Cram-review-philo-law.pdf

The Oresteia The collective name given to the three Greek tragedies (trilogy) by Aeschylus on the story of Agamemnon, Clytemnestra, and Orestes, produced at Athens in 458 BC when it won the dramatic competition. It is the only trilogy that survives complete. The plays are "Agamemnon," "The Libation Bearers," and "Eumenides" (meaning kindly ones, a euphemism for the Furies). The story is taken from the mythical history of the descendants of Atreus in which crime led to further crime through several generations. "Agamemnon" opens in an atmosphere of hope mingled with foreboding, as the watchman on the roof of Agamemnon's palace in Argos looks out for the signal beacon to announce the fall of Troy. After the signal is seen, the news is confirmed by the arrival of a herald. Agamemnon's wife Clytemnestra appears jubilant, but the chorus of Argive elders recalls Agamemnon's sacrifice of his daughter Iphigeneia to enable the Greek fleet to set sail, and brood over the possible consequences. Agamemnon arrives bringing with him the captured Trojan princess Cassandra, his concubine. Clytemnestra treacherously welcomes him and then leads him into the palace. Cassandra, who has not spoken up to this point, is now moved to frenzied prophecy, foresees Agamemnon's murder and her own, as well as having a vision of the past crimes of the house, and utters a lament. She too enters the house, knowingly going to her death. Thc cries of the dying Agamemnon are heard. The interior of the palace is revealed, with Clytemnestra exulting over the bodies of the two victims. She answers the elders' reproaches by citing as justification Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigeneia. Aegisthus, her lover, appears, and subdues the elders with threats of force. The latter can only hope that one day Agamemnon's son Orestes will avenge King Agamemnon. In "The Libation Bearers," Orestes, the son of Agamemnon, after years of exile, returns to Argos with his friend Pylades, to avenge his father on

the god Apollo's instructions; he comes to his father's tomb and dedicates on it a lock of his hair. The two draw aside while Electra, Orestes' sister, and a chorus of Argive women approach to pour libations on the tomb by order of Clytemnestra, who has been disturbed by ominous dreams. Electra recognizes the lock of hair and footprints nearby as strikingly similar to her own; her brother reveals himself and a reunion takes place (a scene thought by some to be mocked by Euripides in his Electra, where Electra rejects these proofs of identity). Electra and Orestes join in an impressive invocation of their father's dead spirit calling upon his aid in their pursuit of vengeance. Orestes and Pylades, disguised as travelers bringing news of the former's death, enter the palace. Aegisthus is summoned and on his arrival is killed by Orestes. Clytemnestra pleads with her son for her life, and for a moment Orestes falters; but Pylades, in his only speech, reminds him of Apollo's command, and Orestes drags her into the palace and kills her. While he is justifying his action he sees avenging Furies arrive to haunt him, and he flees from them. "Eumenides" opens to show Orestes as suppliant at the shrine of Apollo in Delphi. The Furies, forming the chorus, are asleep around him. Orestes is promised protection by Apollo, who tells him to go to Athens to seek justice from the goddess Athena. After he leaves, the ghost of Clytemnestra stirs up the Furies to pursue him. The scene changes to the front of Athena's temple on the Acropolis at Athens. Athena, having heard the pleas and justifications of the Furies and of Orestes, refers the judgement to a tribunal of Athenian citizens acting as judges (i.e. the historical Areopagus court for judging cases of homicide, of which this episode was the legendary foundation). The Furies prosecute, and Orestes defends himself. Athena votes with the other judges, and the votes are found to be equally divided. Athena therefore declares that in the future, when the votes are equal the defendant is to be acquitted (as was Athenian law). The Furies are indignant, but conciliated by Athena's

promise of a permanent home in her city and honor in the new role as beneficent powers. The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, edited by M. C. Howatson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, pages 398-399.

A Nation for Our Children There is one dream that all Filipinos share: that our children may have a better life than we have had. So there is one vision that is distinctly Filipino: the vision to make this country, our country, a nation for our children. A NOBLE nation, where homage is paid not to who a man is or what he owns, but to what he is and what he does. A PROUD nation, where poverty chains no man to the plow, forces no woman to prostitute herself and condemns no child to scrounge among garbage. A FREE nation, where men and women and children from all regions and with all kinds of talents may find truth and play and sing and laugh and dance and love without fear. A JUST nation where whatever inequality exists is caused not by the way people act towards each other but by differences in natural talents; where poverty, ignorance, and hunger are attacked and every farmer has land that no one can grab from him; every breadwinner, a job that is satisfying and pays him enough to provide a decent standard of living; every family, a home from which it cannot be evicted; and everyone, a steadily improving quality of life.

An INDEPENDENT nation which rejects foreign dictation, depends on itself, thinks for itself, and decides for itself what the common good is, how it is to be attained, and how its costs and benefits are to be distributed. An HONORABLE nation where public powers are used for the public good and not for the private gain of some Filipinos and some foreigners; where leaders speak not only well but truthfully and act honestly; a nation that is itself and seeks to live in peace and brotherhood with all other nations of the world. Is this vision attainable? Or is it just an idle dream? If we base ourselves on today, we would be tempted to conclude that it is an idle dream. For our country today is in a mess. There is no other way to describe its condition. Our economy is bankrupt. We cannot pay our foreign debt. Within the next two years, whether or not our foreign loans are restructured, prices and taxes will continue to rise. The peso will continue to fall. The domestic market will contract further. More workers will lose their jobs; more students will be forced to drop out of school. Hunger will spread, and disease will not be far behind. Crime will continue to stalk the streets even more menacingly. Anger, resentment, and frustration will escalate. Dissidence will propagate, and repression will intensify. The government has lost all credibility, yet it refuses to do the decent thing: return power to the people. Instead it continues to deny the people their basic rights and freedoms. And the calloused behavior of some of its leaders mocks and defies this cherished Filipino value. Yet we must not give up our dream because of today. For if we look at ourselves, we have all the resources — human and natural — to become what we Filipinos choose to be. Our population is about 53 million, and that’s the 17th largest potential domestic market in the world.

We are a literate people. Our adult literacy is 75 per cent, the 40th highest worldwide. Sixty-three per cent (63 per cent) of our young people in the 15-19 year age group are enrolled in secondary schools, which is about 50 per cent higher than the average for countries like ours. And 27 percent of the 20-24 year age group are enrolled in colleges and universities, which is twice the average of countries like ours and more than that of some developed countries like the United Kingdom, West Germany, Australia, France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Our land area is 300,000 square kilometers, the sixty-third largest in the world. It is rich in natural resources. Less than half of our land has been systematically surveyed for mineral but commercial quantities obtained of the thirteen basic raw materials required by a modern industrial economy have already been discovered: bauxite, chromium, copper, iron are, lead, manganese, nickel, phosphates, zinc, natural rubber among these. And we also have the human drive to develop these. Encounters with nations which invaded and occupied us or traded with us have made us open to change and quick to adapt to it. Our people are ingenious and fast learners, competitive and achievement-oriented, rational and practical, and dedicated to freedom and independence. We are, let us not forget, the first Asian people who revolted against a western imperial power, Spain; the first who adopted a democratic republican constitution in Asia, the Malolos Constitution; the first to fight the first major war of the twentieth century against another western imperial power, the United States of America. Since 1972, we have suffered the brutal repression of martial rule, but freedom still burns bright in the hearts of most of us. So there is no insurmountable barrier that could stop us from becoming what we want to he. Why then are we in this sorry condition? I think it is because we have forgotten one basic thing. We Filipinos are a variegated people. We live in seven thousand islands. We profess no less than five major religions. We pray in no fewer than seven native tongues. But all

of us — Muslim or Christian, Tagalog or Visayan or Ilocano or Kapampangan — all of us are Filipinos not only because we are brothers in blood — many of us are not — but because we are all brothers in tears; not because we all share the same land — many of us are landless — but because we share the same dream. Whether we like it or not, we are one nation with one future, a future that will be as bright or as dark as we remain united or divided. Sometimes — as at present — events obscure this truth. At other times, human selfishness tries to deny it. But the truth will not die. We are one nation with one future. Yet today that nation is sorely divided even on such seemingly uncontroversial questions like what to do with the Marcos government or how to deal with the U.S. government. Some — I am one of them — would want to change not only Marcos but the system he has implanted in our country. Others would want to change only Marcos. Others would not even want that. They would be happy with changing Imelda and Ver. And others would not even demand that, simply that Marcos give up Amendment 6 or the power to issue presidential detention actions or both. On such a simple matter as the United States relations, some want statehood. Others want independence, and those who want independence do not all agree on what it means. Some believe in independence from every foreign government except the United States, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In fact, some of those who think this way seek U.S. government help to get Marcos out and put themselves in. Still others believe in independence from every foreign government which includes Russia, China, Japan, besides the United States, the World Bank and the IMF. They want no U.S. intervention in our affairs not even to oust Marcos, and they want the U.S. bases out. But some who think this way, or say they do, urge that U.S. issues be submerged for the time being. Let’s finish with Marcos first, they say, and then let’s take on the U.S. government.

Just as we are not agreed on what changes we want, we are not agreed on how to obtain those changes. Some believe that change can only come from within the Marcos system which is why they took part in the last elections. Others are convinced that change can only come about from outside that system which is why they boycotted the elections. Some think that only violence can bring about change which is why they joined the NPA, the MNLF or other guerrilla groups. Yet others think that non-violence can bring about change, and so they have joined militant, peaceful mass actions. In this state of disunity, change could come about, but except by a stroke of luck, it would hardly be the change that any of us want. For change to be meaningful, it is important that we agree at least on the basic issues, i.e., (1) Do we want to change just Marcos, or do we also want to change the system; (2) Do we want to free ourselves from the dominant influence of the U.S. government, or do we want to continue under its control; (3) Do we want to return to the kind of society we had before martial law, or do we want to establish a better society, more just and more human. If we can agree on the basics of these issues, even though we may disagree on some details, then disagreements on how we can achieve these goals would not be insoluble. As long as we pursue the same basic objectives, there should be no difficulty in coordinating the activities of those who wish to pursue these objectives by different means. Let me just give you an example of what I mean. We have today what is commonly called the parliament of the streets, and the objective of this parliament is to get rid of the Marcos government as soon as possible. But we also have political parties that are gearing for the elections in 1986 and 1987. Surely there should be no basic contradiction between these different methods. We can pursue the parliament of the streets and hopefully change the government before 1987, preferably before 1986, preferably before 1985. But if we fail,

what is to prevent us from using the other methods in order to change this government. The important thing is that we agree on what we want because if we do then the dilemmas that we face today would no longer be critical. Take for example this possibility. Suppose that Mr. Marcos for one reason or another were to quit his office tonight. Do you think the opposition would be able to put one candidate for president and one candidate for vice-president to fight against whichever candidates Mr. Marcos and the KBL would put up within the next sixty days? In 1986 if there is no agreement to these basic objectives, will the opposition be pulling up one candidate for the UNIDO, one candidate for PDPLABAN, and one candidate for the LP, or more in the local elections as against the candidates of the KBL? And if so, what chance would the opposition have? And in 1987 if Marcos is still around to run, or even if he does not run — if he sponsors a candidate — would the opposition be able to put up one candidate, or will we be putting up four or five candidates to run against Mr. Marcos? If we can agree, however, on all of these basic issues even if we don’t agree on all the details, then it would be easier to get agreement on one candidate. Why? Because if all of us are agreed on what we want, then insistence upon running can only be the result of personal ambition. And no candidate will ever tell you that he has personal ambitions. In fact, they will all say: I don’t want to run, but if the people want me, I will run. And if we do agree on these basics, then docs it really make much difference who is the candidate as long as we are all united and agreed on what is to be done? It may make some difference. Some candidates may be more competent than others. The mere fact that we are all agreed on these basics should not make it impossible to achieve these changes regardless of who is this candidate. And therefore if we can agree on these basics, then we should be able to achieve the first step in this long

journey to a nation for our children, and that is, the step of regaining our freedom. But to do that, as I have said, will take time. It will be difficult. Wounds have become very deep, I’m sorry to say. I arrived, as you know, about a week ago, and I have found out during this short week that between certain groups disagreements have become personal, and those are the most difficult to address. But I also wish you to know that efforts are being made, and will continue to be made, so that all these disagreements can be ironed out. We do not expect perfect unanimity, we do not expect total agreement on every detail, but we believe that we can all agree at least on these basics. First, that we must change not only Mr. Marcos but the system he has implanted. We must return to a truly democratic government with an independent judiciary and a responsible Parliament. And more than that, we must bring government and the making of decisions closer to the people affected by those decisions. Second, I feel that there should be — and there will be — no disagreement on the need to obtain our total liberation and freedom from American control. I say this because just the other day, there was a short meeting between representatives of UNIDO and others — those who had taken part and those who had not taken part in the last elections — and on the matter of “let’s start getting together, let’s talk and let’s see if we can get some bases of agreement,” one of them said: ‘Tanny, do you remember two years ago we signed a paper. Why don’t we use that as the basis of the agreement?“ And Tanny said: "Fine. I don’t remember what was in that paper we had signed, but why don’t you just send it over’?” And it was sent over. And the first two paragraphs of that agreement made it very plain that every political force was committed to the proposition that the Philippines must be controlled by Filipinos and that all foreign bases must be removed from our country.

So I see no insurmountable difficulty there, and certainly I also see very little difficulty with respect to the third agreement, i.e., that we use our freedom and our independence to improve the quality of life of our people. Again we may disagree on how this is to be done but on the objectives, I think we are all agreed. I think that the second step in that long journey to attain a nation for our children is simply this: that in order to improve the quality of life of our people, what we have to do is really very simple n do the opposite of what Marcos has done for the last twelve years. I am not being facetious. I am not trying to be witty. I’m trying to state a fundamental truth. Marcos has built his entire program on the principle of depending upon the U.S. and Japan and getting all the loans that he could. We must build our nation on the principle of depending on ourselves and getting as loans only what we need, not what we can get. Marcos has built his entire political system on gathering all power unto himself and eliminating all checks and balances. We must build our political system on respect for the sovereignty of the people, on the establishment of adequate checks and balances, and on empowering the people at the grassroots level. Marcos has built his economic system on a policy of overspending, export-orientation, low wages, recession, unemployment, and poverty. We must build our economic system on strengthening our domestic market by increasing the productivity of our farmers and our workers and increasing their real wages because without an increase in the real wages and the real income of our workers and our farmers, it will not be possible for us to industrialize. We will continue to be dependent on foreign resources. We must build our economy on removing disparities between urban and rural areas so that whatever social services we supply our rural areas — health, education, water, power, roads — must be of the same quality and the same standards as the social services that we supply to our cities.

And we must build our economy on using every method that we know as soon as possible to restore the buying power of our workers, at the very least and as a first step, to what was their buying power in 1972. From 1972 to the present, the real wages, the purchasing power, of our workers has dropped by no less than 45 per cent across the board — about 37 per cent for skilled workers and 48 per cent for unskilled workers. That has to be completely reversed. And our first objective must be to bring back their purchasing power at least to what it was in 1972 and then gradually increasing it. Marcos has built his entire social system on a system of falsehood, on a system of repressing creativity, and on creating in our people a feeling of impotence and helplessness. I wonder how many of you have read Prof. Luisa Doronila’s report on the textbooks that are being used in our public schools and the effects they are having on our children. When the children were asked what they preferred to be — Filipinos, Americans, Japanese, etc. — the lowest rank was gotten by those who wanted to be Filipinos. What are we doing to our children? Our system must be the complete opposite. Our system must tell our children the truth. Our system must seek as much as it can to unleash their creativity. I described to you when I began what I thought was the vision of most Filipinos of a nation for our children, and I know that for many of you, it may sound ideal. Yet reality is often much more beautiful than anything that we can conceive of. If we can but release the creative energy of our people, then we will have a nation full of hope and full of joy, full of life and full of love — a nation that may not be a nation for our children but which will be a nation of our children.

An Enemy of the People Summary How It All Goes Down The future is looking bright in Dr. Stockmann's hometown on the coast of southern Norway. At his urging, the town has built some Baths, which will bring lots of tourists and more importantly tourist dollars. Trouble arrives when the Doctor discovers that the water of the Baths is teeming with bacteria, which are guaranteed to make everybody sick. At first, several of the town's leading men like Hovstad, the paper's editor, and Aslaksen, the head of the Householder's Association, support the Doctor and his discovery. However, the Mayor, Dr. Stockmann's brother, stands firmly against it, because the necessary improvements will cost the town tons of cash and will make him look like an idiot. The Mayor swiftly turns the entire town against his brother, and Dr. Stockmann finds himself suddenly in a hostile environment. Refusing to have the truth be silenced, the Doctor calls a town meeting to read his findings. Once again, though, he is foiled by his crafty brother; the Mayor manipulates the procedures of the meeting so as to keep the Doctor from reading the report. Enraged, Dr. Stockmann launches into a tirade on a new "truth" he's discovered. He announces that the true corruption in the town and the entire country is that all the power lies with the complacent majority, most of whom are too ignorant to know what's best for them. The Doctor's impassioned speech only serves to turn the entire town against him. His windows are smashed with rocks, he loses his job, and his house. In the final act, he is visited by several people who attempt to get him to retract his words. These corrupt attempts only serve to reinvigorate the Doctor, who determines to start a school to spread

knowledge and truth to the poor. By the end of the play, Dr. Stockmann has found strength in being alone.

Dr. Thomas Stockmann There are lots of good things you can say about Dr. Stockmann, the protagonist of An Enemy of the People. He's generous with his neighbors, which we see clearly at beginning of the play when he welcomes a bunch of guests into his home for roast beef and a hot toddy. He also truly cares for his fellow man, and deep down inside he wants nothing more than to make the world a better place. Most importantly the Doctor is a man of principle, willing to fight for what he believes in no matter what the cost. His dedication is on display throughout the play, as he is steadily stripped of position in society, his home, and his job for refusing to be silent about the town's unhealthy, contaminated Baths. Of course, there's a lot you could criticize about the Doctor as well. For one, he's totally impractical. It never even occurs to him to take into account the fact that his proposed renovations to the Baths will ruin the town's economy. Also, though it's easy to admire him for sticking to his principles, it should be pointed out that by doing so he places his family in a pretty terrible position. Stockmann's daughter, Petra, loses her job, and his sons are almost mobbed at school. The Doctor also willingly sacrifices his own job at the Baths knowing that it will cause his family to lose their major source of income. We do see Stockmann waver when his father-in-law, Morten Kiil, threatens to take away Stockmann family's inheritance. In the end, though, Dr. Stockmann refuses to give in, plunging his family into financial ruin. Do you think it's wrong of Stockmann to place his family in jeopardy so that visitors to the Baths won't get sick? You could choose to view the

Doctor as a naïve idealist, one who doesn't care about anything but his own abstract principles. On the other hand, you could view him as heroic fighter for truth, who battles dishonesty and corruption at all costs. Then again, he may be both things at the same time. Dr. Stockmann is often criticized as one of Ibsen's more onedimensional characters. This is probably true to a certain extent. It would be hard to argue that he is anywhere near as complex and conflicted as, say, Hedda Gabler or Gregers from The Wild Duck. Still, though, there is an essential conundrum at the center of his character. His battle for truth brings about destruction as well creation, despair as well as hope. It could ruin his beloved hometown and his family. Still…it's the truth, right?

Mayor Peter Stockmann Character Analysis OK, so it's pretty easy to list all the reasons that the Mayor, the play's antagonist, is a jerk. From the very beginning, he seems unlikable. He doesn't want to take part in the party going on at Dr. Stockmann's house. In addition to being standoffish and easily offended, he's judgmental of his brother, Dr. Stockmann. The Mayor also makes a snide remark about Hovstad, revealing himself to be prejudiced against people of a lowerclass origin. The Mayor's bad side is further revealed later on in the play. When he receives the report from the Dr. Stockmann about the contamination of the Baths, he does everything he can to cover up the bad news. Mayor Stockmann has several reasons for doing this. The chief reason probably being that it's all his fault that the Baths are contaminated. He went against his brother's guidelines when laying the Baths' pipes and now the town's big investment is in peril. The Mayor seems much more

concerned with his own public standing, than with the safety of the people using the Baths. Throughout the rest of the play, Mayor Stockmann mercilessly tries to ruin his brother's life in order to keep the truth from being revealed. He never really shows one shred of guilt for the fact that he's totally messing up the life of a family member. Even though the jerk factor is pretty high with the Mayor, he's not a totally one-dimensional character. Early on in the play, the Doctor even defends his brother's nasty disposition saying, "We must remember that Peter is a lonely man, poor chap. He has no home comforts of any kind; nothing but everlasting business" (1.124). So, maybe the Mayor isn't grumpy with people just because he enjoys it. Maybe, he's just a lonely and misunderstood. Mayor Stockmann is also a lot more practical than his idealistic brother, who doesn't take into consideration the fact that the proposed renovations will destroy the town's economy. It's also important to note that although the Baths were the Doctor's idea, it took the Mayor skills to get them built. (Too bad they were built the wrong way.) The Mayor's suspicion of his brother's findings isn't totally close minded either. Dr. Stockmann does have a tendency to come up with wild ideas, and people didn't know a whole lot about bacteria back then. To be fair, the Mayor does have some room for skepticism, especially when it'll cost the town he's in charge of so much trouble. So, what do you think? Is Mayor Stockmann a pompous jerk or just misunderstood?

Hovstad Character Analysis Hovstad, like the Mayor, is easy to dislike. At first he seems like a good enough guy. He's a farmer's son who's pulled himself up by his

bootstraps to become the editor of The People's Herald, the local newspaper. He claims to be true to his roots, and wants to use his position at the paper to further the cause of the lower classes. Even if you don't agree with his politics, in the beginning of the play he does seem like a straightforward guy who is true to his principles. As the play progresses, we see that Hovstad isn't as straightforward as we might have thought. When he learns of Dr. Stockmann's discovery that the Baths are contaminated, his first instinct is to manipulate the situation to his advantage. Quickly we become suspicious that his support for the Doctor doesn't stem from truly believing that the people have a right to the truth. When he says things like, "When I took over the 'People's Messenger' my idea was to break up this ring of selfopinionated old fossils" (2.93), it becomes obvious that he just wants to further his own political agenda. It's in Act 3 that Hovstad reveals his true colors. First, he makes a pass at Petra, Dr. Stockmann's daughter, and alludes that one of the only reasons he's supporting her father is to get on Petra's good side. Then the Mayor shows up and easily turns Hovstad against the Doctor. The Mayor reveals to Hovstad that in order to make the necessary renovations to the Baths, they'll have to raise taxes in the town, and that it will most likely cause everybody financial ruin. Hovstad knows that his newspaper's readers will hate raising taxes, and that if he supports the Doctor The People's Herald will go under. The decision to betray Dr. Stockmann seems to come pretty easily for Hovstad. All in all, Hovstad appears to be Ibsen's representative of the liberal media of which the playwright had a pretty low opinion. In a letter to a critic Ibsen wrote, "What are we to say of the attitude taken up by the socalled Liberal press – by those leaders who speak and write about freedom of action and thought, and at the same time make themselves

the slaves of the supposed opinions of their subscribers?" (source). This is exactly what Hovstad does in An Enemy of the People. Though he claims to be true to his ideals, he feels it necessary to compromise what he prints based on public opinion.

Doctor Thomas Stockmann - A practicing medical doctor, the medical officer of the town baths, and the brother of the mayor, who got him the job at the baths. Stockmann is idealistic and excitable. For much of his life he was destitute and lived in the countryside; now he is happy to be fairly prosperous and living in a bustling town. Mrs. Katherine Stockmann - Dr. Stockmann's wife. She is loyal and practical and often encourages her husband to think of his family when he is being rash. Morten Kiil is her adoptive father, or grandfather, depending on translation. Petra Stockmann - The daughter of Thomas and Katherine, Petra is as idealistic as her father. She is a hard-working teacher, and she is frustrated that the law requires her to teach things she doesn't believe in. Peter Stockmann - Peter is Dr. Stockmann's brother. He is also chairman of the baths committee. He is a cautious but sometimes ruthless politician. Hovstad - Hovstad is editor of The People's Herald, the town's leftist newspaper. Although slightly corrupt, he is at heart a political radical. Aslaksen - Aslaksen is the newspaper's printer. Because he lets the paper print on credit, he has a degree of editorial control. He is also the chairman of the homeowners association, which represents the town's small business class, the majority of voters. He also has great influence with the Temperance Society, and he is a lover of moderation.

Billing - An assistant at the newspaper, he is a radical, like Hovstad, but he is also ambitious and plans to run for office. He is in some way courting Petra. Captain Horster - A ship captain who has little interest in local politics, Horster provides the hall for Doctor Stockmann's speech, but he is fired from his ship as a result. Morten Kiil - A rich old man, Kiil owns several of the tanneries that Dr. Stockmann implicates in his water pollution report. He is the adoptive father or grandfather (depending on the translation) of Mrs. Stockmann, and his will assigns a good deal of wealth to her and her children.

VALINO vs ADRIANO et al. DOCTRINE: 

The law confines the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to the members of the family to the exclusion of one’s common law partner.



Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. A man and woman not legally married who cohabit for many years as husband and wife, who represent themselves to the public as husband and wife, and who are reputed to be husband and wife in the community where they live may be considered legally married in common law jurisdictions but not in the Philippines.



It is generally recognized that the corpse of an individual is outside the commerce of man. However, the law recognizes that a certain right of possession over the corpse exists, for the purpose of a

decent burial, and for the exclusion of the intrusion by third persons who have no legitimate interest in it. This quasi-property right, arising out of the duty of those obligated by law to bury their dead, also authorizes them to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial to have it remain in its final resting place, or to even transfer it to a proper place where the memory of the dead may receive the respect of the living. This is a family right. There can be no doubt that persons having this right may recover the corpse from third persons.

FACTS: Atty. Adriano Adriano (Atty. Adriano) married respondent Rosario Adriano in 1955. The couple had 5 children and 1 adopted child, also impleaded herein as respondents. The marriage did turn sour and the couple separated in fact, though Adriano continued to support his wife and children.

Atty. Adriano then started living with Valino, whom he courted. Atty. Adriano died and since his immediate family, including respondent were in the United States, Valino took it upon herself to bury Atty. Adriano at her family's mausoleum. In the meantime, Respondents heard about the death and requested Valino to delay the burial so they can pay their final respects, but Valino still buried the body.

Respondents commenced suit against Valino praying that they be indemnified for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees and that the remains of Atty. Adriano be exhumed and transferred to the family plot.

Valino claimed that it was Atty. Adriano's last wish to be buried at Valino's family's mausoleum and that the respondent's knew that Atty. Adriano was already in a coma yet they still proceeded to the US on vacation. And that as far as the public was concerned, Valino had been introducing her as his wife for the past 20 years.

The RTC dismissed the complaint of respondents for lack of merit as well as the counterclaim of Valino after it found them to have not been sufficiently proven.

CA reversed [explained that Rosario, being the legal wife, was entitled to the custody of the remains of her deceased husband. Citing Article 305 of the New Civil Code in relation to Article 199 of the Family Code, it was the considered view of the appellate court that the law gave the surviving spouse not only the duty but also the right to make arrangements for the funeral of her husband. For the CA, Rosario was still entitled to such right on the ground of her subsisting marriage with Atty. Adriano at the time of the latter’s death, notwithstanding their 30year separation in fact.]

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents (wife and children of deceased Atty. Adriano) are entitled to the remains of Atty. Adriano.

HELD: YES. The weight of legal provisions puts the responsibility of the burial with the respondents, to wit:

The duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in accordance with the order established for support, under Article 294. In case of descendants of the same degree, or of brothers and sisters, the oldest shall be preferred. In case of ascendants, the paternal shall have a better right. (New Civil Code Art. 305) …

Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the order herein provided: (1) The spouse; (2) The descendants in the nearest degree; (3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and (4) The brothers and sisters. (Family Code, Art. 199) …

No human remains shall be retained, interred, disposed of or exhumed without the consent of the persons mentioned in Articles [199 of the Family Code] and 305. (New Civil Code, Art. 308)

As applied to this case, it is clear that the law gives the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to Rosario, she being the surviving legal wife of Atty. Adriano. The fact that she was living separately from her husband and was in the United States when he died has no controlling significance. To say that Rosario had, in effect, waived or renounced,

expressly or impliedly, her right and duty to make arrangements for the funeral of her deceased husband is baseless.

It is also recognized that a corpse is outside the commerce of man. However, the law recognizes that a certain right of possession over the corpse exists, for the purpose of a decent burial, and for the exclusion of the intrusion by third persons who have no legitimate interest in it. This quasi-property right, arising out of the duty of those obligated by law to bury their dead, also authorizes them to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial to have it remain in its final resting place, or to even transfer it to a proper place where the memory of the dead may receive the respect of the living. This is a family right. There can be no doubt that persons having this right may recover the corpse from third persons.

DISSENTING OPINION LEONEN, J.: We will all die. But what may matter to many of us is how we live and how our life is kept in the memories of those we leave behind. This case is not about whether a common-law wife has more rights over the corpse of the husband than the latter's estranged legal spouse. This case is about which between them knows his wishes. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the ponencia in denying this petition. I vote to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 2, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 61613, which directs petitioner Fe to have the remains of Atty. Lope Adriano exhumed, and orders respondents to transfer, transport, and inter, at their expense, the remains of the

decedent from Manila Memorial Park to the family plot in Holy Cross Memorial Park in Novaliches, Quezon City. I vote to sustain the decision dated October 1, 1998, of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77 in Civil Case No. Q-93-15288, dismissing respondents' complaint for damages. I disagree with the position that in the determination of how Atty. Adriano should be buried, "the law gives the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to Rosario, she being the surviving legal wife of Atty. Adriano,"1 in accordance with Article 3052 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 1993 of the Family Code. I am of the opinion that Article 305 should only be considered when, first, the deceased left no explicit instructions on how he wishes to be interred, and second, when none among the deceased’s surviving relations are willing to make the funeral arrangements and a conflict arises. In these situations, the conflict must be settled according to the order of preference stated in Article 199. In any other case, it should be the express wishes of the deceased which should take precedence. This view, in fact, is embodied in Article 307 of the Civil Code, which states: Article 307. The funeral shall be in accordance with the expressed wishes of the deceased. In the absence of such expression, his religious beliefs or affiliation shall determine the funeral rites. In case of doubt, the form of the funeral shall be decided upon by the person obliged to make arrangements for the same, after consulting the other members of the family. (Emphasis supplied) It is the ponencia’s opinion that the wishes of the deceased contemplated in Article 307 only governs the "form of the funeral" and that the duty and, more specifically, the right to make arrangements for the funeral remains with the persons specified in Article 305 in relation to Article 199. It is my submission, however, that Article 307 should be interpreted

to mean that the right to determine one’s funeral, including the right to determine how and where one wishes to be buried, remains with the deceased, and it is only in the absence of his express wishes, or in the absence of his religious beliefs and affiliations, or if there is doubt as to his wishes, that other persons may assume the right to decide the funeral arrangements. This right, like other rights pointed out by the ponencia,4 must not be considered waived or renounced except upon clear and satisfactory proof of conduct indicative of a free and voluntary intent to that end. There is neither indication nor have there been any allegations that Atty. Adriano did not freely and voluntarily relay his last wishes to his common-law wife, petitioner Fe. Atty. Adriano, therefore, did not waive his right to determine where he should be buried, in favor of the persons indicated in Article 305 in relation to Article 199. Accordingly, it was improper to cite in the ponencia Tomas Eugenio, Sr. v. Judge Velez.5 In Eugenio, Tomas Eugenio, Sr. claimed the right to bury his common-law wife, arguing that he should be considered a "spouse" under Article 305 in relation to Article 199. The assertion led this court to expound on the interpretation of Article 305 in relation to Article 199 and conclude that: x x x. Indeed, Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. A man and woman not legally married who cohabit for many years as husband and wife, who represent themselves to the public as husband and wife, and who are reputed to be husband and wife in the community where they live may be considered legally "married" in common law jurisdictions but not in the Philippines. While it is true that our laws do not just brush aside the fact that such relationships are present in our society, and that they produce a community of properties and interests which is governed by law, authority exists in case law to the effect that such form of co-ownership requires that the man and woman living together must not in any way be

incapacitated to contract marriage. In any case, herein petitioner has a subsisting marriage with another woman, a legal impediment which disqualified him from even legally marrying Vitaliana. In Santero vs. CFI of Cavite, the Court, thru Mr. Justice Paras, interpreting Art. 188 of the Civil Code (Support of Surviving Spouse and Children During Liquidation of Inventoried Property) stated: "Be it noted however that with respect to 'spouse', the same must be the legitimate 'spouse' (not common-law spouses…)." There is a view that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the term "spouse" embraces common law relation for purposes of exemption from criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling and malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses. The Penal Code article, it is said, makes no distinction between a couple whose cohabitation is sanctioned by a sacrament or legal tie and another who are husband and wife de facto. But this view cannot even apply to the facts of the case at bar. We hold that the provisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly providing to the contrary as in Article 144, when referring to a "spouse" contemplate a lawfully wedded spouse. Petitioner vis-a-vis Vitaliana was not a lawfully-wedded spouse to her; in fact, he was not legally capacitated to marry her in her lifetime.6 In the present case, petitioner Fe has not asserted that she be considered a "spouse" under Article 305 in relation to Article 199 with the right and the duty to make funeral arrangements for Atty. Adriano. What she asserts is that she was Atty. Adriano’s constant companion for a long time who was constantly by his side, showing him the love and devotion as a wife would have, who took care of him in his final moments and gave him a proper burial. As such, there is a presumption that she would be in the best position to relay his final wishes. The trial court in its decision dated October 1, 1998 reached the same conclusion, thus:

Atty. Lope Adriano’s wish was established at the trial and shown in the following testimony of the defendant, to wit: "ATTY. PIZARRAS: Madam witness, what was the wish of Atty. Lope Adriano regarding his burial? WITNESS: He wanted to be buried at Manila Memorial. Q: Why do you say that? A: We have discussed it long before. Q: When did you first discuss this? A: The first time we went to Manila Memorial. He wanted that his lawn type lot be upgraded to estate type. He doesn’t want that people will step on his grave. Q: What happened to this request if his lawn type lot to be upgraded to estate type? A: It did not take long. I had it upgraded." (TSN, May 7, 1997, pp. 4-5; underscoring supplied) This crucial fact remained unrefuted. Moreover, considering the very, very long time that the defendant and the deceased lived like husband and wife prior to his death, it can be reasonably assumed that it is the defendant who really knows the wishes of the deceased. And it appears that it was the express wish of the deceased that he be interred at the Manila Memorial Park.7 The ponencia also noted there was "animosity" between Atty. Adriano and respondents when he was still alive. He and his legal spouse, respondent Rosario, have been separated-in-fact for more than thirty (30) years, and he has not been in contact with his children, the other

respondents, for about the same period of time. They did not even visit him when he fell ill and was on his deathbed; it was only after he died that they came, asserting their rights to his remains. It is unfortunate that the ponencia would rather uphold the wishes of his estranged family rather than give the deceased his final request. Part of life is the ability to control how one wishes to be memorialized, and such right should remain with the deceased. It is only when the deceased has not left any express instructions that the right is given to the persons specified under the law. Given the circumstances, the remains of Atty. Adriano should remain in the Floro family mausoleum at the Manila Memorial Park. The law reaches into much of our lives while we live. It constitutes and frames most of our actions. But at the same time, the law also grants us the autonomy or the space to define who we are. Upon our death, the law does not cease to respect our earned autonomy. Rather, it gives space for us to speak through the agency of she who may have sat at our bedside as we suffered through a lingering illness. I am of the view that it is that love and caring which should be rewarded with the honor of putting us in that place where we mark our physical presence for the last time and where we will be eternally remembered. ACCORDINGLY, the petition should be GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61613, reversing the October 1, 1998 decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, must be SET ASIDE. MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN Associate Justice

ESTRADA v. ESCRITOR Facts: Complainant Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter, is living with a man not her husband. They allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. Estrada is not personally related either to Escritor or her partner. Nevertheless, he filed the charge against Escritor as he believes that she is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Respondent Escritor testified that when she entered the judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow, her husband having died in 1998. She admitted that she has been living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage for twenty years and that they have a son. But as a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. In fact, after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness," insofar as the congregation is concerned, there is nothing immoral about the conjugal arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio and they remain members in good standing in the congregation. Issue: Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge of "gross and immoral conduct." Held: Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible

constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests. It still remains to be seen if respondent is entitled to such doctrine as the state has not been afforded the chance has demonstrate the compelling state interest of prohibiting the act of respondent, thus the case is remanded to the RTC. Benevolent neutrality is inconsistent with the Free Exercise Clause as far as it prohibits such exercise given a compelling state interest. It is the respondent’s stance that the respondent’s conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise protection. Should the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, the Court’s action would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to religious freedom. The Court cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondent’s claim of religious freedom, but must instead apply the “compelling state interest” test. The government must be heard on the issue as it has not been given an opportunity to discharge its burden of demonstrating the state’s compelling interest which can override respondent’s religious belief and practice.

Josue Javellana vs Executive Secretary 50 SCRA 30 – Political law – Constitutional Law – Political Question – Validity of the 1973 Constitution – Restriction to Judicial Power In 1973, Marcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new 1973 Constitution. Javellana, a Filipino and a registered voter sought to enjoin the Exec Sec and other cabinet secretaries from implementing the said constitution. Javellana averred that the said constitution is void because

the same was initiated by the president. He argued that the President is w/o power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed constitution. Further, the election held to ratify such constitution is not a free election there being intimidation and fraud. ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must give due course to the petition. HELD: The SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at bar. Majority of the SC justices expressed the view that they were concluded by the ascertainment made by the president of the Philippines, in the exercise of his political prerogatives. Further, there being no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation during the election, it is to be assumed that the people had acquiesced in or accepted the 1973 Constitution. The question of the validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political question which was left to the people in their sovereign capacity to answer. Their ratification of the same had shown such acquiescence.

JAVELLANA VS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 50 SCRA 30; March 31, 1973 Ponente: Concepcion, C.J FACTS: On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed a prohibition case to restrain respondents from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed constitution not found in the present constitution. Javellana maintained that the respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing proposed constitution and that the president is without power to proclaim the ratification of the constitution. Similar actions were filed by Vidal Tan, Gerardo Roxas, among others. Petitioners pray for the nullification of Proclamation 1102 (Citizens Assemblies) and any order, decree, and proclamation which are similar in objective. ISSUES:

1. Is the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 justiciable? 2. Was the constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention ratified validly in compliance to applicable laws? 3. Was the proposed Constitution acquiesced by the people? 4. Are the petitioners entitled relief? 5. Is the proposed Constitution in force? HELD: Whether a constitutional amendment has been properly adopted according to an existing constitution is a judicial question as it is the absolute duty of the judiciary to determine whether the Constitution has been amended in the manner required by the constitution. The Constitution proposed by the 1971 Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV section 1 of the 1935 Constitution which provides only one way for ratification (election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and only with qualified voters). Due to the environmental and social conditions in the Philippines (i.e. martial law) the Court cannot honestly say that the people acquiesced to the proposed Constitution. The majority ruled to dismiss the cases as the effectivity of the proposed Constitution is the basic issue posed by the cases which considerations other than judicial are relevant and unavoidable. The new constitution is in force as there are not enough votes to say otherwise.

CASE DIGEST: Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016] FACTS: Petitioners in this case are former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and former Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts Officer Benigno Aguas.

The Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan with plunder as defined by, and penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 the following: (1) GMA, (2) Aguas, (3) former PCSO General Manager and Vice Chairman Rosario C. Uriarte, (4) former PCSO Chairman of the Board of Directors Sergio O. Valencia, (5) former members of the PCSO Board of Directors, and (6) two former officials of the Commission on Audit (COA). The information read: …[the] accused…all public officers committing the offense in relation to their respective offices and taking undue advantage of their respective official positions, authority, relationships, connections or influence, conniving, conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire. Directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS (PHP365,997,915.00), more or less, through any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means, described as follows: (a) diverting in several instances, funds from the operating budget of PCSO to its Confidential/Intelligence Fund that could be accessed and withdrawn at any time with minimal restrictions, · and converting, misusing, and/or illegally conveying or transferring the proceeds drawn from said fund in the aforementioned sum, also in several instances, to themselves, in the guise of fictitious expenditures, for their personal gain and benefit; (b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving, in several instances, the above-mentioned amount from the Confidential/Intelligence Fund from PCSO’s accounts, and or unlawfully transferring or conveying the same into their possession and

control through irregularly issued disbursement vouchers and fictitious expenditures; and (c) taking advantage of their respective official positions, authority, relationships, connections or influence, in several instances, to unjustly enrich themselves in the aforementioned sum, at the expense of, and the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. CONTRARY TO LAW The Sandiganbayan eventually acquired jurisidiction over most of the accused, including petitioners. All filed petitions for bail, which the Sandiganbayan granted except those of the petitioners. Their motions for reconsideration were denied. GMA assailed the denial of her petition for bail before the Supreme Court. However, this remains unresolved. After the Prosecution rested its case, the accused separately filed their demurrers to evidence asserting that the Prosecution did not establish a case for plunder against them. The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers and dismissed the case against the accused within its jurisdiction, except for petitioners and Valencia. It held that there was sufficient evidence showing that they had conspired to commit plunder. Petitioners filed this case before the Supreme Court on certiorari before the Supreme Court to assail the denial of their demurrers to evidence, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. ISSUES: 1.) Procedural Issue: WON the special civil action for certiorari is proper to assail the denial of the demurrers to evidence – YES. PROSECUTION: The petition for certiorari of GMA was improper to challenge the denial of her demurrer to evidence.

HELD: Certiorari is proper since the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying GMA’s demurrer to evidence. General rule: The special civil action for certiorari is generally not proper to assail such an interlocutory order issued by the trial court because of the availability of another remedy in the ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court expressly provides, “the order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.” Exception: “In the exercise of our superintending control over other courts, we are to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case ‘as the ends of justice may require.’ So it is that the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial” (citing Ong v. People [G.R. No. 140904, October 9, 2000]). 2.) Substantive Issue: WoN the Prosecution sufficiently established the existence of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas, and Uriarte – NO. A. As regards petitioner GMA HELD: The Supreme Court rejected the Sandiganbayan’s declaration in denying GMA’s demurrer that GMA, Aguas, and Uriate had conspired and committed plunder. The Prosecution did not sufficiently allege the existence of a conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte. A perusal of the information (quoted above) suggests that what the Prosecution sought to show was an implied conspiracy to commit plunder among all of the accused on the basis of their collective actions prior to, during and after the implied agreement. It is notable that the Prosecution did not allege that the conspiracy among all of the accused was by express agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy or a chain conspiracy. This was another fatal flaw of the Prosecution.

Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law) requires in the criminal charge for plunder against several individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her co-conspirators, who may be members of her family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons. In other words, the allegation of the wheel conspiracy or express conspiracy in the information was appropriate because the main plunderer would then be identified in either manner. Citing Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, “The gravamen of the conspiracy charge…is that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for former President Estrada.” Such identification of the main plunderer was not only necessary because the law required such identification, but also because it was essential in safeguarding the rights of all of the accused to be properly informed of the charges they were being made answerable for. In fine, the Prosecution’s failure to properly allege the main plunderer should be fatal to the cause against the petitioners for violating the rights of each accused to be informed of the charges against each of them. PROSECUTION: GMA, Uriarte and Aguas committed acts showing the existence of an implied conspiracy among themselves, thereby making all of them the main plunderers. The sole overt act of GMA to become a part of the conspiracy was her approval via the marginal note of “OK” of all the requests made by Uriarte for the use of additional intelligence fund. By approving Uriaiie’s requests in that manner, GMA violated the following: a. Letter of Instruction 1282, which required requests for additional confidential and intelligence funds (CIFs) to be accompanied with detailed, specific project proposals and specifications; and

b. COA Circular No. 92-385, which allowed the President to approve the release of additional CIFs only if there was an existing budget to cover the request. HELD: GMA’s approval of Uriarte’s requests for additional CIFs did not make her part of any design to raid the public treasury as the means to amass, accumulate and acquire illgotten wealth. Absent the specific allegation in the information to that effect, and competent proof thereon, GMA’s approval of Uriarte’s requests, even if unqualified, could not make her part of any criminal conspiracy to commit plunder or any other crime considering that her approval was not by any means irregular or illegal. a. An examination of Uriarte’s several requests indicates their compliance with LOI No. 1282. The requests, similarly worded, furnished: (1) the full details of the specific purposes for which the funds would be spent; (2) the explanations of the circumstances giving rise to the necessity of the expenditure; and (3) the particular aims to be accomplished. The additional CIFs requested were to be used to protect PCSO’s image and the integrity of its operations. According to its terms, LOI No. 1282 did not detail any qualification as to how specific the requests should be made. b. The funds of the PCSO were comingled into one account as early as 2007. Consequently, although only 15% of PCSO’s revenues was appropriated to an operation fund from which the CIF could be sourced, the remaining 85% of PCSO’s revenues, already co-mingled with the operating fund, could still sustain the additional requests. In short, there

was available budget from which to draw the additional requests for CIFs. PROSECUTION: GMA had known that Uriarte would raid the public treasury, and would misuse the amounts disbursed. This knowledge was imputed to GMA by virtue of her power of control over PCSO. HELD: The Prosecution seems to be relying on the doctrine of command responsibility to impute the actions of subordinate officers to GMA as the superior officer. The reliance is misplaced, for incriminating GMA under those terms was legally unacceptable and incomprehensible. The application of the doctrine of command responsibility is limited, and cannot be true for all litigations. This case involves neither a probe of GMA’s actions as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, nor of a human rights issue (compare to Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo [G.R. No. 191805, November 15, 2011]). B. As regards Aguas HELD: Aguas’ certifications and signatures on the disbursement vouchers were insufficient bases to conclude that he was into any conspiracy to commit plunder or any other crime. Without GMA’s participation, he could not release any money because there was then no budget available for the additional CIFs. Whatever irregularities he might have committed did not amount to plunder, or to any implied conspiracy to commit plunder. 3.) Substantive Issue: WoN the Prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime of plunder – NO. A. WoN there was evidence of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the total amount of not less than P50 million – NO.

HELD: The Prosecution adduced no evidence showing that either GMA or Aguas or even Uriarte, for that matter, had amassed, accumulated or acquired illgotten wealth of any amount. There was also no evidence, testimonial or otherwise, presented by the Prosecution showing even the remotest possibility that the CIFs of the PCSO had been diverted to either GMA or Aguas, or Uriarte. B. WoN the predicate act of raiding the public treasury alleged in the information was proved by the Prosecution – NO. SANDIGANBAYAN: In order to prove the predicate act of raids of the public treasury, the Prosecution need not establish that the public officer had benefited from such act; and that what was necessary was proving that the public officer had raided the public coffers. HELD: The common thread that binds all the four terms in Section 1(d) of Republic Act No. 7080 together (misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds) is that the public officer used the property taken. Pursuant to the maxim of noscitur a sociis, raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the property taken impliedly for his personal benefit.