Prof. Hilbay retorts on government's call for unity on West Philippine Sea policy Professor Florin Hilbay imparts a short Constitutional lesson in answer to Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque’s appeal to critics “to unite with the Duterte administration on its policy on the West Philippine Sea.” (Access the full Inquirer.Net report at: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/164849/roque-president-will-die-ph-territory) "DYING" FOR THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA ·  x x x ·  3. The President's invitation for China to have "co-ownership" with the Philippines in relation to joint development is totally incompatible with dying for one's territory. ·  The Constitution is clear: "the exploration, development, utilisation of natural resources…

Prof. Dan Gatmaytan: Precedents cited by SolGen Calida do not ensure CJ Sereno's removal Excerpt from Lian Buan’s report in Rappler: https://www.rappler.com/nation/197532-supreme-court-chief-justice-sereno-comment-quo-warranto “Constitutional law professor Dan Gatmaytan said the precedents cited by Calida in his petition "do not ensure the Chief Justice will be removed from office." "They still have to overcome the constitutional provision that justices can only be removed by impeachment," Gatmaytan said.” Professor Gatmaytan was asked for his comment on the a quo warranto complaint filed in the Supreme Court against Chief Justice Sereno, by Solicitor General Jose Calida.  

Professor Tony La Viña: “Expert Witness” testimony a clear violation of the Code of Ethics for Philippine Psychologists “Expert Witness” testimony a clear violation of the Code of Ethics for Philippine Psychologists ; Tria must not be allowed to hide behind the veil of legislative immunity to disparage, degrade, and dishonor any person subject of legislative proceedings, whose rights are constitutionally protected and guaranteed. Professor  Tony La Viña, who teaches Constitutional Law II in the UP College of Law, takes to task clinical psychologist Dr. Geraldine Tria, who served as “expert witness” in the impeachment hearings in the Lower House…

Profs. La Viña, Hilbay, and Gatmaytan on Deputy Ombudsman Carandang's "unconstitutional" suspension Three UP Law academics sought for their comments on the Rappler article “Carandang case: Impeachment for Morales or Duterte?” agree that the President’s suspension order against Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang is an “unconstitutional act.” Professors La Viña and Hilbay agree that Ombudsman Morales’ defiance of the order is simply the Ombudsman following the law. For Constitutional Law professor Dan Gatmaytan: “Malacañang got exactly what they wanted, which was to create a controversy for the Supreme Court to rule on.” The full report may be accessed at: https://www.rappler.com/nation/195050-arthur-carandang-suspension-morales-duterte-impeachment  

Prof. Florin Hilbay discusses how the Carandang suspension should reach the Supreme Court In an ABS-CBN News report, Prof. Florin Hilbay discusses how the Carandang suspension should reach the Supreme Court. Contra the Malacañang argument that it is Carandang who should question his suspension in the high court," the former SolGen explained that the Office of the President should be responsible for elevating the issue of the preventive suspension of Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Carandang before the Supreme Court, as "it is the President who seeks to reverse the high court’s 2014 ruling." The report may be accessed at: http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/02/03/18/who-should-elevate-carandang-suspension-before-supreme-court  

Violate-the-law-now, seek-reversal-later’ attitude anathema to rule of law Professor Florin Hilbay offered this succinct conclusion to the ongoing public discussion on Presidential power to intrude upon the authority of a constitutionally independent Office of the Ombudsman. When interviewed by Inquirer.net on whether the Supreme Court can reverse its decision in Gonzales III v. Office of the President, the former Solicitor General, who teaches Constitutional Law, said: “True, the Supreme Court can reverse its 2014 decision — but that is beside the point. No public official, not even the President, can adopt a ‘violate-the-law-now, seek-reversal-later’ attitude when it comes to decisions…