroyo regime to stay in power by suppressing its
critics and foes. No amount of safety nets can make the new terror law any less
malevolent. In the hands of a regime with an extremely poor human rights record,
the so-called anti-terror measure can and will be easily abused to serve the
campaign of repression of the regime. Foreign governments, the United Nations
special rapporteur, the Permanent Peoples Tribunal and many other non-
governmental formations have already assailed the worsening human rights situation
under the Arroyo regime. This came even before the new terror law was
implemented.

No amount of safety nets can make the new terror law any less malevolent. In the
hands of a regime with an extremely poor human rights record, the so-called anti-
terror measure can and will be easily abused to serve the campaign of repression of
the regime. Foreign governments, the United Nations special rapporteur, the
Permanent Peoples Tribunal and many other non-governmental formations have
already assailed the worsening human rights situation under the Arroyo regime. This
came even before the new terror law was implemented.
There can be no middle ground on this one, not when our basic freedoms and rights
are being threatened. The Anti-terror Law or Human Security Act, a patently fascist
measure, must be stopped.

NO.
Stronger measures must be imposed.
As government reports, they can provide proof against historical revisionism of state
terrorism and other crimes and human rights abuses. Truth commissions are
sometimes criticised for allowing crimes to go unpunished, and creating impunity for
serious human rights abusers. Their roles and abilities in this respect depend on
their mandates, which vary widely.
One of the difficult issues that has arisen over the role of truth commissions in
transitional societies, has centered around what should be the relationship between
truth commissions and criminal prosecutions.
In 2010, President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino announced that a Truth Commission
will be formed to investigate unresolved issues concerning the previous
administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. A month after being sworn-in
as the 15th President of the Philippines on June 30, 2010, Aquino signed Executive
Order No. 1, creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010.
[5]

In criminology, a political crime is an offence involving overt acts or omissions
(where there is a duty to act), which prejudice the interests of the state, its
government or the political system. It is to be distinguished from state crime when it
is the states that break both their own criminal laws or public international law.
Thus, while the majority of those who support the current regime may consider
criminalisation of politically-motivated behaviour an acceptable response when the
offender is driven by more extreme political, ideological, religious or other beliefs,
there may be a question of the morality of a law which simply criminalises ordinary
political dissent
At one extreme, crimes such as treason, sedition, and terrorism are political because
they represent a direct challenge to the government in power. But offenders do not
have to aim to overthrow the government or to depose its leaders to be acting in a
way perceived as "political". A state may perceive it threatening if individuals
advocate change to the established order, or argue the need for reform of long-
established policies, or engage in acts signifying some degree of disloyalty, e.g. by
burning the nation's flag in public. But the scope of such crimes can be rather less
direct. Functionalist criminologists recognise that states invest their resources in
maintaining order through social conformity, i.e. a particular culture is encouraged
and maintained through the primary social discourses which may include religious,
economic, social, or other less formal concerns. Any interference with the media of
communication or the sets of meanings embedded in the communications
themselves may be perceived as a threat to the political authority of the state.
Hence, whether in hard copy or electronically, if individuals distribute material
containing uncensored information which undermines the credibility of state-
controlled news media, this may be considered threatening. Moreover, even an
offence against non-governmental institutions, persons, or practices may be deemed
political. Violence or even discrimination against an ethnic or racial group, as well
trade union strikes or picketing against private employers, can be perceived as a
political crime when those in power see such conduct as undermining the political
(and economic) stability of the state. In this context, note that the Law Enforcement
Code of Conduct passed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police says in
part: "The fundamental duties of a police officer include serving the community,
safeguarding lives and property, protecting the innocent, keeping the peace and
ensuring the rights of all to liberty, equality and justice" (cited in Robinson, 2002).
This code requires that police behave in a courteous and fair manner, that they treat
all citizens in a respectable and decent manner, and that they never use
unnecessary force. When they do, it is argued that this constitutes a crime (e.g. as
an assault) and, if it is institutionalised, then over time, the use of unnecessary force
become a state crime.
Marxist criminologists argue that most political crime arises from the efforts of the
state to reproduce the structures of inequality: racism, sexism, ethnic preference as
well as class advantages. Thus, states will protect property rights and reduce the
rights of trade unions to represent the interests of the poor. Even war is likely to be
grounded in the problems of local capitalists in wealthy countries in the effort to
move raw materials, profits and jobs in a globalised political economy, and opposing
such a war will be a political crime. (Barak) Marxists do not dispute that, for a society
to function efficiently, social order is necessary. But they consider that, in all
societies, one class, usually characterised as the "ruling class", gains far more than
other classes. Marxists agree with functionalists that socialisation plays a crucial role
in promoting conformity and order. However, unlike the latter, they are highly critical
of the ideas, values and norms of "capitalist ideology". Modern Marxists point to
education and the media as socialising agencies, which delude or "mystify" the
working class into conforming to a social order, which works against its real
interests. Thus, all controls which directly or indirectly explit the criminal law to
control access to the discourses are political crimes.
Miller says that one of the defining characteristics of power in modern history has
been the rationalisation and bureaucratisation of law. Legal codification, or at least
debates over the merits of legal codification, became an almost global phenomenon
in the nineteenth century as state power was centralised. In particular, the
rationalisation of criminal law standardised not just the concept of crime, but was
adopted as the means to eliminate the "deviant" as a threat to a modern, uniform,
moral standard. In this, the religious establishment began to play a new role in
defining "evil" in which threats to the political or social norm became as dangerous
as threats to religious orthodoxy. Thus, political speech became one of the most
likely activities to be criminalised. The freedom of association and to meet may also
be criminalised if the purpose is to express oppositional political views.
People convicted or suspected of certain crimes classified as terrorism by the
government of their country (or some foreign countries) reject that classification.
They consider that their fight is a legitimate one using legitimate means, and thus
their crimes should be more appropriately called political crimes and justify special
treatment in the penal system (as if they were soldiers in a war and therefore
covered by the Geneva Convention. States tend to consider the political nature of
the crimes an aggravating factor in the sentencing process and make no distinction
between the terrorists and "ordinary" offenders, e.g. the convicted murderers of
Action Directe consider themselves political prisoners.
States will define as political crimes any behaviour perceived as a threat, real or
imagined, to the state's survival including both violent and non-violent oppositional
crimes. A consequence of such criminalisation may be that a range of human rights,
civil rights, and freedoms are curtailed, and conduct which would not normally be
considered criminal per se (in other words, that is not antisocial according to those
who engage in it) is criminalised at the convenience of the group holding power.
The Philippine Center on Transnational Crime (E.O. No.62 s1999)
The Philippine government, under the Estrada Administration, has instituted
programs and projects to address these threats to national and international
interest and security. It has created the Philippine Center on Transnational
Crime (PCTC) to establish a shared central database among concerned
agencies for information on criminals, methodologies, arrests, and convictions
on transnational crime in all its forms. Apart from this, the Center is mandated
to discharge the following:
a. Supervise and control conduct of anti-transnational crime operations of
all government agencies and instrumentalities:
b. Establish a central database on national as well as international
legislations and jurisprudence on transnational crime, with the end in
view of recommending measures to strengthen responses and provide
immediate intervention for the prevention, detection and apprehension
of criminals operating in the country;
c. Establish a center for strategic research on the structure and dynamics
of transnational crime, predict trends and analyze relationships of
given factors for the formulation of strategies to combat the same;
d. Design programs and projects aimed at enhancing national capacity-
building in combating transnational crime, as well as supporting the
related programs and projects of other ASEAN and international
centers; and
e. Explore and coordinate information exchanges and training with other
government agencies, foreign countries and international
organizations involved in containing and eliminating transnational
crime.

B. Executive Order No. 100 s1999
To further strengthen the operational, administrative and information support
system of the PCTC, E.O. No. 100 s1999 was signed by President Estrada
empowering the Center to exercise general supervision and control over the
following:
a. Loop Center of the National Action Committee on Anti-Hijacking and
Terrorism (NACAHT) whose primary mission is to assist and support
the NACAHT in integrating and orchestrating the efforts of all law
enforcement agencies against international and domestic terrorism;
b. International Criminal Police Organization ICPO-INTERPOL NCB-
Manila which has been reconstituted to serve as the national liaison
office and main coordinating body for international police cooperation
against transnational crime;
c. Police Attachs of the Philippine National Police (PNP); and
d. Political Attachs/ Counselors for Security Matters of the Department
of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).


8. Do boys and girls benefit more from being taught together or separately?

YES.
Single-sex education (SSE), also known as Single-gender education, is the
practice of conducting education where male and female students attend separate
classes or in separate buildings or schools. The practice was predominant before the
mid-twentieth century, particularly in secondary education and higher education.
Single-sex education in many cultures is advocated on the basis of tradition, as well
as religion and is practiced in many parts of the world.
A single-sex school is a school that advocates single-sex education. This has been
the traditional situation for independent school in the United Kingdoms, especially
public schools and grammar schools, but many of these have now become
coeducational. In the state sector of the U.K. education system, the only single-sex
primary schools are Winterbourne Junior Boys' School and Winterbourne Junior
Girls' School (both in the London Borough of Croydon). The number of single-sex
state schools has fallen from nearly 2,500 to just over 400 in 40 years. According to
Alan Smithers, Professor of Education at Buckingham University, there was no
evidence that single-sex schools were consistently superior. However, a 2009
analysis of Key Stage 2 and GCSE scores of more than 700,000 girls has revealed
that those in all-female comprehensives make better progress than those who attend
mixed secondaries.The largest improvements came among those who did badly at
primary school, although pupils of all abilities are more likely to succeed if they go to
single-sex state schools, the study indicates.
[1]
A Government-backed review in 2007
recommended that the sexes should be taught differently to maximise results, amid
fears that girls tend to be pushed aside in mixed-sex classrooms. A major
longitudinal study of over 17,000 individuals examined whether single-sex schooling
made a difference for a wide range of outcomes, including academic attainment,
earnings, marriage, childbearing and divorce
[2]
. The authors found that girls fared
better in examinations at age 16 at single-sex schools, while boys achieved similar
results at single-sex or co-educational schools.
[3]
Girls rated their abilities in maths
and sciences higher if they went to a girls school, and boys rated their abilities in
English higher if they went to a boys school, i.e. gender stereotyping was weaker in
the single-sex sector.
[4]
Later in life, women who had been to single-sex schools
went on to earn higher wages than women who had been to co-educational
schools.
[5]
However, men who had been to single-sex schools were more likely to
end up divorced.
In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of single-sex
public education in the 1996 case of United States v. Virginia. This ruling, written by
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concluded that single-sex education in the public
sector is constitutional only if comparable courses, services, and facilities are made
available to both sexes. The No Child Left Behind Act contains provisions (section
5131.a.23. and 5131c; see 20 U.S.C. section 7215(a)(23) and section 7215(c))
designed by their authorsSenators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Kay Bailey
Hutchison (R-TX) -- to facilitate single-sex education in public schools. These
provisions led to the publication of new federal rules in October 2006 to allow
districts to create single-sex schools and classes provided that 1) enrollment is
voluntary, and 2) comparable courses, services, and facilities are available to both
sexes. The number of public schools offering single-sex classrooms rose from 11 in
2002 to 540 in 2009, according to the web site of the National Association for Single
Sex Public Education.
[6]

In Australia, the proportion of students from independent schools attending single-
sex schools, dropped from 31% in 1985 to 24% in 1995. In secondary schools, 55%
of boys and 54% of girls went to single-sex schools, in 1985. However by 1995 the
proportion attending single-sex secondary schools had dropped to 41% of boys and
45% of girls.
However, in the Middle East in most schools it is mandatory for schools to be single-
sex schools. Each school accepts boys or girls exclusively. In places where sharia is
the law students attend sex-segregated public schools. In the Islamic Republic of
Iran, single-sex public schools have been in place since the Islamic Revolution.

Boys and girls are wired to learn in different ways
It seems beyond dispute that boys and girls learn at different paces and in different
ways. This is not a matter of gender bias, but of experience verified time and again
by psychological research. The view from the 1970s that gender traits are mere
cultural constructs has been discredited. Cross-cultural studies over the past 30
years reveal that gender differences across the wide variety of cultures are
remarkably constant.
Here are some relevant differences. According to a 2001 study, women use the
right and left hemispheres of the brain to process language; men use only the left
hemisphere. In general men are more likely to use one area of the brain for a given
activity; women are more likely to use more of the brain. Studies show that women
respond to directions that include data about what they will see and hear; men
prefer abstract directions. Girls' brains develop through adolescence so that girls
are better able to discuss their feelings; boys' brains do not. Research is revealing
major physiological differences in the brains of even pre-adolescent boys and girls.
For example, seven-year-old girls hear better than boys.
These physical differences lead to differences in the way boys and girls learn.
Teachers need to encourage girls, while boys need a reality check. Direct
challenging works well with boys and they tend to respond to clear boundaries.
Emotional activity is processed in a completely different part of the brain in older
girls compared with older boys. It has been suggested that girls respond more
innately to literature and that they more easily make links between ideas and
emotions. In stories, girls tend to respond to nuances of character, boys to action.
Role-playing exercises allowing a student to explore character work particularly
well for girls. Inductive exercises allowing girls to act hypothetically also work well.
There is evidence that boys respond more to structured lessons, finite tasks, and
perhaps to the more abstract. Girls tend to respond more readily to group work and
team work. One fascinating study suggests that under certain circumstances
stress has a beneficial effect on male learning, but that it can impair the learning of
a female, and that this characteristic is wired in the male brain from before birth.
Most children learn better in a single-sex environment
On average, children in single-sex education outperform children of comparative
ability in co-ed contexts. In a 20-year Australian study of 270,000 students, Ken
Rowe found that both boys and girls performed between 15 and 22 percentile
points higher on standardized tests when they attended single-sex schools. The
National Foundation for Educational Research in England found that, even after
controlling for student ability and other background factors, boys and girls
performed significantly better academically in single-sex schools than in co-ed
schools. Students in Jamaica attending single-sex schools outperformed students
in co-ed schools in almost every subject tested. A 1997 study by Jean and
Geoffrey Underwood showed that girl-girl pairings performed best on tasks, and
that girl-boy pairings tended to depress the achievement of the girls involved.

Boys and girls experience the benefits of schooling in different ways. British
studies suggest that females more than males benefit academically from single-
sex education: they participate more in class, develop higher self esteem, score
higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose sciences and other male
domains at tertiary level, and are more successful in careers. Research suggests
that boys dominate the classroom in a co-ed environment. Boys can behave more
loudly. Some research has shown that girls receive fewer encouraging comments
than boys in co-ed environments. Studies by Cornelius Riordan suggest that
children from underprivileged backgrounds are the greatest beneficiaries of single-
sex schooling. The message of all this research is simple: there are no differences
in what girls and boys can learn, but here are big differences in the best way to
teach them.
Single-sex education meets the needs of boys better
Boys and girls have different needs and education which respects personal
differences must take this into account. On a practical level, the intuitively directed
and affectively oriented styles of learning which suit most girls are not always
compatible with the more structured and practical approaches which appeal to
boys. Single-sex schooling allows teachers to tailor their teaching style to the boys
and facilitates a more rounded educational experience. In a co-ed school, boys
can opt out of curriculum areas where they would be out-performed.

Furthermore, there is evidence that mixed classrooms can discriminate against
either boys and girls depending on the subject, the gender of the teacher, the
teacher's methodologies, and the prevailing culture in the school. Some schools
have now started running single-sex classrooms in English and other humanities
subjects to improve the performance of boys. The pilot study that demonstrated
improved performance of boys in this context has been known as the Cotswold
Experiment.
Single-sex education meets the needs of girls better
Single-sex education has clear benefits for girls. In the first place, it often gives
them expanded educational opportunities by allowing them to pursue non-
traditional disciplines for girls such as mathematics or science. Single-sex
schooling also offers more opportunities to girls to exercise leadership. When girls
and boys are in the same classroom, the boys tend to dominate and overshadow
equally talented girls.
On an emotional level, single-sex education puts less pressure on girls, especially
in adolescence. At that age, girls are more prone than boys to suffer from low self
esteem. It is difficult to manage this issue in a coed climate when boys dominate
in the classroom and when they receive more recognition, allowance for
misbehaviour and encouragement.
Single-sex education makes greater provision for gender role modeling
The shortage of male teachers in the primary classroom is a concern in many
countries. In the first six years of school, many boys in co-ed schools seldom
encounter a male teacher. Because children imitate those they admire, it is
common sense to ensure that boys and girls find in their teachers truly admirable
role models. The example of professionalism, values and consistently positive
behavior is most important. But there are other aspects of example that are gender
specific. A boy learns what it means to be a man from his father, but this is
reinforced if there are other admirable men in his life. This is also true for girls and
their female teachers.
Single-sex schooling allows boys and girls to mature at their own pace
Girls mature earlier than boys: they are better behaved, more diligent and more
sensible and they find it easier to relate to the adult world. For all these reasons, it
is often argued that girls exert a civilizing influence on boys. Whilst this may be
true in some situation, the converse is also true: boys can uncivilize girls. When
adolescent girls and boys study together, there is much evidence that a proportion
will end up distracted from their work.

Single-sex schooling is often criticized for reinforcing negative images of
masculinity. Unfortunately this can even happen in co-ed schools. The problem is
not solved by bringing girls and boys together, but by vigilantly managing the
culture in a school and sub-groups in the school.
Single-sex schooling does not handicap children socially
There is no evidence that children who have attended co-ed schools enter adult
relationships that are more stable or fulfilling with the opposite sex. Assertions that
children from co-ed backgrounds are better prepared for adult life seem to be
flawed. There is a higher rate of unplanned pregnancies (and by implication, of
terminated pregnancies) for girls in co-ed schools. One study has shown that
students from single-sex schooling are not noticeably thwarted in the development
of relationships with the opposite sex either at school or later at university.

Coeducation can allow socializing to complicate intellectual development. Of
course a positive school culture and the superior training of teachers can work
against this. But it is difficult to protect impressionable young people from the
images of precocious intimacy that saturate the media. Since emotional attraction
and physical attraction works first of all at the level of physical proximity, there
seems a strong argument to separate a teenager's academic world from his or her
social world. In a coeducational secondary classroom the lines between social life
and school can become blurred. Single-sex education allows children to think
about things "other than their hormones".
Single-sex schooling makes it easier to be a good parent
Single-sex schools also provide parents with an opportunity to manage more
effectively the social development of their children, particularly in the early years. It
makes it easier for them to impart education about sexual matters in a way
consistent with their values. Of course when parents choose to send their children
to single-sex schools they will need to have much more initiative in providing for
the social development of their children. They should set up many opportunities for
boys to mix with girls in a family setting during childhood, well before they turn 14
or 15. It is very late to be starting to talk with a child about these issues once he or
she has reached mid secondary school.
An undeniable problem for all families is the gulf between home life and a
teenager's social world. Children must feel they can bring their friends home.
Coeducational schooling does little to help because it creates a social environment
which is totally beyond the parents' knowledge and largely outside their control.
Unhappily when youth culture becomes divorced from family life, a certain
percentage of children are sure to end up badly damaged.
Even if single-sex schooling is better for children, it demands more of their parents
because they have to take responsibility for helping their children acquire mature
social skills. It is easier for parents who send their children to co-ed schools to
shirk this responsibility, even though this is not a task which can be delegated to
anyone else. Indeed, the notion that parents can wash their hands of the problems
of teenage social life may account for some of the popularity of co-ed education.
But although relinquishing their leadership role might make parents' lives easier,
the children often suffer from their neglect.
NO.
Mixed-sex education, also known as coeducation, is the integrated education of
male and female persons in the same institution. It is the opposite of single-sex
education. Most older institutions of higher education were reserved for the male sex
and since then have changed their policies to become coeducational.
The first mixed-sex institution of higher learning in China was the Nanjing Higher
Normal School, which was renamed National Central University and Nanjing
University. For thousands of years in China, public schools especially public higher
learning schools were for men, generally only schools established by zongzu (,
gens) for both male and female students. Some schools such as Li Zhi's school in
Ming Dynasty and Yuan Mei's school in Qing Dynasty enrolled both male and female
students. In the 1910s women's universities were established such as Ginling
Women's University and Peking Girls' Higher Normal School, but there were no
coeducation in higher learning schools.
Tao Xingzhi, the Chinese advocator of mixed-sex education, proposed The Audit
Law for Women Students () at the meeting of Nanjing Higher
Normal School held on December 7, 1919. He also proposed that the university
recruit female students. The idea was supported by the president Guo Bingwen,
academic director Liu Boming, and such famous professors as Lu Zhiwei and Yang
Xingfo, but opposed by many famous men of the time. The meeting passed the law
and decided to recruit women students next year. Nanjing Higher Normal School
enrolled eight Chinese women students in 1920. In the same year Peking University
also began to allow women students to audit classes. One of the most notable
female students of that time was Jianxiong Wu.
In 1949, the People's Republic of China was founded. The government of PRC has
provided equal opportunities for education since then, and all schools and
universities have become mixed-sex. In recent years, however, many female and/or
single-sex schools have again emerged for special vocational training needs but
equal rights for education still apply to all citizens.
Admission to the Sorbonne, France was opened to girls in 1860.
[1]
The
baccalaureate became gender-blind in 1924, giving equal chances to all girls in
applying to any universities. The mixed-sex education became mandatory for
primary schools in 1957 and for all universities in 1975.
St. Paul's Co-educational College in Hongkong was the first mixed-sex secondary
school in Hong Kong. It was founded in 1915 as St. Paul's Girls' College. At the end
of World War II it was temporarily merged with St. Paul's College, which is a boys'
school. When classes at the campus of St. Paul's College were resumed, it
continued to be mixed, and changed to its present name.
In the United Kingdom the official term is mixed, and today most schools are mixed.
A number of Quaker co-educational boarding schools were established before the
19th century. In England the first non-Quaker public mixed-sex boarding school was
Bedales School, founded in 1893 by John Haden Badley and becoming mixed in
1898. The Scottish Dollar Academy claims to be the first mixed-sex boarding school
in the UK (in 1818). Many previously single-sex schools have begun to accept both
sexes in the past few decades; for example, Clifton College began to accept women
in 1987.
The first United Kingdom university to allow ladies to enter on equal terms with
gentlemen, and hence be admitted to academic degrees, was the University of
London in 1878, with degrees being conferred upon the United Kingdom's first four
female graduates in 1880.
[4]
The first institution engaged in educating students, given
the University of London's then role was an examining authority, to become fully co-
educational was University College London in 1878. The University of Cambridge
allowed women to take its examinations in 1881 but refused to confer degrees upon
women until 1948. The University of Oxford allowed women to take its examinations
in 1884 but refused to admit female graduands to the degrees if they passed the
said oral examinations until 1920.
Given their dual role as both boarding house and educational establishment,
individual colleges at Oxford and Cambridge remained segregated for much longer
periods. The first Oxford college to house both men and women was the graduate
only Nuffield College in 1937, with the first five undergraduate colleges (including St
Catherine's) becoming mixed in 1974. The first mixed Cambridge college was the
graduate only Darwin from it's foundation in 1964. Churchill, Clare and King's
colleges of Cambridge were the first previously all-male colleges to admit female
undergraduates in 1972. Magdalene was the last all-male college to become mixed
in 1988.
The last single-sex College in Oxford, St Hilda's, went mixed from Michaelmass term
2008, however Permenant Private Halls exist which are open only to men. Three
colleges remain single sex at Cambridge, Murray Edwards (New Hall), Newnham
and Lucy Cavendish.
The first mixed-sex institute of higher education in the United States was Oberlin
College in Oberlin, Ohio, which was established in 1833. Mixed-sex classes were
admitted to the preparatory department at Oberlin in 1833 and the college
department in 1837. The first four women to receive bachelor's degrees in the United
States earned them at Oberlin in 1841. Later, in 1862, the first black woman to
receive a bachelor's degree (Mary Jane Patterson) also earned it from Oberlin
College. Beginning in 1844, Hillsdale College became the second college to admit
mixed-sex classes to four-year degree programs.
The University of Iowa became the first coeducational public or state university in the
United States in 1855, and for much of the next century, public universities, and land
grant universities in particular, would lead the way in mixed-sex higher education.
There were also many private coeducational universities founded in the 19th
century, especially west of the Mississippi River. East of the Mississippi, Cornell
University admitted its first female student in 1870.
Around the same time, single-sex women's colleges were also appearing. According
to Irene Harwarth, Mindi Maline, and Elizabeth DeBra: "women's colleges were
founded during the mid- and late-19th century in response to a need for advanced
education for women at a time when they were not admitted to most institutions of
higher education."[1] Notable examples include the prestigious Seven Sisters, of
which Vassar College is now coeducational and Radcliffe College has merged with
Harvard University. Other notable women's colleges that have become
coeducational include Ohio Wesleyan Female College in Ohio, Skidmore College,
Wells College, and Sarah Lawrence College in New York state, Goucher College in
Maryland, and Connecticut College.
Several early primary and secondary schools in the United States were single-sex.
One example is Collegiate School, a boys' school operating in New York by 1638 (at
the latest).
Nonetheless, mixed-sex education existed at these levels in the U.S. long before it
extended to colleges. For example, in 1787, the predecessor to Franklin and
Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, opened as a mixed-sex secondary
school.
[12][13]
Its first enrollment class consisted of 78 male and 36 female students.
Among the latter was Rebecca Gratz, the first Jewish female college student in the
United States. However, the school soon began having financial problems and it
reopened as an all-male institution. Westford Academy in Westford, Massachusetts
has operated as mixed-sex secondary school since its founding in 1792.
In American and Canadian colloquial language, "Coed" is also an informal term for a
female student attending a formerly all-male college or university (or any university).
This usage reflects the historical process by which it was often female pupils who
were admitted to schools originally reserved for boys, and thus it was they who were
identified with its becoming "coeducational". The word is also often used to describe
a situation in which both sexes are integrated in any form (e.g., "The team is co-ed").
The often cited and pat response to the question as to what are the advantages and
disadvantages to a mixed or single sex education are that single sex schools are
better for both boys and girls educationally. That socially boys do better in a mixed
secondary school because the presence of girls softens their behaviour. In Britain
these responses may not show the true picture since it is not often possible to
compare like with like. The few single sex state schools that there are just as likely to
be good or bad schools as are the mixed state secondary schools. The vast majority
of single sex schools are grammar schools, fee paying or faith schools they are just
not the same thing as the vast majority of mixed schools.
Huge change has taken place in the area of co-education over the past 15-20 years.
Faced with dwindling student figures in the 1990s, boys' schools began turning co-
educational.
"This happened in the 90s because of economic necessity," says Dr Newton,
headmaster at Taunton since 2004. "Taunton did this in the 1970s not because of
finances but because it was educationally right." Essentially, Newton believes that
co-education is preparing pupils for the outside world. "If you look at co-ed schools
philosophically, in terms of your vision for the world and what you want your children
to contribute to it, you've got to make sure they have the right tools and are properly
equipped for that. And co-education does that better.
"Girls are learning to compete with boys and boys, who are a little late to the game,
are learning to compete with girls. Co-operation and competition is something we
have to educate them about. At Taunton, they're also taught to work in teams
together, teams of boys and girls, led by boys and girls. And that is the way the world
is going."
Are girls at a disadvantage in terms of academic and social focus? "It is true that
girls do humanise boys in mixed schools. I think they make boys think twice and you
then have to be careful of girls becoming laddish in their own way," he admits.
"But girls also benefit hugely from a mixed environment, learning to be tougher and
stronger in their own minds. I think it becomes more competitive and more ambitious
now that they know the nature of the boy. And that's got to be good for the world
generally."
"Girls are learning to compete with boys and boys are learning to compete with girls.
Co-operation and competition is something we have to educate them about." Dr
John Newton, headmaster, Taunton co-educational school.
Addressing the issue of fun, he draws an example from his own family. "My two
daughters say they would miss out on the fun and the extra dimension of having
boys around if they went to a single sex school. Similarly, I see my 13-year-old son
with an extraordinarily better developed capacity to make friends with girls than I had
at that age (Newton went to a single-sex school).
"For me, I want my two girls to be out there working with boys, understanding them,
and competing with them, and the same for my boys interacting with girls. There's no
doubt that co-education has given both sexes in my family extraordinary confidence
to build relationships, co-operate and work with the opposite sex."

9. Should plea bargaining, by which people plead guilty to lesser offences in order
to get lesser sentences, continue?
YES.
A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement
in a criminal case whereby the prosecutor offers the defendant the opportunity to
plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with a
recommendation of a lighter than the maximum sentence.
A plea bargain allows criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on
the original more serious charge. For example, a criminal defendant charged with a
felony theft charge, the conviction of which would require imprisonment in prison,
may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a misdemeanor theft charge, which
may not carry jail time.
Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must
choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or
maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor, for the sake of helping future
clients.

There are several different types of plea bargain. In charge bargaining , defendants
plead guilty to a less serious crime than the original charge. In count bargaining,
they plead guilty to a subset of multiple original charges. In sentence bargaining,
they plead guilty knowing in advance what sentence will be given. In fact
bargaining, defendants plead guilty pursuant to an agreement in which the
prosecutor stipulates to certain facts that will affect how the defendant is punished
under the sentencing guidelines.
Plea bargaining is criticized, on the grounds that its close relationship with rewards,
threats and coercion potentially endangers the correct legal outcome. Coercive plea
bargaining has been criticized on the grounds that it infringes an individual's rights
under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated in the
UK's Human Rights Act 1998.
Even when the charges are more serious, prosecutors often can still bluff defense
attorneys and their clients into pleading guilty to a lesser offense. As a result, people
who might have been acquitted because of lack of evidence, but also who are in fact
truly innocent, will often plead guilty to the charge. Why? In a word, fear. And the
more numerous and serious the charges, studies have shown, the greater the fear.
That explains why prosecutors sometimes seem to file every charge imaginable
against defendants.
For prosecutors, a lightened caseload is equally attractive. But more importantly,
plea bargaining assures a conviction, even if it is for a lesser charge or crime. No
matter how strong the evidence may be, no case is a foregone conclusion.
Prosecutors often wage long and expensive trials but lose, as happened in the
infamous O. J. Simpson murder trial.
Moreover, prosecutors may use plea bargaining to further their case against a co-
defendant. They may accept a plea bargain arrangement from one defendant in
return for damaging testimony against another. This way, they are assured of at
least one conviction (albeit on a lesser charge) plus enhanced chances of winning a
conviction against the second defendant.
The validity of a plea bargain is dependent upon three essential components:
1. a knowing waiver of rights
2. a voluntary waiver
3. a factual basis to support the charges to which the defendant is
pleading guilty
Plea bargaining generally occurs on the telephone or in the prosecutor's office at the
courtroom. Judges are not involved except in very rare circumstances. Plea bargains
that are accepted by the judge are then placed "on the record" in open court. The
defendant must be present.
One important point is a prosecuting attorney has no authority to force a court to
accept a plea agreement entered into by the parties. Prosecutors may only
"recommend" to the court the acceptance of a plea arrangement. The court will
usually take proofs to ensure that the above three components are satisfied and will
then generally accept the recommendation of the prosecution.
Moreover, plea bargaining is not as simple as it may first appear. In effectively
negotiating a criminal plea arrangement, the attorney must have the technical
knowledge of every "element" of a crime or charge, an understanding of the actual or
potential evidence that exists or could be developed, a technical knowledge of
"lesser included offenses" versus separate counts or crimes, and a reasonable
understanding of sentencing guidelines.
As criminal courts become more crowded, prosecutors and judges feel increased
pressure to move cases quickly through the system. Trials can take days, weeks or
sometimes months, while guilty pleas can often be arranged in minutes. Also, the
outcome of any given trial is usually unpredictable -- but a plea bargain provides
both prosecution and defense with some control over the result.
For most defendants, the principal benefit of plea bargaining is receiving a lighter
sentence for a less-severe charge than might result from taking the case to trial and
losing. In addition, defendants who are represented by private counsel can save a
bundle on attorney fees by accepting a plea bargain. It almost always takes more
time and effort to bring a case to trial than to negotiate and handle a plea bargain.
There are other benefits as well:
Getting out of jail. Defendants who are held in custody -- who either do not have
the right to bail or cannot afford bail, or who do not qualify for release on their own
recognizance -- may get out of jail immediately following the judge's acceptance of a
plea. Depending on the offense, the defendant may get out altogether, on probation,
with or without some community service obligations. Or, the defendant may have to
serve more time but will still get out much sooner than if he or she insisted on going
to trial.
Resolving the matter quickly. This has the intangible benefit, touched on above, of
providing resolution to the stress of being charged with a crime. Going to trial usually
requires a much longer wait -- and causes much more stress -- than taking a plea
bargain.
Having fewer or less-serious offenses on one's record. Pleading guilty or no
contest in exchange for a reduction in the number of charges or the seriousness of
the offenses looks a lot better on a defendant's record than the convictions that
might result following trial. This can be particularly important if the defendant is ever
convicted in the future. For example, a second conviction for driving under the
influence (DUI) may carry mandatory jail time, whereas if the first DUI offense had
been bargained down to reckless driving, there may be no jail time for the "second"
DUI.
Even for people who are never rearrested, getting a charge reduced from a felony to
a misdemeanor, or from a felony that constitutes a strike under a "three strikes" law
to one that doesn't, can prove to be a critical benefit. Some professional licenses
must be forfeited upon conviction of a felony. Future employers may not want to hire
someone previously convicted of a felony. Felony convictions may be used in certain
court proceedings (even civil cases) to discredit people who testify as witnesses.
Felons can't own or possess firearms. And, in many jurisdictions, felons can't vote.
Having a less socially stigmatizing offense on one's record. Prosecutors may
reduce charges that are perceived as socially offensive to less-offensive charges in
exchange for a guilty plea. For example, a prosecutor may reduce a molestation or
rape case to an assault. This can have a major impact on the defendant's
relationship with friends and family. Perhaps even more critical, sometimes
defendants convicted of stigmatizing offenses may be at a greater risk of being
harmed (or killed) in prison than if they are convicted of an offense that doesn't carry
the same stigma.
Avoiding hassles. Some people plead guilty -- especially to routine, minor first
offenses -- without hiring a lawyer. If they waited to go to trial, they would have to
find a good lawyer and spend both time and money preparing for trial.
Avoiding publicity. Famous people, ordinary people who depend on their
reputation in the community to earn a living, and people who don't want to bring
further embarrassment to their families all may chose to plead guilty or no contest to
keep their names out of the public eye. While news of the plea itself may be public,
the news is short-lived compared to news of a trial. And rarely is a defendant's
background explored in the course of a plea bargain to the extent it may be done at
trial.
Keeping others out of the case. Some defendants plead guilty to take the blame
(sometimes called the "rap") for someone else, or to end the case quickly so that
others who may be jointly responsible are not investigated.
For a judge, the primary incentive for accepting a plea bargain is to move along a
crowded calendar. Most judges simply don't have time to try every case that comes
through the door. Additionally, because jails are overcrowded, judges may face the
prospect of having to release convicted people before they complete their
sentences. Judges often reason that using plea bargains to "process out" offenders
who are not likely to do much jail time leads to fewer problems with overcrowding.
For a prosecutor, the judge's concerns about a clogged calendar are the
prosecutor's concerns as well. And prosecutors are concerned about their own
calendars. Crowded calendars mean that the prosecutor's staff is
overworked. Because plea bargains are much quicker and require less work than
trials, they are also easier on the prosecutor's budget.
Although plea bargaining is often criticized, more than 90 percent of criminal
convictions come from negotiated pleas. Thus, less than ten percent of criminal
cases go to trial.
For judges, the key incentive for accepting a plea bargain is to alleviate the need to
schedule and hold a trial on an already overcrowded docket. Judges are also aware
of prison overcrowding and may be receptive to the "processing out" of offenders
who are not likely to do much jail time anyway.
Several features of the American justice system tend to promote plea bargaining.
The adversarial nature of the system puts judges in a passive role, in which they
have independent access to information with which to assess the strength of the
case against the defendant. The parties thus can control the outcome of the case by
exercising their rights or bargaining them away. The lack of compulsory prosecution
also gives prosecutors greater discretion. And the inability of crime victims to mount
a private prosecution and their limited ability to influence plea agreements also tends
to encourage plea bargaining.
Like other common law jurisdictions, the Canadian Crown can also agree to
withdraw some charges against the defendant in exchange for a guilty plea, this has
become standard procedure for certain offences such as impaired driving. Note that
in the case of hybrid offences, the Crown must make a binding decision as to
whether to proceed summarily or by indictment prior to the defendant making his or
her plea - if the Crown elects to proceed summarily and the defendant then pleads
not guilty, the Crown cannot change its election. Therefore the Crown is not in a
position to offer to proceed summarily in exchange for a guilty plea.
Canadian judges are not bound by the Crown's sentencing recommendations and
could impose harsher penalties. Therefore the Crown and defence will often make a
joint submission where they will both recommend the same sentence, or (much more
commonly) a relatively narrow range (with the Crown arguing for a sentence at the
upper end of the range and the defence arguing for a sentence at the lower end) so
as to maintain the visibility of the judge's ability of exercise discretion.
Judges are not bound to impose a sentence within the range of a joint submission,
and a judge's disregard for a joint submission is not in itself grounds for the sentence
to be altered on appeal. However, if a judge were to routinely disregard joint
submissions then (s)he would compromise the ability of the Crown to offer
meaningful incentive for defendants to plead guilty. Defence lawyers would become
reluctant to enter into joint submissions if they were thought to be of little value with a
particular judge, thus resulting in otherwise avoidable trials.
For these reasons, Canadian judges will normally impose a sentence within the
range of any joint submission.
[15]

Plea bargaining was introduced in India by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005,
which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure and introduced a new chapter XXI
(A) in the code which is enforceable from January 11, 2006. This affects cases in
which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for seven years; however, offenses
affecting the socio-economic condition of the country and offenses committed
against a woman or a child below the age of fourteen are excluded.
Plea bargain as a formal legal provision was introduced in Pakistan by the National
Accountability Ordinance 1999, an anti-corruption law. Special feature of this plea
bargain is that the accused applies for it accepting his guilt and offers to return the
proceeds of corruption as determined by investigators/prosecutors. After
endorsement by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau the request is
presented before the court which decides whether it should be accepted or not. In
case the request for plea bargain is accepted by the court, the accused stands
convicted but is neither sentenced if in trial nor undergoes any sentence previously
pronounced by a lower court if in appeal. He is disqualified to take part in elections,
hold any public office, obtain a loan from any bank and is dismissed from service if
he is a government official.
Outside, this formal plea bargain in Pakistan is limited, however the Prosecutor has
the authority to drop a case or a charge in a case and in practice often does so, in
return for a defendant pleading guilty on some lesser charge. No bargaining takes
place over the penalty, which is the court's sole privilege.
In some common law jurisdictions, such as England and Wales and the Australian
state of Victoria, plea bargaining is permitted only to the extent that the prosecutors
and the defense can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges and
the prosecutor will drop the remainder. The courts in these jurisdictions have made it
plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No
bargaining takes place over the penalty.
In the case of hybrid offences in England and Wales, the decision whether to deal
with a case in Magistrates Court or Crown Court is not made by magistrates until
after a plea has been entered. A defendant is thus unable to plead guilty in
exchange for having a case dealt with in Magistrates Court (which has lesser
sentencing powers).
Plea bargaining is extremely difficult in jurisdictions based on civil law. This is
because unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no concept of pleaif
the defendant confesses, that confession is entered into evidence, but the
prosecution is not absolved of the duty to present a full case. A court may decide
that a defendant is innocent even though they presented a full confession. Also
unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may have limited or
no power to drop or reduce charges after a case has been filed, and in some
countries their power to drop or reduce charges before a case has been filed is
limited, making plea bargaining impossible. Furthermore, many civil law jurists
consider the concept of plea bargaining to be abhorrent, seeing it as reducing justice
to barter.
In the Central African Republic, witchcraft carries heavy penalties but those accused
of it typically confess in exchange for a modest sentence.
In Estonia plea bargaining was introduced in the 1990s, allowing to reduce penalty in
exchange for confession and avoiding most of the court proceedings. Plea
bargaining is permitted for the crimes punishable by no more than four years of
imprisonment. Normally one fourth reduction of penalty is given.
The introduction of a limited form of plea bargaining (comparution sur
reconnaissance pralable de culpabilit or CRPC, often summarized as plaider
coupable) was highly controversial in France. In this system, the public prosecutor
could propose to suspects of relatively minor crimes a penalty not exceeding one
year in prison; the deal, if accepted, had to be accepted by a judge. Opponents,
most specifically attorneys and left-wing parties, argued that plea bargaining would
gravely infringe on the rights of defense, the long-standing constitutional right of
presumption of innocence, the rights of suspects in police custody, and the right to a
fair trial.
For instance, Robert Badinter argued that plea bargaining would give too much
power to the public prosecutor, and would incite defendants to accept a sentence
simply to avoid the risk of a bigger sentence in a trial, even if they did not really
deserve it. Only a small minority of criminal cases are settled by CRPC: in 2005, out
of 530,000 decisions by correctional courts, only 21,000 were CRPC.

Plea bargain (Georgian: ) was introduced in Georgia in
2004. The substance of the Georgian plea bargaining is similar to the US and other
common law jurisdictions. There is an additional requirement in Georgia that the
defendant accepting a plea bargain pay a fee, determined by the prosecutor when
crafting the plea agreement. The destination of this fee appears to be the general
state budget, though it is unclear. If the defendant is unable to afford the fee, then
the case will go to trial, where the defendant will have a roughly 0.6% chance of
being acquitted or having her trial abandoned by the prosecutor. The statistics of the
Supreme Court of Georgia suggest that roughly 56% of criminal cases are solved
through plea agreement.
Plea agreements have made a limited appearance in Germany. However, there is no
exact equivalent of a guilty plea in German criminal procedure.
Plea bargaining (patteggiamento) The bargaining is not about the charges in Italy,
but about the sentence, reduced of one third. When the defendant deems that the
punishment that would, concretely, be handed down is less than five-year
imprisonment (or that it would just be a fine), he may plea-bargain with the
prosecutor. The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence and has
other advantages (he does not pay the fees or the proceeeding.). The defendant
must accept to plead guilty to the charges (even if the plea-bargained sentence has
some particular matters in further compensation proceedings), no matter how
serious they are. It could happen that the prosecutor agrees to reduce a charge,
drop some of multiple charges in exchange for the defendant's guilty plea, often to a
lesser offense. When both the prosecutor and the defendant have come to an
agreement, the proposal is submitted to the Judge who can refuse or accept the plea
bargaining (More about italian criminal trial from www.canestrinilex.it).
Poland also adopted a limited form of plea bargaining, which is applicable only to
minor felonies (punishable by no more than 10 years of imprisonment). The
procedure is called voluntary submission to a penalty and allows the court to pass
an agreed sentence without reviewing the evidence, which significantly shortens the
trial. There are some specific conditions that have to be simultaneously met:
the defendant pleads guilty and proposes a penalty,
the prosecutor agrees,
the victim agrees,
the court agrees.
However, the court may object to the terms of proposed plea agreement (even if
already agreed between the defendant, victim and prosecutor) and suggest changes
(not specific but rather general). If the defendant accepts these suggestions and
changes their penalty proposition, then the court approves it and passes the verdict
according to the plea agreement. In spite of the agreement, the parties of the trial
(prosecution and defendant) have right to appeal.

NO.
The theoretical work based on the Prisoner's dilemma is one reason why, in many
countries, plea bargaining is forbidden. Often, precisely the Prisoner's dilemma
scenario applies: it is in the interest of both suspects to confess and testify against
the other suspect, irrespective of the innocence of the accused. Arguably, the worst
case is when only one party is guiltyhere, the innocent one is unlikely to confess,
while the guilty one is likely to confess and testify against the innocent.
Another argument against plea bargaining is that it may not actually reduce the costs
of administering justice. For example, if a prosecutor has only a 25% chance of
winning his case and sending the defendant away to prison for 10 years, he may
make a plea agreement for a 1-year sentence; but if plea bargaining is unavailable,
he may drop the case completely.

Agency problems sometimes arise in plea bargaining in that, although the
prosecutor represents the people and the defense attorney represents the
defendant, these agents' goals may be far from congruent with those of their
principals. Moreover, prosecutors and defence attorneys often view each another as
colleagues and generally wish to maintain good relations with one another. A
defense attorney often receives a flat fee, or in any event will not receive enough
additional money if he goes to trial to cover the costs of doing so; this can create an
incentive to plea bargain, even at the expense of his client's interests. On the other
hand, the prosecutor may wish to maintain a high conviction rate and avoid losing
high-profile trials; thus, settling a case by plea bargain may further his interests, even
if the resulting sentence would not effectively deter crime.
Plea bargaining has been defended as a voluntary exchange that leaves both parties
better off, in that defendants have many procedural and substantive rights, but by
pleading guilty, they sell these rights to the prosecutor, receiving concessions they
esteem more highly than the rights surrendered. It has been argued that plea
bargaining benefits society by ensuring that the guilty are not acquitted.
NO.
Because any person who is accused of violating the criminal law can lose his
liberty, and perhaps even his life depending on the offense and prescribed penalty, the
Framers of the Constitution took pains to put explicit limits on the awesome powers
of government. The Bill of Rights explicitly guarantees several safeguards to the
accused, including the right to be informed of the charges, the right not to be
compelled to incriminate oneself, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to an
impartial jury trial in the state and district where the offense allegedly took place, the
right to cross-examine the states witnesses, the right to call witnesses on ones own
behalf, and the right to the assistance of counsel. Justice Hugo Black once noted that,
in America, the defendant has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to
investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the
jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a
fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to
Prove it! The overwhelming majority of individuals who are accused of crime forgo
their constitutional rights and plead guilty.
Plea bargaining unquestionably alleviates the workload of judges, prosecutors, and
defense lawyers. But is it proper for a government that is constitutionally required to
respect the right to trial by jury to use its charging and sentencing powers to pressure
an individual to waive that right? There is no doubt that government officials
deliberately use their power to pressure people who have been accused of crime, and
who are presumed innocent, to confess their guilt and waive their right to a formal trial.
We know this to be true because prosecutors freely admit that this is what they do.

An example in the US is Watershed president Paul Lewis Hayes, for example, was
indicted for attempting to pass a forged check in the amount of $88.30, an offense that
was punishable by a prison term of two to 10 years. The prosecutor offered to
recommend a sentence of five years if Hayes would waive his right to trial and plead
guilty to the charge. The prosecutor also made it clear to Hayes that if he did not plead
guilty and save the court the inconvenience and necessity of a trial, the state would
seek a new indictment from a grand jury under Kentuckys Habitual Criminal Act.
Under the provisions of that statute, Hayes would face a mandatory sentence of life
imprisonment because of his prior criminal record. Despite the enormous pressure
exerted upon him by the state, Hayes insisted on his right to jury trial. He was
subsequently convicted and then sentenced to life imprisonment.

On appeal, Hayes argued that the prosecutor violated the Constitution by threatening
to punish him for simply invoking his right to a trial. In response, the government freely
admitted that the only reason a new indictment was filed against Hayes was to deter
him from exercising that right. Because the indictment was supported by the evidence,
the government maintained that the prosecutor had done nothing improper.
The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court for a resolution. In a landmark
54 ruling, Bordenkircher v. Hayes, the Court approved the prosecutors handling of
the case and upheld the draconian sentence of life imprisonment. Because the 1978
case is considered to be the precedent for plea bargaining, it deserves careful
attention. Our Rules of Court were copied from that of the US, and so with our other
Laws.
The Hayes ruling acknowledged that it would be patently unconstitutional for any
agent of the government to pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a
persons reliance on his legal rights. The Court, however, declined to overturn
Hayess sentence because he could have completely avoided the risk of life
imprisonment by admitting his guilt and accepting a prison term of five years. The
constitutional rationale for plea bargaining is that there is no element of punishment or
retaliation so long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecutions offer.

Initially, the Courts proposition in Hayes seems plausible because criminal defendants
have always been allowed to waive their right to a trial, and the executive and
legislative branches have always had discretion with respect to their charging and
sentencing policies. But a closer inspection will show that the constitutional rationale
underlying plea bargaining cannot withstand scrutiny. First, it is important to note that
the existence of some element of choice has never been thought to justify otherwise
wrongful conduct. As the Supreme Court itself observed in another context, It always
is for the interest of a party under duress to choose the lesser of two evils. But the
fact that a choice was made according to interest does not exclude duress. It is the
characteristic of duress properly so called.

The courts have employed similar reasoning in tort disputes between private parties.
For example, a woman brought a false imprisonment action against a male
acquaintance after he allegedly forced her to travel with him in his automobile when it
was her desire to travel by train. According to the complaint, the man boarded the
train, seized the womans purse, and then disembarked and proceeded to his car. The
woman then left the train to retrieve her purse. While arguing with the man in the
parking lot, the train left the station. Reluctantly, the woman got into the vehicle to
travel to her destination. The man maintained that the false imprisonment claim lacked
merit because he exercised no physical force against the woman and because she
was at liberty to remain on the train or to go her own way. The court rejected that
defense and ruled that the false imprisonment theory had merit because the woman
did not wish to leave the train and she did not wish to depart without her purse. The
man unlawfully interfered with the womans liberty to be where she wished to be. The
fact that the man had given the woman some choices that she could accept or reject
did not alter the fact that the man was a tortfeasor.

Second, the Supreme Court has repeatedly invalidated certain governmental actions
that were purposely designed to coerce individuals and organizations into
surrendering their constitutional rights. In the 1978 case Marshall v. Barlows Inc.,
the Court ruled that a businessman was within his rights when he refused to allow an
Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspector into his establishment
without a search warrant. The secretary of labor filed a legal brief arguing that when
people make the decision to go into business, they essentially consent to
governmental inspections of their property. Even though the owner of the premises
could have avoided such inspections by shutting down his business, the Court
recognized that the osha regulations penalized commercial property owners for
exercising their right under the Fourth Amendment to insist that government inspectors
obtain search warrants before demanding access to the premises. In the 1978 case
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, the Court ruled that the state of California
could not grant a development permit subject to the condition that the landowners
allow the public an easement across a portion of their property. Even though the
landowners had the option of accepting or rejecting the Coastal Commissions deal,
the Court recognized that the permit condition, in the circumstances of that case,
amounted to an out-and-out plan of extortion. Similarly, in the 1974 case Miami
Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, the Supreme Court invalidated a so-called right of
reply statute. The Florida legislature made it a crime for a newspaper to criticize a
politician and then to deny that politician a right to equal space in the paper to defend
himself against such criticism. Even though Florida newspapers remained free to say
whatever they wished, the Court recognized that the statute exacted a penalty
for the simple exercise of free speech about political affairs.
Finally, the ad hoc nature of the Hayes precedent becomes apparent when one
extends its logic to other rights involving criminal procedure. The Court has never
proffered a satisfactory explanation with respect to why the government should not be
able to use its sentencing powers to leverage the waiver of constitutional rights
pertaining to the trial itself. Can federal prosecutors enter into negotiations with
criminal defendants with respect to the exercise of their trial rights? For example,
when a person is accused of a crime, he has the option of hiring an experienced
attorney to prepare a legal defense on his behalf or representing himself without the
aid of counsel. Can a prosecutor induce a defendant into waiving his right to the
assistance of counsel with a recommendation for leniency in the event of a conviction?
Such prosecutorial tactics are presently unheard of. And yet, under the rationale of the
Hayes case, it is not obvious why such tactics should be constitutionally barred. After
all, under Hayes there is no element of punishment or retaliation so long as the
accused is free to accept or reject the prosecutors offer. Sophistry to pretend
otherwise Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does
not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.
Although the fictional nature of that proposition has been apparent to many for some
time now, what is new is that more and more people are reaching the conclusion that it
is intolerable. Chief Judge William G. Young of the Federal District Court in
Massachusetts, for example, recently filed an opinion that was refreshingly candid
about what is happening in the modern criminal justice system:

First, everyone acknowledges that the state may not punish or penalize a person for
simply invoking a right that is supposed to be guaranteed under the Constitution. And
yet, this is precisely what the government does with plea bargaining. For example,
every month police officers in Washington, D.C. encounter tourists who are carrying
handguns. The tourists are unaware of the Districts strict laws against handgun
possession. They regularly surrender handguns to police officers who are supervising
metal detectors at museums around the capital. When the tourists openly surrender
their firearms, they mistakenly believe that they are doing nothing illegal. The gun
is then confiscated and the tourist is arrested. If a tourist agrees to forgo a trial and
plead guilty, prosecutors do not request jail time. However, if a tourist were to seek a
jury trial, prosecutors would respond with additional charges, such as possession of
illegal ammunition (conceivably, a count for each bullet in the pistol chamber). Not
surprisingly, 99.9 percent of the tourists decide to plead guilty. It is argued that, in such
cases criminal defendants are not being punished for a refusal to bargain; they are
instead being punished for violating the law. The tourists have no right to complain
because they have no right to leniency. That line of argument has surface appeal,
but it is defective. The logical fallacy of division says that what may be true for the
whole is not necessarily true for the parts.
Thus, a prosecutor can indeed throw the book at any given tourist. However, if it
came to light that the prosecutor was targeting, say, Hispanics for harsher treatment,
we would know that something was very wrong. The retort that Hispanic arrestees do
not have a right to leniency would be an unsatisfying defense of the prosecutors
handling of such cases. Plea bargaining tactics fail for similar, though perhaps more
subtle, reasons. Just because the state can throw the book at someone does not
mean that it can use its power to retaliate against a person who wishes to exercise his
right to a trial. The defense of plea bargaining repeatedly returns to the idea that
criminal defendants have the right to make a contract, as in other free-trade
situations. But plea bargaining is not free trade. It is a forced association. Once a
person has been charged with a crime, he does not have the option of walking away
from the state. Because individuals can waive many of their constitutional rights, they
can also sell their rights. Even if that argument had merit, it is not the law. But, more
importantly, one suspects that it is not the law because the argument lacks merit.
Imagine four people who are charged with auto theft. One defendant pleads guilty to
the offense and receives three years of jail time. The second defendant insists upon a
trial, but sells his right to call his own witnesses. After conviction, he receives four
years. The third defendant insists on a trial, but sells his right to be represented by his
famous attorney-uncle, F. Lee Bailey. Instead, he hires a local attorney and, in
addition, sells his right to a speedy trial. After conviction, he receives five years.
The fourth insists upon a trial, presents a rigorous but unsuccessful defense and, after
conviction, receives a prison sentence of 10 years. Are the disparate punishments for
the same offense sensible? The courtroom just does not seem to be the proper
place for an auction and haggling.

Thomas Jefferson famously observed that the natural progress of things is for liberty
to yield and government to gain ground. The American experience with plea
bargaining is yet another confirmation of that truth. The Supreme Court unleashed a
runaway train when it sanctioned plea bargaining in Bordenkircher v. Hayes. Despite a
steady media diet of titillating criminal trials in recent years, there is an increasing
recognition that jury trials are now a rarity in America and that something,
somewhere, is seriously amiss. That something is plea bargaining.

As with so many other areas of constitutional law, the Court must stop tinkering
around the edges of the issue and return to first principles. It is true that plea
bargaining speeds caseload disposition, but it does so in an unconstitutional manner.
The Framers of the Constitution were aware of less time-consuming trial procedures
when they wrote the Bill of Rights, but chose not to adopt them. The Framers believed
the Bill of Rights, and the freedom it secured, was well worth any costs that resulted. If
that vision is to endure, the Supreme Court must come to its defense.

10. Should the government compel priests to divulge the details of
confessionals in criminal trials?
YES.
Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone
has violated criminal law.
Currently, in many countries with a democratic system and the rule of law, criminal
procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution that is, it is up to the
prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, as
opposed to having the defense prove that s/he is innocent, and any doubt is
resolved in favor of the defendant. This provision, known as the presumption of
innocence, is required, for example, in the 46 countries that are members of the
Council of Europe, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
and it is included in other human rights documents. However, in practice it operates
somewhat differently in different countries.
Similarly, all such jurisdictions allow the defendant the right to legal counsel and
provide any defendant who cannot afford their own lawyer with a lawyer paid for at
the public expense (which is in some countries called a "court-appointed lawyer").
There are limited cases where portions of a confession may be revealed to others,
but always with the penitent's permission and always without actually revealing the
penitent's identity. This is the case, for example, with more serious offenses, as
some excommunicable offenses are reserved to the bishop or even to the Holy See,
and their permission to grant absolution must be obtained. In these cases, the priest
hearing the confession asks the permission of the penitent to write a petition, using
pseudonyms and containing the absolute minimum information necessary, to the
bishop or to the Apostolic Penitentiary, the cardinal delegated by the Pope to handle
such requests. This request may be forwarded, sealed, through the apostolic
delegate or nuncio in a country (the Pope's ambassador), to be guarded by the
privilege of a diplomatic pouch.
In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage the penitent to surrender to authorities.
However, this is the extent of the leverage they wield. They may not directly or
indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities themselves.
However, in the Philippines, we lack the equipment, manpower and skill to solve the
voluminous cases flooding our already clogged courts. And it is a known fact that
most suspects make confessions to the Catholic Priest in the belief that though they
may have committed evil acts or presumed to have committed or omitted acts, they
would still be forgiven by God and entitle them to a good life after death. Admittedly,
there are some priests who have partly violated the seal of confession, in his desire
for justice to prevail.
There must be guidelines for the church regarding confessions under the seal of
confession in relation to assisting our judiciary system and help maintain justice in
our country. For it is believed that it is the Spirit of the Law, and not the words of the
Law, that prevails, as Jesus Himself said. And the Spirit of the Law of God disallows
injustice against any child of God. It is not proposed to be used in every instance, but
only in extreme circumstances where the only link to the case and the suspect is the
confession of the person to the Priest.

NO.
The Seal of Confession or the Seal of the Confessional is the absolute
confidentiality for Roman Catholic priests, of anything that they learn from penitents
during the course of confession.
If this would be used as evidences for criminal proceedings, no one would anymore
avail of the Sacrament of Penance in fear of being prosecuted for their confessions
to the Priest.
According to Roman Catholic Canon law, "The sacramental seal is inviolable;
therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in
words or in any manner and for any reason."
Priests may not reveal what they have learned during confession to anyone, even
under the threat of their own death or that of others. For a priest to break
confidentiality would lead to a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication, the
lifting of which is reserved to the Holy Seein fact, to the Pope himself (Code of
Canon Law, 1388 1). It is presumed such a breach could be forgiven only with the
lifting of the authority of that priest to ever hear confessions again, and a
requirement that the priest undertake an extended period of penance, perhaps in a
monastery. In the Early Modern period, some casuists (Thomas Sanchez, etc.)
justified mental reservation, a form of deception which does not involve outright
lying, in specific circumstances including when such an action is necessary to
protect confidentiality under the seal of the confessional.
There are limited cases where portions of a confession may be revealed to others,
but always with the penitent's permission and always without actually revealing the
penitent's identity. This is the case, for example, with more serious offenses, as
some excommunicable offenses are reserved to the bishop or even to the Holy See,
and their permission to grant absolution must be obtained. In these cases, the priest
hearing the confession asks the permission of the penitent to write a petition, using
pseudonyms and containing the absolute minimum information necessary, to the
bishop or to the Apostolic Penitentiary, the cardinal delegated by the Pope to handle
such requests. This request may be forwarded, sealed, through the apostolic
delegate or nuncio in a country (the Pope's ambassador), to be guarded by the
privilege of a diplomatic pouch.
In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage the penitent to surrender to authorities.
However, this is the extent of the leverage they wield. They may not directly or
indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities themselves. The doctrine of priest-
penitent privilege is respected to varying degrees by governments in countries such
as England, France, and the United States.
The standard of secrecy protecting a confession outweighs any form of professional
confidentiality or secrecy. When a person unburdens his soul and confesses his sins
to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance, a very sacred trust is formed. The priest
must maintain absolute secrecy about anything that a person confesses. For this
reason, confessionals were developed with screens to protect the anonymity of the
penitent. This secrecy is called "the sacramental seal," "the seal of the confessional,"
or "the seal of confession."
The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law,
the Catechism states, "...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent
by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore,
cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false
accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a
crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a
person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court
trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating
the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or
action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are
forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any
use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would "displease" the penitent
or reveal his identity.
(Just as an aside, a great movie which deals with this very topic is Alfred Hitchcock's
"I Confess," which deals with a priest who hears a murder confession and then is
framed for the murder. As a priest, I was in agony during much of the movie.)
However, a priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to
discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent
wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession a particular sin, fault,
temptation, circumstance in a counseling session or in a conversation with the
same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For
instance, especially with the advent of "face-to-face confession," I have had
individuals come up to me and say, "Father, remember that problem I spoke to you
about in confession?" I have to say, "Please refresh my memory," or "Do you give
me permission to discuss this with you now?"
Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a
difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to
discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person
secret.
What happens if a priest violates the seal of confession? The Catechism (No. 1467)
cites the Code of Canon Law (No. 1388.1) in addressing this issue, which states, "A
confessor who directly violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic
excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he does so only indirectly, he is to
be punished in accord with the seriousness of the offense." From the severity of the
punishment, we can clearly see how sacred the sacramental seal of confession is in
the eyes of the Church.
Actually, the Church's position in this matter has long-standing credibility. The Fourth
Lateran Council (1215) produced one of the first comprehensive teachings
concerning the Sacrament of Penance. Addressing various problems ranging from
abuses to heretical stands against the sacrament, the council defended the
sacrament itself, stipulated the need for the yearly sacramental confession of sins
and reception of the Holy Eucharist, and imposed disciplinary measures upon priest
confessors. The council decreed, "Let the confessor take absolute care not to betray
the sinner through word or sign, or in any other way whatsoever. In case he needs
expert advice he may seek it without, however, in any way indicating the person. For
we decree that he who presumes to reveal a sin which has been manifested to him
in the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but also
to be consigned to a closed monastery for perpetual penance."
A beautiful story (perhaps embellished with time) which captures the reality of this
topic is the life of St. John Nepomucene (1340-93), the vicar general to the
Archbishop of Prague. King Wenceslaus IV, described as a vicious, young man who
easily succumbed to rage and caprice, was highly suspicious of his wife, the Queen.
St. John happened to be the Queen's confessor. Although the king himself was
unfaithful, he became increasingly jealous and suspicious of his wife, who was
irreproachable in her conduct. Although Wencelaus tortured St. John to force him to
reveal the Queen's confessions, he would not. In the end, St. John was thrown into
the River Moldau and drowned on March 20, 1393.
Each priest realizes that he is the ordained mediator of a very sacred and precious
sacrament. He knows that in the confessional, the penitent speaks not so much to
him, but through him to the Lord. Therefore, humbled by his position, the priest
knows that whatever is said in confession must remain secret at all costs.
Another interesting side to this question is the obligation of the laity: An interpreter
needed for someone to make a confession or anyone who gains knowledge of a
confession (such as overhearing someones confession) is also obligated to
preserve secrecy (Code of Canon Law, No. 983.2). For such a person to violate the
secrecy of another persons confession is a mortal sin and warrants "a just penalty,
not excluding excommunication" (No. 1388.2). A person who falsely accuses a priest
of breaking the seal of the confession incurs a mortal sin and perhaps other
canonical penalties, including excommunication.
Clearly, the Church regards the seal of confession as sacred. Every person
whether priest or laity must take the obligation to preserve the secrecy of
confession absolutely seriously.

12.) Should there be a fixed term for the Chief Justice and the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court?
YES.
The power to appoint the Chief Justice lies with the President, who makes the
selection from a list of 3 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council. There
is no material difference in the process of selecting a Chief Justice from that in the
selection of Associate Justices. As with the other Justices of the Supreme Court, the
Chief Justice is obliged to retire upon reaching the age of 70, otherwise there is no
term limit for the Chief Justice.
The Constitution does not ascribe any formal role to the Chief Justice other than as
an ex-officio Chairman of the Judicial and Bar Council and as the presiding officer in
any impeachment trial of the President. The Chief Justice is also required to
personally certify every decision that is rendered by the Court. He or she carries only
1 vote out of 15 in the Court, and is generally regarded, vis-a-vis the other Justices,
as the primus inter pares rather than as the administrative superior of the other
members of the Court.
Still, the influence a Chief Justice may bear within the Court and judiciary, and on the
national government cannot be underestimated. In the public eye, any particular
Supreme Court is widely identified with the identity of the incumbent Chief Justice,
hence appellations such as "The Concepcion Court", "The Fernando Court", or "The
Puno Court". Moreover, the Chief Justice usually retains high public visibility, unlike
the Associate Justices who tend to labor in relative anonymity, with exceptions such
as Associate Justice J.B.L. Reyes in the 1950s to 1970s.
By tradition, it is also the Chief Justice who swears into office the President of the
Philippines. One notable deviation from that tradition came in 1986. Due to the
exceptional political circumstances culminating in the People Power Revolution, on
February 25, 1986, Corazon Aquino took her oath of office as President before then
Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee in San Juan just minutes before Ferdinand
Marcos took his own oath of office also as President before Chief Justice Ramon
Aquino. Marcos fled into exile later that night.

13.) Should winning election candidates make a contract of their
promises during the campaigns whereby they may be made civilly or
criminally liable for breach of such contract?


14. Should texting while driving be made a criminal offense?

YES
The cellular phone has brought with it many conveniences and luxuries. It has
definitely made communication so much easier. However, when it comes to road
safety, the cellular phone may be considered a Russian Roullette. Thousands
people each year all over the world die of senseless tragic car accidents, mostly
because of distracted driving. The majority of these accidents are attributable to
texting or using their mobile phones.
In answering phone calls, even headsets do not help much since it is the
conversation that takes away the drivers focus on the road ahead. Many people also
try to text while driving, which leads to more dangerous situations.
In the US, almost more than half of the States ban using their mobiles while driving,
while other states impose a modified version of their rule. President Obama himself
is taking tough measures to put a stop to harmful distracted driving, particularly
texting while driving, which is believed to be the most hazardous one.
Texting while driving takes away three critical things needed for safe driving: your
hands, your eyes, your concentration. When you drive and text, you run a high risk
of getting into an accident, 4X more likely than drunk driving.
The administration of the US is responding actively to the concerned public, troubling
statistics, as well as alarming scientific stats. Experts from all corners of the world
made it appoint to address this serious issue and look for the right solution. In fact, it
is President Obama who took the initiative to make this a success. It was also
declared that the administration will work ideas to ban texting while driving. President
Obama emphasized his commitment to fighting distracted drivers at the end of the
national conference. He laid his final words that from onwards the federal employees
are restricted from texting while driving.
Despite this fact there were are some who dont allow to follow the new texting
regulations we all benefit by following this rule. This promotes safer driving
conditions for all. The bottom line as these new regulations come into effect we
should see less driver distraction that can save lives.
Statistics show that drunk drivers drive 4 more feet, as against texting while driving
wherein the distracted driver drives 25 feet more, a very dangerous scenario indeed.
In the Philippines, then Senate president Manny Villar proposed a bill to address
such issue.
Distracted driving can mean other kinds of distractions, too. Eating while driving,
putting on makeup while driving, playing with the GPS system, or any number of
other distractions behind the wheel can be just as dangerous and deadly as using a
cell phone.


NO.

15. Should the Filipino Language be considered as our medium of
instruction?

The English vs. Filipino debate is once again a hot topic.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the
governments policy of using English as the medium of instruction
in our schools. According to those who filed the petition, the push
for the use of English in our classrooms will only lead to further
deterioration of whats already been described as a rather inferior
quality of education.

Those who support the 2003 Executive Order filed by President
Arroyo on the other hand argue that doing away with English as
the medium of instruction will inevitably hurt the country and our
people more because they believe that a less competitive
workforce will emerge.

I find myself a bit torn with this issue.

3 months ago, I would have been right on the side of government.
Having had the opportunity to travel and study abroad, I fully
recognize the value of being able to speak and write fluently in
English. I know that it was due in part to my English proficiency
that I didnt have as much difficulty in trying to find a job as the rest
of my 'international' friends. I didnt have to enroll in ESL classes
which could have delayed my program for another year. I didnt get
lost around town as much and I was able to meet and make friends
easily because there was no language barrier. So, I really
benefited a lot from learning English in my grade school and high
school years.

But then three months ago, I also didnt know much about the state
of education in the Philippines. Fortunately, since I returned, Ive
learned quite a bit about the ills? oof our public education system. I
guess this is why I find myself torn.

I recognize that learning to speak and write in English in this age of
globalization is necessary especially if we would like to be able to
compete in the knowledge-based world. Such training can best be
done in a classroom. But if we look at things realistically, it seems
like our public education system is just not set up for this yet.

And so I just cant help but wonder? Should we really impose a
certain language as the primary medium of instruction? I
understand that standards are needed and must be met. But
couldnt we perhaps just be a bit more liberal with our views?
Shouldnt teachers be allowed to use the most effective
communication tools that will allow them to articulate their lesson
plans best? Wouldnt that, in the end, help their students to grasp
the material better and truly learn?

Posted by: Lourdes Villanueva
Date posted: Jun 20, 2007