Know Your Rights Philippines

Happy holidays!🎄🌲🧑‍🎄😊❤️

PROJECT: VAW-DISKURSO — KYR Founder Atty. MJ Moran Speaks at Anti-VAWC DIALOGUE

BULA, Camarines Sur — A roundtable discussion on Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC) was held on December 16, 2025 at Megay Beach Resort, as part of the LGU-Bula’s 18-day End VAWC campaign. KYR founder Atty. MJ Moran spoke on legal avenues, protective measures, and community collaboration. The event, organized with JCI Iriga and Youth G!, gathered barangay officials and other local stakeholders to strengthen prevention, response, and survivor support.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:
-Improve barangay reporting and rapid-response protocols
-Expand access to legal aid, shelters, and psychosocial support
-Enhance coordination among law enforcement, social services, and civil groups

"No woman should ever be made to choose between her family and her career." - Atty. Shane Beriña-Imperial In celebration of the 2021 National Women’s Month, we are sharing Atty. Shane's short lecture on RA 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act, during BU Sanggawad's 18-Day Campaign to End Violence Against Women last December. #JuanaLabanSaPandemyaKaya #ChooseToChallenge #WomenMakeChange #WomenSupportingWomen #WomensMonth2021

FACT: Certain vloggers were invited as resource speakers to the legislative inquiries on FAKE NEWS before the House of Representatives.

ISSUE:
Was their right to freedom of expression violated?

RULING:

No.

The mere act of inviting Abines et al. (the petitioners) as resource persons to an inquiry in aid of legislation did not violate their freedom of expression, as it had no relation at all to their exercise of free speech. It did not, at the very least, regulate the content of their speech or its incidents. More important, it was a mandate from Congress to aid them in crafting sound legislation, not an act to punish them for alleged proliferation of ''fake news" in social media. In other words, the issuance of summons is a matter of procedure to effectively exercise the power of Congress to conduct its legislative inquiry. It was neither a punitive measure in relation to free speech nor an attempt to suppress it.

Since the questioned conduct did not curtail or regulate Abines et al.' s freedom of expression, the perceived chilling effect had no leg to stand on. There was no restraint on the freedom of expression that could trigger its application.

Too, We cannot prohibit Congress from inviting resource persons to legislative inquiries solely because the subject matter involves speech. Congress has the power to regulate certain forms of speech, as some forms are not protected by the Constitution, e.g. those which bring about a general disorder that threaten the State with a clear and present danger or when the utterances involved are "no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step of truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Surely, Congres can enact laws to penalize unprotected speech.

Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice pronounced:

All penal laws, like the cybercrime law, have of course an inherent chilling effect, an in terrorem effect or the fear of possible prosecution that hangs on the heads of citizens who are minded to step beyond the boundaries of what is proper. But to prevent the State from legislating criminal laws because they instill such kind of fear is to render the state powerless in addressing and penalizing socially harmful conduct. Here, the chilling effect that results in paralysis is an illusion since Section4(a)(3) clearly describes the evil that it seeks to punish and creates no tendency to intimidate the free exercise of one's constitutional rights.

To repeat, since there is neither a law nor a bill, the present action is premature.

Ernesto S. Abines, Jr., et al vs. House of Representatives, et al, G.R. No. 27 101, July 8, 2025, Supreme Court En Banc

SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS FOR TAKING A DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION
(Section 15, Rule 23)

Things to Remember:

1. Deposition is a method of pre-trial discovery which consists in taking the testimony of a person under oath upon oral examination (oral deposition) or upon written interrogatories.

2. The term deposition also refers to the testimony or statement so taken.

3. Deponent is the person whose testimony is to be taken.

4. Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is about Depositions Pending Actions.

5. Depositions pending actions are those taken during the pendency of a case before the court a quo.

6. Depositions may either be taken:
* upon oral examination (also known as an oral deposition), or
* upon written interrogatories.

7. The illustration below shows the process of taking deposition upon ORAL EXAMINATION.

*Officer=the person who takes the deposition

8. Within the Philippines, depositions may be taken before any judge, notary public, or any person authorized to administer oaths. (Section 10 & 14, Rule 23)

SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS FOR TAKING A DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION
(Section 15, Rule 23)

Things to Remember:

1. Deposition is a method of pre-trial discovery which consists in taking the testimony of a person under oath upon oral examination (oral deposition) or upon written interrogatories.

2. The term deposition also refers to the testimony or statement so taken.

3. Deponent (witness) is the person whose testimony is to be taken.

4. Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is about Depositions Pending Actions.

5. Depositions pending actions are those taken during the pendency of a case before the court a quo.

6. Depositions may either be taken:
* upon oral examination (also known as an oral deposition), or
* upon written interrogatories.

7. The illustration below shows the process of taking deposition upon ORAL EXAMINATION.

*Officer=the person who takes the deposition

8. Within the Philippines, depositions may be taken before any judge, notary public, or any person authorized to administer oaths. (Sections 10 & 14, Rule 23)

Law students understand what this is.

This is a 1998 Supreme Court decision. Now, how does a typhoon and potential flooding relate to liability and negligence? 🤔

This is a 1998 Supreme Court decision. Now, how does typhoon and FLOODING relate to liability and negligence? 🤔

Thank you!

In Ruiz vs. People, G.R. Nos. 209073-74, January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court has held that:

Sadly, the presence of corrupt public officials who continuously cling like a leech on their seats in public office is a complete and utter travesty. There are undeserving public servants who utterly defied their oath and violated their duty not only to the Constitution but also to the public. A person's desire to hold public office should not be based on selfish ambitions to enrich oneself at the expense of the government; worse, of the public. For a public post is not and should not be looked at as a lucrative business, where the primordial mission is to make oneself abundant and gain advantages for his or her own comfort and satisfaction. To be a public official is a privilege granted only to those who have met the required high standards of qualifications. "Only those who can live up to such exacting standard deserve the honor of continuing in public service."