Leonen calls for review of criminal laws
According to a statement, Leonen stressed that the Revised Penal Code still includes crimes such as dueling, unjust vexation, and malicious mischief.
Leonen said this must be decriminalized.
He also said that some penalties do not match the seriousness of the crime as he pushed for a transformative justice system that is rooted in empathy and compassion.
He noted that those often caught breaking the law are the poor, who lead different lives from the privileged.
'We must offer them avenues such as restorative justice, not only to provide them with opportunities to exercise their rights, but especially to offer them a genuine chance at reform,' said Leonenn.
'We should proceed with the assumption that every human person has dignity and can live meaningful lives,' he added.
He also urged the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology to implement reforms to reduce the suffering of individuals within the justice system.
Meanwhile, Leonen stressed the importance of using the law to protect dignity and promote justice.
'Our focus should not be on unquestionably upholding established doctrines and systems, but in using the law to uphold human dignity and social justice in all phases,' he said.
Leonen issued this during his speech at the Restorative Justice Training and Conference 2025 held on July 9 in Quezon City. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
House to SC: Queries on impeach rap vs VP Sara best settled before Senate court
Questions on the validity and other matters about the impeachment complaint filed against Vice President Sara Duterte are best settled first before the Senate impeachment court, the House of Representatives prosecution panel said Wednesday. The House made this assertion in its answer to the Supreme Court (SC) which required the Lower Chamber to give details about the impeachment complaint it filed against Duterte and transmitted to the Senate. The same SC order also asked the House how it resolved the three prior impeachment complaints which were archived by the House after the fourth impeachment complaint was signed by over 215 House members, a figure that is way over the constitutionally-required one-third of the House members for the Senate to immediately start the impeachment trial. 'The clarifications sought by this Honorable Court through the above inquiries emphasize one thing: that the issues in this case involve questions which necessitate that this Honorable Court act as a trier of facts. Respectfully, this cannot be done, especially as the Constitution vests jurisdiction of the impeachment trial with the Senate,' the House prosecution panel said. Likewise, the House prosecutors cited that the Senate had already convened itself into the Senate impeachment court last June 10. 'As provided by Article XI, Section 3 (6) of the Constitution, 'the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. Respondents [House] thus submit that matters regarding the validity of the transmitted Articles of Impeachment, along with the factual inquiries in this Honorable Court's July 8, 2025 Resolution, should, if at all, fall in the first instance to the jurisdiction of the Senate impeachment court,' the House said. 'These matters are necessarily entwined with the case of impeachment now pending before them, and may be settled once the trial proper begins,' it added. Further, the House said that the High Court's questions on which office prepared the Articles of Impeachment, when it was circulated among members of the House, and if the evidence for each Article were attached in the Articles of Impeachment circulated among the House members are internal House proceedings which are beyond the SC's jurisdiction. The House cited the SC decision on the Santiago v. Guingona case which states that 'the principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. Constitutional respect and a becoming regard for the sovereign acts of a coequal branch prevents this Court from prying into the internal workings of the Senate.' 'It is the position of the House that these matters pertain to its internal proceedings, which have always been regarded as beyond the jurisdiction and scrutiny of this Honorable Court. This is especially because the matters referred to — the preparation, circulation, and perusal of the impeachment complaint, as well as its attachments — are not governed by any specific constitutional provision or House rule,' the House said. 'This [position] is grounded on no less than the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. Being a co-equal branch, the Congress is entitled to respect with regard to those matters which are within its exclusive jurisdiction,' it added. Still, the House maintained that the fourth impeachment complaint consisting of seven Articles of Impeachment that the House filed against Duterte and transmitted to the Senate are in accordance with the Constitution and the House Rules as stated in House Resolution 328 submitted to the Senate impeachment court last June 25. 'On the status of the first three complaints filed by private citizens, the House directed these to be transmitted to the archives of the House on February 5, 2025 after they were mooted by the fourth impeachment complaint, which had already been acted upon by the plenary [with over 215 lawmakers signing off on the fourth impeachment complaint]. The House Resolution attests that the fourth impeachment complaint fully complied with Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the 1987 Constitution,' the House said. 'It is submitted that this is sufficient to affirm the regularity and validity of the fourth impeachment complaint, insofar as the House is concerned. Any further inquiry into the House's internal proceedings, absent a constitutional basis, is unwarranted,' it added. The seven Articles of Impeachment vs. Duterte include: conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez; malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds with questionable liquidation documents; bribery and corruption in the Department of Education during Duterte's tenure by handing out cash to former DepEd Undersecretary Gloria Jumamil-Mercado (Procurement Head), Bids and Awards Committee Member Resty Osias, DepEd Chief Accountant Rhunna Catalan and Special Disbursing Officer Edward Fajarda; unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets in the Vice President's Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth where her wealth increased by four times from 2007 from 2017; involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City; destabilization, insurrection, and public disorder efforts, which include: boycotting the State of the Nation Address (SONA) while declaring herself "designated survivor," leading rallies calling for Marcos' resignation, obstructing congressional investigations by ordering subordinates not to comply with subpoenas, threatening bodily harm against the First Couple and Romualdez, among others; the totality of the Vice President's conduct as the second highest official of the land. —KG, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
5 days ago
- GMA Network
House submits addt'l info on VP Sara impeachment to SC
The House of Representatives has submitted additional information on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte to the Supreme Court, House spokesperson Atty. Princess Abante said in a statement released on Saturday. 'The House of Representatives, through its counsel, the Office of the Solicitor General, filed Friday its compliance to the Supreme Court's directive to provide information on the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte,' Abante said. Abante added that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), serving as the House's legal counsel, has electronically filed the required compliance through the Philippine Judiciary Portal and served all parties. Further, a physical copy is set to be formally submitted to the high tribunal on Monday. The SC previously required the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives to comment and submit information regarding the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. That's after the SC En Banc consolidated the petition filed by Duterte against the validity and constitutionality of the fourth impeachment complaint against her and the petition filed by lawyer Israelito Torreon and others seeking to declare the articles of impeachment null and void. The High Court required the House to submit information regarding the status of the first three impeachment complaints filed against Duterte, the exact dates these were endorsed, and whether the secretary general possesses discretion on when to transmit these to the speaker of the House of Representatives. Aside from this, the Court also asked the House to provide the basis and authority of the secretary general to refuse the transmittal of the complaints. The House maintained that all four impeachment complaints were processed in "full accordance with constitutional mandates." Due process The House spokesperson said the three initial impeachment complaints were included in the Order of Business within the 10-session-day period prescribed by the Constitution. 'The fourth complaint, signed and verified by more than one-third of House Members, effectively constituted the Articles of Impeachment and was transmitted directly to the Senate, rendering the earlier complaints moot and subject to archiving,' Abante said. The Articles of Impeachment was endorsed by 215 House members and approved by the plenary last February, accusing Duterte of graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, among other crimes. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate. 'We reiterate that the Vice President's right to due process is fully preserved through the impeachment trial itself—where she will have the opportunity to defend herself and present evidence,' she said. The lower chamber's filing, Abante said, demonstrates its exclusive authority over internal deliberative matters, based on the principle of separation of powers and the legislature's status as a co-equal branch of government. 'There is no constitutional requirement detailing how individual members must review the complaint before signing, nor is there any basis for questioning their certification under oath that they studied and understood the charges and supporting documents,' she said. The Senate, meanwhile, earlier said it has already filed a Manifestation Ad Cautelam to the Supreme Court. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
6 days ago
- GMA Network
VP Sara's bank records, SALN can be legally disclosed during trial —solon
The bank records and the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) of Vice President Sara Duterte can be legally disclosed during her impeachment trial, Bicol Saro party-list Representative Terry Ridon said. Ridon said the disclosure is relevant to the fourth article of impeachment relating to the culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, particularly the allegations of amassing unexplained wealth and failing to disclose all her properties and interests in properties in her SALN. "The bank records will be examined to determine whether there exists a direct correspondence between her family's typical income and her bank deposits and other investments. It should be noted that former Chief Justice Renato Corona had been convicted on the basis of non-disclosure of several assets in his SALN," he explained. The lawmaker said such disclosure is provided under the 2006 Supreme Court decision in the Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan case wherein the High Court ruled that the bank records of then President Joseph Ejercito can be disclosed during his Sandiganbayan plunder trial because of two exemptions provided under the Bank Secrecy Law. These exemptions are that the examination of bank accounts is upon the order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and that the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. 'That [Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan] is the right jurisprudence. Lahat po yan pwedeng buksan kapag nasa impeachment trial na po. The prosecution can request the SALN from the Ombudsman, the Vice President, and even the bank can be asked from the banks,' Ridon said in a news forum. 'In fact, we can also ask the Anti-Money Laundering Council para sa record ng pagpasok at paglabas na pera,' he added. However, the disclosure of these bank deposits and the SALN ultimately rests on the Senate impeachment court, which will vote once a motion for disclosure is put forward by the prosecutors. 'To be very clear, the motions will be subject to a vote by the Senate, so we'd like to manage expectations. The Senate can approve or deny requests for further information on bank accounts,' Ridon said. Asked if the Senate would risk getting the ire of the public in the event it denies such requests for further information, Ridon said it is too early to say. 'We can't preempt how the public would react. But as an impeachment court, it is really the Senate that has the authority on that,' he added. The Vice President's spokesperson, Ruth Castelo, earlier said that her boss is "ready" if the impeachment proceeds. 'The Vice President is ready, she's been saying that. And she's eager to be able to present her case or her evidence in the impeachment court so that once and for all, all doubts cast on her will go away. And that's what she wants,' Castelo said. The impeachment case put forward by the House accuses Duterte of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes mainly due to alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and for threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., his wife Liza, and his cousin, Speaker Martin Romualdez of Leyte. —LDF, GMA Integrated News
