ABMPT Law Offices

07/05/2024

Can Private Security Agencies and Security Guards require you to surrender your ID?

No. Private Security Agencies or Security Guards of establishments are not allowed to keep ID cards containing sensitive personal information.

Entities or establishments considered as Personal Information Controllers (PICs) “shall observe proportionality in all personal data processing activities including those outsourced or subcontracted to Private Security Agencies (PSAs). They shall not require PSAs acting as PIPs (personal information processors) as well as the Security Guards to access, record, copy, or otherwise collect any sensitive personal information for purposes of ascertaining the identity of an individual, nor shall they direct them to keep ID cards containing sensitive personal information.” (Sec. 3 (B), NPC Circular No. 2022-03)

Furthermore, “For purposes of ascertaining the identity of an individual, PSAs and authorized Security Guards shall not access, record, copy, or otherwise collect any sensitive personal information such as date of birth, government-issued ID numbers, images of government-issued IDs, nor shall they keep ID cards containing sensitive personal information” (Sec. 5 (B), NPC Circular No. 2022-03)

Source: NPC Circular No. 2022-03 dated 5 December 2022, “Guidelines for Private Security Agencies on the Proper Handling of Customer and Visitor Information”

25/03/2024

According to the Supreme Court, the one-year appointment ban on losing candidates applies to contracts of service.

Read: "The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitutional prohibition on the appointment to government positions within one year from the election applies to all losing candidates, regardless of the position and the place or jurisdiction of the office where they are appointed.

The Court added that such prohibition is “a recognition of political will - it means that the people rejected the losing candidate and did not want him or her to occupy a public office. Thus, the electorate’s volition will be flouted if a candidate is immediately appointed to an office in the government after losing an election bid."

SC: One-Year Appointment Ban on Losing Candidates Applies to Contracts of Service |

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitutional prohibition on the appointment to government positions within one year from the election applies to all losing candidates, regardless of the position and the place or jurisdiction of the office where they are appointed.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, the Supreme Court En Banc denied the petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court filed by Raul F. Macalino (Macalino). The petition challenged the rulings of the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowing the payment of Macalino’s wages and allowances as Legal Officer II of the Municipal Government of Mexico, Pampanga.

In denying Macalino’s petition, the Court stressed that Article IX-B, Section 6 of the Constitution is clear that those who lost in the election are prohibited from being appointed to any government position within one year of such election.

Section 94(b) of the LGC likewise states that except for losing candidates in barangay elections, no candidate who lost in any election, within one year after such election, shall be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) or in any of their subsidiaries.

The Court added that such prohibition is “a recognition of political will—it means that the people rejected the losing candidate and did not want him or her to occupy a public office. Thus, the electorate’s volition will be flouted if a candidate is immediately appointed to an office in the government after losing an election bid.”

The Court also rejected Macalino’s arguments that (1) the prohibition does not apply to contracts of service and (2) there was no violation because he was appointed as Legal Officer II in Mexico, Pampanga, and not in San Fernando City, Pampanga, where he ran and lost as vice mayor.

The Court stressed that both the Constitution and the LGC explicitly use the phrase “any office in the Government or any [GOCCs] or in any of their subsidiaries.”

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-one-year-appointment-ban-on-losing-candidates-applies-to-contracts-of-service/. Read G.R. No. 253199 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253199-raul-f-macalino-vs-commission-on-audit/.

24/10/2023

From the Supreme Court Public Information Office:

"COMELEC Cannot Remove or Destroy Privately-Owned Campaign Materials Displayed on Private Property. ###

The Court held that RA 9006 only permits the COMELEC to regulate the election propaganda owned by candidates and political parties. It does not allow the COMELEC to regulate the political speech of private persons on private property."

(St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc., represented by Sister Geraldine J. Denoga, D.C., et al., v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 258805, October 10, 2023)

23/10/2023

Reposted from Philstar.com

"Joint teams from the Philippine Anti-Organized Crime Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission and police Anti-Cybercrime Group raided the Golden Koi Lending Co. Inc. in Barangay San Lorenzo at around 6:45 p.m." See: https://bityl.co/LrfH

Relative to this, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had already issued a Press Statement dated 28 April 2021 (in relation to Public Advisory dated 23 April 2021 issued by the DOJ - Office of Cybercrime (DOJ-OOC) enumerating the acts that would qualify as unfair debt collection practices and cyber harassment and the corresponding violations that victims may file before the appropriate government agencies.

Read DOJ-OOC Public Advisory dated 23 April 2021: https://www.doj.gov.ph/news_article.html?newsid=698

23/10/2023

TINGNAN: Official COMELEC Primer para sa October 30, 2023 Barangay at Sangguniang Kabataan Elections.

Nakapaloob sa official BSKE 2023 primer ang mga dapat malaman ng botante at kandidato at mga paalala ukol sa darating na BSKE 2023.

Maaaring i-print ang official BSKE 2023 primer sa A4 size bond paper (back-to-back), tupiin ng 3-hati patayo, at ipamigay.

22/10/2023

FOR ONLINE LIBEL, COURTS MAY IMPOSE ALTERNATIVE PENALTY OF FINE INSTEAD OF IMPRISONMENT

“Under the RPC, as amended by RA 10951, the penalty for traditional libel is “prision correcional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from PhP40,000 to PhP1,200,000, or both.”

The Court ruled that the RPC recognizes that the penalty of fine may be imposed as a single or alternative penalty for libel, as evident in the RPC’s “plain use of the disjunctive word ‘or’ between the term of imprisonment and fine, such word signaling disassociation or independence between the two words.”

SC: For Online Libel, Courts May Impose Alternative Penalty of Fine Instead of Imprisonment |

A court may sentence an accused found guilty of online libel to payment of fine only, rather than imprisonment.

Thus held the Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., as it denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines against Jomerito S. Soliman. The petition claimed that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting Soliman for online libel and sentencing him to pay a fine of PhP50,000.

In 2018, Soliman faced charges for online libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175) for a Facebook post criticizing Waldo R. Carpio, then Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed a fine of PhP50,000, citing Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08-2008. Soliman paid the fine and did not appeal his conviction. However, the Office of the Solicitor General filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, alleging an abuse of discretion by the RTC for imposing a fine instead of imprisonment.

Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act imposes upon online libel, or libel committed through information and communication technologies, a penalty that is one degree higher than ‘traditional’ libel, or libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Under the RPC, as amended by RA 10951, the penalty for traditional libel is “prision correcional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from PhP40,000 to PhP1,200,000, or both.”

The Court ruled that the RPC recognizes that the penalty of fine may be imposed as a single or alternative penalty for libel, as evident in the RPC’s “plain use of the disjunctive word ‘or’ between the term of imprisonment and fine, such word signaling disassociation or independence between the two words.”

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-for-online-libel-courts-may-impose-alternative-penalty-of-fine-instead-of-imprisonment/.

Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/256700-people-of-the-philippines-vs-jomerito-s-soliman/. Read the Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/256700-concurring-opinion-chief-justice-alexander-g-gesmundo/ and the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/256700-separate-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/.

22/10/2023

Welcome to the page of the Law Offices of Avila, Benzon, Mariano, Posadas, and Tade - a full-service law firm in Baguio City offering a wide range of legal services to its clients.

Let us discuss your legal concerns.

E-mail us at [email protected] or call us at (+63) 74 619 5928.

You may also visit our office located at Unit L5-P, 3rd Floor, Kayang Business Center, Kayang St., corner Chugum St., Brgy. AZKCO, Baguio City.