Law School Chronicles

Except For Professor Avena...

2011-07-26T14:02:00.001+08:00

Most law professors cite cases using the SCRA (Supreme Court Reports Annotated) method.

Cases are actually identified by their G.R. Numbers. (I believe it stands for "General Register" or something.) However, G.R. Nos. are assigned to a case upon filing, not upon decision. This means that a chronological list of decided cases will not necessarily have the G.R. Nos. in order.

The SCRA, a compendium of Supreme Court decisions, used to be the sole source of cases for law students. This was of course during pre-internet days. When someone wanted to photocopy a certain case, all they had to know was the SCRA citation, so they could find the correct SCRA volume and page number.

But those days are gone. Nowadays, cases can be found on God's gift to mankind─the internet. So if a professor asks you to look for a case, he/she shouldn't provide you with the SCRA citation. That's like so old school. The jurisprudence databases do not use the SCRA citation. They use G.R. Nos.

So again, law professors (except for Professor Avena), the year is 2011. You should provide your students with the G.R. No. of cases. If you want to provide both G.R. Nos. and SCRA citations, you are welcome to do so. But please. G.R. Nos. That is all I ask.

*Y U No Macro created 22 Jul 2011.

Balane's Birthday Bash

2011-07-06T08:11:00.000+08:00

Tue, 5 Jul 2011.

By the way... I'm back, bitches.

This is my third Balane Birthday. First was two years ago, when my blockmates brought me in to read poetry. Second was last year, and the third was this year.

First, we read him some Neruda. That's Liway. We went to college together. The guy on the guitar is Roi. We play in the same band. Notice how stiff everyone in the background is. Recitation's over, classmates, relax.

Then they imported someone from another class who speaks Spanish, and made him sing a Spanish song like Enrique Iglesias. It's the same song Christian Silva sang last year. Because I was bored, and because my classmates were too serious, I took one of those hotdog balloons and made a party hat.

Then after that, everyone started making party hats. The first one I made, I gave to Ms. Sacramento...

...who in turn gave it to Sir Balane.

Wait, what? Balane in a balloon hat? Let's see that again up close.

Awww. How cute. Take that, Ateneo. We got him to wear an inflated condom on his head.

*pics taken with my crappy BlackBerry camera

The Ruben Balane Show. Episode 2

2010-06-20T07:34:00.004+08:00

Thu, 17 Jun 2010.

More words of wisdom from the great Ruben Balane:

While discussing the case of Bonilla v. Barcena:

Here the heirs of Barcena said, "Your Honor, our mother is dead, and we will be substituting her because we are her heirs." Sabi naman n'ung judge, "No, you cannot, because your mother is dead." Sabi naman n'ung heirs, "E kaya nga we will be substituting her e, kasi nga she is dead, and we are her heirs! Sa'n ka ba nag-aral, sa Ateneo?"

Boom. Haha.

*Prof. Balane is also a member of the (thee) Ateneo Law School Faculty. Which I guess gives him the right to do this.

The Ruben Balane Show

2010-06-18T09:21:00.003+08:00

Thu, 10 Jun 2010.

Professor Ruben Balane, referring to the word "decedent":

It's pronounced "di-see-dent". You don't say "di-si-dent". A dissident is one who takes up arms against the government. Well, unless you're an Abu Sayyaf, and you get killed by government troops, then you become a dissident decedent.

Overheard at the OCS

2010-06-17T08:08:00.002+08:00

Wed, 9 Jun 2010.

"Tignan niyo itong binabasa ko o. SCRA 600. Alam niyo ito? This is where Corona reverses himself. O, ha."

-Dean Carale

How to Bail Someone Out From NBI Detention

2010-05-07T16:23:00.002+08:00

Go to the Court that issued the Warrant of Arrest.

File a Motion to Reduce Bail. Have it signed by the Judge.

Also get a copy of the Warrant of Arrest.

Visit Detainee at the NBI (Taft Avenue, Manila) detention cell. For moral support. And also to take his/her picture. Bust shot. Front, left, and right.

Get a Certificate of Detention from the Security Management Division (SMD) Office. Look for Ma'am Judith¹.

Have the Detainee's pictures printed. Size: 2x2.

Get a blank piece of bond paper.

Go back to the Detention Cell and have the detainee sign the back of the 2x2 pictures.

Borrow the stamp pad from the guard on duty. Take the Detainee's fingerprints on the blank piece of paper, and have him/her sign at the bottom of the paper.

Go back to the issuing Court, and file an application for bail. Then submit the requirements, which are the Certificate of Detention, the 2x2 pics, and the signed fingerprints. Plus the cash, of course.

The Court will now issue an Order of Release. Photocopy it. Also photocopy the official receipts for the cash bond deposits and the cash bond fees.

Go back to the NBI SMD Office. You have to take the arresting officer and the Court process server with you. Tell them to bring a photocopy of their ID, front and back. If it is impossible to get hold of the arresting officer, ask Ma'am Judith what your options are.

Present the following at the SMD office: the arresting officer, the Court process server, a photocopy of their IDs, the Order of Release, and the photocopy of the official receipts.

Once the SMD clears everything, go back to the detention cell. Present the SMD clearance to the guard on duty.

Once the Detainee is released, get away from the NBI office as fast as you can. Tell the Detainee to savor the air of freedom.

¹As of 6 May 2010.

Professor Harry Roque on Our President

2010-03-11T16:19:00.005+08:00

Fri, 5 Mar 2010.

"Our president is really a man. Pretending to be a woman. Pretending to be Nora Aunor."

-Professor Harry Roque

I Might Consider Intellectual Property Law as a Career

2010-03-11T15:38:00.004+08:00

Fri, 26 Feb 2010.

Check this out:

This is why I ♥ Professor Vicente Amador.

I ♥ Professor Vicente Amador

2010-01-16T17:46:00.004+08:00

If you're going to take Intellectual Property Law, take Vicente Amador.

I can guarantee you, his class is super stress-free. Like super-duper stress free.

And here's what I learned in class today:

This picture is NOT considered as copyright infringement of the Grand Theft Auto artworks. It is considered a parody, and is entitled to the defense of fair-use.

What have you learned today?

*pic from me

Professor Florin Hilbay on Plurk

2009-12-07T16:35:00.002+08:00

Wed, 2 Dec 2009.

"What's Plurk? (changes to a suspicious tone) Is that a porn site?"

-Professor Florin Hilbay

Return of the Comeback: Conversation with God

2009-11-08T19:26:00.003+08:00

Tues, 10 Nov 2009.

This is my most recent conversation with God. Because law school and spirituality go together.

GOD: Oy, 'musta na?

ME: Oks naman.

GOD: O, enrolled ka na?

ME: 'Di pa tapos.

GOD: Anobeh, bakit hindi pa?

ME: E si Ma'm Guanzon kasi wala pa 'yung Loc Gov grade ko.

GOD: Pero pasado ka na?

ME: Yes sir.

GOD: E 'yung kay Arno?

ME: Pasado rin. Kaso naawa lang sa akin.

GOD: O ayan ha. Basta 'yung promise mo sa akin ha.

ME: Anong promise?

GOD: Na pag-pina-graduate kita sa UP Law, maghu-human rights ka at pro bono ng bonggang bongga. Remember?

ME: Of course naman.

GOD: So natuto ka na ng lesson sa lahat ng nangyari sa'yo?

ME: Anong lesson?

GOD: Tungkol sa paggawa ng groups sa FB.

ME: Ay oo naman. 'Pag ginawan mo ng Fezbook group ang professor mo, makwa-kwatro ka.

GOD: Korak. Kaya 'wag ka na gagawa ng FB group.

ME: 'Wag ka nga gumamit ng "FB," hindi bagay sa'yo. Two syllables na nga lang, shino-shortcut mo pa.

GOD: Meh ganon...E ikaw nga "Fezbook" e.

ME: Mas ok nga ang "Fezbook" kaysa sa "FB" e.

GOD: Whatever. Pam-bakla ang "fez" e.

ME: E mas bakla ka nga kaysa sa akin e.

GOD: Trueness. So kailan matatapos ang enrollment mo?

ME: Um, this week?

GOD: Hay nako, tapusin mo na 'yan! Classmates mo ba uli ang blockmates mo?

ME: Oo, 'pag Fridays.

GOD: Nyak. E 'di classmate mo uli si...

ME: Malamang. Pero kebs. Hahaha.

GOD: Oo nga. Kebs. Ano ba 'yan, bakit ganyan ka pa rin tumawa sa intarwebz? "Hahahaha" is so 20th century. New millenium na. Ang uso na ngayon ay "LOL". Or mas uso pa d'on: "lawlz".

ME: Yuck kadiri ka God ang tanda mo na, nakiki-lawlz ka pa.

GOD: I know right. (hairflip and beardflip)

END.

Legal Education—Outside the Classroom

2009-07-10T14:52:00.007+08:00

Nothing should stop me from getting my legal education.

Despite being on residency this semester, I have decided to keep myself busy by finding a job, since idle minds are the devil's workshop.

And my job right now: Legal researcher and Administrative Assistant for a non-government organization.

Conversation between me and my auntie:

TITA: Sa'n ka nagwo-work ngayon?
ME: Sa NGO po.
TITA: Saang NGO?
ME: Sa NUPL.
TITA: NUPL? National Union of...?
ME: National Union of Peoples' Lawyers.
TITA: 'Di ba mga radikal 'yan?
ME: Um...'di naman po masyado.

People may criticize my choice to work for NUPL, and they may scoff at the pay I'm getting (let's put it this way: my sister's allowance is bigger than my paycheck). But I don't really care. I like it here. I get to do legal research for human rights cases. And that is the path I wish to take, once I get the title of "Attorney" prefixed to my name.

Also, the best advantage of this line of work is that you get jaded early. During the first two years of law school, you may think that the legal profession is all pristine and sacred, and that Lady Justice is totally blind behind the blindfold. But that's not true.

The legal profession is a very dirty ballgame. Well of course it is. It is probably the dirtiest profession in the history of the human race. It has more than a millenium of corruption and foul play behind it, and it will most likely remain unchanged. Possibly forever. But that's all right, really. The more rotten the profession, the more the good people stand out.

And that's what NUPL has. Good people who care nothing about money. Which is why I am so proud of it.

Realizations

2009-06-14T03:31:00.000+08:00

Mon, 8 Jun 2009.

Realization: Am not as brilliant as I thought I was.

Oh well. C'est la vie.

On Senseless Facebook Groups

2009-04-26T11:27:00.003+08:00

The thing with law school is that you have to do some crazy stuff just to keep your sanity. And my outlet is blogging and Facebooking. (Is Facebooking a recognized verb now?) Anyway, this is a story about a seemingly senseless Facebook group.

I created two Facebook groups, The Arno Sanidad Fan Club and Groupies of the Bing Guanzon Show. And then one day I got a message that said:

hi,
I am a very old, long lost friend of Bing Guanzon. Saw this group on FB. would love to get in touch with her. Please tell her it is Jiji Pama-Pawley. She can view my info on FB under Aura-Marie Pama Pawley. Hopefully we can reconnect. Thanks very much. I appreciate your help.

So I told Ma'am, and this is what she said:

hi GP,

thank you for the fan club! HAHAHA

Did you get my photo when I was mayor, seated on a rock, in black and white?

That's a good photo to remember your loc gov by.

I will leave the CD of "The Morning Show" ABSCBN visayas interview of me, the one you saw on the first day of class. if you want to post that, you may.

Jiji Pama is a dear friend. Thank you for reconnecting me with her.

Please give her this email address and my mobile phone.

Hmm, I think I will get a facebook too, to reconnect with old friends.

thank you

I was waiting for something like, "because you reconnected me with my dear old friend, I will give you a high grade." Or something like that. Hahaha. Of course I am only joking.

But still, moral of the story: seemingly senseless Facebook groups are not senseless after all. I have reconnected two old friends, and thus have made the world a better place.

And for that, the Barry Gutierrez Facebook group will be coming up soon. If I can find a decent picture of him. Only problem is, Sir Barry is also on Facebook. I just hope he's cool with it.

Gender Rights in the Continuum of Human Rights Development

2009-04-25T18:32:00.004+08:00

(The title alone should stop you from reading any further. This is a full academic paper, though not one I'm proud of, as I believe it is inferior in quality to the academic papers I used to churn out in my undergrad days. Final paper submitted for Gender and Law, II AY 08-09.)

I. Introduction

The first mention of the equal protection clause was from the United Nations Charter, specifically Article 1 (3), which states one of the purposes of the United Nations as “[t]o To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”.[1] And of course we all know from UN history that the charter is basically smut, because it binds no one. Enter now the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the UDHR. Take note of Article 2, which states that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status x x x”[2]. Another sort of drawback here is that though the UDHR uses more legalese than the UN Charter, they are both not legally binding.

Enter now the conventions. First, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, more popularly known as the ICCPR, specifically, Articles 3 and 26. Article 3 states that “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant”[3], while Article 26 states “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.” In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”[4] The ICCPR was the first enacted covenant in response to the non-binding characteristic of the UDHR, more specifically the equality clause. Most of the civil and political rights sought to be enforced are rooted in equal protection.

Next, we have the ICESCR, known also by its longer name, the International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This convention sought to go into detail on some basic rights that seem to have been overlooked when drafting the ICCPR. These rights include the rights to education, clean water, and housing, among others. And like the name suggests, the rights sought to be enforced by the ICESCR mostly stay within the economic, social, and cultural realm. Then after that, we have the first attempt at addressing discrimination, albeit in its racial form, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[5], or CERD.

After that is where it gets really exciting. The next major convention dealt with something that previous conventions never tried to tackle, at least independently. I am of course talking about the gender movement, or the fight for the rights of women, history’s most oppressed sex at that time (and some may argue, up to now). Which is why we now have the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women[6], known by its fearsome acronym, CEDAW. This five-lettered acronym somehow serves as the “last bastion of hope”, so to speak, for oppressed women everywhere. Finally, there is an international remedy available to females around the world, regardless of race, sex or nationality.

The gender movement has actually spawned several sub-movements, all falling under the category of discrimination based on gender. We have the fight for homosexual rights (which include the rights of both gays and lesbians). This radicalism encouraged more and more people who are oppressed because of their gender to come out into the open, and fight for their rights. These new radicals include the bisexuals, as well as the transgenders, who all claim to be fighting for one thing and one thing only: recognition before the law as a normal human being.

II. Main Arguments

The broad umbrella of human rights, specifically its development, is often misconceived. Most regard it as having happened in waves, in order of importance. For example, since the ICCPR came first, it is often argued that civil and political rights occupy center stage in the rights to be enforced. Does it follow, then, that since this covenant is meant to enforce the basic rights seemingly denied by the apathetic approach to the UDHR’s non-binding nature, that civil and political rights rank higher than other rights?

This is actually the point I would like to question, for to presuppose the transcendental importance of one group of rights over another is to presuppose a hierarchy. This is what brought about the wave theory, claiming that civil and political rights belong to the first wave, while economic, social, and cultural rights belong to the second wave, et cetera. But to assume that human rights developed in waves would be to conclude that gender rights are not as important as civil and political rights.

What I would like to posit is that human rights developed, and is developing, in a continuum. Every succeeding treaty, covenant, or protocol developed because the previous one was not entirely successful in implementing the crucial clauses, among others the equality clause. Discrimination based on gender (including also other forms of discrimination) is actually a continuing call for the strict reinforcement of the equality clause. In order to describe it better, it is the same as saying that gender equality should have already been guaranteed as far back as the UDHR; and since gender-based discrimination still proliferated, the ICCPR should have done the trick. But since the ICCPR was still unsuccessful in eradicating discrimination based on gender, they had to come up with the CEDAW to finally cement their claim. But honestly, after the CEDAW, gender-based discrimination still has a very strong presence in many cultures of the world, and in my opinion, this will never be enough. Human rights will continue to develop until we get everything right.

III. History

First up: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document came about because of that atrocious event known as World War II. It is no surprise that when you say “World War II Europe” one of the first images that comes to mind is that of almost-skeletal people in striped pajamas. These were the Jews, six million of them slaughtered like cattle in the event known as “The Holocaust”.

Along with the advent of world banking and dividing the world amongst themselves, the western powers improved on their previous attempt at a world government, the League of Nations, and developed the United Nations. A few years later, they came up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in response to all the human lives lost during the war. The UDHR guaranteed equality before the law, as a person, and more importantly as a human being. Everyone in this world is entitled to the same basic rights, whether or not they have blond hair and blue eyes. Then they went beyond the physical, and threw in a few other things, like equality based on religious, linguistic, and sexual differences. Take note of the use of the word “sex” as opposed to “gender”, which is something I will be discussing later.

So now we have the UDHR, and everybody seems happy. Wrong. Discrimination still persisted, discrimination in all its reincarnations. Racial discrimination was still rampant, even post-1945, as well as the other types of discrimination, all in flagrant violation of the UDHR’s equality clause. And then they discovered one flaw: the UDHR was not binding on any nation, as it was not a treaty. What a convenient loophole, on the part of the violators, that is.

And thus was born the ICCPR on 16 December, 1966. Take note of these specific provisions (which I already mentioned at the beginning): Article 3, “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.”[7] And Article 28, “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”[8] These are reinforcements of the equality clause, and being the most important clause in the UDHR, violations of it cannot be made to pass on the mere technicality that it is not binding. The equality clause must be enforced, specifically because of the events mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and if it requires a treaty to bind the nations of the world, then that treaty has to be created.

Note that while the ICCPR seems to have partially solved the problem, it enumerates eight types of discrimination: 1) as to race; 2) as to color (although I think they are one and the same thing); 3) as to language; 4) as to religion; 5) as to political or other opinion; 6) as to national or social origin; 7) as to property; and 8) as to birth or other status. Now that is quite a mouthful in itself, taking into account also the sheer population of the planet, and if all these types of discrimination do indeed exist, then it is most likely that only one or two types of discrimination will actually be cured by the ICCPR. The status quo, like a living organism, will find a way to survive, and the rest of the other types of discrimination shall continue as if no treaty had been drafted in the first place.

Proof of this lies in the fact that despite the ratification of the ICCPR, the discrimination of women, simply because they are women, continues to thrive. Discrimination continues despite the ICCPR’s Article 28. It is as if Article 28 was never written at all.

And because of this, the women of the world had to unite and move for the creation of the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women[9]. This was actually the second covenant to zero in on a specific type of discrimination, the first being the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[10]. Its main objective is to make sure that the equality clause is strictly enforced in the area of discrimination based on sex.

Taking off from that point, we move now to the difference between the words “sex” and “gender”. What exactly is the difference? “Experts tell us that in the human person, sex and gender—the biological principle and the cultural expression—are not identical.”[11] Well, the word “sex” is most often used in its biological sense. It relies on one’s physical attributes. If someone has a penis, that someone is a male; a vagina, female. But discrimination is not based on physical attributes alone. Women are discriminated from some forms of labor not because of their vagina; women are expected to fulfill a certain “feminine role”, like staying at home, taking care of the children, and doing the laundry. Lesbians who fall under the “butch” category are often allowed masculine roles because the role they are expected to play in society is “exactly like a man, only with breasts and a pussy” (pardon my French). And homosexual men are discriminated from certain “masculine” professions, like the army, because gay men are expected to fulfill a softer, less manlier role, and a testosterone-filled place like the army cannot provide them with an opportunity to fulfill that role.

Because of that, the role of a person, as opposed to that person’s biological sex, had to be qualified, and the term gender was used to describe a person’s role in society. For both heterosexual males and females, “sex” and “gender” may overlap. But for the gays, lesbians, and transgenders, the distinction must be clear. Some people think that gays and lesbians only came out of the woodwork, so to speak, in the twentieth century. That is totally false. Gays and lesbians have existed as far back as recorded history allows. It was only during the last century that they started campaigning for the rights which they should already have in the first place.

IV. Analysis

Since the fight for the equality clause seems to have divided itself into as many groups as there are types of discriminations, we can predict that the full and actual realization of the equality clause as envisioned in the original Declaration might take years, even decades. The status quo is not something static that you can topple like a house of cards; it is a living and breathing organism, and it evolves with the times. So if new conventions or covenants against discrimination are passed, then the status quo, which thrives on discrimination, will be forced to adapt. So new types of discrimination might actually be formed from the prevention of other types.

So again, let me just reiterate that there is no such thing as a hierarchy of rights. There is only one long continuum of the enforcement of the equality clause as promised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

V. Local Application

Let us now go to the application of the gender-based discrimination struggle in the local scene by taking a look at some of the laws enacted especially for women.

Republic Act 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, is an improvement on the previous criminal statutes against rape. R.A. 8353 repealed Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, where it was still classified as a Crime Against Chastitiy under Title Eleven.

The Anti-Rape Law significantly broadened the crime of rape, and now redefined the act of sexual assault to include “inserting [a man’s] penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.”[12] This then makes it possible for men to be raped. So this law not only favors women, but also homosexual males, who are often victims of rape in prisons.

Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, was a latter enactment. This went further than redefining terms; this law actually went as far as to provide extraordinary remedies, namely the three types of protection orders: the Baranggay Protection Order, the Temporary Protection Order, and the Permanent Protection Order. Of the three, the Baranggay Protection Order, or the BPO, is the most innovative, as it provides a fifteen-day destierro against an offender, at the baranggay level, without need of judicial intervention.

R.A. 9262 was enacted also to answer the need of women to be protected from violence against them. The predominantly male Filipino culture expects women to fulfill the submissive role of a punching bag, there to take the blows of the her spouse when he is feeling angry, and there to give him sexual gratification when he is horny. These types of battery do not only leave physical pain, they also leave emotional scars, often for life. And worse than this is that they also propagate a culture of violence, and the less women talk about this problem, the greater the chance that this culture will be passed on to the succeeding generations.

And finally, we have the latest of our legal developments in the field of gender, and that is the Reproductive Health Bill. Those who have been keeping abreast know about the controversies surrounding this bill, about its stance on contraception, and its supposed effect on the Philippine population. I shall try not to dwell on its pros and cons, for even the experts can’t seem to compromise and find middle ground on this law.

The Reproductive Health Bill, or the RH Bill for brevity, was drafted using the word “gender”. It is specifically this six-letter word which caused quite a stir (that and the abortion angle), as this is first time the Philippines recognized the difference between the words “sex” and “gender”, and has seemingly applied it correctly. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, in true violation of the wall of separation between church and state, has “strategically suggested” that the word “sex” be used instead. I leave it up to your imaginative minds to figure out the Church’s motive in doing so.

In conclusion, let me just state that I believe that I have not done justice to this paper, as there a lot more points I would have liked to raise. Due to limited time, and unavailability of research materials, I have not been able to delve as deep as I would have liked to on this topic. The gender struggle, and the human rights movement as a continuum, cannot be adequately explained in approximately three thousand words. If given the chance, I would like to go deeper, and explore the human rights struggle in its entirety, focusing on the really strong and popular movements like gender. Well even the gender movement itself is such a broad topic that writing on that alone would consume so many pages, which in turn would consume so much paper, which in turn would consume so much trees. But such is the beauty of legal research, and academic writing should become second nature to law students, since no other method can expand one’s knowledge of something unless one writes about that topic. And the gender movement, especially in the times we live in, needs great writers to propel their ideas and advocacies through the new millennium.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.shtml
[2]http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
[3]http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm
[4]Ibid.
[5]http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm
[6]http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm
[7]Ibid.
[8]Ibid.
[9]http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm
[10]http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm
[11]http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/0801&022008/opinion07.html
[12]Article 266-A (2), Revised Penal Code, amended by R.A. 8353

Last Day of Class: Loc Gov, or The Bing Guanzon Show Season Finale

2009-04-14T01:18:00.004+08:00

Tues, 24 Mar 2009.

Because we are a very chummy class, we have pictures taken like this:

Check that out. That's us in the classic Bing Guanzon pose. She should have had that pose copyrighted, because Bayani Fernando might use it for his presidential campaign.

We are possibly the chummiest class this semester. Possibly even the chummiest class ever. I've never seen a chummier class, even in undergrad.

The Bing Guanzon Show is the only class in UP Law that lets you go out and immerse with the real local government units. The baranggay project may be the first and the last time that you can experience something like it within the halls of Malcolm.

And for more chumminess:

These were taken with Ma'am's camera; hence, the high quality (and the very long upload time). I believe I am the only one with copies of these pics. I even have the pics of the other class. Haha. There are actually more of them. My classmates are closet camwhores.

Join Groupies of the Bing Guanzon Show on Facebook. (Stay tuned for I Heart Sir Barry. For those who both love and hate Barry Gutierrez.)

It makes me wonder if we now have the right to call her Tita Bing. For more closeness.

For More Encryption

2009-04-10T17:09:00.004+08:00

Once again. Encrypted for protection.

Date: HL30BD+3

The main event for this day shall be codenamed "Sleepless in Seattle".

*Play back memory. Again. And again. And again.*

Best.
Day.
EVER.

That Monstrosity Called Criminal Procedure

2009-04-05T09:57:00.003+08:00

Sat, 4 Apr 2009.

I loved the exam. Yes, it was a bit difficult. Yes, I missed seven points (I left number nine blank). But I had fun. That exam is actually a preview of my career outside law school---defending all cases under The Dangerous Drugs Act. How to exclude evidence. How to get them out on bail. Et cetera. Et cetera.

There was one question there about "the distinct odor of burning shabu". I wanted to answer "but burning shabu has no odor!" But it might just invite questions like, "Well, how do you know so much?"

Duh. A lawyer should know those things, even if he/she doesn't use drugs.

Anyway, highlights of the day:

I arrived almost twenty minutes late for the test (no excuse, just damn tardy).
I failed to answer number nine.
I got a parking ticket.
I busted a tire.

All that in one day. Talk about bad luck. I just hope that after all that misfortune, I pass the exam. Please, God. Give me a break. I will lawyer for the poor people for free when I graduate. I promise. Just let me pass.

The Right to Smoke

2009-03-31T08:47:00.007+08:00

(Final paper submitted for IHR, II AY 08-09. This is more a reflection paper, not an academic paper.)

Let me start off by introducing you to Mario. Mario is a bright, recent college graduate. He graduated cum laude, and applied at once for a job. He was denied the position because it was found out that he smoked marijuana. He has been smoking pot since he was sixteen.

Then there's John, also a college graduate. He married a girl who was a US citizen. During the interview for immigration, he admitted to having smoked weed a few times when he was in college. He was denied immigrant status for something he smoked several years ago.

The names of these people are, of course, all fictional. But their scenarios are real. I personally know people who have experienced this kind of discrimination, all because of their marijuana smoking.

What I would like to point out here is that the right to smoke marijuana should be recognized. People should be allowed to smoke, or at least given the choice to smoke or not to smoke.

Before we start, let me just define some terms I will be using in this discussion. Marijuana is, of course, that infamous plant that is used for mind-altering purposes. Its active chemical is delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. The plant belongs to the genus Cannabis, of which the most popular species for human consumption is indica. It may be smoked, like tobacco, or it may also be ingested. The act of intoxicating oneself with marijuana is known as getting high.

Marijuana is also known by several names, the most popular being "weed" and "pot". The term "pothead" refers to chronic smokers, or those who get high at least once everyday, or almost everyday. I will be using the term "pothead" a lot in this discussion, simply because the alternative name "addict" is too harsh in my opinion.

Marijuana is of course outlawed by Western society, and by most of the world in general. They have declared potheads as criminals, because their acts (of getting high) are defined as criminal.

The criminalization of marijuana is rooted mostly in economics. This began way back in the early part of the twentieth century, and the war on marijuana was instigated by William Randolph Hearst, a rich American tycoon. Hearst owned a huge part of the US cotton industry, and declared war on the hemp industry to preserve his semi-monopoly on American fiber. He spread rumors about marijuana being "the devil's weed", used mostly by the African-Americans and Mexicans in committing atrocious crimes. In 1937, the United States Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act[1], which is the law that criminalized the marijuana plant.

But that's just the American scene. The rest of the world followed suit following the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs[2] in 1961. Previous treaties only mentioned opium and coca, and this is the first UN Convention that incorporated cannabis as a controlled substance. Several conventions followed, of which the latest is the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances[3] in 1988. And even today, marijuana still remains in the criminal category.

Of course, this is not to say that all states have the same marijuana laws. The Netherlands is one of the most popular countries where marijuana use is not considered criminal. The Dutch people actually “overwhelmingly approve of current cannabis policy which seeks to normalize rather than dramatize cannabis use.”[4] Take note that what the Dutch government decriminalizes is only drug use. “Production, trading and stocking drugs remain a criminal offence, as in any other country.”[5] Some American states and European nations have lowered the penalty for marijuana possession and drug use, but the Dutch government is still the leader in decriminalization for providing no penalty at all for personal marijuana use.

And since marijuana laws are not the same in all countries, despite the existence of all those conventions, then it follows that potheads are not treated the same in every country in the world. This then is where the problem lies. The right to smoke is recognized in some jurisdictions only. But I would argue that it is, and it should be, a universal right that must be enforced. The criminalization of marijuana has caused more harm to society, has broken up more families, and has shattered more futures than the actual plant itself.

Okay, so the anti-legalization advocates will argue that it is illegal because the law says it is, and because the United Nations classified it as such. And yet the power to reclassify marijuana, or to move it to a different schedule, also lies with the same body that declared it illegal. Somehow the illegal status of marijuana based on statutes is the first hurdle that must be overcome for decriminalization.

But assuming that there is no international convention or treaty in the way of decriminalization, marijuana use should still be afforded the same status as alcohol and tobacco. What alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana have in common is that these are all substances consumed for the sake of pleasure only. Alcoholics, smokers, and potheads should thus be given equal treatment, for the reason that people similarly situated should be treated equally. And the only thing that differentiates alcoholics, smokers, and potheads, is that potheads are, in the eyes of the law, dangerous criminals.

The difference in society’s perception between all these vices is actually one of the causes of discrimination. People who have drinking problems are sent to support groups like Alcoholics Anonymous; people who smoke pot are sent to jail. In the workplace, people who drink are reprimanded; people who smoke pot are fired. And again, what is the difference between the two but a few words on some piece of paper?

Another argument I would like to pose is that discrimination against potheads is a discrimination based on culture, or more specifically, a subculture. I firmly believe that pot smoking is already a valid yet unrecognized subculture. Among all the so-called substance abusers, the potheads are the only ones that satisfy the characteristics of a legitimate subculture. Let’s take for example the junkies (the heroin users), and the ravers (the party people who love dropping ecstasy). One could also argue that these people also form their own subculture, since they too have their own jargon, their own terms, and this subculture is also seen in the movies when they portray junkies and ravers, most of the time with startling accuracy.

But the pothead universe goes way, way deeper than the other so-called subcultures of the drug users. Potheads have their own websites, and their own literature. They have their own monthly publications, like High Times and Cannabis Culture, both very popular magazines with international circulation. Potheads also have a wide range of paraphernalia, which include, among others: bongs, or water pipes; rolling papers, with different grades, depending on the thickness of the papers; rolling machines, for those who do not know how to roll a marijuana cigarette with their hands; pipes, literally in all shapes and sizes, wooden, glass, and other materials, and even special pipes for smoking hashish; and hookahs, also in all shapes and sizes. These paraphernalia are sold online through the websites, or through the magazines, or physically at the marijuana coffee shops in the Netherlands. The companies who make these paraphernalia are devoted solely to that. They don’t make pipes on the side. They make pipes especially for these customers. These companies were created to cater solely to the potheads’ needs.

The potheads have their own line of clothes, the most popular being ordinary t-shirts emblazoned with the marijuana leaf. They also have their own music, embracing the laid-back sound of Jamaican-born reggae as their own, being compatible with their own laid-back lifestyle, and declaring Bob Marley as their official icon. They also have major organizations like NORML (National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws), whose sole mission is to see that potheads are protected from the unjust arms of the law. And they have countless celebrities, including famous actors, as well as athletes, all endorsing their call for decriminalization. Now I’m pretty sure the alcoholics, smokers, junkies, and ravers have nothing like this under their belt.

Much as I would like to stretch this topic into a full-blown academic paper, it would require tremendous research on my part, which I am not sure I would be able to do right now. But still, I hope I got my point across. Though some people may not recognize the right to smoke marijuana as a human right, something still has to be done about the discrimination that potheads go through simply because they refuse to stop smoking. Despite its illegal and criminal status, marijuana smokers continue to thrive, and I don’t see them decreasing in number in the years to come. So either the governments of the world start to reform the marijuana laws, or the potheads of the world will unite and start demanding their rights.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm
[2]http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/conv/convention_1961_en.pdf
[3]http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1988_en.pdf
[4]http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
[5]http://www.amsterdam.info/drugs/

How to Study for Crim Pro

2009-03-29T16:27:00.002+08:00

1. Smoke.

2. Swim.

3. Read Rules of Court.

Repeat 'til sunset.

And I pray that I pass this semester.

*first two pics from Facebook. Last pic from Dino.

Last Day of Class: Gender

2009-03-21T11:17:00.006+08:00

Fri, 20 Mar 2009.

This is another elective subject. And like most electives, we have no exams.

That's my professor, Carolina Ruiz Austria. Here are a few things I have learned about her since the start of the semester:

She is a hard-core feminist;
Her political alignment is red (not really sure, but I am almost certain);
She is smart;
She is pretty;
She is smart and pretty;
She is married (but does not wear her wedding ring);
She has a daughter.

I have a schoolboy crush on her. If she wasn't married, I would ask her out. Haha.

*pic taken without consent

Last Day of Class: Crim Pro

2009-03-20T04:25:00.001+08:00

Thurs, 19 Mar 2009.

Goodbye, Sir Arno. I love Thursdays because of you.

Because we are a chummier class, we can have pictures taken like this:

That's Sir Arno Sanidad in the middle. Everyone present except Doc Jan Esquivel.

Thanks to Christian Silva for the not-so-high-quality pic. Ho-hum. (Why is everyone smiling except Sir Arno? And me. Hahahaha)

You can also join The Arno Sanidad Fan Club on Facebook. Another senseless Facebook group created by me. I love senseless Facebook groups. (Coming soon: I Heart Sir Barry on Facebook.)

Last Day of Class: IHR

2009-03-19T07:20:00.003+08:00

Wed, 18 Mar 2009.

The semester is indeed almost over. I will miss Sir Barry.

I will always remember him as the professor who was able to explain the difference between "equality in law" and "equality in fact," in less than a minute, in a way that you will never forget for the rest of your life.

I heart Sir Barry. Despite the previous dismal grades. Sir Barry is funny without even trying. Or maybe it's just me.

*pic taken without consent.

Sharon, Gabby, and the Baranggay Protection Order

2009-03-17T07:43:00.001+08:00

Mon, 16 Mar 2009.

More adventures outside Malcolm.

My neighbor and childhood friend (codename Gabby), male, police officer with the rank of PO1, had an argument with his wife (codename Sharon) last Saturday night. He hit his wife at the back of the head four times with the butt of his standard issue handgun. Then he left. As a police officer, he spent weekdays at his assignment (somewhere south) and weekends with his family. He would be back on Friday.

I went to his house and saw his mother. I gave her a copy of the Baranggay Protection Order form, told her to tell Sharon to fill it up, take it to the baranggay, then wait for the protection order, which should only take a few minutes. That would be valid for fifteen (15) days, at which Gabby would not be allowed to come near his wife and children.

Yay. I feel so lawyerly.

However, I sense a certain weakness with the mother, as if she is not brave enough to go against her handgun-hitting first-born. I also remember that there is also a certain weakness with the wife Sharon. Maybe by Friday, her head would have cooled off. Maybe she would miss her husband. Maybe they would have great make-up sex afterwards. Maybe the protection order would be forgotten. But still...

Yay, I feel so lawyerly. (Lawyerly may not even be a word.)

I would like to thank my professor Bing Guanzon, for teaching me to start acting like a lawyer outside the classroom. I heart Bing Guanzon because she makes me say I heart.

Happy Birthday Miss President

2009-03-13T07:59:00.003+08:00

Thursday, 12 Mar 09.

Happy birthday to our beloved class president, the soon-to-be-married Ms. Maricel Casison. She is 27 years old.

That's her on the right, calling everyone to eat her cake. Behind her is the usually tense Ms. Monica Marcelo, and the one in red is the always bitchy Mr. Rex Paras.

My First Client(s)

2009-03-12T01:49:00.006+08:00

3.11.09.

I missed classes to save my friends. I didn't really teach them the legal stuff. I taught them more about human relations and interactions with law enforcement agents (I am the first-born child of a police officer, after all, which makes me the most experienced).

Received a text message that said: Gp.nahuli kami.punta ka d2.dali.

I answered: San kyo?

Reply: grandstand (referring to the grandstand of the UP Sunken Garden).

I immediately went there, and I soon learned that my friends from undergrad were caught smoking pot by the Special Service Brigade (SSB for brevity).

To hide their true identity, I shall call the people involved by codenames. The students caught smoking were Marcos, Denver, Champoy, Byron, Airwalk, and Superstar, the only female in the group.

It seems that these students were smoking pot in the middle of the Sunken Garden, but no pot was actually found in their possession. All the SSB had was an unmistakeable lingering odor of marijuana and a couple of red-eyed kids. They were apprehended by two SSB agents, who we shall call B1 and B2.

When I got to the grandstand, Marcos was already conversing with B1. Among those caught smoking, Marcos was the most experienced, and he already knew what to do. So I let him be. Denver, however, was a little rattled, and kept whispering to me, "Geeps, pa'no to?"

I assured him, "Wala 'yan. Makakaalis din kayo mamaya."

Denver asked me, "Gaano pa katagal, man, kanina pa kami dito."

I looked at B2, and jokingly told him, "Ser, baka pwedeng sorry na lang, hahaha."

Champoy looked at me strangely, wondering how in the world I could manage to make a joke like that at a time like this. But that was part of my strategy, to let the SSB agents loosen up a bit.

Surprisingly, B2 answered, "Naku, hinihingi ko nga ID nila kanina e, ayaw nga ipakita e."

I looked at everyone and told them, "Bakit 'di niyo pinakita ID niyo? Titignan lang naman nila kung enrolled kayo e, para siguradong estudyante kayo ng UP. 'Di ba ser?"

B2 replied, "Oo, mga estudyante pala kayong lahat e. Sinu-sino pa ba magtutulungan dito?"

Lesson #1: SSB agents are nicer to bona fide students. Most offenses you get caught doing will be mitigated by the fact that you are enrolled.

Marcos approached us after talking for a long time with B1. "OK na pare, kakausapin nalang 'yung brod ko. Pero pupunta pa raw 'yung Team Leader nila." (referring to the Team Leader of the SSB agents B1 and B2.)

So while waiting, I decided to go and talk to B1 and B2. To get them on our side.

B1
(points to me) Kasama ba 'to sa mga positive?

B2
Hindi kasama 'yan.

GPA
Hindi ako kasama, pero kaibigan ko ang mga 'yan.

B1
(to the ones caught smoking) Ser, itigil niyo na kasi 'yan e. Idol pa naman namin kayo. Kayo ang mga susunod na presidente ng Pilipinas.

GPA
Oo nga ser, 'di ba. Mainit pa naman ngayon ang Alabang Boys, kaya dapat mag-ingat sa mga ganyan.

B1
Oo nga, tama 'yun, blah-blah-blah...

Lesson #2: Appeal to the human side.

These people are not the enemy. They are not monsters. They are people, with feelings, and hence, can be manipulated.

Team Leader then arrives. I tell Marcos to keep it at the same level, and apparently he already knows this.

Lesson #3: Keep it within the same level.

If we cannot settle this on the SSB level, they will take it to the UP Police. After the UP Police, still without settlement, they take you then to the Quezon City Police. So as long as we still had it on the SSB level, we had to make sure it stayed on that level only. Do everything you can to keep it from reaching the UP Police.

Then the Team Leader talks to Marcos, whose fraternity brother was the head of the SSB. They are able to reach a compromise, and they call for me.

MARCOS
Geeps, gawa ka raw ng promissory note, na hindi na raw natin uulitin 'to.

GPA
Ano, affidavit?

MARCOS
(points to me and explains to Team Leader) Kaibigan kasi namin 'to taga-College of Law.

TEAM LEADER
A talaga? Misis ko nandiyan, sa Library nagtratrabaho, si Ma'am Trixie.

GPA
Sa second floor ho?

TEAM LEADER
A hindi, sa baba siya e.

GPA
O sige ano isusulat ko?

TEAM LEADER
Basta isulat mo diyan na atin-atin na lang 'to tsaka hindi niyo na uulitin.

GPA
A sige alam ko na.

Lesson #4. The name "UP LAW" carries so much weight that the law students sometimes take it for granted that they are studying in the best law school in the country.

And so I drafted something really quick for my friends to sign.

We, the undersigned, do acknowledge that we were apprehended by the Special Service Brigade this night, the 11th of March, 2009, at the UP Sunken Garden, for unruly behavior and loitering after curfew hours.

We were let off with a stern warning that repetition of said incident would result in strict disciplinary action in accordance with the rules of the University.

There. Not one mention of marijuana. Everyone signed it with their name and student number. I even volunteered to sign my name as witness, as a sign of good will to my friends.

Lesson #5. Never leave your friends/clients. They will rely on you to see them safely through the whole ordeal.

After that, they let us off the hook. It still cost my friends around P500, I think. Still, it's better than going to the police, right?

I kept saying "Thank you" to the SSB men involved, including their team leader. They were really nice after that.

Lesson #6. Never stop saying thank you. It boosts their ego.

Before leaving, I tried my hand at one more joke. I told them, "Ayan, mga ser, 'di ba may Alabang Boys? Eto naman po ang mga Diliman Boys."

Everybody laughed, both the potheads and the SSB guys.

You'll know it's a happy ending when everybody laughs.

The Bing Guanzon Show: Free Drinks Special

2009-03-03T20:14:00.001+08:00

The first group to present a report on the Baranggay Project was our group. After that the professor was so happy, she bought the whole class a round of (non-alcoholic) drinks.

Memorable lines:

Who doesn't know how to use a condom? I don't want you leaving my class without knowing how to use a condom. So that when you have sex, you'll think of me!
-Bing Guanzon

* * *

There was also a happy memory, though not as happy as "The Assassination of Anthony Soprano".

* * *

Another quote from Bing Guanzon:

Who's that? (pointing to a picture of me on the screen. I raised my hand.) Oh, I thought it was a kagawad.

That's definitely not the first time someone told me I looked like/sounded like/reminded them of a kagawad. Whatever.

* * *

Lesson learned: Sorority sister-relationships are stronger than mere friends or classmates.

Duh. What the hell was I thinking.

Anyway, whatever happened to equal treatment and cold neutrality?

The Assassination of Anthony Soprano

2009-03-03T07:31:00.004+08:00

Encrypted for protection.

Date: W24BD+1

All events on this day are condensed into one single memory, codenamed "The Assassination of Anthony Soprano".

*Play back memory. Repeatedly.*

Best.
        Day.
               Ever.
                       So far.

The Baranggay Protection Order

2009-02-22T14:46:00.001+08:00

The law school education should not be confined to the four corners of the classroom.

Which is why we have this baranggay project. We went out and gave a lecture about the Baranggay Protection Order, which is a local remedy for women against violence.

These are the beautiful ladies from my group, in the classic Bing Guanzon pose. One of them is my crush.

Anyway, the semester is almost over. Crunch time.

Grilled on the Rowena Guanzon Show

2009-01-06T15:10:00.002+08:00

For this story to have maximum effect, we have to start from the beginning. That's the 16th of December, the last school day before the Christmas break.

There were sixteen (16) cases lined up for that day, to be recited by sixteen (16) people. I had the last case, entitled Jainal v. Commission on Elections. I wrote my digest of the case, ready and prepared to recite. But since the Christmas spirit was good that day, not everyone was called to recite, yours truly included. Oh happy day.

Then the Christmas break came. Oh happy days.

Of course, no vacation is complete without pestering e-mails from the real world (or the Matrix, as I call it), and there were fifteen (15) new cases assigned to fifteen (15) new students. I thought, "Yes, I won't have to recite on the first day after the break!"

And so I spent the rest of the vacation eating, blogging, reading Twilight, and wallowing in love-related depression.

Fast-forward to the 6th of January, anno domini 2009. I was a bit late when I came to class, but I didn't care, as I thought, "I won't be called to recite anyway."

Then the professor goes, "Okay, we'll discuss Jainal versus COMELEC."

GPA: (thinks to himself) Why does that case sound familiar?

RVG: Who's reciting Jainal?

CLASS PRES. FERNANDEZ: Ma'am, it's Mr. Abrajano.

GPA: (frantically to himself) Oh my god, that's my case!

And the strangest thing about it was, I couldn't remember anything from my case. Nothing at all. All I remembered were the words "disqualification," "election," and a blank white space.

Like I said, this was totally unexpected. It's like being caught by your boss with your pants down. That's the closest feeling I could conjure to what I actually felt. So I had to stall for time, and rather than bluff, I told the truth.

GPA: Ma'am, I forgot the details. Please give me five minutes to review my notes.

You have to give me points for bravery. I haven't met any other student who could say that.

RVG: Five minutes is too long. Okay, go ahead, while you're reading your notes, we'll discuss Breaking Dawn.

There you have it. Our great professor reads Stephenie Meyer. So while she was discussing the fourth book in the Twilight saga, I asked my seatmate for her digest of Jainal (like I said, I wasn't expecting to recite at all, so I didn't have mine). I stared at the digest, but it was someone else's digest, which did nothing to refresh my memory. My mind remained a blank white page. I still couldn't remember the case. I wanted to just join her discussion of Twilight and hope she would let me off the hook for reading Stephenie Meyer.

After some time, Professor Guanzon goes, "O, Mr. Abrajano, what's taking you so long?" And then she starts calling on my other classmates to help me. "Miss X, can you recite Jainal? No? Mister Y? No? Miss Z?" (I don't remember who she called; my mind was totally blank.) Then she turned back to me. "The longer you don't recite, more and more of your classmates will get a grade of 5."

Okay, so that's the pressure right there. Then someone miraculously gave me a copy of the digest that I wrote myself. Finally, familiar writing. And the memories came flooding back.

I recited the case, in straight English, trying to make up with confidence what I lost with non-preparation. And I looked the professor in the eye.

This post also serves as a public apology to those who got a grade of 5 because of me. Like I said, all I saw during those precious seconds was a blank white page. That's all. I totally forgot the case. I don't mind if it's just me, but to drag you into it, I apologize. Anyway, don't feel bad about that grade, because you don't deserve it. I hope that consoles you even just a little bit.

Anyway, the newest law school formula is this:
non-preparation + over-vacation = mental block

To those who got dragged into this, again, I'm truly sorry. But I hope you also feel sorry for me, because I got grilled on the Rowena Guanzon Show.

God is Good (But We Need Cash)

2008-11-17T12:17:00.000+08:00

I said in my previous post, that if nothing follows that post, that means that I have been kicked out of law school.

Well, this is the post that follows that post, so logically -- you do the math.

Anyway, I'm still in Malcolm Hall, and I hope I don't screw it up this time.

Just one of the more humorous anecdotes from one of my more interesting professors this semester, the great yet intimidating Rowena V. Guanzon, former mayor of Cadiz (Ca-dith, mind the "th" sound, thank you very much).

Typical to most first days of class, we were asked to stand up and introduce ourselves. Since this class was Local Government, we had to state our name and the baranggay we lived in.

STUDENT: I am Sophia San Luis, from Baranggay Industrial Valley Complex, Marikina City.

RVG: You live in a baranggay called "Industrial Valley Complex?"

STUDENT: Yes, ma'am.

RVG: Who lives there? Robots?

Apparently the legal profession can become one big stand-up comedy act.

Is This the End?

2008-11-06T12:17:00.000+08:00

Yesterday was enrollment time again. I just found out that I might get kicked out of law school. For good.

You cannot imagine how this feels. My mind keeps coming up with "what if" scenarios which, I was told, is an unhealthy way of attracting negative energy. Just think positive. Yeah right. I'd like to see you try.

So to everyone who enjoyed reading my Law School Chronicles (yes, some people actually stalk this blog hehe), I thank you. But this might be my last post here. If nothing follows this post, then you will know that I have been kicked out of UP Law.

I pray to the Lord God Almighty*, to Jesus Christ, and to the departed soul of my maternal grandmother, who always granted my prayers before. Please...let me graduate from UP Law, and let me pass the bar, and I promise to serve my country and alleviate poverty. It can be done. I already know how. But first I need to graduate. So please don't let me get kicked out. I could have sold my soul to the devil, but I chose the good side.

I love you God. Amen.

*When I say "God", I mean the almighty force slash supreme being common to all religions except Aethism. And Scientology. I don't even know if Scientology has a concept of a supreme being.

Fly Me to the Moon: Why the Moon Treaty Failed

2008-10-28T14:50:00.001+08:00

The moon has always held a strong hold over the human race since time immemorial. She has remained physically unchanged in millennia (save for a few new craters here and there), yet our perception of her has been constantly evolving.

The conquest of the moon began with the conquest of space. What began as simple military rivalry escalated by 1952 to a full-scale Space Race with the launch by the USSR of the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1. This created fears in the American populace, the presence of a Russian eye in the sky fueling the Cold War paranoia. This then lead to the US Congress enacting the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, more popularly known as NASA.

NASA is basically an agency established by the Federal government of the United States to handle all military and non-military space projects. Contrary to popular belief, although NASA was responsible for planting the American flag on the moon, it does not and cannot claim the moon in the name of the United States . That is because nobody can own the moon.

The United Nations, in the “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” more popularly known as the “Outer Space Treaty,” declared space to be the “province of all mankind.”[1] Article I states:

The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.[2]

One of the common misconceptions of the average person is that the United States owns the moon, because there is an American flag flying there, and because it was the first to lay claim over it. This is definitely not the case. The American flag was planted in July 20, 1969 ; the Outer Space Treaty, on the other hand, was entered into force two years earlier, on October 10, 1967 . And since the space powers the USA and the USSR are signatories of this treaty (of which the Philippines is also a signatory), they are bound by the provisions of the treaty.

Article II of the same treaty further strengthens the claim by stating:

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.[3]

while the second paragraph of Article IV also prevents occupations that are military in nature:

The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications x x x on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.[4]

The Outer Space Treaty was actually patterned after the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, lifting from it the provisions on “peaceful purposes”[5], “freedom from scientific investigation”[6], and “international scientific cooperation”[7], among others. The only difference is that in the Antarctic Treaty, previous territorial claims and territorial sovereignty are actually recognized. The reason for this is that Antarctic Treaty went into full force and effect after explorer nations had already established their presence in the Antarctic, and this is of course in order to protect any territorial rights they may have already acquired prior to the enactment of the treaty. The Outer Space Treaty, on the other hand, was enacted specifically to prevent any explorer nation to acquire any territorial rights in space, and was timely enacted before the first human ever set foot on the moon.

Yet despite the prohibition on territoriality and ownership in the Outer Space Treaty, might the mighty spacefaring nations find a loophole around this treaty and actually end up with lunar territories?

The answer to that is yes, it is possible. The space powers may soon be singing a different tune, thanks to the United Nations's Resolution 34/68, or the “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” (more popularly known as the “Moon Treaty”). The Moon Treaty incorporates much of the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article I of the Outer Space Treaty are carried over almost verbatim into the first paragraphs of Articles 4 and 6, respectively, of the Moon Treaty, while the Outer Space Treaty ban on military occupations (paragraph 2 Article IV) is carried over to the Moon Treaty's paragraph 4 Article 3.

What is interesting with this, however, is that the Outer Space Treaty's Article II, regarding non-appropriation, has been pushed down to the third paragraph of Article 11 of the Moon Treaty. At first glance, this gives the impression that the non-appropriation clause's importance has been pushed to the background, but this is in fact qualified by the succeeding paragraph:

Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non- governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this article.[8]

This would then lead us to the assumption that ownership of the moon might seem to be a far-off cry, but as stated above, paragraph 5 of the same article proposes the establishment of an international regime that would handle the appropriations, should that day come.

States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is about to become feasible x x x.[9]

This provision clearly negates the impression that the lunar surface is forever free from ownership. Appropriation is actually possible as soon as it becomes feasible to exploit the moon's resources. But the feasibility of exploiting the resources is subject to the international regime, which will by then probably be the most powerful body when it comes to appropriation of lunar land.

What is most interesting here is that if ownership and property rights on the moon are given stricter scrutiny under the Moon Treaty, why then are the thirteen lone signatories all non-spacefaring nations? To answer that, we must again look at the original treaty, the Outer Space Treaty. According to Glenn Harlan Reynolds, one of the leading authorities right now on extraterrestrial property rights, “[b]oth the United States and the Soviet Union wanted to reach the moon first but, in fact, each was more worried about what would happen if they arrived second. Fears that the competition might trigger World War III led to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was eventually ratified by 62 countries.”[10] The Outer Space Treaty was signed by the two major space powers with the intent of preventing whoever landed on the moon first from claiming it. It followed the principle “if we cannot own the moon, nobody can.”

Taking off from this same premise, and seeing that the Outer Space Treaty might fail to address ownership by private individuals, the UN decided to draft the Moon Treaty, which gave stricter provisions as to the acquisition of lunar property. This was of course in 1979, when both the US and USSR have already been making successful back-and-forth trips to the moon, and it has apparently been clear to them that if they had known what the original Outer Space Treaty would prohibit them from acquiring, they would not have signed the treaty in the first place. This now explains why the states that ratified the Moon Treaty were those nations who had no active space programs and who wished to be protected from any abuse by the space powers. The states that did have active space programs of course recognized the potential of lunar conquest, and refused to ratify any further treaties that would curtail any rights they may acquire.

The failure of the Moon Treaty to put its intent into full force and effect can not only be attributed to the prohibition on owning extraterrestrial property, but also on some of its provisions regarding ownership in space. First of all, there is an obligation placed on all explorer states to make available to “the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable”[11] their discoveries, data, and “any phenomena they discover in outer space, including the moon, which could endanger human life or health, as well as of any indication of organic life.”[12] There is also the obligation to “report to other States Parties and to the Secretary-General concerning areas of the moon having special scientific interest.”[13] The provision on the “freedom of scientific investigation on the moon by all States Parties”[14] apparently does not include the right to secrecy regarding scientific discoveries.

Though ownership of the moon or any celestial body is not possible, the Moon Treaty actually grants the right of usufruct over the moon in favor of the State Parties to the agreement. Despite the “right to exploration and use of the moon without discrimination of any kind,”[15] scientific samples, like lunar soil and rocks, cannot be owned; the states parties to the treaty are only allowed the rights “to collect on and remove from the moon samples of its mineral and other substances.”[16] Although full usufruct of these samples is granted to the State Party, full ownership is not divested. The samples shall only “remain at the disposal of those States Parties which caused them to be collected and may be used by them for scientific purposes.”[17]

The use of the moon without ownership is further discussed in Article 7 of the Moon Treaty. The first paragraph states that “States Parties may pursue their activities in the exploration and use of the moon anywhere on or below its surface, subject to the provisions of this Agreement”[18] while the second paragraph enumerates the following:

x x x State Parties may, in particular:

(a) Land their space objects on the moon and launch them from the moon;

(b) Place their personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations anywhere on or below the surface of the moon.

Personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations may move or be moved freely over or below the surface of the moon.[19]

What it basically says is that although no one can own the moon, any state party may use the moon, and not just for landing space objects and space vehicles. Although military occupation is not allowed, the treaty allows state parties to “establish manned and unmanned stations on the moon,” under the limitation that “[a] State Party establishing a station shall use only that area which is required for the needs of the station.”[20]

The Moon Treaty not only discusses future property rights on the moon, but also present and existing property rights of the State Parties. Paragraph 1 of Article 12 makes it clear that the State Parties still retain ownership of moveable property on the moon.

States Parties shall retain jurisdiction and control over their personnel, vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on the moon. The ownership of space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations shall not be affected by their presence on the moon. (emphasis added)[21]

This right was carried over from Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty, except that the objects subject to usufruct are specifically enumerated in the Moon Treaty. This means that a moon buggy that carries the American flag will be considered as American property, no matter where on the moon it is located. There can be no such thing as a Russian rover accidentally wandering into American territory, because there are no national territories in the first place.

Despite the fact that State Parties retain full ownership of their moveable properties, the Moon Treaty again grants the right of usufruct of space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations, and installations in favor of other State Parties. The right of usufruct was already present in the Antarctic Treaty, but only in the “freedom of access at any time to any or all areas of Antarctica”[22], and the right to have “all areas of Antarctica, including all stations, installations and equipment within those areas, and all ships and aircraft at points of discharging or embarking cargoes or personnel in Antarctica x x x open at all times to inspection by any observers.”[23]

The first right of usufruct is in favor of anyone in distress: “States Parties shall offer shelter in their stations, installations, vehicles and other facilities to persons in distress on the moon.”[24] But this is nothing new, as the same provision also appears in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, more popularly known as the Law of the Sea. It just basically follows the “Good Samaritan” principle of doing unto others what you would want others do unto you.

The second right of usufruct is much more explicit, as seen in Paragraph 1 of Article 15: “[A]ll space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on the moon shall be open to other States Parties”[25]. That doesn't make it any more clearer. This provision was taken from Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty:

All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other States Parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity” (emphasis supplied)[26]

except that the reciprocity phrase was discarded, clearly showing the intention that the usufruct in favor of the other State Parties should be absolute. This is in consonance with another provision from the Outer Space Treaty that was modified in the Moon Treaty. Since the Outer Space Treaty was signed by both spacefaring and non-spacefaring nations alike, the first paragraph of Article X gives non-spacefaring State Parties the right “to be afforded an opportunity to observe the flight of space objects launched by those [spacefaring] States.”[27] Carried over to the Moon Treaty, it gives State Parties access to all information and data gathered by the spacefaring State Parties, not just access to observe shuttle and rocket launches.

Through the Moon Treaty, future acquisition of property by the sovereign states of Earth is still clearly prohibited, and their present property rights have been burdened by granting the right of usufruct in favor of the other State Parties. It then becomes pretty obvious why the only nations bound by this treaty are non-spacefaring nations. It required too many obligations on the part of the spacefaring states, obligations that would definitely prove disadvantageous in the long run. No state in its right mind, after pouring billions into its space programs, would allow such free access to other State Parties, when they were the ones who did all the dirty work. So as long as this treaty does not bind the space powers, and as long as the space powers continually pursue their outer space interests, and until a more solid international treaty is drafted especially binding on the spacefaring nations, the status of extraterrestrial property rights will continue to remain on shaky ground.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Art. I, Jan. 27, 1967 , http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_21_2222.html [hereinafter Outer Space Treaty].
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at Art. II.
[4] Id. at Art. IV(2).
[5] The Antarctic Treaty, Art. I, Dec. 1, 1959 , untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/30/18/00058863.pdf [hereinafter Antarctic Treaty].
[6] Id. at Art. II.
[7] Id. at Art. III.
[8] Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Art. 11(3), Dec. 18, 1979 , untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/12/23/00023117.pdf [hereinafter Moon Treaty]
[9] Id. at Art. 11(5).
[10] Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Who Owns the Moon? The Case for Lunar Property Rigts, Popular Mechanics, 2008.
[11] Art. 5(1) of Moon Treaty.
[12] Id. at Art. 5(3).
[13] Id. at Art. 7(3).
[14] Id. at Art. 6(1).
[15] Id. at Art. 11(4).
[16] Id. at Art. 6(2).
[17] Id.
[18] Id. at Art. 7(1).
[19] Id. at Art. 7(2).
[20] Id. at Art. 8(1).
[21] Id. at Art. 12(1).
[22] Art. VII(2) of Antarctic Treaty.
[23] Id. at Art. VII(3).
[24] Art. 10(2) of Moon Treaty.
[25] Id. at Art. 15(2).
[26] Art. XII of Outer Space Treaty.
[27] Id. at Art. X(1).

I Love Exams

2008-10-16T13:54:00.000+08:00

Another secret shame: I love exams.

First, let me explain -- I love the anticipation before the exam, as well as the act of answering itself. For me, it's just like solving a jigsaw puzzle, the daily crossword, or a Rubik's cube. It stimulates the same areas of the brain, and I love being stimulated. Some people think I am not a normal student because of this. Whatever.

Anyway, what I don't like is the preparation for an exam. First of all, the preparation is not proportional to the exam itself. Take Constitutional Law. I had to read literally a mountain of reading materials, more than two hundred cases (two hundred and ten, if I'm not mistaken), with each case averaging about twenty pages. 210 cases times twenty pages equals such a waste of paper. That's 4200 pages of readings. Four thousand two hundred pages for the entire semester. Exaggerated? I think not. And it is for this reason that I do not like studying. On this note, I believe I am actually a normal student.

But the thing is, one cannot hope to pass a UP Law exam without studying. You may be equipped with all the powers of analysis and logic, but without any knowledge stored in your head, your brain will be analyzing empty space. It'll be like a perfectly crafted handgun with no bullets inside.

A hundred years from now, when the Wachowski myth of the Matrix becomes a reality, when human beings have holes at the back of their heads, you won't need to spend countless hours reading to fill your head. You just jack in and all the knowledge you could possibly want can be downloaded directly into your hard drive brain. But until that day comes, students have no choice but to do it old school. That's the way it's been done since time immemorial.

So that's one last exam on Saturday, and then it's time to sing: Naaalala kita 'pag umuulan. SEMBREAK!

What Happened to Danny Con?

2008-10-10T07:13:00.000+08:00

What happened to Danny Con?

One of my secret shames is that I listen to AM radio, something that I never thought I'd be doing. I'm part of that generation who thinks AM radio is for older people whose musical preferences are anything pre-Beatles.

There's this show on weekdays on DZMM at 9 pm, called Usapang de Campanilla. It's that show where ordinary folk get free legal advise by calling in and asking Atty. Danny Concepcion, a.k.a. Danny Con. Now Danny Con is brilliant, being from UP of course, and he is pretty good at bringing down complicated legal concepts to the level of the masses. But lately, the show's been hosted by women, and I hope it's just temporary, because a lot of the listeners, myself included, want Danny Con back.

Take last night for example. They had two female lawyers who didn't sound as convincing as Danny Con was. Then it was later revealed that they didn't graduate from UP Law. No offense, but you can really tell who the brilliant lawyers are just from the stuff that comes out of their mouths.

Last Tuesday night however, they had a different female lawyer, who sounded smart. It is possible that she was from UP Law, though I'm not entirely sure. But she did have a sexy voice, and there could be a slim chance that she was actually pretty in person. If they can't have Danny Con back, I hope they get that sexy-vioced lawyer to host again.

Last Day of Class -- Consti 2

2008-10-09T06:59:00.000+08:00

Wednesday, Oct 8, 2008.

An end to a very difficult but interesting subject, taught by a professor who loves movies so much.

Last Day of Class: Agency and Partnership

2008-10-05T15:58:00.000+08:00

Saturday, Oct 4, 2008.

This guy is not our Partnership teacher, but our professor in first year, Constitutional Law 1, Sir Alberto Muyot. We gave him a birthday cake. That's how much we love him.

This is our real Partnership professor, Sir Roberto N. Dio, who is partially covered. But we love him too.

Last Day of Class: Property

2008-10-05T15:53:00.000+08:00

Friday, Oct 3, 2008.

Last day of class, Property, Tues. and Fri., 6:30-8:30.

Faster than his usual pace (which is already fast enough), Professor Lumba finsihes the class in just a little over 20 minutes.

If I'm not mistaken, this was his fastest class ever.

Bar Ops Week 3

2008-09-25T07:02:00.000+08:00

Sunday, Sep 21, 2008.

Better camera (Aika's new Lumix, which was a real bargain). Same pictures.

Bar Ops Week 2

2008-09-14T17:45:00.000+08:00

Sunday, Sep 14, 2008.

Nothing like the smell of barristers in the morning.

The sun rises. The circus begins.

The kid on the left and the one in the middle are actually twins.

Bar Ops Week 1

2008-09-14T17:35:00.000+08:00

Sunday, Sep 7, 2008.

One big circus in Taft Avenue. Why all the pomp for the barristers, when this country actually needs more doctors than lawyers?

So Help Me God

2008-09-06T19:13:00.000+08:00

First semester second year is coming to a close, and there is this deep feeling in my gut that I just might fail.

The truth is, you really can't rely on what others say. People kept telling me that first year of law school was the hardest, and once you've gotten over that hurdle, everything will be easier. But such is not the case.

I only have three subjects this semester: Constitutional Law 2, Property, and Agency and Partnership. So far, only Consti is really easy to understand, despite the exaggeratedly thick cases that I have to read. The other two subjects, well I can't even describe how much I barely understand.

It is in times like these that I find myself going to church and praying fervently to God. I know you're supposed to pray everyday, not just when you need something. And I'm sorry, God, if I leave you hanging after you grant my prayers. God, by the way, has granted everything I've ever prayed for. Everything. Of course that doesn't mean that if I pray for an SUV tomorrow, I'll wake up and find one outside my house. What I meant was that every reasonable thing I've prayed for was granted. There is truth to the saying, "Ask, and ye shall receive."

Some people may find it strange that even with my strong Roman Catholic roots, I still dabble in the occult, and I even blog about it. But there's nothing strange about it at all. Once you've reconciled and harmonized everything in conflict, the universe becomes a truly beautiful place.

So now I pray, please Lord, Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, I pray that you hear me. Make me pass this semester. And the semesters after that. And the bar exam. And I promise I will go to church. PLEASE! Thank you. I love you God, you're the greatest. Nice shoes.

Law School Rivalry

2008-07-17T15:02:00.000+08:00

Some people may not realize it, but there is such a thing as "law school rivalry".

The Top Three law schools are of course UP, the Jesuit law school, and the Benedictine law school. Admission into these three schools is quite an ordeal, and you can just imagine the pride of the students coming from these schools.

To qualify for admission into UP, you have to pass the Law Aptitude Exam, more popularly known as the LAE, and you also have to meet the required average, and you have to pass the interview. And aside from this, you have to be a "virgin" law student---meaning you should not have been kicked out of any law school, which of course includes Ateneo and San Beda. If a student from either Ateneo or San Beda wishes to study in UP Law, he or she has to be a legitimate transferee, meaning he or she has to have passed all the subjects, and he or she will have to repeat the first year curriculum.

This does not apply only to UP, but to Ateneo and San Beda as well. Ateneo will not accept drop-outs from UP and San Beda; San Beda will not accept drop-outs from UP and Ateneo.

On its face, the prohibition seems to be justified, as there is a strong possibility that the drop-out might affect the quality of education. But that is just a possibility. It has never been proven.

Which is why UP Law has decided to let go of the pride. The Law Admissions Committee has voted unanimously to scrap the rule prohibiting drop-outs from other law schools from enrolling in UP. The LAE, undergrad general weighted average, and the interview are sufficient enough, as anyone who can pass these three requirements is deemed qualified, since passing them is quite difficult in itself.

It has been the subject of debate, whether or not the prohibition rule cited earlier violated students' right to equal protection. And the Admissions Committee took a bold step in the right direction by declaring such prohibition unconstitutional. Although it still requires the vote of the faculty, it looks like it's already in the bag.

Should the faculty vote against the unanimous decision of the Admissions Committee, it will just go to show that some faculty members still have that pride inside of them. They should know that it was pride that turned Anakin Skywalker to the dark side. But should they vote for the scrapping of the prohibition rule, then we will once again have proved that UP is still the leader---nay, the trailblazer---in anything academic.

I don't know how reliable my source is, but my source is old, and my source is a member of the faculty, so I guess there must be some truth in it.

Oh, and beginning next year, there will be no more interviews for the incoming freshmen law students. Times truly are a-changing.

Black, White, Burger, and Frankfurter

2008-07-07T22:09:00.000+08:00

Trivia about some of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court:

Black and White served on the same bench for a period of ten years.
Justices Hugo L. Black and Byron R. White served together from 1962-1972.

There was a Justice Burger, and a Justice Frankfurter.
Justice Warren E. Burger, 1969-1986, and Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1939-1962.

There was no Justice Milkshake, or Justice Soda. Nor was there a Justice Bacon N. Eggs.

* * *

Also quite noticeable is the sheer number of cases involving unlawful arrests and seizures concerning our favorite plants cannabis sativa and cannabis indica, more popularly known as Mary Jane.

Oh how the court dockets would be freed from unnecessary clogging if only the plant was made legal.

Lesson Number 3

2008-07-05T19:28:00.000+08:00

Lesson Number 3
Lawyers are also human beings.

Friday, July 4, 2008.
Professor Solomon Lumba. College Secretary. Property 18:30-22:30.

This was a two-hour class, yet he managed to squeeze the lesson in just an hour.

He asked us if we watched the TV show Amazing Race, and said that today's class would be like a "Non-Elimination Day". By that he meant that we would not be graded for recitation, so anyone who read the cases better volunteer to recite. He rubbed his hands in agitation when the student wasted time by not getting straight to the point, and he interrupted them in an attempt to lead them in the right path.

He was also able to explain the differences between actions in rem, quasi in rem, and in personam, in just a fraction of an hour. If it were a regular school day, he would confuse us with very tricky questions, and finish the whole two hours on just that topic. But like I said, this was a Non-Elimination Day.

Finally, before he dismissed the class, he told us the reason for his behavior. "May hinahabol kasi akong sine, eh," he said. "'Yung Hancock."

I guess every working person, lawyer or not, has the right to enjoy a Friday night. Which is why me and my girlfriend Aika decided to join her former officemates in a few beers after class.