Please be reminded that the deadline will be next year around May but better do it before the said month. With the COVID-19 pandemic, I just hope that the government can do something about this.

Click to access RR%206-2019.pdf

“REVENUE REGULATIONS NO. 15-2020 issued on June 19, 2020 further amends Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019, as amended, relative to the period and manner of availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies (TAD).

These Regulations further amended Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, as amended, by further extending the period for availment of the TAD until December 31, 2020. However, the said date may be extended if the circumstances warrant an extension such as in case of country-wide economic or health reasons.

The procedures to avail the of the TAD under Section 5 (C) of RR No. 4-2019, as amended, is further amended to read as follows:

“C. PROCEDURES: The taxpayer-applicant shall:
Step 1. Secure the Certificate of Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities from the concerned BIR Office as specified below:
xxx xxx xxx
The concerned BIR Office receiving the request for Certificate of Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities shall issue said Certificate of Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities to the taxpayer within three (3) working days from the date of the request. Should the concerned BIR Office find that said Certificate of Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities cannot be issued, said BIR Office must state in writing the legal and factual basis for its denial.

Step 2. Present the duly accomplished TAR made under oath and APF, together with the other required documents, to the concerned RDO/LTD/LTCED for endorsement of the APF and pay the tax amnesty amount with the AABs or RCs, whichever is applicable, by
presenting the RDO/LTD/LTCED-endorsed or approved APF.

Provided, that if no payment is required as in the case when the assessment consists only of unpaid penalties due to either late filing or payment, the phrase “no payment required” shall be indicated in the APF. Provided, further, that the concerned RDO/LTD/LTCED shall endorse said duly accomplished TAR and APF within one (1)
working day from receipt of complete documents.

Step 3. Submit/file immediately to the RDO/LTD/LTCED where the taxpayer is registered, in triplicate copies, the duly accomplished TAR, made under oath, together with the complete documentary requirements and proof of payment, which in no case shall be beyond the availment period set forth under Section 3 of these Regulations. The taxpayer/applicant shall be furnished with a copy, stamped as “received”, of said TAR and APF.

Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall be considered fully complied with upon completion of the above-enumerated steps within the period set forth under Section 3 of these Regulations.””

SOURCE: https://www.bir.gov.ph/index.php/tax-amnesty-act.html

“That in all things, may God be glorified.”

Thank you everyone who could come, and for your amazing gifts. We were lucky that we could celebrate the anniversary of FiPa Legal Consulting earlier on 15 August 2020 as the Monday that followed, the government of the Netherlands had imposed further restrictions and required a limited number of guests including the organizers which should only be six. This safety measure still remains up to this date. Gladly, no one got sick after the party as I have monitored all the guests for the previous days.

My apologies to those who were not invited as we needed to observe government’s safety measures. For those who could not come, I understand your concerns. I hope that there will be no more COVID-19 risks and restrictions next year and the years to come.

Cheers!

Legal practice has always been vested with public interest, and governed by legal and judicial ethics. Regardless, however, legal practice has and always been equated with high salary and money as almost everything that commensurate with best service is high price. I disagree to the latter, however.

As an international lawyer working in another jurisdiction as a legal advisor or consultant, and a barrister or attorney in another jurisdiction, I need to abide by the rules and regulations as well as legal ethics of both jurisdictions or countries, Philippines and the Netherlands.

In the Netherlands, the Netherlands Bar (Nederlandse orde van advocaten, NOvA) or courts allow lawyers to advertise the name of the law firm (advocaten) which is not required to be in their surnames. On the other hand, the Supreme Court of the Philippines prohibits attorneys to advertise or solicit their legal services to the public as the law firms are required to be in their names. As a Filipino lawyer, there are also rules that I need to follow in the Netherlands. The perks of being a lawyer though, is that, I carry with me my legal expertise wherever I go. Hence, consulting job pertinent to my profession is also possible.

Now, other people are asking me, and most probably, doubting the legitimacy of my profession for not advertising my legal services, but everyone should know that wherever I go, I must abide by legal ethics and standards imposed by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. This means, I cannot advertise for FiPa Legal Consulting, nor solicit for and on its behalf.

We are expected to walk the talk, and not to talk the walk no matter how long the journey is.- Gay Ramos

Mediation, as a general rule, is simple and inexpensive process, and highly advised by the judicial authorities to clear their dockets. To some degree, I do agree. Mediation is also the fastest among the alternative modes of settling disputes for the right case, in a suitable place, or proper parties.

Why for the right case?

Mediation has different consequences to different cases such as criminal or civil cases.

In the Philippines, the Rules provides that “the civil aspect of all criminal complaints for Simple Theft, Qualified Theft, Estafa, and Criminal Negligence resulting in damage to property (all under the Revised Penal Code) and for violations of the Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa 22) involving an amount not exceeding P200,000 shall be referred to mandatory mediation. If the amount involved in a covered complaint exceeds P200,000, the provisions on voluntary mediation shall apply. Parties who opt to submit a complaint to voluntary mediation may do so not later than the submission by respondent/s of the counter-affidavit and shall sign an Agreement to Mediate.”

On the other hand, mediation is also a matter of right for civil cases in the Philippines, but must be invoked in court.

Why to a some degree and in a suitable place and parties?

This boils down to culture and the people. It depends if they can be trusted or not. This comes the tricky part.

In some places, sleazy litigants use mediation, since it is highly advised by the judge who only wants the best for the parties, as a means to prolong the case. I handled a case whereby the opposing party just vanished after signing the settlement agreement. Until now, we are still searching for them. For this reason, the parties are now in limbo and still waiting for the other party to comply with their agreement. Until when? I don’t know as my clients are willing to comply with their agreement, but the third party wants the other party who is in hiding to comply first. Now, it seems that there is a deadlock as the third party (bank) is not going after the other party who is liable for a crime and now in hiding.

After mediation, it depends if it is authorized by the judge or not. If it is authorized, the settlement agreement shall become the judgment of the court which requires order of execution of judgement. If it is not ordered or facilitated by the judge, the settlement agreement which is covered by obligations and contracts, requires another cause of action if the parties fail to comply with the agreement.

Most of the time, mediation is easy. However, in this process, the enforcement or execution is the most difficult part, but the most important stage in settling disputes. This is also observed in the international arena which is even more complicated and requires the expertise of a lawyer who is specialized in Private International Law and their local counterparts.

Winning the case or getting a favorable decision or agreement is different from being able to execute, or enforce judgment, or agreement. These situations are not one and the same. They require different legal remedies and sometimes, different lawyers.

Mediation is a legal process wherein the parties to a legal dispute agree to settle among themselves with the assistance of an impartial third-party (mediator), their conflicts or legal dispute(s).

This process seems easy but in actual practice, this is very tricky so, at this stage, the assistance of a legal counsel is paramount.

Next: Why mediation is a very tricky legal process?

Some people are confused by the word indictment. They think that an accused is already guilty when there is an indictment.

Indictment does not mean that a person is already guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Indictment is a decision made by the public prosecutor or a fiscal formally charging an accused of a crime. This means that the fiscal has found a probable cause or reasonable grounds that a person has committed a crime after one or two hearings where parties were given a chance to speak on their behalf sans presentation of evidence to the contrary on the part of the defendant.

To charge a person with a crime is entirely different from proving that a crime has been committed. The former refers to probable cause or reasonable grounds which might not be true or misleading while the later requires determination of guilt beyond reasonable grounds which requires presentation of evidence and witnesses in court to prove that a person has committed a crime.

In line with the Constitutional right of every person to due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, we should not easily condemn a person charged with a criminal offence.

next word: mediation

The European Patent Office (EPO) grants patents to members of European Patent Convention which are Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Holland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, United Kingdom, Czech Republic and Sweden. The following countries also form part of the European Patent Organization (EPO countries): Switzerland, Croatia, Monaco, the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, Norway, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro.

Those who are qualified to apply for patent application are residents or nationals of the aforementioned states.

Requirements as a receiving office for international application:

1. “The EPO is competent to act as the receiving Office for an international application provided that the applicant is a national or resident of an EPC contracting state which is also a PCT contracting state (currently the case for all EPC contracting states). If there are two or more applicants, at least one must be a resident or national of an EPC contracting state. A person mentioned only as an inventor does not qualify as an applicant. Hence, the nationality or residence of a person mentioned only as an inventor is irrelevant for determining whether the EPO is competent to act as receiving Office.
2. The international application is filed in one of the EPO’s official languages (English, French or German).”

If the applicant or one of the applicants is not a resident or national of any member state of the EPO, the application will be transmitted to the International Bureau of World Intellectual Property Office.

The second session for Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence initiated by the World Intellectual Property Organization will be held online on July 7, 8, and 9 at 13:00-15:00 which maybe extended until 16:00.

Recently, the European Patent Office denied two patent applications where AI systems were designated as inventors on the ground that an inventor designated in the application has to be a human being, and not a machine.

Be that as it may, is patenting or licensing of AI works really needed in the modern era? Would it be more beneficial to humankind? And if it is more beneficial, how can AI works be protected? If they cannot be patented, in what other way they may be protected?

On the other hand, how can we, as humans, be updated and protected by the fast pacing world of AI’s if they indeed can have a mind of their own capable of inventing or creating things considering that the applications for patents have been denied as the law requires that a human must be designated as an inventor but the fact remains that AI can create something?

Part II

As a legal practitioner who is not really specialized in political science but science and business, I will try to write about this subject matter in a very simple and simplified manner which a layman can easily understand.

The constitution serves as the fundamental law on which our laws should be based. This serves as limitations as to what our lawmakers should enact as laws, and government officials’ actions in their public capacity. The Supreme Court held in the case of Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010, that the “the Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude.”

1987 Constitution of the Philippines

The provisions of the Constitution that are pertinent to the proposed law are the following:

Article III

Section  1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

SECTION 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Supreme Court’s Decision on Due Process

The first case that immediately comes into my mind when I think about due process is Ichong vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957. The Constitution of the Philippines has been written in 1987 but the provisions of the previous constitution as regards due process are exactly the same. Hence, this case is also applicable in the given situation. To quote the words of the Supreme Court, which I cannot give proper justification if I use my own for their beauty and purity:

“It has been said the police power is so far – reaching in scope, that it has become almost impossible to limit its sweep. As it derives its existence from the very existence of the State itself, it does not need to be expressed or defined in its scope; it is said to be coextensive with self-protection and survival, and as such it is the most positive and active of all governmental processes, the most essential, insistent and illimitable. Especially is it so under a modern democratic framework where the demands of society and of nations have multiplied to almost unimaginable proportions; the field and scope of police power has become almost boundless, just as the fields of public interest and public welfare have become almost all-embracing and have transcended human foresight. Otherwise stated, as we cannot foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare in this constantly changing and progressive world, so we cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of police power by which and through which the State seeks to attain or achieve interest or welfare. So it is that Constitutions do not define the scope or extent of the police power of the State; what they do is to set forth the limitations thereof. The most important of these are the due process clause and the equal protection clause.

b. Limitations on police power. — The basic limitations of due process and equal protection are found in the following provisions of our Constitution: SECTION 1.(1) No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (Article III, Phil. Constitution) These constitutional guarantees which embody the essence of individual liberty and freedom in democracies, are not limited to citizens alone but are admittedly universal in their application, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality. (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 30, L. ed. 220, 226.)……

The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation enacted in pursuance of the police power. Is there public interest, a public purpose; is public welfare involved? Is the Act reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the legislature’s purpose; is it not unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive? Is there sufficient foundation or reason in connection with the matter involved; or has there not been a capricious use of the legislative power? Can the aims conceived be achieved by the means used, or is it not merely an unjustified interference with private interest? These are the questions that we ask when the due process test is applied. The conflict, therefore, between police power and the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws is more apparent than real. Properly related, the power and the guarantees are supposed to coexist. The balancing is the essence or, shall it be said, the indispensable means for the attainment of legitimate aspirations of any democratic society. There can be no absolute power, whoever exercise it, for that would be tyranny. Yet there can neither be absolute liberty, for that would mean license and anarchy. So the State can deprive persons of life, liberty and property, provided there is due process of law; and persons may be classified into classes and groups, provided everyone is given the equal protection of the law. The test or standard, as always, is reason. The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes and means. And if distinction and classification has been made, there must be a reasonable basis for said distinction.”

This decision is full of wisdom that sounds like a gong that reverberates up to the recent times. It is like a heart that beats up to this moment- very beautiful.

To go further with the decision of the Supreme Court, the latest decision that is akin to House Bill 6875 as regards the creation of ATC which can authorize warrantless arrest under Section 29, is the previously mentioned case Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010. In this case, the government during the time of Aquino, tried to form The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 which has the power to investigate and make a recommendation to the Sandiganbayan which has been declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional as being violative of the Constitution. This, however, covers graft and corruption committed by past and present government officials while the Anti-Terrorism Council, the investigation of suspected terrorists.

Cases on terrorism are not new in the Philippines, to mention a few which have been joined in one decision, G.R. No. 178552 October 5, 2010: SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ENGAGEMENT NETWORK, INC., on behalf of the South-South Network (SSN) for Non-State Armed Group Engagement, and ATTY. SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., Petitioners, vs. ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL et al; G.R. No. 178554 KILUSANG MAYO UNO (KMU), represented by its Chairperson Elmer Labog, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KILUSANG MAYO UNO (NAFLU-KMU), represented by its National President Joselito V. Ustarez and Secretary General Antonio C. Pascual, and CENTER FOR TRADE UNION AND HUMAN RIGHTS, represented by its Executive Director Daisy Arago vs. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al; G.R. No. 178581 BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN), GENERAL ALLIANCE BINDING WOMEN FOR REFORMS, INTEGRITY, EQUALITY, LEADERSHIP AND ACTION (GABRIELA), KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP), MOVEMENT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (MCCCL), CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP (KADAMAY), SOLIDARITY OF CAVITE WORKERS, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS), ANAKBAYAN, PAMBANSANG LAKAS NG KILUSANG MAMAMALAKAYA (PAMALAKAYA), ALLIANCE OF CONCERNED TEACHERS (ACT), MIGRANTE, HEALTH ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY (HEAD), AGHAM, TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., DR. BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, RENATO CONSTANTINO, JR., SISTER MARY JOHN MANANSAN OSB, DEAN CONSUELO PAZ, ATTY. JOSEFINA LICHAUCO, COL. GERRY CUNANAN (ret.), CARLITOS SIGUION-REYNA, DR. CAROLINA PAGADUAN-ARAULLO, RENATO REYES, DANILO RAMOS, EMERENCIANA DE LESUS, RITA BAUA, REY CLARO CASAMBRE vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO et al.; G.R. No. 178890 KARAPATAN, ALLIANCE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLE’S RIGHTS, represented herein by Dr. Edelina de la Paz, and representing the following organizations: HUSTISYA, represented by Evangeline Hernandez and also on her own behalf; DESAPARECIDOS, represented by Mary Guy Portajada and also on her own behalf, SAMAHAN NG MGA EX-DETAINEES LABAN SA DETENSYON AT PARA SA AMNESTIYA (SELDA), represented by Donato Continente and also on his own behalf, ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE (EMJP), represented by Bishop Elmer M. Bolocon, UCCP, and PROMOTION OF CHURCH PEOPLE’S RESPONSE, represented by Fr. Gilbert Sabado, OCARM, vs.GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, et al.; G.R. No. 179157 THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), represented by Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista, COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY (CODAL), SEN. MA. ANA CONSUELO A.S. MADRIGAL and FORMER SENATORS SERGIO OSMEÑA III and WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA AND THE MEMBERS OF THE ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL (ATC); G.R. No. 179461 BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN-SOUTHERN TAGALOG (BAYAN-ST), GABRIELA-ST, KATIPUNAN NG MGA SAMAHYANG MAGSASAKA-TIMOG KATAGALUGAN (KASAMA-TK), MOVEMENT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (MCCCL), PEOPLES MARTYRS, ANAKBAYAN-ST, PAMALAKAYA-ST, CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE-ST), PAGKAKAISA’T UGNAYAN NG MGA MAGBUBUKID SA LAGUNA (PUMALAG), SAMAHAN NG MGA MAMAMAYAN SA TABING RILES (SMTR-ST), LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS), BAYAN MUNA-ST, KONGRESO NG MGA MAGBUBUKID PARA SA REPORMANG AGRARYO KOMPRA, BIGKIS AT LAKAS NG MGA KATUTUBO SA TIMOG KATAGALUGAN (BALATIK), SAMAHAN AT UGNAYAN NG MGA MAGSASAKANG KABABAIHAN SA TIMOG KATAGALUGAN (SUMAMAKA-TK), STARTER, LOSÑOS RURAL POOR ORGANIZATION FOR PROGRESS & EQUALITY, CHRISTIAN NIÑO LAJARA, TEODORO REYES, FRANCESCA B. TOLENTINO, JANNETTE E. BARRIENTOS, OSCAR T. LAPIDA, JR., DELFIN DE CLARO, SALLY P. ASTRERA, ARNEL SEGUNE BELTRAN, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, et al., the Supreme Court held that Human Security Act of 9371 is not violative of the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that the petitioners lack locus standi, fail to present an actual case or controversy, and the law is not violative of freedom of speech as it regulates not speech but actions. It is worthy to note however, that the Supreme Court in these cases has tackled the issue on red tagging.

The Supreme Court stated that, “While in our jurisdiction there is still no judicially declared terrorist organization, the United States of America (US) and the European Union (EU) have both classified the CPP, NPA and Abu Sayyaf Group as foreign terrorist organizations. The Court takes note of the joint statement of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales that the Arroyo Administration would adopt the US and EU classification of the CPP and NPA as terrorist organizations. Such statement notwithstanding, there is yet to be filed before the courts an application to declare the CPP and NPA organizations as domestic terrorist or outlawed organizations under RA 9372. Again, RA 9372 has been in effect for three years now. From July 2007 up to the present, petitioner-organizations have conducted their activities fully and freely without any threat of, much less an actual, prosecution or proscription under RA 9372.”

Well, I believe that until now, there is no so such judicial petition or application to declare the CPP and NPA organizations as domestic terrorist or outlawed organizations under RA 9372, yet. Nonetheless, “on December 5, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte declared the CPP and NPA as terrorist organizations after several attacks by the NPA against the government. The NDFP, the political wing of the communist rebellion is not included on the proclamation.”

It is interesting to write about the anti-terrorism measures implemented by other countries and I will try to write about it when I have time as my specialty is international business law particularly registration and protection of Intellectual Property Rights such as Patents, Trademarks, Industrial Design, Geographical Indications, Copyrights and related rights, and I feel compelled to write about the importance of registration and protection of these rights.