Thank you po for making this video. I have learned a lot. However, I have different answers for: 1. Habeas data - no, the nexus between privacy in life and right to LLS is indispensable, and is not established in this case. 2. Writ of Amparo - There is threat to LSS in relation to extralegal killings/enforced disappearances with the involvement of government. It must be recalled that the police officer, instead of doing his duty to investigate, just laughed at the information, and even joked that they might suffer the same if they don't submit to the orders of the military. Officers must observe extraordinary diligence in the exercise of their duty in Amparo cases. 3. Mammals - do not have legal capacity to sue. In the SC case, the Court only continued with the case because the stewards were also made plaintiffs, not mere representatives. 4. Habeas corpus - illegal detention by reason that rightful custody is withheld from the person entilted thereto. The rightful custodian of those prisoners is the jail, not the farm owner. Making them work there is equivalent to involuntary servitude/slavery. Side note: #11, the effect of forum shopping is twin dismissal. I may be wrong. Peace.
A dolphin cannot be a plaintiff. Under Rule 3, Section 1, of the Rules of Court, only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Moreover, in a case, the SC has held that the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. Thus, dolphins, being neither natural not juridical persons, cannot be plaintiffs to a suit. (Also see this cute reply tweet by J. Leonen to a dolphin video where he said “kindly tell them they cannot be parties to a case” 😂)
1:26 You said, "Motion for extension is not allowed in filing of notice of appeal. After the last day to file the notice of appeal there will be no extension allowed because it already lapses." What is your source? Because the Rules (Rule 40, Section 2; Rule 41, Section 3) merely provide, "No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed." It does not say "No motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal shall be allowed."
The General Rule failure to perfect an appeal within the period fixed by law renders the decision final and executory except on the basis of equity and for substantial justice the court may allow the delay in the filing of notice of appeal.
Sa writ of habeas data, parang sa case of Mayor Gamboa vs. PNP Ilocos Norte sir, kaya no. Yung national security over protected individual right, parang ganun yata yung justification. Sa writ of amparo naman, yes kasi, the father is the victim of extralegal killing and enforced disappearance yata that the mother and daughter can avail of to protect their rights to liberty, property and security for the threat po. What do u think sir? U might consider sir. Thank you for the discussion. Very informative. You have an in-depth research for your answers.
As for the Writ of Habeas Corpus: Yes, Writ of Habeas Corpus can be a proper remedy. Jurisprudence provides that when a legal detention or legal deprivation of an individual's liberty turns illegal, the Writ of Habeas Corpus becomes a proper remedy. Here, when the police superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison transferred the prisoners "without court order" to an agricultural farm in Davao del Norte made the detention illegal. Hence, Writ of Habeas Corpus is proper in the given circumstance. As for the dolphins as plaintiffs: No, dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in a suit because they lack legal personality. The presence of legal personality to sue is mandatory in filing a complaint in any case. However, jurisprudence postulates that dolphins can be represented in a suit by any concerned individual or group of individuals in their behalf for the preservation of healthful and balanced ecology. Ergo, dolphins on their own cannot be plaintiffs in a suit.
Hindi mo naman masasabing extralegal killing yun kasi legit operation yung ginawa. Wala pa kasing actual threat eh sa writ of amparo pwede muna sya sigurong magfile ng criminal action. Yung sa writ of habeas data naman hindi sya katulad ng Gamboa vs PNP kasi yun may binuong Zeñarosa Commission kaya nadeputized yung afp na gawin yun in connection na rin sa election. kaya sa problem kelangan talaga ng writ of habeas data kasi violation yung ginawa.
Habeas data: Petition must adequately show that there exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to LLS on the other. At saka state secret yan, National Security.
I have a different way of answering the dolphin as a plaintiff question. My answer would be: No, dolphins do not have legal standing to be plaintiffs in a case. In the case of Resident Marine Mammals, the Supreme Court held that the resident marine mammals have no legal standing to file the case. The real parties-in-interest in this case are their Stewards, the humans filing the case on their behalf. Hence, dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in the case. Here's the excerpt from the case: In light of the foregoing, the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. It is worth noting here that the Stewards are joined as real parties in the Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean species. Our professor clarified this before, he said that the dolphins did not have legal capacity even if they were named as plaintiffs in the case. They aren't really plaintiffs. It's as if the title was kept in honor of them. At least that's my take on it.
Thank you po for making this video. I have learned a lot.
However, I have different answers for:
1. Habeas data - no, the nexus between privacy in life and right to LLS is indispensable, and is not established in this case.
2. Writ of Amparo - There is threat to LSS in relation to extralegal killings/enforced disappearances with the involvement of government. It must be recalled that the police officer, instead of doing his duty to investigate, just laughed at the information, and even joked that they might suffer the same if they don't submit to the orders of the military. Officers must observe extraordinary diligence in the exercise of their duty in Amparo cases.
3. Mammals - do not have legal capacity to sue. In the SC case, the Court only continued with the case because the stewards were also made plaintiffs, not mere representatives.
4. Habeas corpus - illegal detention by reason that rightful custody is withheld from the person entilted thereto. The rightful custodian of those prisoners is the jail, not the farm owner. Making them work there is equivalent to involuntary servitude/slavery.
Side note: #11, the effect of forum shopping is twin dismissal.
I may be wrong. Peace.
Excellent answers
A dolphin cannot be a plaintiff.
Under Rule 3, Section 1, of the Rules of Court, only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
Moreover, in a case, the SC has held that the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws.
Thus, dolphins, being neither natural not juridical persons, cannot be plaintiffs to a suit.
(Also see this cute reply tweet by J. Leonen to a dolphin video where he said “kindly tell them they cannot be parties to a case” 😂)
Yah tama naman answer mo.
1:26
You said, "Motion for extension is not allowed in filing of notice of appeal. After the last day to file the notice of appeal there will be no extension allowed because it already lapses."
What is your source?
Because the Rules (Rule 40, Section 2; Rule 41, Section 3) merely provide, "No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed." It does not say "No motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal shall be allowed."
The General Rule failure to perfect an appeal within the period fixed by law renders the decision final and executory except on the basis of equity and for substantial justice the court may allow the delay in the filing of notice of appeal.
Meron po laying soft copy into sir?
Sa writ of habeas data, parang sa case of Mayor Gamboa vs. PNP Ilocos Norte sir, kaya no. Yung national security over protected individual right, parang ganun yata yung justification.
Sa writ of amparo naman, yes kasi, the father is the victim of extralegal killing and enforced disappearance yata that the mother and daughter can avail of to protect their rights to liberty, property and security for the threat po. What do u think sir? U might consider sir.
Thank you for the discussion. Very informative. You have an in-depth research for your answers.
As for the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Yes, Writ of Habeas Corpus can be a proper remedy.
Jurisprudence provides that when a legal detention or legal deprivation of an individual's liberty turns illegal, the Writ of Habeas Corpus becomes a proper remedy.
Here, when the police superintendent
of the New Bilibid Prison transferred the prisoners "without court order" to an agricultural farm in Davao del Norte made the detention illegal.
Hence, Writ of Habeas Corpus is proper in the given circumstance.
As for the dolphins as plaintiffs:
No, dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in a suit because they lack legal personality.
The presence of legal personality to sue is mandatory in filing a complaint in any case. However, jurisprudence postulates that dolphins can be represented in a suit by any concerned individual or group of individuals in their behalf for the preservation of healthful and balanced ecology.
Ergo, dolphins on their own cannot be plaintiffs in a suit.
Hindi mo naman masasabing extralegal killing yun kasi legit operation yung ginawa. Wala pa kasing actual threat eh sa writ of amparo pwede muna sya sigurong magfile ng criminal action.
Yung sa writ of habeas data naman hindi sya katulad ng Gamboa vs PNP kasi yun may binuong Zeñarosa Commission kaya nadeputized yung afp na gawin yun in connection na rin sa election. kaya sa problem kelangan talaga ng writ of habeas data kasi violation yung ginawa.
Habeas data:
Petition must adequately show that there exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to LLS on the other. At saka state secret yan, National Security.
@@entertainmentworldwide5052 So you disagree with me?
@@entertainmentworldwide5052 Agree
I have a different way of answering the dolphin as a plaintiff question. My answer would be:
No, dolphins do not have legal standing to be plaintiffs in a case. In the case of Resident Marine Mammals, the Supreme Court held that the resident marine mammals have no legal standing to file the case. The real parties-in-interest in this case are their Stewards, the humans filing the case on their behalf. Hence, dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in the case.
Here's the excerpt from the case:
In light of the foregoing, the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. It is worth noting here that the Stewards are joined as real parties in the Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean species.
Our professor clarified this before, he said that the dolphins did not have legal capacity even if they were named as plaintiffs in the case. They aren't really plaintiffs. It's as if the title was kept in honor of them.
At least that's my take on it.
pareho lang naman yun ah hehe.
Similar po, but you answered "yes" to the qualifying question, right?
@@LonesomeMushroom may explanation naman yung yes ko pero yung answer yun pa rin depende po sa explanation yan hehe
Yap tama naman answer mo.