Results of June 2011 Architecture Licensure Examination

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL PASSERS!


Name of Examination: Architecture Licensure Examination
Date of Examination: June 10 and 12, 2011
Places of Examination: Manila


Number of Examinees: 2,054

Number of Passers: 1,082
Passing Rate: 52.68%

Members of the Board of Criminology who gave the licensure examination: Arch. Armando N. Alli, Chairman; Arch. Angeline T. Chua Chiaco and Arch. Marietta Bundalian Segovia, Members. 

Date of Oath-taking Ceremony: July 25, 2011 at 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon
Place of Oath-taking: Fiesta Pavilion, Manila Hotel, One Rizal Park, Manila


Top Performing School: None

Top 10 Most-Visited Websites for April 2011

Here's the TOP 10 most-visited websites for April 2011 according to Double Click Ad Planner by Google. Using my Samsung Digital Camera, I took a photo shot for each website (main page) except for YouTube .


This social networking site has 880 million unique visitors or users with 910 billion page views! Amazing! No wonder why Friendster decided to discontinue its operation as a social networking site recently. Friendster will be focusing on online gaming instead. 

Note: Beware of scams in Facebook!
Do I use this website? Do I have an account? Both, YES!

YouTube places second with 800 million users. Search for any video, be it comedy, TV shows and commercials, you'll find them here. In fact, I am one of the 800 million users who registered an account with YouTube.

Places third in the list is Yahoo! If you want to know the latest news, use Yahoo! I recommend it for your internet research as well as a search engine just like Google. And hey, I also have an account with Yahoo! - that is, my Yahoo! Mail. There are 660 million users of Yahoo! as of April 2011.
TOP #4. www.live.com
With 550 million registered users of live.com, it is certainly one of the sources of traffic on the web. I use three services of Live.com: Windows Live Writer for writing drafts for my blogs, Windows Photo Gallery for my pictures and videos, and Windows Live Movie Maker for editing videos and making clip presentations. So cool, so good!

A combination of online dictionary and encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a great source of information on different subject areas for me. Though not everything should be treated as true and scientifically correct, the website warns the reader that a particular information might be inaccurate, and thus, it needs some sort of refining and validation. It has 490 million unique visitors. This is the ONLY website among the Top 10 websites which doesn't have any advertising.


TOP #6. www.msn.com

Landing on the 6th position is the MSN.com website with 450 million users worldwide. I have an MSN Messenger before but I closed the account since I do not have friends who use it. Filipinos still prefer Yahoo! Messenger.




One of the websites I frequently access almost everyday is www.blogspot.com. Today, I am maintaining four (4) blogs and all of them are hosted by Blogger. I really like it. I am planning to purchase my own domain name with Blogger. It has 410 million users around the world. Blogger itself is in Top 77 with 42 million users.

Of the Top 10 websites, this is the only website I am not familiar with.  I search the word over Google and here's what I found from Wikipedia:

Baidu is a Chinese web services company which offers many services, including a Chinese language search engine for websites, audio files, and images. 

TOP #9. www.bing.com

This search engine has 340 million unique visitors as of April this year.




Want downloads for your operating system, softwares, etc? You need to visit this website. Just make sure you have a Geniune Microsoft Operating System or else the website will tell you that you are a victim of software counterfeiting. :-)



For other top-ranking websites, visit this link by Google.

Example of Certificate of Participation - Team Building Seminar 2011


Letter of Request and of Approval for Tuition Support - UP Population Institute

I received a scholarship grant from the University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI) with funding from The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Endowment Fellowship Fund from 2006-2007 for my Master of Arts in Demography degree. Unfortunately, five years later I have not yet finish the program and this is my sixth year, my first year of residency extension as per University policy for graduate programs. It was Dr. Grace T. Cruz, the former UPPI Director and my thesis adviser, advised me to write a letter for tuition support for the first semester to Dr. Josefina N. Natividad, the current Director of the Institute, and I am lucky enough because my request was granted. What I can promise myself and to the Institute is that I will try my best to defend my thesis this year and be able to wear my sablay again on April 2012 during the Commencement Exercises. 

Thank you, Dr. Cruz, Dr. Natividad, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Ate Nea (who always assist me in my academic concerns at UPPI since 2006), to all my professors and to UP Population Institute! I am indebted for your generosity and for believing me that I can do it! I really need to consult regularly with Ma'am Grace (Dr. Cruz), my thesis adviser, this semester.

Lord, help me to finish my task. 



UP Form 5 (UP Certificate of Registration - Student's Copy)


My Experiences During the Enrollment Process at UP Population Institute

On Thursday, I went to UP Diliman for enrollment. Prior to this, I have enlisted online one three-unit subject as a penalty course for master's degree. This academic year will be my 6th year in master's studies. As per Graduate Program rule in the University of the Philippines, any graduate student who fails to finish graduate studies within five years should be enrolled in a 3-unit subject as a penalty course. In addition, he or she should request for an extension of one academic year of residency. 


So I filled out a form requesting for extension and stated three things there which would be the basis of approval. First is that I have already finished the requirement number of academic units for my program with no INC (incomplete) grades. I actually completed all academic units in one academic year only (2006-2007). Second, I have already defended my thesis proposal before the faculty of UP Population Institute in 2008. And the third reason is that I need to enroll in a penalty course either on the first semester or the second semester. I opted to enroll this first semester following the advice of the office.


I went to the Graduate Office of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy located at Palma Hall to submit my Form 5A and the letter of request for extension addressed to Dr. Michael Tan, CSSP's dean. The Graduate Office told me that they still need to submit my letter and wait for the approval of Dr. Tan. It was afternoon so I need to go back to UP Diliman a day after (June 10). I decided to go back to the Institute because I have many questions regarding certain policies on graduate studies and about my thesis.


On my way to UPPI's office, I met Dr. Grace T. Cruz, former director of the Population Institute and my thesis adviser, and I told her that I will enroll this semester. To my surprise, she advised me write a letter addressed to Dr. Josefina N. Natividad, the newly-appointed UPPI Director requesting for tuition support. Wow! I really didn't know that the Institute has this kind of stuff. Well, it was UPPI through The David and Lucile Packard Endowment Fellowship that shouldered all my tuition and other authorized school fees since 2006 (by the way, I got a scholarship from UPPI for my program). She also invited me to attend Dr. Mercedes B. Concepcion's birthday and a sort of get-together for UPPI students, faculty and staff, and alumni, and friends. Dr. Concepcion is the former Director of UPPI and the newest National Scientist of the Philippines as per Proclamation No. 1980 issued by Malacanang on 2010 for her contributions in the field of demography. I thanked Dr. Cruz and I went to UP Shopping Center to write a letter. Ate Nea advised me to wait until the next day if my letter will be approved by Dr. Natividad. 


So it was June 10, Friday. I went back to UP Diliman to get some updates on my two requests: one from UPPI Director for tuition support and another one for application for extension of residency from CSSP College Dean. And God is great! Both requests were approved!


It was 3:00 in the afternoon. Many prominent individuals of the UP Population Institute attended MBC's birthday celebration. It was also during this time that they will be discussing things in preparation for the 50th anniversary of the Institute. I was worrying that I might not finish the registration process that day. I went to the Office of the University Registrar for assessment. I arrived at OUR around 3:30pm. Many students were crowding at the entrance gate and a student assistant told us to go back on Monday (June 13) for assessment because it was already cut-off. This wasn't my first experience in UP. That's why we call UP sometimes as 'University of Pila' because of long lines that you need to go through just to get enrolled. Anyway, I told the SA that it was my second day of absence in the office so he let me came in and wait for the long queue. At 4:45pm, my name was called and my Form 5 was given to me. The actual school fees are P3,008.50 to be paid by UP Population Institute. I hurriedly went back to UPPI for adviser's signature and I went to Dr. Nimfa Ogena's office. Dr. Ogena is one of the best professors in UPPI and the new Academic Coordinator. She replaced Prof. Maria Paz Marquez as Academic Coordinator. Dr. Ogena is the sister of the new President of Philippine Normal University (PNU) and the current Director of the Science Education Institute of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Dr. Ester B. Ogena. I asked several questions to Dr. Ogena about my thesis and she willingly provided her insights and suggestions.


At 5:05, I went back to OUR to submit the other copies of Form 5. It was a tiring day but I was happy. I met my former classmates, professors, and staff of the Institute. I prepared 4,000 pesos for my tuition fee (one 3-unit subject) and my tuition support is really such a big blessing to me.


I am looking forward for this semester for new experiences as a student of Dr. Jonathan David A. Flavier (son of former DOH Secretary Juan Flavier). He'll be teaching "Emerging Issues in Population" every Saturday.


I promise myself to defend my master's thesis successfully this year and be able to wear my sablay again on April 2012 during the Commencement Exercises.


Thank you, Lord, for your goodness! Thank you, UPPI, for your unending support to your students!      

Cayetano vs. Tinga and COMELEC in G.R. No. 193846


Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT

Baguio City
EN BANC
G.R. No. 193846               April 12, 2011
MARIA LAARNI L. CAYETANO, Petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DANTE O. TINGA,
 Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
NACHURA, J.:

Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Orders issued by public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC), through its Second Division, dated August 23, 20101 and September 7, 2010,2 respectively. The two Orders were issued in relation to the election protest, docketed as EPC No. 2010-44, filed by private respondent Dante O. Tinga against petitioner Maria Laarni Cayetano.


In the automated national and local elections held on May 10, 2010, petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of Mayor of Taguig City. Petitioner was proclaimed the winner thereof on May 12, 2010, receiving a total of Ninety-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Five (95,865) votes as against the Ninety-Three Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Five (93,445) votes received by private respondent.


On May 24, 2010, private respondent filed an Election Protest against petitioner before the COMELEC. Private respondent’s protest listed election frauds and irregularities allegedly committed by petitioner, which translated to the latter’s ostensible win as Mayor of Taguig City. On the whole, private respondent claims that he is the actual winner of the mayoralty elections in Taguig City.


Posthaste, petitioner filed her Answer with Counter-Protest and Counterclaim on June 7, 2010. Petitioner raised, among others, the affirmative defense of insufficiency in form and content of the Election Protest and prayed for the immediate dismissal thereof.


On July 1, 2010, the COMELEC held a preliminary conference and issued an Order granting private respondent a period within which to file the appropriate responsive pleading to the Answer of petitioner. The COMELEC likewise stated that it will rule on the affirmative defenses raised by petitioner.


As previously adverted to, the COMELEC issued the assailed Preliminary Conference Order dated August 23, 2010, finding the protest filed by private respondent and counter-protest filed by petitioner to be sufficient in form and substance. Effectively, the COMELEC denied petitioner’s affirmative defense of insufficiency in form and substance of the protest filed by private respondent. The Order reads:


WHEREFORE, finding the instant protest and the counter-protest to be sufficient in form and substance, the Commission (Second Division) hereby:



1. DIRECTS [private respondent] to make a cash deposit [of] ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P1,609,500.00) to defray the expenses for the recount of the ballots as well as for other incidental expenses relative thereto pertaining to the 217 clustered protested precincts composed of 1,073 established precinct[s] at the rate of P1,500.00 for each precinct as required in Section 2 Rule II of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 payable in three (3) equal installments every twenty (20) days starting within five (5) days from receipt hereof.


2. DIRECTS [petitioner] to make a cash deposit of TWO MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P2,811,000.00) to defray the expenses for the recount of the ballots as well as for other incidental expenses relative thereto pertaining to the 380 protested clustered precinct[s] composed of 1,874 established precincts at the rate of P1,500.00 for each precinct as required in Section 2[,] Rule II of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 payable in three (3) equal installments every twenty (20) days starting within five (5) days from receipt hereof.


3. DIRECTS the City Election Officer (EO) of Taguig City, to gather and collect the subject contested ballot boxes containing the ballots, and their keys from the City Treasurer of Taguig City and to deliver the same to ECAD, COMELEC, Intramuros, Manila, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the ballot boxes from said Treasurer with prior notice to herein parties who may wish to send their respective duly authorized representatives to accompany the same, observing strict measures to protect the safety and integrity of the ballot boxes;


4. DIRECTS [private respondent] and [petitioner] to provide for the needed vehicle/s to the EO for the gathering and transportation of the subject contested ballot boxes. All expenses for the retrieval and transportation of the said ballot boxes shall be borne by both [private respondent] and [petitioner];


5. AUTHORIZES the City Election Officer to secure a sufficient number of security personnel either from the PNP or the AFP in connection with the afore-directed gathering and transportation of the subject ballot boxes;


6. DIRECTS [private respondent] to shoulder the travel expenses, per diems and necessary allowance of the COMELEC personnel, which include the PES and at most two (2) support staff, and the PNP/AFP personnel acting as security; and


7. DIRECTS the herein parties to shoulder the travelling expenses of their respective counsels and watchers.


8. DIRECTS [private respondent] in the protest proper and [petitioner] in the counter protest to bear the expenses for the rental of the Precinct Count Optical System (PCOS) machine that will be used for the authentication of the ballots as well as the payment for the information Technology Expert (IT Expert) who will assist in the authentication of the ballots, unless they are both willing to stipulate on the authenticity of the said ballots cast in connection with the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections. DIRECTS further that in case [private respondent] agree[s] to stipulate on the authenticity of the ballots and [petitioner] raises the issue of authenticity, [petitioner] shall be the one to bear the fee for the rent of the PCOS machine as well as the service of the IT Expert.


9. DIRECTS the parties to file a manifestation whether they intend to secure photocopies of the contested ballots within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from receipt of this Order. No belated request for the photocopying of ballots shall be entertained by this Commission (Second Division). The photocopying shall be done simultaneous with the recount of the ballots considering that the ballot box storage area is no longer near the recount room.



The pertinent Order for the constitution of Recount Committees and the schedule of recount shall be issued after the arrival of the subject ballot boxes and after the required cash deposits shall have been paid by [private respondent].


The Preliminary Conference is hereby ordered terminated. The parties are given three (3) days from receipt hereof to file their comment, suggestions or corrections, if any, to this Preliminary Conference Order. After the lapse of said period, no more comment, suggestion or correction shall be entertained, and this Preliminary Conference Order shall thereafter be valid and binding upon the parties.3


Thereafter, on August 31, 2010, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Preliminary Conference Order relative to the denial of her affirmative defenses. Private respondent filed a Comment and Opposition thereto. Consequently, the COMELEC issued the second assailed Order dated September 7, 2010, denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.


Hence, this petition for certiorari positing the singular issue of whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to dismiss the protest of private respondent for insufficiency in form and content.


Not unexpectedly, private respondent refutes the allegations of petitioner and raises the procedural infirmity in the instant petition, i.e., the power of this Court to review decisions of the COMELEC under Section 3,4 Article IX-C of the Constitution, pursuant to the leading case of Repol v. COMELEC.5 Private respondent likewise counters that the petition fails to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion.


Adamantly, petitioner insists that the case at bar differs from Repol since the herein assailed Orders constituted a final order of the COMELEC (Second Division) on that particular issue. Moreover, petitioner maintains that the COMELEC patently committed grave abuse of discretion.


We cannot subscribe to petitioner’s proposition. The landmark case of Repol, as affirmed in the subsequent cases of Soriano, Jr. v. COMELEC6 and Blanco v. COMELEC,7 leaves no room for equivocation.


Reviewing well-settled jurisprudence on the power of this Court to review an order, whether final or interlocutory, or final resolution of a division of the COMELEC, Soriano definitively ruled, thus:
In the 2004 case of Repol v. Commission on Elections, the Court cited Ambil and held that this Court has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a division of the COMELEC. However, the Court held that an exception to this rule applies where the commission of grave abuse of discretion is apparent on its face. In Repol, what was assailed was a status quo ante Order without any time limit, and more than 20 days had lapsed since its issuance without the COMELEC First Division issuing a writ of preliminary injunction. The Court held that the status quo ante Order of the COMELEC First Division was actually a temporary restraining order because it ordered Repol to cease and desist from assuming the position of municipal mayor of Pagsanghan, Samar and directed Ceracas to assume the post in the meantime. Since the status quo ante Order, which was qualified by the phrase "until further orders from this Commission," had a lifespan of more than 20 days, this Order clearly violates the rule that a temporary restraining order has an effective period of only 20 days and automatically expires upon the COMELEC’s denial of preliminary injunction. The Court held:


"Only final orders of the COMELEC in Division may be raised before the COMELEC en banc. Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution mandates that only motions for reconsideration of final decisions shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc, thus:


SEC. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in Division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. (Emphasis supplied.)


Under this constitutional provision, the COMELEC en banc shall decide motions for reconsideration only of"decisions" of a Division, meaning those acts having a final character. Clearly, the assailed status quo ante Order, being interlocutory, should first be resolved by the COMELEC First Division via a motion for reconsideration.


Furthermore, the present controversy does not fall under any of the instances over which the COMELEC en banccan take cognizance of the case. Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:


SEC. 2. The Commission En Banc. — The Commission shall sit en banc in cases hereinafter specifically provided, or in pre-proclamation cases upon a vote of a majority of the members of the Commission, or in all other cases where a division is not authorized to act, or where, upon a unanimous vote of all the Members of a Division, an interlocutory matter or issue relative to an action or proceeding before it is decided to be referred to the Commission en banc.


The present case is not one of the cases specifically provided under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure in which the COMELEC may sit en banc. Neither is this case one where a division is not authorized to act nor a case where the members of the First Division unanimously voted to refer the issue to the COMELEC en banc. Thus, the COMELEC en banc is not even the proper forum where Repol may bring the assailed interlocutory Order for resolution.


We held in Ambil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections that —


Under the existing Constitutional scheme, a party to an election case within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC in division [cannot] dispense with the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a decision, resolution or final order of the Division of the Commission on Elections because the case would not reach the Comelec en banc without such motion for reconsideration having been filed x x x.


Repol went directly to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory order of the COMELEC First Division. Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution prescribes the power of the Supreme Court to review decisions of the COMELEC, as follows:


Section 7. Each commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the commission or by the commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.


We have interpreted this constitutional provision to mean final orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The decision must be a final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en banc. The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the COMELEC. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis supplied.)


However, this rule is not ironclad. In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. COMELEC, we stated —


This Court, however, has ruled in the past that this procedural requirement [of filing a motion for reconsideration] may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the principle of social justice or the protection of labor, when the decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available.


The Court further pointed out in ABS-CBN that an exception was warranted under the peculiar circumstances of the case since there was hardly enough opportunity to move for a reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time for the 11 May 1998 elections. The same can be said in Repol's case. We rule that direct resort to this Court through a special civil action for certiorari is justified under the circumstances obtaining in the present case. (Emphasis supplied)
x x x x


The general rule is that a decision or an order of a COMELEC Division cannot be elevated directly to this Court through a special civil action for certiorari. Furthermore, a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a COMELEC Division shall be elevated to the COMELEC En Banc. However, a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division shall be resolved by the division which issued the interlocutory order, except when all the members of the division decide to refer the matter to the COMELEC En Banc.


Thus, in general, interlocutory orders of a COMELEC Division are not appealable, nor can they be proper subject of a petition for certiorari. To rule otherwise would not only delay the disposition of cases but would also unnecessarily clog the Court docket and unduly burden the Court. This does not mean that the aggrieved party is without recourse if a COMELEC Division denies the motion for reconsideration. The aggrieved party can still assign as error the interlocutory order if in the course of the proceedings he decides to appeal the main case to the COMELEC En Banc. The exception enunciated in Kho and Repol is when the interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division is a patent nullity because of absence of jurisdiction to issue the interlocutory order, as where a COMELEC Division issued a temporary restraining order without a time limit, which is the Repol case, or where a COMELEC Division admitted an answer with counter-protest which was filed beyond the reglementary period, which is the Kho case.


This Court has already ruled in Reyes v. RTC of Oriental Mindoro, that "it is the decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC En Banc that, in accordance with Section 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution, may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari." The exception provided in Kho and Repol is unavailing in this case because unlike in Kho and Repol, the assailed interlocutory orders of the COMELEC First Division in this case are not a patent nullity. The assailed orders in this case involve the interpretation of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Neither will the Rosal case apply because in that case the petition for certiorari questioning the interlocutory orders of the COMELEC Second Division and the petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the Resolution of the COMELECEn Banc on the main case were already consolidated.8


Plainly, from the foregoing, the Court has no jurisdiction to review an order, whether final or interlocutory, even a final resolution of a division of the COMELEC. Stated otherwise, the Court can only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the COMELEC en banc in accordance with Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution.1avvphi1


Petitioner’s assertion that circumstances prevailing herein are different from the factual milieu attendant in Repol has no merit. As stated in Soriano, "the general rule is that a decision or an order of a COMELEC Division cannot be elevated directly to this Court through a special civil action for certiorari." In short, the final order of the COMELEC (Second Division) denying the affirmative defenses of petitioner cannot be questioned before this Court even via a petition for certiorari.


True, the aforestated rule admits of exceptions as when the issuance of the assailed interlocutory order is a patent nullity because of the absence of jurisdiction to issue the same.9 Unfortunately for petitioner, none of the circumstances permitting an exception to the rule occurs in this instance.


Finally, certiorari will not lie in this case.


The issuance of a special writ of certiorari has two prerequisites: (1) a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.10
Although it is not the duty of the Court to point petitioner, or all litigants for that matter, to the appropriate remedy which she should have taken, we refer her to the cue found in Soriano, i.e., "[t]he aggrieved party can still assign as error the interlocutory order if in the course of the proceedings he decides to appeal the main case to the COMELEC En Banc." In addition, the protest filed by private respondent and the counter-protest filed by petitioner remain pending before the COMELEC, which should afford petitioner ample opportunity to ventilate her grievances. Thereafter, the COMELEC should decide these cases with dispatch.


WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.


SO ORDERED.


ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice


WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Associate Justice


C E R T I F I C A T I O N


Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.


RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice




Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 32-43.
2 Id. at 44.
3 Supra note 1, at 41-43.
4 Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
5 G.R. No. 161418, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 321.
6 G.R. Nos. 164496-505, April 2, 2007, 520 SCRA 88.
7 G.R. No. 180164, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 755.
8 Soriano, Jr. v. COMELEC, supra note 6, at 102-107. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted.)
9 Kho v. COMELEC, 344 Phil. 878, 886 (1997).
10 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sec. 1.


Source: The Official Website of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Balik-Eskwela 2011 (Second Day) at Ricardo Cruz Sr. Elementary School

video



This short video clip shows pupils of Ricardo Cruz, Sr Elementary School going home after their classes. Their parents were waiting them outside the school gate. The school is located at Lower Bicutan, Taguig City. I took this video while I was riding on a jeepney on my way home. 



Oplan Balik-Eskwela 2011

Oplan Balik Eskwela is an initiative by the Department of Education (DepEd) in preparation for the opening of the school year. For this year, classes started last Monday, June 6. All private and public school are encouraged by DepEd to participate in its activities and to make sure that children are properly enrolled and be able to attend school. 

Of course, DepEd alone would not be able to implement its objectives without the help from other government agencies, communities, and other stakeholders. That is why they are making convergence with other departments. Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), for example, should make sure the manageability of traffic conditions. As we all know, Metro Manila is a congested place. In fact Metro Manila is in Top 6 of Asian cities with largest population, according to Wikipedia. The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) will be assisting them especially with public transportation concerns, e.g. fares, complaints, etc.

Balik-Eskwela tarpaulin just outside the 7-11 store in Lower Bicutan


The Department of National Defense (DND) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) are tasked to ensure student safety and security. Parents and guardians should likewise protect their children to avoid kidnappings, sexual harassment, or accidents. Ensuring the stability of prices for school supplies is the main objective of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The Department of Health (DOH) is mandated to ensure student health and availability of emergency medical services in times of accidents. The  agency should make sure that every school must have a clinic and a nurse or doctor. 

What about the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)? It is the agency's responsibility to ensure the preparation of school buildings and roads. They need to make sure that the places where the children go are safe places (hindi 'yong buildings na inaanay na). MERALCO, Manila Water, and MWSS ensure supply of public utilities such as water and electricity in all schools. And PAGASA should make advance announcements and advisories regarding the weathe.

Oplan Balik Eskwela likewise coordinates with the respective Local Government Units (LGUs). In Taguig City, tarpaulins and other banners were posted in conspicuous places all over the city just like the picture above in Lower Bicutan. Mayor Lani Cayetano, through the Office of the City Mayor, provides free, brand new school uniforms, P.E. shirts, and towels, pencil cases with school accessories, notebooks, and school bags. 


One of the busiest streets in Taguig City: Intersection between
M.L. Quezon St., and the General Santos Avenue (going to the newly constructed C-6)



According to the DepEd's fact sheet (I downloaded the Excel file from the department's website), as of school year 2009-2010, there are 44,846 elementary schools in the entire archipelago and 10,384 high schools. In the same school year, enrollment statistics accounts for 13,934,172 pupils in elementary level and 6,806,079 for high school students in addition to 1,474,644 pre-school enrollment. 

Preparing students for the opening of each school year is really a big challenge for the government and the citizens, so let us help one another as we face this challenge of our generation and the future.

Classes suspended today in Metro Manila

***

Due to heavy rains for few days now, CLASSES WERE SUSPENDED TODAY in the National Capital Region from elementary level to high school. 

There is no typhoon signal issuance from PAG-ASA yet but the Department of Education gives the authority to school principals and division superintendents to declare suspension of classes if needed.  

For the guidelines on the suspension of classes, click this link.

2011 FSO Examination Results for the Preliminary Interview

Here's the list of passers of the PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW for the Foreign Service Officer (FSO) Examination this year. This is the second stage of five (5) stages that an applicant should go through to become a Foreign Service Officer and future ambassador of the Philippines!
  
Click here to view the results of the Qualifying Test held on March 20, 2011.

Stage 1: Qualifying Test--106 passers
Stage 2: Preliminary Interview--73 passers
Passing Rate: 68.87%



The Board of Foreign Service Examinations (BFSE) would like to announce that the following seventy-three (73) examinees passed the Preliminary Interview of the 2011 Foreign Service Officer (FSO) Examination, held on 04 June 2011 at the DFA Building:


1 AGGALOT, CESARIO A.
2 ALINSANGAN, SHEILA MAE M.
3 ALMARIO, ALFREDO C. JR.
4 ALONTO, ABDUL GAFFUR MAOKI HOWARD M. II
5 ANTOLIN, FAYE L.
6 AQUINO, THOMAS PHILIP C.
7 ARGUILLAS, JAYBEE B.
8 ASCALON, MARY SANDRA V.
9 BASAS, RACHEL MARY ANNE A.
10 BASCO, RAYMUNDO JACINTO P.
11 BONIFACIO-CRUZ, ANA NARLEAH M.
12 BONTUYAN, PETER ALLAN R.
13 BUENO, IVAN LINOR T.
14 CABUSORA, KAREN M.
15 CALAMBA, DENNIS M.
16 CAPATI, BOJER B.
17 CARANZO, IRIS VANESSA B.
18 CASACLANG, ROWELL G.
19 DAILO, ALAIN VICTOR T.
20 DE GUZMAN, LV I.
21 DIAZ, JAN MICHAEL VINCENT G.
22 DIGAN, JENNILYN R.
23 DIUMANO, FRITZ MICAH A.
24 DUQUE, MARIA FE ESPERANZA Y.
25 ESGUERRA, GEOLETTE MARIE Y.
26 GARCIA, CATHY ROSE A.
27 GRANADILLOS, JESSIE RUTH G.
28 GREGORIO, ELSBETH E.
29 GUIANG, ALFRED KRISTOFFER A.
30 GUINTO, CELENI KRISTINE G.
31 IGNACIO, RAFAEL VICTOR L.
32 JOSE, RAMONA R.
33 JUAINI, INDIRA-PATRA A.
34 JUGO, JAMINA VESTA M.
35 LANSANG, RICHELLE ANNE A.
36 LAO, SIMON V.
37 LAZARO, ANDREA LYNN N.
38 LEAÑO, GEN RENELLA F.
39 LIZARDO, SHARLOT EIZA D.
40 LOPEZ, LEMUEL D.
41 MALINAO, MARY KRISCHELLE C.
42 MANUEL, MARIA ESTRELLA P.
43 MARQUESES, MYLHYN M.
44 MARQUEZ, LEANDER P.
45 MEDINA, JERICO BRANDO E.
46 MENDOZA, KELVIN JOSEPH B.
47 PANEMANGLOR, AJEET-VICTOR S.
48 PANGILINAN, MA. LOURDES CARMELLA JADE D.
49 PANGWI, VON RYAN G.
50 PERPETUA, MARY GRACE L.
51 PUA, MAJELLA CRISTY U.
52 PUENTEVELLA, ANTON GABRIEL L.
53 QUINTANA, OLIVER JOHN C.
54 REVILLAS, ENRIK FORT E.
55 REYES, MARIA KLARIDELLE A.
56 REYES, MISHEIL R.
57 RILLERA, DENMARK M.
58 SAN JUAN, DAVID MICHAEL M.
59 SANTIAGO, CARLO L.
60 SANTIZO, NICHOLAS C.
61 SIOSON, DENISE S.
62 SORIANO, FE CONSUELO Y.
63 SORITA, CHRISTIAN H.
64 SUNTAY, MARK ANDREW M.
65 TABAMO, DINZO S.
66 TAN, RITZ JERAMAE B.
67 TUBA, MARIA MELIZA T.
68 UY, EARL IAN S.
69 VEGA, FRANCES C.
70 VELASQUEZ, NOELLE S.
71 YANCHA-PO, DASHELL C.
72 YUSIONG, JOSEPH PHILIP T.
73 ZOZOBRADO, JUAN CARLOS L.


These examinees are hereby eligible to take the Written Test portion of the 2011 FSO Examination, to be held from 08 to10 June 2011 (Wednesday to Friday), at the Bulwagang Apolinario A. Mabini, Ground Floor, DFA Building.

*Taken from the official website of the Department of Foreign Affairs. 

Kung Fu Panda 2 in 3D

Last week, I watched Kung Fu Panda 2 in Starmall Cinema (just across SM Megamall and EDSA Shangri-La). It was in 3D and honestly, that was my first time to watch a movie in 3D! Haha. The ticket price is 250 pesos, almost 100 or 150 pesos less than the least expensive ticket price for a 3D movie in SM Cinemas. I really wanted to watch this sequel because I have watched the Kung Fu Panda 1 way back in 2008.


Here's the plot of the movie based on Wikipedia.


Long ago, Lord Shen (Gary Oldman), heir of the peacock clan that ruled Gongmen City in China, sought to harness the power of fireworks as a weapon with which to rule the entire country. When he learned from the court's goat soothsayer (Michelle Yeoh) that "a warrior of black and white" would one day defeat him, Shen assumed she was referring to the giant pandas and had them exterminated to avert the prophecy. Shen's parents were horrified at this atrocity and exiled Shen, who swore revenge.


Many years later, Po (Jack Black) is living his dream as the Dragon Warrior, protecting the Valley of Peace alongside his friends and fellow kung fu masters, the Furious Five, but is told by Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) that their masters have gone missing and fears Lord Shen is responsible. While fighting off a pack of wolf bandits who have been stealing refined metal for Lord Shen, Po is distracted by a symbol on the head wolf's (Danny McBride) armor, which causes Po to have a flashback of his mother and allows the wolves to escape. Po asks his goose father, Mr. Ping (James Hong), where he came from, but all Ping can tell him is that he found Po as an infant in a radish crate and adopted him.


Afterward, Shifu receives word that Master Thundering Rhino (Victor Garber), leader of the kung fu council protecting Gongmen City, has been killed by Lord Shen with his newly developed weapon, a cannon, which threatens to destroy kung fu tradition. Po and the Five go to stop him, reaching Gongmen City to find it under the control of Shen's forces. The heroes find two imprisoned council members, Masters Storming Ox (Dennis Haysbert) and Croc (Jean-Claude Van Damme), and ask their help to liberate the city, but both masters cite their helplessness against Shen's weapon and refuse to escape. Po and the Five are then discovered by the wolf leader, who they chase to prevent him from alerting Shen, only to be captured.


Upon being brought before Shen in his tower, Po and the Five free themselves and destroy Shen's cannon. However, Crane burns his wing and Po is again distracted by a flashback upon seeing the same symbol as before on Shen's plumage, allowing Shen to escape and destroy the tower with an arsenal of cannons. After escaping, Tigress (Angelina Jolie) confronts Po over his distraction. Po explains that he remembers Shen's presence on the night he was separated from his parents, and wants to question Shen about his past. Though empathetic, Tigress orders him to stay behind for his own safety. Po regardless breaks into Shen's cannon factory to confront Shen, inadvertently foiling the Five's attempts to destroy the factory. Shen claims that Po's parents abandoned him before he blasts Po out of the factory and captures the Five.

Po is rescued by Shen's soothsayer, who has been exiled by Shen to the ruined village where Po was born. Guided by the soothsayer to embrace his past, Po remembers that his parents had endangered themselves to save him from Shen's forces, his mother hiding him in a crate before she was subdued. Attaining inner peace, Po returns to Gongmen City to save the captive Five from being executed by Shen at the city harbor, as well as to prevent Shen's army to enter the open waters to begin his conquest of China. During the ensuing battle (in which Shifu participates after having persuaded Ox and Croc to do the same), Po uses his inner peace to enable a kung fu technique to redirect Shen's cannon fire against his own armada and destroy it. He then urges Shen to let go of his own past, but Shen refuses and attacks Po until Shen inadvertently slashes the ropes holding up his last cannon, which falls and crushes him to death. Victorious, Po returns to the Valley of Peace and reunites with Mr. Ping, declaring him to be his father. At the same time, Po's biological father (Fred Tatasciore) is shown to be alive in a hidden village inhabited by surviving pandas, sensing that his son is also alive.



COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? Your opinion is important. I will be glad to answer your questions.