Atty. Justine Dave S. Serrano

Atty. Justine Dave S. Serrano If you need legal assistance, please contact 09457715028 for consultation.

26/01/2026

JUSTICE SAMUEL GAERLAN PENNED CASE!!⚖️👨‍⚖️

Superior General of the Religious of Virgin Mary vs. Republic
G.R. No. 205641, October 05, 2022

ISSUE: Whether religious corporations are exempt from the constitutional ban on acquiring alienable public domain lands.

RULING: The Supreme Court (SC) held that the prohibition on corporate holding of alienable public domain lands as provided under Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution applies to all classes of private corporations, even religious corporations. The text of such a constitutional provision is clear and leaves no room for interpretation: all private corporations are prohibited from holding alienable lands of the public domain except as provided therein. Hence, the Constitution deprives all private corporations of the right to acquire alienable lands of the public domain and reserves this right solely to natural persons, simply because all corporations, regardless of kind, character, or purpose, have the capacity to accumulate untenably vast landholdings.

The rationale behind this constitutional safeguard lies in the reality that alienable public lands are steadily diminishing in the face of an ever-growing population. To ensure faithful adherence to this constitutional intent, alienable lands of the public domain should be granted or sold only to individuals. To exempt religious corporations from this ban would create a clear avenue for circumvention of the Constitution, as it would allow any group of persons to use the religious corporate form as a means of acquiring alienable lands of the public domain in direct assault of constitutional limitations.


26/01/2026
01/10/2025

[MORNING COFFEE THOUGHTS | REFLECTION] Rodrigo Duterte and the Karmic Ghosts of His Past Sins: An Essay on Justice Deferred But Not Denied

Power intoxicates. It blinds leaders to the weight of their actions. Rodrigo Duterte once strutted through Malacañang, promising to “kill them all” in his drug war.

Now he sits in a sterile detention cell in The Hague, facing charges of crimes against humanity.

The karmic wheel, slow but relentless, has turned with the weight of thousands of extrajudicial killings, shattered families, and a country scarred by state-sanctioned violence.

Karma isn’t just spiritual talk. It is a consequence.

Duterte’s fall isn’t only the arrest of a former head of state; it’s justice materializing after years when masked gunmen roamed Manila, Davao, and cities across the archipelago, executing alleged drug users with impunity.

The ghosts of his past, once suppressed by power, now walk openly in the antiseptic chambers of international law.

🟥 The Architecture of Violence: Building a Legacy of Blood

Duterte’s path to this reckoning started long before the presidency, on the blood-soaked streets of Davao City, where he spent more than two decades as mayor.

The Davao Death Squad, which he eventually admitted to creating and directing, became the prototype for the industrial-scale killing machine he later unleashed across the country.

He built a political brand on extrajudicial violence, selling the idea that brutality was the price of order, that summary ex*****on was the path to peace.

When he took office in 2016, he nationalized that creed with apocalyptic flair.

His “war on drugs” became state-sanctioned hunting of the poor, the marginalized, the defenseless.

Under the clean label of “buy-bust operations,” police became ex*****oners, turning neighborhoods into killing fields where due process was a luxury the impoverished could not afford.

The numbers tell a story that defies comprehension.

Official figures admit to more than 6,000 dead. Rights groups estimate 12,000 to 30,000. Men, women, children.

People whose “crime” was often being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Each number is a family destroyed, a future put out, a dream buried in unmarked ground that now forms part of Duterte’s legacy.

🟥 The Theater of Impunity: When Power Shields Evil

For years, he moved inside an armor of impunity, protected by populist approval and a political system comfortable with power’s corruption.

He boasted of killing with the indifference of a man ordering lunch, saying he would “be happy to slaughter” drug addicts.

International condemnations bounced off. Reports gathered dust.

Families of victims were silenced by fear and pushed to the margins of a society trained to see their loved ones as expendable.

Pulling the Philippines out of the International Criminal Court in 2019 looked like a masterstroke, a move to escape the reach of international justice.

He seemed like a chess player anticipating every countermove, neutralizing all threats to his impunity. It felt like the karmic bill would never fall due.

But karma runs on a longer clock than any single term.

While he dismantled checks on his power, the machinery of international justice turned.

Testimonies were gathered. Evidence stacked up. The ICC methodically built its case.

The very withdrawal from the Rome Statute became a tell: a sign of consciousness of guilt, a desperate dodge that would fail.

🟥 The Unraveling: When Alliances Become Instruments of Justice

The twist is sharp. Former allies helped bring him down. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who rode to victory in 2022 on the “UniTeam” alliance with the Duterte family, became the agent of Duterte’s surrender to international justice.

A marriage of convenience between two powerful dynasties devolved into a feud that delivered Duterte into the hands of prosecutors.

The karmic poetry is hard to miss.

Marcos, son of a dictator accused of widespread abuses, found himself enabling accountability for another strongman’s crimes.

The calculations that once protected Duterte—stability, fear of his popularity, mutual benefit—crumbled as the alliance cracked under ambition and self-preservation.

Sara Duterte’s impeachment proceedings and her father’s arrest mark the final act of this political tragedy. Allies turned enemies. The same machinery of power that once shielded him now helps prosecute him.

The daughter once framed as continuity now faces her reckoning, while the patriarch shrinks into a frail old man claiming cognitive impairment to escape consequence.

🟥 The Ghosts Speak: Voices of the Victims Echo in The Hague

The most profound turn lies in the voices of victims—long stifled by bullets and fear—now speaking through international justice.

Maria Pasco, who lost two sons to the drug war, said through tears: “At last, after many years of waiting, this is happening.” Her words carry the weight of thousands who never thought they’d see this day.

The ICC became the place where ghosts found their voices.

Seventy-six specific murders in the charges are not just counts, they are human stories.

Ray Siapo, 19, with deformed feet, unable to outrun his ex*****oners.

Angelito Soriano, 15, killed in a police operation and written off by Senator Ronald dela Rosa as “collateral damage.”

These names, once swallowed by the machinery of state violence, now echo in the chamber where Duterte will face judgment.

This karmic justice stretches beyond one man.

It’s a reckoning with the culture of impunity that has haunted Philippine politics.

For the first time, families see officials, police, even a former president, held to account.

The system that once protected killers now seeks to prosecute them.

Victims shift from statistics to witnesses, from forgotten casualties to agents of justice.

🟥 The Frailty of Power: From Strongman to Broken Man

Look at him now: 80 years old, claiming cognitive impairment.

The man who bragged about throwing suspects from helicopters, who barked “kill them all,” now presents himself as a confused elder unable to grasp the charges.

His legal team talks of “significant cognitive deficiencies,” a bid to duck accountability through diminished capacity.

Power is temporary. The wheel turns for everyone. Bodies used to commit violence decay. Minds used to justify cruelty cloud over.

That’s the lesson in his frailty.

And the irony is even more ironic. He showed no mercy to the vulnerable and defenseless. Now he pleads for mercy on the grounds of vulnerability and defenselessness.

Predator to prey. Hunter to hunted. The man who denied due process to thousands now depends on due process for survival.

🟥 The International Stage: Where Karma Becomes Law

His prosecution at the ICC is more than personal accountability. It’s the moment karmic justice takes legal form.

The decision to pursue charges despite the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute says something simple: sovereignty doesn’t shield leaders from crimes against humanity.

The journey from the presidential palace in Manila to a detention cell in The Hague is more than miles.

It’s moral distance, the gap between impunity and accountability, between power exercised and consequences faced.

Even the private jet that carried him there reads like a vehicle of karmic transport, ferrying him from the scene of his acts to the venue of judgment.

🟥 The Broader Reckoning: A Nation Confronts Its Ghosts

His fall forces the country to tally the debt built up under his rule. Violence normalized. Institutions bent. Rights eroded.

The wounds reach far beyond the immediate dead and grieving. The nation now sits with the fact that it elevated officials who torched basic human dignity.

The family feuds, impeachment, broken alliances—this is what collapse looks like when power is built on violence and deception.

The crash harms not just the central figures, but the entire system that enabled them.

Out on the streets and online, protests both for and against his arrest expose a divided nation.

Supporters still chant “Pray for Tatay Digong.”

They are the segment willing to trade human rights for the illusion of order.

Their loyalty to a man now charged with crimes against humanity shows how deep the moral wound runs.

🟥 The Philosophy of Justice: When the Arc of History Bends

Martin Luther King Jr. said the moral universe has a long arc that bends toward justice. Duterte’s path—from peak power to international prosecution—fits that line.

Karmic forces don’t care about electoral calendars. Justice can be delayed, not denied.

Seven years from his rise to arrest, the momentum built.

Each extrajudicial killing added weight to the scale.

Each public boast of violence became evidence.

Each attempt to dodge accountability invited more scrutiny.

The things he believed proved strength turned into the tools of his downfall.

Moral laws work with the certainty of physical ones. What goes up comes down. Those who rise on violence meet its consequences.

🟥 The Eternal Return of Justice

He sits in The Hague now, waiting for trial on crimes against humanity.

Karmic justice isn’t abstract anymore. It has become legal charges, witness testimony, documentary proof.

His story is a warning to would-be strongmen.

Power built on violence is unstable. Impunity is temporary.

The arc may be long, but it bends where it should.

Families who once seemed powerless now watch their oppressor face the prospect of spending his remaining years behind bars.

The ghosts he raised have caught up. Shadows turned solid.

The man who thought himself above the law learns that no one—not even former presidents—escapes the return of justice.

The wheel has completed its turn. The reckoning that felt impossible has arrived.

Photo credit: Aljazeera

07/09/2025
18/08/2025

Dear future ⚖️🥑..
....The Practice of Law -- a
Profession, Not a Business

Lawyering is not primarily intended to be a money-making venture, and legal advocacy is not a form of capital that necessarily yields profit. Earning a livelihood is not the essence of the profession but merely a secondary consideration.

The duty to public service and to the administration of justice must remain the primary concern of lawyers, who are bound to subordinate personal interests to the greater good. The practice of law is a noble calling, where financial gain is but a byproduct, and the highest eminence may be attained without the pursuit of wealth.

DOMINADOR P. BURBE v. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA, AC No. 99-634 June 10, 2002

18/08/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) announced on Thursday the conduct of oral arguments on a petition regarding the court's policy on recognizing foreign divorces involving Filipino citizens.

In a statement, SC spokesperson Atty. Camille Sue Mae Ting said that the oral arguments on the case Melvin A. Baluyot v. Ma. Fe C. Antonio-Baluyot (G.R. No. 257575) is scheduled on Tuesday, August 19, 2025, at 2 p.m.

Ting explained that the high court decided to call for oral arguments in order to address the novel question of the case, which involves a Filipino national with dual citizenship who obtained a foreign divorce while abroad, subsequently acquired foreign citizenship through naturalization, and thereafter reacquired Philippine citizenship.

The current high court's jurisprudence dictates that in cases seeking recognition of foreign divorces, what governs is the law of the country that issued the divorce decree, not the nationality of the foreign spouse.

Meanwhile, the high court mouthpiece also confirmed that the Court has yet to reschedule oral arguments on the petitions questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 12116, or the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), and the Maharlika Investment Fund.

10/08/2025

BARANGAYS CAN RUN BINGO GAMES TO RAISE FUNDS SANS PAGCOR PERMIT—SUPREME COURT

| The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the local autonomy of barangays in holding games as fundraising activities even without securing permits or clearance from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (Pagcor).

In a 15-page decision written by Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez, the SC's En Banc said that barangay councils do not need clearances from Pagcor to allow the operation of bingo games in their respective jurisdictions.

The decision affirmed the rights of Barangays Trancoville, Outlook Drive, and Military Cut-off in Baguio City to hold bingo as barangay events to raise funds for barangay projects, citing the local autonomy provision as prescribed by the 1987 Constitution.

The case stemmed from the resolutions passed by the above-mentioned barangays, which made bingo games official barangay fundraiser events. However, during one event, Baguio City police arrested barangay officials for allegedly violating Presidential Decree No. 1602, or the Anti-Gambling Law.

This prompted the Association of Barangay Councils of Baguio to file a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking a declaration that the bingo games were a valid exercise of barangay authority.

Meanwhile, the Republic of the Philippines countered the same, as it contends that only the national government, through the Pagcor, has the power to regulate gambling, including bingo games.

The RTC and Court of Appeals (CA) ruled in favor of the barangays, stating that they were authorized under the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) to conduct bingo fundraisers for community projects without national or local permits.

Voting 11-4, the high court affirmed the said ruling and declared that barangays are autonomous; as such, they may use bingo games to raise funds. It cited Section 10 of Republic Act No. 9487, or the amended Pagcor Charter of 2007, which explicitly excludes games of chance, cards, and numbers authorized and regulated by local government units from Pagcor's authority to regulate.

The same law also extended Pagcor’s franchise for another 25 years but made reservations that its authority to regulate public and private gaming requires “the consent of the local government unit that has territorial jurisdiction over the area chosen as the site for any of its operations.”

Meanwhile, four magistrates dissented from the majority opinion, namely Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Paul Inting, and Maria Filomena Singh.

Associate Justice Caguioa, in his dissenting opinion, said that barangays have no authority over bingo games under the PAGCOR Charter, even as a fund-raising activity.

‼️
02/08/2025

‼️

| The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a man of illegal possession of fi****ms, citing lack of animus possidendi, or criminal intent, after finding that the subject firearm was owned by the Philippine National Police (PNP).

In a 10-page decision written by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the SC's Second Division has found Noel Untalan not guilty of illegal possession of fi****ms under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294.

In July 2009, the Philippine National Police (PNP) confiscated an M-16 rifle with 10 pieces of live ammunition and 1 short magazine from Untalan's house following a search warrant. The police required Untalan to present his license to possess the firearm and pieces of ammunition, but he could not produce any, which led to his arrest.

Untalan, on his part, denied the ownership of the firearm, as the same was allegedly owned by the two police officers who have been designated as his security details. He explained that Police Senior Inspector Randy Moratalla issued a Detail Security Assignment with the designation of two police officers in his house to secure his safety pending investigation on the disappearance of his brother.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of 4 to 6 years. The CA ruled that since illegal possession of fi****ms is malum prohibitum, the fact that Untalan had no license or permit to possess the subject firearm at the time of his arrest is sufficient to convict him for the offense. This prompted Untalan to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In reversing his conviction, the SC cited the case of Del Rosario vs. People, as it held that even though illegal possession of a firearm is a malum prohibitum, which does not necessarily require malice or intent, still the fact of possession coupled with animus possidendi, or intent to possess, must still be proven.

It held that although there is physical or constructive possession on the part of Untalan, the prosecution failed to prove that he had animus possidendi of the subject firearm.

The high court gave credence to the sworn statements of the two police officers who testified that they were appointed as Untalan's security detail as a precautionary measure pending investigation on the disappearance of his brother. They added that the items recovered in the possession of Untalan are issued by the PNP-Regional Intelligence Division as their service firearm.

“Animus possidendi is a state of mind, the presence or determination of which is largely dependent on attendant events in each case and may be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances,” the Supreme Court said.

“The circumstances in this case clearly paint one picture: the firearm, magazine, and pieces of ammunition were never owned or possessed by Untalan; they were the PNP's through PO3 Causaren,” the Supreme Court added.

24/07/2025

𝗗𝗘𝗠𝗨𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗢 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘
(Tagalog translation in the comments)

After the prosecution presents all its witnesses and evidence in a criminal trial, the court will ask the defense if they now want to present their own evidence.

But before the defense proceeds, there is one powerful option available: filing a demurrer to evidence.

A demurrer to evidence is basically the accused saying, "Your Honor, even if we accept everything the prosecution just presented as true, it’s still not enough to convict me." It challenges the strength of the evidence and asks the court to dismiss the case right then and there, without the defense having to present anything.

Now here is the important part: when can this be filed?

A demurrer can only be filed after the prosecution has rested its case, which means they are done presenting all their evidence. Once that happens, the defense has five days to act. You can either file the demurrer with leave of court or without leave of court.

Filing with leave of court means you are asking the judge for permission first. This is the safer route. If the court allows it and you file your demurrer but it ends up getting denied, you can still present your own evidence. You do not lose your chance to defend yourself.

Filing without leave of court is riskier. You skip the permission and file it directly. If the court agrees with you, the case is dismissed and you are acquitted. But if the court denies it, you lose your right to present evidence. The case will be submitted for decision based only on what the prosecution presented. It is a gamble.

That is why lawyers usually think very carefully before filing a demurrer without leave. If the evidence is clearly weak, it might work. But if there is doubt, it is usually safer to ask for leave first.

In short, the demurrer to evidence is like telling the court: “The prosecution had their chance. They failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There is no need for me to even present my side.”

If granted, you go home. If denied, and you did not ask for leave, you may have thrown away your chance to fight back.

Thank you, Juan Wick for this suggested topic!

Address

Zone 6 Dabbac Grande
Baggao

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Atty. Justine Dave S. Serrano posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share