Removal Exam Results

The following students passed the removal exams (Soc. Sci. 2 or Pol. Sci 180) given last Nov. 11, 2011, Friday.

2009-39279
2009-08725

Social Science 2 Removal Exam Result

This is the full result of the removal exam given last November 4, 2011, Friday.

 

The following students passed the removal exam;

2011-59326

2011-56341

2011-36509

2011-38684

2011-54892

2011-21154

2011-53148

Removal Schedule

All removal exams scheduled for tomorrow  will start at 2:30 pm, Social Science Faculty Room.

 

This is an amendment of the earlier schedule for start of the exams, at 1:30 pm.

Bring your bluebook and duly accomplished removal or completion permit (whichever is applicable).

 

 

Removal Results.

Those who took the removal exam last November 4, your papers are still being checked.

 

Results will be posted by Friday Nov. 11, 2011.

 

 

Removal Exam

The removal exam schedule is at 2 pm today.

 

Those who cannot make it for this schedule will have the option to take the exam in another schedule, most likely by the end of the upcoming semester.

Removal Exam Coverage.

The topics to be covered for the removal exam is the same as the topics covered in the last exam.

This is true for both Soc. Sci. 2 and Pol. Sci. 180.

The type of exam is also going to be the same.

Removal Exam Schedule

 

Students who incurred a grade of 4.0 (both for Pol. Sci. 180 and Soc. Sci. 2):

 

Removal Exam Schedule: November 4, 2011 Friday 1:30 pm.

Soc. Sci. Faculty Room.

Secure your removal permit and bring a blue book.

 

Social Science 2 Discussion Comments and Removal Announcement

All comments have been noted. Due to slow network connection, however, individual feedback will no longer be provided.

Those who incurred a grade of 4.0, removals will be scheduled in the enrollment week. Further details will be posted soon.

Deadline for Sc. Sci. 2 Comments

Commenting on posted articles for Social Science 2 will be until Sunday, October  15, 2011 only.

Soc. Sci. 2 Article for Discussion C-The Philippine Supreme Court

This is a report from the Philippine Daily Inquirer Online. The original article can be accessed here.

———————————————————-

Supreme Court under fire over recall

High court ‘teetering on the abyss of incredulity’

By Cathy Yamsuan, Marlon Ramos, Philip C. Tubeza
Philippine Daily Inquirer

12:22 am | Wednesday, October 12th, 2011

Brickbats fell on the Supreme Court Tuesday from its two coequal branches, after the high tribunal recalled a supposedly final decision on a plea by letter writer Estelito Mendoza.

Fearing a reversal of fortune, the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap) urged the court to explain the “compelling reason” behind the recall on October 4 of its ruling reinstating 1,400 of its members after a 13-year legal battle against Philippine Airlines (PAL).

The court’s spokesperson, Midas Marquez, said on Monday the ruling should have been handled by the Special Third Division instead of the Second Division, a technicality which he said was pointed out in a letter by Mendoza, PAL’s blue chip lawyer.

“I think the Supreme Court owes us an apology for this shameful act,” Fasap spokesperson Dennis Ortiz said during a protest action outside the tribunal by scores of employees wearing black armbands who were sacked by PAL after a strike in 1998.

“What compelling reason justified the Supreme Court recall?” Fasap said in a statement, pointing out that the Constitution provides that “no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.”

Annabelle Lesaca, one of the dismissed employees, said she could not help but think that PAL owner Lucio Tan had “already bought the entire Philippines.”

The Supreme Court must be sure not to make the same mistake again if ever this time the technicality was overlooked,” presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda told reporters. He described the ruling as “something out of the ordinary.”

Internal rules violated

Senator Miriam Santiago, a former Quezon City judge, called the reversal “extremely unfortunate,” pointing out that the tribunal apparently violated its own internal rules.

In an ambush interview, Santiago warned the court was “teetering on the abyss of incredulity” for acting in favor of PAL after receiving a “mere” letter from Mendoza.

“According to the internal rules of the SC, no second motion can be filed without prior permission from the Court. First, one has to file a motion pleading with the Court to allow the filing of a second motion. Only then can one file a second motion for reconsideration. Was there an order by the SC allowing the second motion? It was not even a motion but a mere letter,” she noted.

The court’s internal rules, Santiago said, dictate that there shall be no second motion “except when the original decision is legally erroneous, patently unjust or will probably result in irreparable damage or injury.”

“I am angry because I fear citizens would turn (their) back against the bulwark of civil liberty.  It would be impossible to regain it once it loses it this instant,” she fumed.

 

Flip-flopping

Senator Franklin Drilon said the recall of the decision was not surprising because the court had also “flip-flopped” in decisions giving 16 towns the status of cities.

“There was already an entry of judgment yet the court also reconsidered and had a new decision. I am no longer surprised at the rate it is flip-flopping,” said Drilon, a former justice secretary.

Senator Francis Pangilinan warned that the reversal could result in a serious backlash against the tribunal.

“The ruling is a cause for serious concern.  Regardless of the parties involved and the arguments given, the public perception it creates casts doubt on the image and reputation of the SC as a court of last resort and a bulwark of democracy,” he explained.

“How can the public know for certain that a case will be decided with finality when its decisions can so quickly be recalled? The uncertainty it brings is a cause for concern especially for countless of petitioners who have pending cases before the highest court of the land,” Pangilinan said.

Court of injustice

Anakpawis Representative Rafael Mariano said this latest court decision was “highly condemnable.”

He said it showed a pattern of successive antifarmer and antiworker decisions favoring business tycoons like Lucio Tan, Eduardo, “Danding” Cojuangco and the Cojuangco-Aquinos.

Mariano noted that the decision on the PAL cases followed the loss of workers in the coconut levy case and the Hacienda Luisita agrarian dispute.

“What happened to (the saying that) ‘those who have less in life should have more in law?’” Mariano asked.

He said the high tribunal was fast becoming the “high court of injustice” with the series of antipeople rulings it had issued on high profile cases of national concern.

“In the hierarchy of employees’ rights, the right to security of tenure is high, if not the highest. The paramount value of that right is recognized and guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution. The other complementary rights are meaningless to an unemployed worker,” he stressed.

Nothing to explain

Sought for comment, Marquez said: “I’ve explained everything there is to explain regarding the issue at this time. I don’t see the necessity to react to that anymore.”

Lucio Tan and his companies have been getting favorable decisions in its legal battles.

Last month, the Court of Appeals allowed PAL to proceed with its P730-million damage suit against its former pilots who staged a labor strike that crippled the flag carrier’s operations in June 1998.

On September 29, the National Labor Relations Commission junked the unfair labor practice case filed by the flag carrier’s ground crew union in connection with the airline’s alleged refusal to start negotiation for a new collective bargaining agreement early this year.

Last week, the appellate court awarded P68 million to Tan’s Asia Brewery Inc. regarding the damage suit it had filed against rival San Miguel Corp.

The appeals court also granted PAL’s petition questioning the excise tax levied by the Bureau on Internal Revenue on its imported jet fuel.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court approved the P491-million tax refund claim of Fortune Tobacco Corp., also a member of Lucio Tan Group of Companies.

With reports from Norman Bordadora, Cynthia D. Balana and Tina G. Santos

—————————————

Questions for discussion

A. Examine the action of the Philippine Supreme Court in relation to the role of the judiciary according to Locke.

See if, based on the action of the court criticized in the article,  the inconveniences in the state of nature that is supposed to be solved still remain. For example, does it interpret the law in a way that uncertainties experienced by the people in the state of nature are resolved?

B. You may also comment on the article from the perspective of Karl Marx.

What does the action of the court say about the relationships of large businesses, the law and the workers in the society?