Senator Raffy Tulfo promised to draught legislation or a proposed bill to address the indiscriminate filing of criminal charges at the Prosecution Stage. 

Senator Raffy Tulfo on Friday announced  that some officials from Local Government Units (LGUs) manage and dominate some courts. A government official confirmed that information during a Senate hearing before the Committee on Justice. 

He stated, among other things, that it should be the sole responsibility of the Supreme Court to manage infrastructure projects in the construction of local courts. He stated that there is a low budget allocation for local court instruction, which eventually leads some Local Chief Executives to use this opportunity to interfere with the construction of Court houses, and they also volunteered to add air conditioning, refrigerators, and furnitures. The LGU also provides monetary benefits to some judges, such as a monthly allowance for court hearings, a gas allowance for transportation, rice socks, and even a car. 

According to Senator Raffy Tulfo, such cases involve conflicts of interest that jeopardise the Court's independence. Some officials in the local government have become untouchable. To support this claim, he cited, among other things, the case of one Local Chief Executive, Mayor, who abused a fisherman, and the case of police officers who falsely charged an innocent poor man with an offence. Senator Raffy claimed that those officers were later found to have planted evidence and were dismissed from the service. He also admits to assisting those victims by personally requesting bail for temporary release while the case is being heard.

YouTube video:

"It is about time that our Supreme Court's budget must be strengthened," he emphasized. So that the judges are independent and do not owe anything to those corrupt and abusive Local Government officials. He went on to say that this apparent conflict of interest resulted in the incarceration of many of our innocent poor citizens. 

He also promised to draught legislation or a proposed bill to address the indiscriminate filing of criminal charges at the Prosecution Stage or Inquest Proceeding by ensuring the right of suspects to be represented by counsel. He revealed that our country does not have enough lawyers to defend our poor citizens who are imprisoned despite their innocence. The presence of independent and competent counsel at that stage will prevent the indiscriminate filing of complaints or information in court[.]

𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤 (ads) 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 our Pages 👉

http://bit.ly/3VOoeOn

http://bit.ly/3VOoeOn 

✍️ Admin @PhilJuris

xxx “[A]n inherent limitation on the power of taxation is [p]ublic purpose. It would be a [r]obbery for the State to tax its citizens and use the funds generated for a [p]rivate purpose.” (Emphasis ours).

[G.R. NO. 156278 - March 29, 2004] 

------

PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioner, v. FERTIPHIL CORPORATION, Respondent. 

Petitioner Planters Products, Inc. ("PPI") and respondent Fertiphil Corporation ("Fertiphil") are domestic corporations engaged in the importation and distribution of fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural chemicals. On the strength of Letter of Instruction No. 1465 issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos on June 3, 1985, Fertiphil and other domestic corporations engaged in the fertilizer business, paid P10.00 for every bag of fertilizer sold in the country to the [Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority] (FPA), the government agency governing the fertilizer industry. FPA in turn remitted the amount to PPI for its rehabilitation, according to the express mandate of LOI No. 1465.2. 

The PPI (private corporation) was in deep financial trouble because of its huge corporate debts. The fertilizer tax was used to pay PPI’s corporate debts. 

After the EDSA I revolution in 1986, the imposition of P10.00 by the FPA on every bag of fertilizer sold was voluntarily stopped. Fertiphil demanded from PPI the refund of P6,698,144.00 which it paid under LOI No. 1465. PPI refused. Hence, on September 14, 1987, Fertiphil filed a collection and damage suit against FPA and PPI 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the LOI no. 1465 is constitutional ? 

HELD:

The Letter of Instruction No. 1465 is unconstitutional.

“[A]n inherent limitation on the power of taxation is [p]ublic purpose. It would be a [r]obbery for the State to tax its citizens and use the funds generated for a [p]rivate purpose.” 

This Court also held that as a rule, an unconstitutional law is considered void.

“It produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. It has no legal effect. Being void, Fertiphil is not required to pay the levy." [However], "all levies paid should be refunded in accordance with the general civil code principle against unjust enrichment,” 

“We cannot allow PPI to profit from an unconstitutional law. Justice and equity dictate that PPI must refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil." 

PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioner, v. FERTIPHIL CORPORATION, Respondent. 

✍️👨‍⚖️ REYES, R.T., J 

Full text: 

To keep you posted, 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 our Facebook Pages and Telegram Channel