Judge Eliza B. Yu

The pertinent provisions governing the initiation of administrative complaints against civil service officials or employees are provided in Book V of E.O. No. 292. Sections 46(c) and 48(1) and (2), Chapter 6, Subtitle A thereof read:

Sec. 46. Discipline: General provisions. –

(c) Except when initiated by the disciplining authority, no complaint against a civil service official or employee shall be given due course unless the same is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the complainant.

The following are sexual harassment cases against judges in the Philippines: 1. Judge in violent kissing incident was dismissed. Based on the foregoing findings, the Investigating Justice made the following conclusions: a) that there is sufficient evidence to create a moral certainty that respondent committed the acts complained of, especially the violent kissing incident which transpired last December 6, 1995; b) that complainant and her witnesses are credible witnesses who have no ulterior motive or bias to falsely testify against respondent; c) that respondent's denials cannot prevail over the weight and probative value of the affirmative assertions of complainant and her witnesses; d) that respondent's poem has damned him, being documented proof of his sexual intentions towards the complainant; e) that by filing her charges imputing to respondent a crime against chastity and with her background as a lawyer and a court employee, complainant was well-aware that her honor would itself be on trial; f) that it is unbelievable that complainant, a demure newly-married lady and a religious person, would fabricate a story with such severe implications on respondent's professional and personal life just to get even with respondent for an alleged simple scolding incident;

This is the final argument on violation of criminal privacy law  submitted on March 31, 2017 to the Supreme Court.  This paper is not covered by confidentiality rule because the subject matter involves public interest that was previously submitted to Department of Justice, Office of the Ombudsman and Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

This is the final argument on night court case  submitted on March 31, 2017 to the Supreme Court.  This paper is not covered by confidentiality rule because the subject matter involves public interest that was previously submitted to Department of Justice, Office of the Ombudsman and Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

[ADMINISTRATORS] In OCA IPI No. 10-2335-MTJ, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended for the dismissal of two (2) complaints filed by Mrs. Gabina Punsalan - Luchavez against Judge Eliza B. Yu for Graft and Corruption, Knowingly Rendering Unjust Decision, Gross Ignorance of the Law approved by the Supreme Court on April 25, 2012. That gave her 2 wins and 0 loss in administrative cases.
Still she filed her Motion for Reconsideration as a Winning Judge in Administrative Cases due to legal errors on the issue of demand letter and issue waiver of counsel on collection suit.

Court Administrator " D " initiated an administrative complaint against Judge " A " for writing a protest letter about the night court operation in X City questioning its legality, rationality and productivity. Judges, like any other citizen in this country, have the constitutionally-enshrined freedom of speech and expression. However, there is a difference between freedom of expression and compromising the dignity of the Court through written or published emotional outbursts and destructive criticisms. From the standpoint of conduct and demeanor expected of a judge, resort to extreme and intemperate language only detracts from the respect due a member of the judiciary and becomes self-destructive. In the letter to Secretary of Tourism, Judge " A " disparaged the establishment of night courts in a manner which is critical, defiant and scathing, fully aware that the order which she is defying is an administrative order issued by no less than the Chief Justice himself. To quote the subject letter of Judge " A " : XXX XXX XXX This Court learned that you requested for the designation of night courts in X City that resulted to the issuance of Administrative Order No. 0-123 (Establishing Night Courts in the Metropolitan Trial Courts of X City and Y City). With due respect, there is insufficient basis for your request. There was no statistical data presented or there was no study conducted by your department recommending the necessity of establishing night courts in X City. For the record, this Court is yet to hear a case involving any tourist. Moreover, the tourists should be advised not to roam around the city at night so as not to be victims of various crimes. Usually, the perception of the tourists who are going around the city at night is negative, for they are likely to be engaging in unlawful nocturnal activities. They are at their own risk at night. There was no prior consultation with the police officers, public attorneys, public prosecutors, judges and their staff before your department requested for the creation of night courts in X City. There are many concerns which your department did not consider.

Judge " A " was charged with Disrespect and Disregard of Authority tantamount to Grave Misconduct and Insubordination by an administrative office of the Supreme Court as the complainant for allegedly accusing in the protest letter against the Selection, Nomination and Promotion Board (Board) of certain irregularities committed by nominating court employee " B " who has a pending case involving grave offenses who did not secure court clearances and court employee " C " who did not comply with the basic requirements for application as Clerk of Court such as favorable recommendation of a Judge and Position Description Form (PDF) even going to the extent of branding the appointment of court employee " C " as "void ab initio " and a " big joke," to name a few, thereby casting doubts on the integrity of selection, nomination and promotion board; that even Judge " A " casts aspersion on board by saying "Board is funny, and it made me laugh. I rather laugh than be angry, than feel helpless, than look powerless in this awful and mean situation" ; that Judge " A " s act of ascribing ill motives to the Board degrades the integrity and confidence reposed by the public in it and her language used in expressing her displeasure is hardly the kind of circumspect words expected of a magistrate; and considering that the main function of the Board is merely to screen, evaluate and assess the competence and qualifications of a candidate for the appointment to a vacant position, the authority to appoint is still vested on the Chief Justice and the two (2) Senior Associate Justices; that Judge " A " s impugning the appointments of court employees " B " and " C " is a denigration of the actions of the Chief Justice and the two (2) Senior Associate Justices. Complainant prayed for a show cause order why Judge " A " will not be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Insubordination. Did Judge " A " commit Disrespect and Disregard of Authority tantamount to Grave Misconduct and Insubordination in writing a protest letter on the irregularly appointed Clerk of Court? The answer is in the negative. Judge " A " did not commit a misconduct and insubordination in writing a protest letter that is a mere exercise of one's cherished freedom of speech, a constitutional right. In US vs. Bustos 37 PHIL 731, our Supreme Court said, "The people not obliged to speak of the conduct of their officials in whispers or with bated breath in a free government, by only in a despotism. Even if the statements are found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of

The Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the charge of Gross Ignorance of the Law for allowing the parties without lawyers  to go to Philippine Mediation center filed against Judge Eliza B. Yu by four (4) Judges and seventy (70) court personnel.

The Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the charge of Gross Ignorance of the Law for archiving criminal cases without a public prosecutor or public attorney filed against Judge Eliza B. Yu by four (4) Judges and seventy (70) court personnel.

The Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the charge of  failure to cite in contempt of lawyers who physically fought against each other inside the trial court against Judge Eliza B. Yu filed by four (4) Judges and seventy (70) court personnel.

[ADMINISTRATORS] Judge Eliza B. Yu is the one and only Judge who challenged the legality of night court operations that existed for decades under six (6) former Chief Justices (1991 - 2012). Consequently, she was charged with Gross Insubordination and Grave Misconduct including violation of Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code for her night court protest by 4 Judges and 70 court employees. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported and recommended that she be held liable for Grave Misconduct, Gross insubordination and Violation of New Code of Judicial Conduct  for her night court protest to the Supreme Court En Banc  in 2012. Later on, OCA recommended the suspension of night court operations to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno who approved it as published by The Manila Standard Today on January 25, 2015.

In OCA IPI No. 11-2411-MTJ, the Office of the Court Administrator indorsed the six (6) complaints dated September 5, 2011, March 7, 2012, June 6, 2012, September 19, 2012, October 16, 2012 and December 12, 2012 for Judge Eliza B. Yu to answer with it's indorsement dates of September 26, 2011 and March 26, 2012 and another referral of complaint on September 19, 2011. She submitted comments to all these six (6) complaints from September, 2011 to December, 2012. These administrative cases with voluminous attachments were dismissed by the Supreme Court on February 17, 2014. That gave her 6 wins and 0 loss in administrative complaints.
Her questioned Decision won over Regional Trial Court Decision at the Court of Appeals.
The Decision penned by CA 4th Division that was promulgated on July 17, 2013 in CA GR SP. No. 128139 titled Joseph Tay a.k.a Tay Chun Suy vs. Capt. Charles Deen Jr. et al., that held in part:
“Certainly, no abuse of discretion was committed by the METC when it issued the aforesaid resolution. Judge Eliza B. Yu did not commit a patent, gross and prejudicial error of law or fact that would amount to a grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. Neither did she capriciously disregard a settled law and jurisprudence” (p. 7 of the Decision) and the Decision’s dispositive portion declared: “WHEREFORE, the assailed Orders dated March 12, 2012 and June 14, 2012 are set aside and the Resolution dated August 1, 2011 of the Metropolitan Trial Court is REINSTATED. SO  ORDERED."

Libel case filed against the Officer-in-Charge of METC Branch 47, Pasay City for reporting judicial graft and corruption involving the illegal and unremitted stenographer's fees and sheriff's fees was dismissed with finality by the Department of Justice in 2013. This reported judicial corruption on overcharging of legal fees by the stenographers and sheriffs is prevalent among many trial courts in Metro Manila according to plaintiff-banks lawyers and representatives in Replevin cases.

In Alonzo vs. IAC 151 SCRA 552, our Supreme Court held, “ The
respondent court mistakenly applied the rule that: “one found in the possession of and who used a forged document is the forger or the one who caused the forgery and  therefore, guilty of falsification.

It is provided in the Deed of Mortgage  that should the mortgagors fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the promissory note, the mortgagee shall automatically have the absolute right without need or prior notice or demand to judicially or extrajudicially foreclose this mortgage and proceed against all of the mortgaged rights , interest and properties for the full satisfaction of the mortgagors entire obligation to the mortgagee.

The fraud  consisted of  the representation of the accused SPO4 Resurrecion Lagasca that he is authorized to collect productivity checks of policemen and  that he is  authorized to make cash advances for the productivity checks of the policemen with  authority to sign for and on behalf of the policemen for cash advances,  which  in effect,  he will deliver the cash advance to the policemen , and in turn, he  will deliver the productivity pays to the complainant,  when these are not so and these did not happen in this case.

As to the physical attack of Cedric Canete to the private complainants,  while  the certificate to file action dated July 20, 2002 submitted by the prosecution named  both  accused as respondents no summons by the barangay was issued to the accused Cedric Canete  regarding the incident for barangay conciliation and mediation among them as parties in these cases.  Therefore, there was  a premature issuance of the  certificate to file action against him.

In the case at bar, both the plaintiff  Maria Lacson  and defendant Emma Lim  have tax declarations. But the actual proof of possession belonged to the defendant Emma Lim. Plaintiff  Maria Lacson  should have been put on guard by defendant Emma Lim’s  declaration of the property for tax purposes. The defendant Emma Lim’s tax declaration represented an adverse claim over the unregistered property and was inimical to the rights of plaintiff Maria Lacson.

Article 525 of the New Civil Code provides: “ The possession of things or rights  may be had in one of two concepts: either in the concept of owner; or in that of the  holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the ownership pertaining to another person.”

More than a year after rendering the Decision, Judge Eliza B. Yu was approached and thanked for giving them justice without any payment in cash or in kind by a library staff who turned out to be one of the heirs of the plaintiffs at Pasay City Hall Library.

“Science is useful in decision-making. It is a critical one because of its limiting or empowering effects on decisions. This holds true whether the decisions are being made in a trial court.”

Six (6) years ago, this Decision was chosen as sample of legal writing by Judge Eliza B. Yu that will be submitted to JBC when she will apply for promotion as Justice to the Court of Appeals.

People vs. Cecilia “Cheche” Lazaro , Criminal Case No. M – PSY – 09-09532 – CR, for violation of RA No. 4200 (The Anti-Wiretapping Act), the news of the court’s ruling was published by newspapers and tabloids on August 18, 2010. The news landed in the front page of the Philippine Star

People vs. Llanera of the P728 Million Fertilizer Scam, the pre-trial was published by the Philippine Star on February 28, 2011; published in politicalarena.com and philstar.com on April 18, 2011 with news heading, “ Palace: It's up to Jocjoc to talk”

This is the winning Decision on Grave Coercion at the Court of Appeals where the resolution of the Metropolitan Trial Court was sustained over the resolution of the Regional Trial Court in 2014.

In OCA IPI No. 11-2411-MTJ, OCA indorsed the six (6) complaints for Gross Ignorance of the Laws, Knowingly Rendering Unjust Resolution, Graft and Corruption dated September 5, 2011, March 7, 2012, June 6, 2012, September 19, 2012, October 16, 2012 and December 12, 2012  with indorsement dates of  September 26, 2011 and March 26, 2012 and another referral of complaint  on September 19, 2011 for Judge Eliza B. Yu  to comment. These  administrative cases with voluminous attachments were dismissed by the Supreme Court  on February 17, 2014.  The Decision penned by CA 4th Division that was  promulgated on  July 17, 2013  in CA GR SP. No. 128139  titled Joseph Tay a.k.a Tay Chun Suy vs. Capt. Charles Deen Jr. et al.,  held in part: 

“Certainly, no abuse of discretion was committed by the METC when it issued the aforesaid resolution. Judge Eliza B. Yu did not commit a patent, gross and prejudicial error of law or fact that would amount to a grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. Neither did she capriciously disregard a settled law and jurisprudence” (p. 7 of the Decision) and the Decision’s dispositive portion declared: “WHEREFORE, the assailed Orders dated March 12, 2012 and June 14, 2012 are  set aside and the Resolution dated August 1, 2011 of the Metropolitan Trial Court is REINSTATED.    SO ORDERED.”

Mob Rule is known as Ochlocracy, the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities by the mob. It is democracy (the rule of the people) minus the rule of law. It is rule by a fickle crowd, which has to do with demagoguery, passion over reason, absolute freedom of expression, groundless and false accusations, complete disregard for constitutional authorities, and the tyranny of the few (Mob rule must be nipped in the bud before it engulfs us by Pornpimol Kanchanalak published on May 13, 2010). Thomas Jefferson said that " Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. " It was Polybius in Histories who coined the term to name the "pathological" version of popular rule in opposition to the good version, which he refers to as democracy. According to him, the political cycle of government rotates through the three basic forms of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. These three degenerate into the governments of ochlocracy, oligarchy, and tyranny. Original society is in anarchy but the strongest figure emerges and sets up a monarchy. The monarch's descendants, become despots and the monarchy degenerates into a tyranny. Because of the abuses and excesses of the tyrant ruler, the tyranny is overthrown by the leading intellectual rebels of the state who set up an aristocracy. They too quickly forget about good virtues in government and the state becomes an oligarchy. These oligarchs are overthrown by the common people who set up a democracy. Democracy soon becomes corrupt and degenerates into Ochlocracy, beginning the cycle anew. Thus, in ancient Greek political thought Ochlocracy was considered as one of the three "bad" forms of government (Tyranny, Oligarchy and Ochlocracy) as opposed to the three "good" forms of government (Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy). The distinction between "good" and "bad" was made according to whether the government form would act in the interest of the whole community is "good" or the exclusive interests of a group or individual at the expense of justice is "bad". Mob rule is as old as human history. In ancient Greece, it was considered one of the three bad forms of ruling authority. Socrates died by drinking a poison when he was sentenced to death by jury, others considered it was a cry of the mob that influenced the judgment. History showed that Rome was built, maintained and destroyed by mob rule. At certain times, some government officials whose assignments were to disperse a seditious multitude would actually be headed by the mob. The government would lose its control, which led to loss of power. Once the mob tasted victory, it realized that it had every chance of success. In the United States, the Salem witch trials, lynchings of blacks in the South, and the McCarthyism are just three examples of mob rule. The Salem witch trials were the prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft and their trials in colonial Massachusetts between 1692 to 1693. These resulted in the executions of twenty people, most of them women. Lynching is an extrajudicial punishment by an informal group characterized by informal public executions by a mob, often by hanging, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate a minority group. McCarthyism is the practice of making

The Rule of Law is opposite to the Rule of Man. The Rule of Law is based on the Constitution of the ruled while the Rule of Man is based on political power of a ruler. Every country in this world that has a Constitution as the supreme law upholds the principle of the Rule of Law. Ideally, what limits the arbitrary and despotic exercise of government powers by a ruler and his representatives resulting to abuses and oppression is no other than the Rule of Law, the heart of each democratic institution. On the other hand, a good point to ponder is what are the limits of the Rule of Law? The following are the perceived limitations of the Rule of Law that are not exclusive:

In Aristotle's Politics, the debate is the question whether political authority is better exercised through a " rule of law " or " a rule of men ". His answer is the Rule of Law. His reasons are: 1. Laws are products of reasons not passions; 2. The sovereignty of a ruler or assembly tends to tyranny i.e. rule in interests of a section, not common good; 3. Equality demands that each mature person have some share in governing; and 4. Rotation of offices and office-holders is desirable and can hardly be managed without legal regulation. So for Aristotle, the central case of practical authority is government of a polis by law and legally regulated rulers. To quote Aristotle in Chapter XVI, (1287a) of Politics: We will next consider the absolute monarch that we have just mentioned, who does everything according to his own will: for a king governing under the direction of laws which he is obliged to follow does not of himself create any particular species of government, as we have already said: for in every state whatsoever, either aristocracy or democracy, it is easy to appoint a general for life; and there are many who entrust the administration of affairs to one person only; such is the government at Dyrrachium, and nearly the same at Opus. As for an absolute monarchy as it is called, that is to say, when the whole state is wholly subject to the will of one person, namely the king, it seems to many that it is unnatural that one man should have the entire rule over his fellow-citizens when the state consists of equals: for nature requires that the same right and the same rank should necessarily take place amongst all those who are equal by nature: for as it would be hurtful to the body for those who are of different constitutions to observe the same regimen, either of diet or clothing, so is it with respect to the honours of the state as hurtful, that those who are equal in merit should be unequal in rank; for which reason it is as much a man's duty to submit to command as to assume it, and this also by rotation; for this is law, for order is law; and it is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws, for the supreme power must be placed somewhere; but they say, that it is unjust that where all are equal one person should continually enjoy it. But it seems unlikely that man should be able to adjust that which the law cannot determine; it may be replied, that the law having laid down the best rules possible, leaves the adjustment and application of particulars to the discretion of the magistrate; besides, it allows anything to be altered which experience proves may be better established. Moreover, he who would place the supreme power in mind, would place it in God and the laws; but he who entrusts man with it, gives it to a wild beast, for such his appetites sometimes make him; for passion influences those who are in power, even the very best of men: for which reason law is reason without desire. For Aristotle, the Rule of Men is susceptible to tyranny of a one person called the King in a society composed of equals. A King as a supreme ruler can be a legislator, executor and judicator at the same time. He has the final say of everything. No one is allowed to disobey him. It is unnatural that one and only person rules over all others who can be abused, maltreated and oppressed. What more, if the subjects of the King are smarter and wiser than him, they will plot for his ouster that means constant chaos. Since a King's word is the law, he himself is above his own law that is not good in a society where the people can view it as disputable and unfair. No one is capable to challenge or question the King's action whether or not it conform in his own law. A King with an impaired judgment can result to a bad decision-making that injures his people. The King is responsible for anything that may happen to the people, economy, and territory. If the King is abusive, bad, ignorant, or wicked, he and his

The invalidation or revocation by JBC of the nominations secured by fraudulent application of Judges for promotion is one of the inherent powers of JBC in Article VIII, Section 8 (5) in relation to Article VIII, Section 7 (3) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Judge Eliza B. Yu is the one and only Judge who opposed the implementation of Jar on Criminal Cases in 2012.

SC stopped implementation of JAR on Criminal Cases  in 2013.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/288538/news/nation/sc-halts-implementation-of-judicial-affidavit-rule-on-criminal-cases

SC stopped implementation of JAR on Criminal Cases  in 2014.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/342171/news/nation/sc-extends-modified-judicial-affidavit-rule-for-another-year

This is a philosophy paper that was given a grade of 1 (Excellent). It is the most cited article at the University of Santo Tomas among graduate students in Philosophy of Human Person course that previously generated 28,000 views on SCRIBD. submitted to Dr. Florentino Hornedo who authored 13 books in Philosophy, Education, Culture and History. He has been editor of Ad Veritatem , a Journal of Research at the UST Graduate School. Among the recognitions and awards he received are the following: Don Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature, National Catholic Authors Award, Pilak Award for Service to Culture, the Arts and Community, of the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Annual Book Awards of Ateneo de Manila University, Batanes Provincial Achievement Recognition for Cultural and Social Research, Recognition Award for Social Research, from the UST College of Education Alumni Association, and Most Outstanding Thomasian Alumni Awardee in the Arts & Humanities 2006.

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan defined Power as " a man's present means, to obtain some future apparent good " that is divided into two kinds: (1) natural, derived from inborn abilities of the body and mind, including intellect, strength, wit, and artistic ability, and (2) instrumental, derived from the acquired faculties and advantages of friends, money, or reputation. In the Philippines, power is sourced from the duties and functions of the public officers in the government offices. For example, in the passage of criminal laws, the congressmen have the power to define the punishable acts and to impose what kind of penalties that correspond to the crimes in the bill. The President has the power to veto the approved bill of the Congress. The Supreme Court has the power to declare the provision of the challenged law unconstitutional. Based from this example, Power is the discretion and the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation that the public will depend upon. In the exercise of a power by a branch of a government, it may be abusive and excessive that requires the intervention of the Rule of Law in the domain of public accountability. Our Constitution has a built –in principle of Checks and Balances. The three branches of the government, namely, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial, can check each other to limit the exercise of each other's power. Each of the three branches work to balance the exercise of powers among them so none of them will be very powerful leading to despotism. In the DAP case, the powers of President and Congressmen were checked by the Supreme Court when it declared some of the provisions of DAP unconstitutional that opened certain officials of the Office of the President liable. The President and Congressmen can impeach the Supreme Court Justices in case they committed graft and corruption in the rendition of the DAP ruling. It is noticeable that it is the Constitution as the supreme law of the land that is the most powerful among the three branches of the government in the exercise of the principle of Checks and Balances. The three branches of government consult the Constitution before they make decisions. Failure to do so will result to the creation of their public accountabilities that have punishments. The Constitution is the punisher of the powerful officials in the government whatever branch they belong. However, if these powerful officials connive to disobey the Constitution and conspired with each other to protect one another from public accountabilities that exempt them from punishments, the Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper. Power supplants the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. In Philippine history, there was a very powerful public official like the President who did not bow to the Constitution that cannot do anything for it depends upon him the proper execution of its provisions. The President, reposed with so much power of his own making, created more laws that provide him more power. He changed the form of government to add more power to his office. And the people bow before him not to the Constitution. From this Philippine experience, the success of the Rule of Law is dependent on the public officers who are entrusted to make it work. If the public officers are bad without regard to public accountability, the Rule of Law suffers a setback. The Rule of Power governs over the Rule of Law when public officers abuse and misuse their powers without the operation of the principle of Checks and Balances. The Constitution cannot do otherwise. It cannot by itself punish the bad public officers. It is in this scenario, the other natural checks and balances in the government play a crucial role,

In Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Despite its potential for harm, Spinoza thinks that religion can perform a positive social function. It can help to breed an obedient spirit, making people pliable to civil law — in this way religion plays a role in bolstering the state. For instance, the ceremonial laws and practices of the Jews helped to foster and preserve cohesion among an ignorant, nomadic populace. The central moral message of religion —namely, to love one's neighbor — may be understood through reason; but Scripture presents this message in a manner that is suited to the understanding of the masses. Religion also seems to play a crucial role in promoting compliance with the law. Michael Rosenthal has suggested that in Spinoza's scheme " transcendental beliefs " play a crucial role in overcoming free rider problems; defections from agreements and non-compliance with the law would likely be widespread among human beings were it not for religion. The salutary function of religion is undermined when sectarianism emerges. When groups like the Pharisees begin to regard themselves as special, disparaging and persecuting other groups, civil order is disrupted. In order to prevent such fissures, Spinoza puts forth a universal or civil religion that captures the moral core of a plurality of faiths, to which all citizens can subscribe irrespective of what other private beliefs they hold. Like Rousseau after him, Spinoza thought that a universal public religion could bolster civic solidarity, channeling religious passions into social benefits.

Criminal liability arises when the offender commits a criminal act punishable by the Revised Penal Code such as Crimes Committed by Public Officers or by special penal laws such as violation of RA No. 3019 or RA No. 6713. Nowhere in these penal code and special penal laws expressly or impliedly state that the incumbent Supreme Court Justices are exempt from the criminal laws before impeachment.

Incumbent Supreme Court Justices are immune from disbarment suits before their impeachment and subsequent conviction by the Senate in Article XI, Section 3 (6) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The grounds for their removal are culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust (Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution). In Cuenco v. Justice Fernan, A.M. No. 3135, February 17, 1988, the Supreme Court held that there is another reason why the complaint for disbarment here must be dismissed. Members of the Supreme Court must, under Article VIII (7) (1) of the Constitution, be members of the Philippine Bar and may be removed from office only by impeachment (Article XI [2], Constitution). To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member's incumbency, would in effect be to circumvent and hence to ran afoul of the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may be removed from office only by impeachment for and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article XI (2) of the Constitution. Precisely the same situation exists in respect of the Ombudsman and his deputies (Article XI [8] in relation to Article XI [2] of the Constitution), a majority of the members of the Commission on Elections (Article IX [C] [1] [1] in relation to Article XI [2] of the Constitution), and the members of the Commission on audit who are not certified public accountants (Article XI [D] [1] [1] of the Constitution), all of whom are constitutionally required to be members of the Philippine Bar.

Article 36 of the Family Code governs psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage. It provides that "a marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization." In interpreting this provision, the Supreme Court has  repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates "downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations".

" What is the origin of inequality among men? Is it authorized by natural law? For how shall we know the source of inequality between men, if we do not begin by knowing mankind? " Looking at the animal kingdom, where men belong, there is a natural inequality and stratification. Animals live chiefly for self-preservation and survival. The stronger animals control and dominate other weaker animals in the jungle. This is bolstered by Darwin's theory on survival of the fittest and the elimination of the unfit. Nonetheless, the history of human civilization points to an evolution of men from savage beasts to gentle scholars. The change in times brought the concepts of justice, fairness and equality to human consciousness. Laws promoting these concepts are enacted to correct the natural existence of inequality among men. One of these laws is providing the right to access to justice by the poor. In the early 20 th century, there is a challenge to the legal profession to consider it an obligation to see that justice as law is accessible to all, without regard to ability to pay. Without access to law, the system not only robs the poor of their only protection but it places in the hands of their oppressors the most powerful and ruthless weapon ever invented (Reginald Herber Smith, Justice and the Poor, 1919). We can end the existing denial of justice to the poor if we can secure an administration of justice wherein law shall be accessible to every person no matter how humble. This challenge has first been answered in our country when General Order No 58 was issued in 1900 which authorized the courts to assign counsel to defend persons accused in criminal cases. Because one clear consequence of inequality is inequality in the field of criminal justice. In a criminal prosecution, the accused finds himself face to face with the State and all of its resources of wealth and power. It is for this reason that the law takes a special interest in the poor when brought before the bar of justice to answer for a crime. "Naught is more hostile to a city than a despot; where he is, there are first no laws common to all, but one man is tyrant, in whose keeping and in his alone the law resides, and in that case equality is at an end. But when the laws are written down, rich and poor alike have equal justice, and it is open to the weaker to use the same language to the prosperous when he is reviled by him, and the weaker prevails over the stronger if he has justice on his side"(Euripides). The right of the poor to access to justice is guaranteed and protected by the Philippine Constitution and statutes. Our Constitution is pro-poor. It is a promoter of social justice. Inspired by the Philippines' social justice policy under Article XIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution as well as by the State policies under Article II, Sections 9 and 10 of the 1987 Constitution, it is a matter of right for every Filipino to have access to justice when the State declares that free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate

In the Rule of Law, there exists an agreement between the Indonesian State as a principal and the Indonesian President as an agent who will act on behalf of the former by enforcing the Constitution and statutes that promote the general welfare of the Indonesian people as introduced in Indonesia's Pancasila, an official philosophical foundation that comprises five principles held to be inseparable and interrelated:

Philosopher – Kings are the rulers of Plato's Utopian Kallipolis, an ideal society. In 1998, the Philippines, a colony of Spain for more than 300 years, has elected a movie action king and a school dropout for President contrary to the natural pyramid design that the intellectuals are the natural rulers of humans. This thesis is proven with the fact that humanity's conditions and lives were made better by intelligent people from the pre – historic age to date. The discoveries, inventions, technologies and all other intellectual creations in all fields of human civilization were created by the intelligent ones. Our material world is made better by intellectual creators. Intellectual gods rule anywhere on earth. Logically, smart people attract smart people thus smart leaders attract smart voters. In the Philippine history, most of the Filipino voters elected graft-tainted politicians, many of them are not intellectually brilliant, to disprove the natural pyramid design that intellectuals rule as leaders. In 2013, TIME allegedly published that "Philippines is most stupid country to elect an OJT as Senator". This publication was disputed as a hoax but not the negative comment to the country. In 1965, Filipino voters elected a legal brilliant mind who was President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. It was reported that he " studied law at the University of the Philippines, attending the prestigious College of Law. He excelled in both curricular and extra-curricular activities, becoming a valuable member of the university's swimming, boxing, and wrestling teams. He was also an accomplished and prolific orator, debater, and writer for the student newspaper. He also became a member of the University of the Philippines ROTC Unit (UP Vanguard Fraternity) where he met his future cabinet members and Armed Forces Chiefs of Staff. He sat for the 1939 Bar Examinations, receiving a near-perfect score and graduating cum laude despite the fact that he was incarcerated while reviewing; had he not been in jail for 27 days, he would have graduated magna cum laude. He was elected to the Pi Gamma Mu and the Phi Kappa Phi international honour societies, the latter giving him its Most Distinguished Member Award 37 years later. " In Seagrave's book The Marcos Dynasty, he mentioned that the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. possessed a phenomenal memory and exhibited this by memorizing complicated texts and reciting them forward and backward, even such as the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines. Despite of his legal brilliance, he was later on called a great "dictator" and "plunderer" in 1986. Pundits observed that the EDSA Revolution of 1986 that ousted him did not only prove the strength of the people power, it proved the law of nature, an old and weak lion is challenged and chewed by new and strong lions, that is, when Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile along with General Fidel Ramos revolted against him when he was old, sick and weak. President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) derives its mandate primarily from the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292). It carries out this mandate through the Department Proper and the Department's attached agencies under the direct control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice. Under Executive Order (EO) 292, the DOJ is the government's principal law agency. As such, the DOJ serves as the government's prosecution arm and administers the government's criminal justice system by investigating crimes, prosecuting offenders and overseeing the correctional system. The DOJ, through its offices and constituent / attached agencies, is also the government's legal counsel and representative in litigations and proceedings requiring the services of a lawyer; implements the Philippines' laws on the admission and stay of aliens within its territory; and provides free legal services to indigent and other qualified citizens. Its vision is a just and peaceful society anchored on the principles of transparency, accountability, fairness and truth. Its mission is towards the effective, efficient and equitable administration of justice. Its pledge is to undertake to provide every person equal access to justice, to faithfully safeguard constitutional rights and to ensure that no one is deprived of due process of law. It is committed to advocate for reforms in partnership with our stakeholders, to simplify processes and re-engineer systems to best serve our constituents. It shall work with honor and integrity for the institution, for God and country. The functions of the DOJ are: 1. Administration of the Criminal Justice System The DOJ investigates the commission of crimes and prosecutes offenders through the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the National Prosecution Service (NPS), respectively. Likewise, the DOJ administers the probation and correction system of the country through the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor), the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP)and the Parole and Probation Administration (PPA). 2. Legal Counsel of Government The DOJ, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), acts as the legal representative of the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities including government owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, officials and agents in any proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. EO 292 specifically designates the Secretary as Attorney-General and ex-officio legal adviser of government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCC) and their subsidiaries. The Secretary exercises administrative adjudicatory powers over all controversies between/among government agencies, including government owned and controlled corporations including their subsidiaries. This power of adjudication of the Secretary originally stemmed from Presidential Decree No. 242, and is now embodied in Sections 66 to 71, Chapter 14, Book IV of E.O. 292. The Secretary is likewise empowered to act on all queries and/or requests for legal advice and guidance from private parties and other officials and employees of the government.

[ADMINISTRATORS] Ten (10) years after Judge Eliza B. Yu's first legal article entitled Enhancing Access to Justice by the Poor: An Assessment of the Public Attorney's Office was published by The Lawyers Review, The Basics of Criminal Procedure passed world class standards in legal writing.

Title: The Basic of Criminal Procedure
Author: Judge Eliza B. Yu, LLM, DCL
Publisher: Central Book Supply Inc.
ISBN: 978-971-011-609-6
No. Of Pages: 510
Size: 6 x 9
Edition: 2013
Binding: Softbound
Price: ₱730

Title: A Primer on the Barangay Justice with ADR Law
Author: Judge Eliza B. Yu, LLM, DCL
Publisher: Central Book Supply, Inc.
ISBN: 978-971-011-204-3
No. Of Pages: 180
Size: 6"x9"
Binding: Softbound
Price:  ₱ 395
Description:  We belong to a country where our government spent huge amount of money for adversarial litigations that generate hostile feelings between the parties who are involved in expensive and protracted law suits. In 2009, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) Accomplishment Report and Executive Summary reported a total of 4, 154, 587 pauper clients assisted and a total of 591, 358 cases handled. In 2008, the National Prosecution Service (NPS) handled a total of 417,000 cases for preliminary investigation and a total of more or less 750,000 cases in the first and level courts averaging to 1 prosecutor for every 406 court cases. In 2007, the case load of First Level Courts totalled to 546, 314 while the case load of Second Level courts totalled to 546, 033. With these high figures, we have congested court dockets, a perennial problem since time immemorial, that hamper access to justice by the poor, a right enshrined in our Constitution. Part of the solution to this problem is to resort to Katarungang Pambarangay, known also as Barangay Justice as an alternative way of settling disputes in a cheaper and faster way. To realize this better dispute resolution, there must be an information campaign to the public, and so out of this imposing purpose, this book A PRIMER ON THE BARANGAY JUSTICE WITH ADR LAW was made upon the suggestion of a former UP College of Law Dean Froilan M. Bacungan, who was a member of Presidential Decree No. 1293 that created a presidential commission tasked with a duty of studying the feasibility of instituting a system of settling disputes among the members in the barangay without going to the courts. The author, Judge Eliza B. Yu, LLM was a former Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairman and an Ex Officio member of the Sangguniang Barangay in 1992. As SK Chairman, among others, she was exposed to the legislative works in the Barangay ; She exercised the duties and responsibilities of a Barangay official; and she gained experience on simple matters dealing with the Barangay Justice System. She finished her pre-law degree from the University of the Philippines in the Visayas without paying any tuition fees as a Department of Interior and Local Government Scholar because of her position as SK Chairman. In a way, this book is her humble way of thanking the Barangay and the DILG for the free education from 1993 to 1996. She earned the distinction as the only SK Chairman from the province (Western Samar) who became a National Capital Region (Pasay City) Metropolitan Trial Court Judge in the country.

Title: Compendium of Legal Treatises 1
Author: Judge Eliza B. Yu, LLM, DCL
Publisher: Central Book Supply Inc.
ISBN: 978-971-011-205-0
No. Of Pages: 579
Size: 6"x9"
Edition: 2010
Binding: Softbound
Price:  ₱ 685
Description:  There are plenty of law books in the country. It is the duty of every intelligent reader to choose books. And to choose this book on Compendium of Legal Treatises, which can be judged by its cover, is an exercise of a good discernment.

First, the original thoughts are expressed in these legal discourses. Novelty is something associated with this book.

Second, there is variety in the presentation of these legal discourses. This book showed that law and jurisprudence are exciting and vibrant, never dull and boring.

Third, this book is a carrier of a noble intention of informing the members of the bench and the bar about trailblazing legal discussions in the academe and in the practice.

There are twenty four (24) legal articles compiled in this book which were published by The Lawyers Review from 2006 to 2010. The first published article of the author, Judge Eliza B. Yu, LLM is titled “Enhancing Access to Justice by the Poor: An Assessment of the Public Attorney’s Office” on June 30, 2006. The author who was a former Public Attorney II of the Public Attorney’s Office in National Capital Region District Offices distributed complimentary copies of this article to all the Senators of the Philippines, some Congressmen and most District Public Attorneys nationwide. On March 23, 2007, RA No. 9406 (An Act Reorganizing and Strengthening the Public Attorney’s Office) was approved. It was also the first time PAO landed at the front cover of the respected law journal in the country. When the author was appointed as an Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila City, her article “Strengthening the Prosecution of Drug Cases by the State” was published on September 30, 2007. She got the inspiration to write this article from her two (2) years experience as a PAO lawyer assigned in drug courts. In 2006, she was able to obtain acquittal of more or less fifty-three ( 53) detention prisoners charged with drug cases in RTC Branch 64, Makati City presided by Judge Delia Panganiban. In 2005, she was granted more or less fifty (50) Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court in RTC Branch 120, Caloocan City presided by Judge Victorino Alvaro, who was the PDEA Best Judge awardee in the same year.

Her article “Conflicting Practices in Inquest” published on November 30, 2007 was incorporated in the 2008 Manual for DOJ Prosecutors and it was adopted in OCP - Manila Memorandum dated May 19, 2009 entitled “Applicability of RA No. 6036 and the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure vis-à-vis Part II B of the 2008 Manual for Prosecutors on Inquest cases”. In 2009, while she was taking up her doctorate degree at the University of Santo Tomas Graduate School, her term paper entitled “The Writ of Amparo as the Sword of Excalibur Drawn from the Great Stone of Judicial Rule Making Power” under the professorship of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona was published in two (2) parts on August 31, 2009 and September 30, 2009. This article received an acknowledgment letter dated October 13, 2009 describing it as scholarly from the Chambers of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.

Nine (9) out of the twenty four (24) published legal articles obtained the top billing in The Lawyers Review namely, Enhancing Access to Justice by the Poor Crime Victims (May 31, 2008); DNA Evidence and Its Latest Trend (January 31, 2009); Libel as Unprotected Speech ( April 30, 2009); Confronting a Hostile Witness in Court ( July 31, 2009); The Labyrinth of Carnapping, Estafa and Qualified Theft (November 30, 2009); Are Medical Certificates and BCFA Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule? ( February 28, 2010); Can PGMA Appoint the Next Chief Justice? (March 31, 2010); Towards a Better Barangay Justice (May 31, 2010 and June 30, 2010); and All About Replevin (July 31, 2010 and August 31, 2010). However, there were five (5) articles which the author received lots of positive feedback and numerous letters for being enlightening and useful to law practitioners. These are The Legality of Impounding Vehicles Involved in an Accident (December 30, 2007); The Pitfall of Bouncing Checks Law (June 30, 2008); Erroneous Inquest of Warrantless Arrest in Hot Pursuit (June 30, 2008); Trial Technique of Criminal Cases Covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure (August 31, 2008); and Electronic Evidence (March 31, 2009).

When the author was featured in The Lawyers Review on January 31, 2010, the Chairman of the Editorial Board Atty. Jose Tomas c. Syquia wrote in his editorial page: “ This year has had a providential start, for we are pleased to inform our readers that prosecutor Eliza B. Yu, who through the years graciously contributed a number of erudite articles , was elevated to the Bench last January 12, 2010. Judge Eliza Yu started contributing articles when she was still a Public Attorney, which is a laudable act considering the legendary case load of a public attorney. When she was appointed Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila, then Prosecutor Yu continued her munificent sharing of experiences and insights gained as a prosecutor despite her very heavy workload. Through her works, one is able to discern Judge Yu’s love of procedure and the law, her courage of conviction, diligence, and integrity. I do not know if anyone can say that going to the bench is a hegira, but with her character and formidable knowledge and experience gained through years as a dedicated public servant, there is no doubt that judge Yu will overcome all challenges and will be a great judge for which she embodies, to paraphrase what Potter Steward of the Washington Post wrote in 1981, the most important judicial qualities of: competence, temperament, character, and diligence. We have nothing but encomium for Judge Eliza Yu.”

Title: So You Want to Sue a Judge? The Philippine New Code of Judicial Conduct of 2004
Author: Judge Eliza B. Yu, LLM, DCL
Publisher: Central Book Supply Inc.
ISBN: 978-621-02-0073-7
No. Of Pages: 335
Size: 6 x 9
Edition: 2016
Binding: Softbound
Price:  ₱590

Title: Summary Procedure From The Bench
Author: Judge Eliza B. Yu, LLM, DCL
Publisher: Central Book Supply Inc.
ISBN: 978-971-011-288-3
No. Of Pages: 306
Size: 6"x9"
Edition: 2011 Edition
Binding: Softbound
Price: ₱580
Description:  This book SUMMARY PROCEDURE FROM THE BENCH is a fusion of the articles Trial Technique of Criminal Cases Covered by RSP and Trial Technique of Civil Cases Covered by RSP found in Compendium of Legal Treatises 1 and Compendium of Legal Treatises 2 respectively with considerable revisions to update the law students and law practitioners of the latest law and jurisprudence about the simple subject matter in theory yet complicated in practice. There are many cases dismissed in court for seemingly lack of knowledge about the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. As the title suggests, the presentation of this book on summary procedure is from the perspectives of the author as a presiding judge with a rich experience in summary procedure as a former public prosecutor and as a former public attorney in the National Capital Region. The important issues in RSP encountered by trial lawyers, from the side of the prosecution or from the side of the defense are tackled in this book peppered with carefully selected cases. This book is valuable to law practitioners so that justice can be served, on the basis of substantive merit and not on procedural defect in RSP. And for the law students, this is a good way to start towards the intricate path of the mastery of Remedial Law, the Bar subject with the highest percentage in the grading system at 20%.