The Tooth Shall Set You Free

 

 

 “The Tooth Shall Set You Free” is  a variation of the biblical quote "The truth will set you free"  that   became the mantra  of senatorial candidate Atty. Chel Diokno.

 

" Vēritās vōs līberābit”  in Latin, it    is a statement derived from verse John 8:32 where  Jesus Christ addresses to a group of Jews who believed in him. The truth is meant to represent Christianity, God or Jesus which will set you free from worldly impediments such as sin, misery, or ignorance.

 

Diokno became popular because of his teeth. Every time pressing issues  arise,  Duterte and his followers throw  ad hominem attacks against him by  criticizing  his  teeth.

 

President Duterte  insulted Diokno for  for his teeth after he accused the human rights lawyer of resorting to black propaganda amid the government’s fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

“ Kaya hindi ka nanalo kasi kalaki ng ngipin mo. Magsalita kalahati ng panga mo lumalabas. ( You did not win because  your teeth is big. Whenever you speak, half of your mouth shows).

But Diokno embraced it by saying that “dapat may ngipin ang batas”  (The law must have teeth) as part of  his advocacy for a better judicial system.

After earning a degree in Philosophy at the UP Diliman, he  studied  at the UP College of Law for a year until 1983 and then went to  Northern Illinois University (NIU) where he graduated Juris Doctor, magna cum laude and passed the Illinois Bar.  He  went back to the Philippines where he passed the  1988   Bar Examinations.  

 

He was the founding dean of the De La Salle University College of Law.

 

As part  of his platform, Diokno said that the justice system should be reformed to ensure that the rights of every individual are protected and to promote social justice.

 

Diokno pointed out that although the Supreme Court has released circulars to speed up the justice system, the problem in its implementation is primarily attributable to the lack of prosecutors and judges to handle the cases.

 

He also noted that certainty of punishment and speedy and efficient disposition of justice are key to stop corruption and criminality.

 

I   had the chance to be trained on   alternative lawyering as a student volunteer of  Diokno’s Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) which  is a nationwide organization of  lawyers who provide free legal aid to victims of abuse and indigent Filipinos who could not afford to avail themselves of legal services.

 

FLAG was  founded in 1974 by Senators  Jose Diokno, Lorenzo Tañada and Joker Arroyo during the martial law era under former President Ferdinand Marcos.  

 

I was then a member of the UP Paralegal Volunteers' Organization (UP PVO) which is devoted to the formation of law students equipped with the necessary skills to empower communities and basic sectors through paralegal training education.

 

His  father, former Senator Jose “Pepe” Diokno once said  “a lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when conformity is extracted by fear, and criticism silenced by force.”

 

Passing the bar is not enough. Ultimately, being a good lawyer is a different thing.

 

There will be those who will join the law offices for private practice while others will go to government, judiciary, politics or the academe.

 

And there’s alternative lawyering.

 

It is a  legal practice either individually or through legal resource organizations that work with the poor and marginalized groups, identities and communities towards their empowerment, greater access to justice, and building peace.

 

Alternative lawyers do often take on careers outside of the mainstream, but what differentiates their work is their commitment to a different route to, and conception of, justice.

 

Many alternative lawyers are guided by the words of former President Ramon Magsaysay: ”Those who have less in life should have more in law.”

 

The poor who have less resources in relation to the rich will often  have to  bank on the law to safeguard their rights.

 

In building a more accessible, inclusive and dynamic justice system, all remedies allowed by law should be completely exhausted for their protection. The semblance of being given “more” in law is imperative to equip them the chance of equality which they do not enjoy.

 

Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are seasoned lawyers among others who passed their whole life in pursuit of emancipation of the human beings.

 

Lawyers, as professionals, are expected to uphold the ethical and moral values that are said to be essential to the fabric that holds society together.

 

Let us hope that Chel’s mantra “The tooth shall  set you free” reverberates in the legislative halls.

( Peyups  is the monicker of University of the Philippines. Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786).

The WW II women victims of sexual slavery and violence are dying

Lola  Isabelita  Viduya  died last November 23, 2021 at age of 89 due to pneumonia, the same day the unfortunate event called “Mapanique Siege” happened in 1944.

Lola Isabelita  is a leader of the Malaya Lolas who are   victims of military sexual violence and slavery  by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during the Second World War.

Born November 1, 1932, Lola Isabelita was 12 years old  when   the Imperial Japanese Army attacked on   November  23, 1944 their barrio Mapaniqui in Candaba, Pampanga,  a suspected bailiwick of Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon (HukBaLaHap)

Their communities were bombed, houses were looted and burned, and civilians were publicly tortured, mutilated, and slaughtered.

Some 100 women and girls,  then ranging from 13 to early 20s,  were  ordered to walk from Mapaniqui to the Bahay na Pula (Red House)  in San Ildefonso, Bulacan,  which became the site of a mass sexual assault.

Japanese soldiers forcibly seized the women and were "locked inside"  the “comfort stations” where they were repeatedly raped, beaten, and abused by Japanese soldiers as part of the destruction of the village.

As a result of the actions of their Japanese tormentors, the  "survivors of the wartime female slavery system"  have spent their lives in misery, having endured physical injuries, pain and disability, and mental and emotional suffering.

Lola Isabelita  is one of the lead petitioners in the case of Vinuya vs Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230               April 28, 2010)  filed by Malaya Lolas.

 

The Malaya Lolas  claimed that since 1998, they have approached the Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the “comfort women” stations in the Philippines.

However, officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the Lolas , and took the position that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already been fully satisfied by Japan’s compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case noting that it is not within their power to order the Executive Department to take up the Malaya Lolas’ cause. Theirs is only the power to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up  the Lolas’ cause.

The Court affirmed that ‘rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as legally prohibited under contemporary international law’, but stated that ‘the practice of states does not yet support the present existence of an obligation to prosecute international crimes’

“Of course, we greatly sympathize with the cause of petitioners, and we cannot begin to comprehend the unimaginable horror they underwent at the hands of the Japanese soldiers. We are also deeply concerned that, in apparent contravention of fundamental principles of law, the petitioners appear to be without a remedy to challenge those that have offended them before appropriate fora. Needless to say, our government should take the lead in protecting its citizens against violation of their fundamental human rights,” the Supreme Court said.

It has been  76  years   since the war ended on August 15, 1945, and yet the Japanese government refuses to recognize its official accountability to the victims of sex slavery.  

 About 200,000 women  from  Korea, China, Burma, New Guinea, and the Philippines. were held in captivity and many thousands more were raped as part of one of the largest operations of sexual violence in modern history.

 It was in the late 1990s that the Lolas  came out as part of Lila Filipina and Malaya Lolas  to tell the world about this inhuman practice of the Japanese during the war.

I personally met Lola Isabelita in July  2019  during the medical mission  in Mapaniqui of Flowers for Lolas, an alliance supporting the campaign on the issue of WWII  victims of sexual violence and slavery.

"Rape is still rape whether it was done for days, for months or for years. The effect is the same. It destroyed our bodies, our sense of self. We lived in shame for years,” said Isabelita  Viduya of Malaya Lolas.  

She  lamented in an earlier NPR interview  that the Malaya Lolas  received no compensation from the Asian Women's Fund as they were not considered as "comfort women" because they were not held or abused over an extended period.

 

Another Lola,  Remedios  Tecson,  died  March 2021 at the age of  93

The recent deaths of  Lola Isabelita and other   WWII women victims of sexual slavery and violence are manifestations that the survivors are dying without  receiving  a formal apology and legal compensation from Japan.

Justice has not been given to women such as Lola Isabelita. Their fight for unequivocal public apology, accurate historical inclusion, and just compensation continues up to this day.

(  Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786).

Katutubo sa Senado

 

Macli-ing Dulag is among the most well known of the many victims of Martial law under then president  Ferdinand Marcos.

Macli-ing  was a pangat (leader) of the Butbut tribe of Kalinga who  opposed the  government plan of constructing a 1,010 megawatts dam project covering the Chico River.

Despite the lack of  a formal education,  Macli-ing knew  that the project will eventually displace thousands of his people from their ancestral lands and destroy million worth of fruits, vegetables, and grains.

Macli-ing was killed on April 24,1980 by government forces in an attempt to silence him but his murder was a catalyst that united the peoples of the Cordillera in opposition against the dam.

 

One of his famous quote on  the people's reverence for the land, affirming their right to stay states:  “You ask if we own the land and mock as saying, 'Where is your title?, When we ask the meaning of your words you answer with taunting arrogance, 'Where are the documents to prove that you own the land?' Titles? Documents? Proof of ownership. Such arrogance to speak of owning the land when we instead are owned by it. How can you own that which will outlive you.? Only the race owns the land because the race lives forever. “

My former UP Law professor and now Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonon cited Macliing’s words in his concurring opinion in Sama vs People  (G.R. No. 224469, January 05, 2021)    that Iraya-Mangyans should be acquitted of the crime charged  for violating Revised Forestry Code  after they cut down a dita tree without a license or permit issued by the proper authority.

The Iraya-Mangyans invoked their Indigenous People (IP) right to harvest dita tree logs, which constitute a part of their right to cultural integrity, ancestral domain, and ancestral lands. They insist that the felled dita tree was planted in their ancestral domain, over which the Iraya-Mangyans' exercise communal dominion.

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), or Republic Law 8371, was enacted in 1997 to support the cultural integrity of IPs, the right to their lands and the right to self-directed development of these lands.

Leonen underscored  that the concept of ownership introduced by IPRA is distinct in the sense that, unlike the Civil Code which puts emphasis on individual and corporate holders, IPRA stresses the private but communal nature of ancestral domains.

IPRA recognizes that IPs have a claim of ownership, not only upon the ancestral domain, but also on the resources found in them. It acknowledges that the ancestral domain and the resources located therein constitute as the IPs basis for their cultural integrity.

“The indigenous peoples' struggle for their rights have long been enduring. Their struggle for the recognition of their rights to land and self- determination is rooted in their effort for cultural and human survival. We should honor the struggle of our people. This decision is the least we can do to correct a historical injustice.” Leonen said.

The number of IPs in the Philippines is unknown, but it is estimated that they are  between 10% and 20% of the country's population who have retained much of their traditional, pre-colonial culture, social institutions and living practices.

Most of the  IPs continue to live in geographically isolated areas with lack of access to basic social services and few opportunities for widespread economic activities, education or political participation.

“Katutubo sa Senado” is the campaign slogan of Teddy  Baguilat Jr.  a member of the Liberal Party, who is a known  politician- activist and advocate of IP rights and the rights of minority groups.

A native of  Ifugao in  the Cordillera mountain range, he was first elected as a lawmaker in 2010. Prior to this, he served as Ifugao governor for two terms and as mayor of Kiangan town.

I was with  Baguilat in Kiangan’s  “Gotad” which is  an Ifugao term for celebration, or large gathering for thanksgiving. It  features, among others, the cultural ethnic sports competition.

We belong to opposing student  political parties in UP Diliman, Teddy was with Nagkaisang Tugon while I belong to SAMASA.

During his term as a congressman,  he supported several bills involving IPs including  the Indigenous Education bill which mandates the usage of indigenous education in all indigenous communities in the country, the Indigenous Barangay bill which aims to establish fully-fledged barangays where indigenous communities are present, and other bills focusing on indigenous rights.

If given the chance to be the first  IP  to become a senator, Baguilat  will push for the passage of the Land Use Act, a new mining law, and  sustainable forest management.

Electing a deserving representative of our IPs  is long overdue.

Baguilat will carry the voices of our indigenous peoples in the Senate.

 

( Peyups  is the monicker of University of the Philippines. Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786).

Contract termination and medical repatriation in compensation cases

  

A seafarer is entitled to compensation even if he finished his contract as long as he already had medical conditions while onboard during his employment.

 The issue of repatriation due to contract termination and not on medical grounds was one of the defenses  raised by the company in the case of Philippine  Transmarine Carriers Inc. vs  Clarito Manzano ( G.R. No. 210329 March 18 2021).

 

While  the seafarer  was working aboard the vessel , he slipped and fell from an elevated height and initially landed on his right knee.  Consequently, he suffered from severe pain on his right knee, the right side of his body, and his lumbar region, which prompted him to request to consult a doctor.

 

He was brought to a hospital in  New Jersey,  USA where he was found to be suffering from "soft tissue injury, arthralgia, effusion.”

 

Upon follow-up check-up, he was found to be suffering from a sprained knee.  

 

Before he was repatriated for end of contract, he also consulted a company-designated physician in Oman and was found suffering from “costochondritis and myalgia in his right shoulder.”

 

Upon his  arrival in Manila, the company designated physician ordered for an MRl on his right upper extremity.

 

He  was found to be suffering from “supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinosis; increased signal intensity in the labrum indicative of tear; moderate acromioclavicular joint hypertrophy; and had minimal fluid in his subacromial-subdeltoid bursa.”  

 

Another  MRl on lumbosacral spine showed that he was suffering from “degenerative disk disease at L3-L4 and L5-Sl; mild posterior disk bulge with  encroachment into the right neural canal at L3-L4.”

 

 His condition did not improve despite  undergoing treatments for several months,

 

He then  opted to consult another doctor who found him suffering from “a swollen right knee with inability to squat; atrophy of quadriceps and calf muscles; limited movement  of  right shoulder because  of pain;   limited  shoulder abduction which  only reached 90 degrees; tensed and spastic paraspinal muscles; and limited trunk movement.”

 

The employer denied   liability  for disability benefits on the grounds  that the seafarer finished his contract and was not medically repatriated.

 

Since one of the requirements for an illness or death to be compensable is that the seafarer suffered said illness during the effectivity of the POEA contract, it is imperative that his condition or symptoms must be documented while he is on board the vessel.

Otherwise, his claim for benefits might be denied due to failure to prove that said illness occurred while his contract is still in force.

The benefits are coterminous with the existence of the  contract they sign every time they are rehired and is terminated when the contract expires.

The contract commences from the time when the seafarer actually departs from Philippine, either airport or seaport, for employment. It shall cease when he completes his period of contractual service aboard the ship, signs-off from the ship and arrives at the point of hire.

 

The Supreme Court downplayed the employer’s argument noting that while it is true that the seafarer  was repatriated because his contract had already ended, the injuries he complained of initially manifested while on board the vessel .

 

The Court cited the ruling in the case of Ventis Maritime Corp. v. Salenga ( GR. No. 238578, June 8, 2020)  where it was ruled that the seafarer  may still claim disability benefits  even if his   illnesses manifested or were discovered after the term of the contract.

 

“In instances where the illness manifests itself or is discovered after the term of the seafarer's contract, the illness may either be (I) an occupational illness listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, in which case, it is categorized as a work-related illness if it complies with the conditions stated in Section 32-A, or (2) an illness not listed as an occupational illness under Section 32-A but is  reasonably linked to  the work of the seafarer”, the Court said.  

 

 

A seafarer who was repatriated for end of contract and had no medical  condition  during his employment but later  suffers from an illness which manifested only after the end of his employment can still be entitled to disability benefits provided, he  can prove that the illness suffered is reasonably linked to the work performed on board.

 

The Court stressed in the instant Manzano case that it is  absurd to say that the seafarer, who was repatriated for end of contract but already had medical conditions while onboard during his employment, is not entitled to disability benefits while a seafarer, who was likewise repatriated for end of contract but suffered from an illness which manifested only after repatriation, is entitled to the same benefits.

(Atty,  Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786).