Japanese MP makes waves by linking same-sex marriage to revising constitution

TOKYO - A conservative ally of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has called for discussion on revising Japan's constitution to allow same-sex marriage, annoying colleagues in the ruling party who are against it and also opposition parliamentarians who say enacting a simple law would clear the way.

Japan's laws on LGBT rights are relatively liberal compared with those in many Asian countries, although many LGBT people still conceal their sexuality.

But couples seeking to register same-sex marriages have been rejected by local authorities because there is no law specifically recognizing it.

The constitution, never amended since it was adopted after Japan's defeat in World War 2, says: "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis."

Amending the constitution's pacifist Article 9 to clarify the status of Japan's military is a long-held goal of Abe and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Revising the article is highly controversial, although it has already been stretched to allow armed forces for self-defense.

Former Education Minister Hakubun Shimomura last month floated the idea of adding same-sex marriage to a list of other potential constitutional changes.

"It is important to proceed with debate without any taboo, including of the idea that a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman," NHK public TV quoted him as saying at a meeting of local LDP members last month.

The LDP has said same-sex marriage was "incompatible" with the constitution and Shimomura's remark caused concern at a meeting of the party's general affairs committee this week, media reported.

"One should not lightly make comments such as revising the constitution to recognize same-sex marriage," the Asahi newspaper quoted former cabinet minister Keiji Furuya as saying.

LGBT activists including Kanako Otsuji of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) - the country's first openly LGBT lawmaker - say no amendment is needed to allow same-sex marriage because the constitution does not explicitly ban it.

They have submitted a marriage equality bill to parliament in June, but the ruling coalition has declined to debate it.

"I think the goal is to shake up the opposition," Otsuji told Reuters, referring to Shimomura's suggestion. "If they agree with same-sex marriage, they should agree with our bill."

Shimomura's office declined a request for an interview due to his tight schedule.

A survey last year showed nearly 80 percent of Japanese in their 20s to 50s favored legalizing same-sex marriage.

"The constitution did not envision same-sex marriage when it was written... but it was not prohibited," said Gon Matsunaka, head of Pride House Consortium, which promotes LGBT awareness.

"Society and the world have changed and it is the responsibility of the legislature to pass a law in line with that."

Constitutional amendments must be approved by two-thirds of the members of both houses of parliament and a majority in a public referendum. The ruling bloc has a two-thirds majority in the lower house but lacks one in the upper chamber.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

In victory for Trump, judge tosses suit on foreign payments

NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on Thursday threw out a lawsuit that had accused President Donald Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution by accepting foreign payments through his hotels and other businesses, handing him a major victory on an issue that has dogged him since even before he took office in January.

Though other lawsuits remain pending that make similar claims, the ruling by U.S. District Judge George Daniels is the first to weigh the merits of the U.S. Constitution's anti-corruption provisions as they apply to Trump, a wealthy businessman who as president regularly visits his own hotels, resorts and golf clubs.

   
In a 29-page opinion granting the Trump administration's request to toss the suit, Daniels said the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to bring the suit. The plaintiffs included the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a hotel owner, a hotel events booker and a restaurant trade group.

The lawsuit, filed after the Republican president took office in January, accused Trump of running afoul of the Constitution's "emoluments" clause by maintaining ownership of his business empire while in office.

The emoluments clause, designed to prevent corruption and foreign influence, bars U.S. officials from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval.

Trump has ceded day-to-day control of his businesses to his sons. Critics have said that is not a sufficient safeguard.

The plaintiffs said they are legally injured when foreign governments try to "curry favor" with Trump by paying to use his businesses, such as the Trump International Hotel in Washington or a high-end restaurant at a Trump hotel in New York City. The plaintiffs said this leads them to have lost patronage, wages and commissions.

U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said the Trump administration "appreciates the court's ruling."

Daniels, appointed to the bench by Democratic former President Bill Clinton, said in his decision that the plaintiffs' claims were speculative. Daniels said Trump had amassed wealth and fame even before taking office and was competing in the hospitality industry.

"It is only natural that interest in his properties has generally increased since he became president," the judge wrote.

The judge also said that if Congress wanted to do something about the president's actions, it could. "Congress is not a potted plant," Daniels said. "It is a co-equal branch of the federal government with the power to act."

CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said that his legal team is weighing options on how to proceed. "While today's ruling is a setback, we will not walk away from this serious and ongoing constitutional violation," Bookbinder added.

Some legal experts had raised concerns even before his inauguration on Jan. 20 that Trump would violate the emoluments clause as president. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Trump faces new lawsuit over foreign payments to Trump hotels

The attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia plan to file a lawsuit on Monday alleging that foreign payments to President Donald Trump's businesses violate the U.S. constitution, according to a source familiar with the situation.


Trump already faces a similar lawsuit that was brought in January by plaintiffs including a ethics non-profit group.

 However, the case from two Democratic attorneys general could stand a better chance in court as the first government action over allegations that Trump, a Republican, violated the constitution's so-called emoluments clause.

Democrat AGs have taken a lead role in litigating against Trump's policies, successfully blocking executive orders restricting travel from some Muslim-majority countries. They are also resisting efforts to roll back environmental regulations and insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.

A spokesman for Maryland's attorney general declined to comment on the latest emoluments case. DC attorney general Karl Racine and a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice could not immediately be reached.

In the case filed in January in Manhattan federal court, an ethics non-profit, restaurant group and hotel events booker allege Trump violates the Constitution's "emoluments" clause, which bars him from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval, by maintaining ownership over his business empire despite ceding day-to-day control to his sons.

The Justice Department on Friday argued that those plaintiffs lack the legal standing to sue because they cannot allege enough specific harm caused by Trump's businesses. The government also said Trump hotel revenue does not fit the definition of an improper payment under the constitution.

AG Racine told Reuters in a March interview that the District of Columbia has suffered particular harm because it subsidized the construction of hotels that are now impacted by foreign payments to Trump properties.

That puts the district in a "unique position" to file legal claims over the emoluments clause, Racine said.

The Washington Post earlier reported the AG lawsuit.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Ethics lawyers to sue Trump over foreign payments

A group including former White House ethics attorneys will file a lawsuit on Monday accusing President Donald Trump of allowing his businesses to accept payments from foreign governments, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit, brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, will allege that the Constitution's emoluments clause forbids payments to Trump's businesses. It will seek a court order forbidding Trump from accepting such payments, said Deepak Gupta, one of the lawyers working on the case.

Trump does business with countries like China, India, Indonesia and the Philippines, the group noted in a statement.

"When Trump the president sits down to negotiate trade deals with these countries, the American people will have no way of knowing whether he will also be thinking about the profits of Trump the businessman," it said.

A Trump representative referred questions to a law firm representing the president on ethics matters.

"We do not comment on our clients or the work we do for them," said the representative of the firm, Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

The case is part of a wave of litigation expected to be filed against Trump by liberal advocacy groups. It will be filed in a Manhattan federal court, Gupta said, and attorneys for the plaintiffs will include Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer in Republican President George W. Bush's White House.

The impending lawsuit was earlier reported by the New York Times.

Trump's son Eric Trump, an executive vice president of the Trump Organization, told the Times on Sunday that the company had taken more steps than required by law to avoid any possible legal exposure, such as agreeing to donate any profits collected at Trump-owned hotels that come from foreign government guests to the U.S. Treasury.

"This is purely harassment for political gain," Trump told the newspaper. (Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco; Editing by Peter Cooney)

source: news.abs-cbn.com

OPINION: T3 and Free Expression

"If the press is not free, if speech is not independent and untrammeled, if the mind is shackled or made impotent through fear, it makes no difference under what form of government you live, you are a subject and not a citizen." - William E. Borah

In 2005, the Supreme Court decided the case of MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN. It said that freedom of expression and the press "has no preferred status" under the Constitution. In an earlier 1985 case, Far Eastern Broadcasting vs. Dans Jr., the Supreme Court said that "freedom of broadcast media is lesser in scope than the press because of their pervasive presence in the lives of all Filipinos." Notwithstanding this, however, the Supreme Court still emphasized that

All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the clear and present danger rule - that words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the lawmaker has a right to prevent. (Far Eastern Broadcasting vs. Dans Jr. 137 SCRA 628)

One of the greatest protections of freedom of speech is the prohibition against prior restraint. This means "official governmental restriction on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination." (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009 edition Page 232).

The exceptions, when expression may be subject to prior restraint, apply in this jurisdiction to only four categories of expression, namely: pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advocacy of imminent lawless action, and danger to national security. All other expression is not subject to prior restraint. (Concurring opinion of Justice Carpio in Chavez vs. Gonzales G.R. No. 168338 February 15, 2008)

In a more recent 2009 case, Soriano vs. La Guardia et al, the Supreme Court said that there can be other exceptions if compelling circumstances warrant. In the Soriano case, a program classified as "for general patronage" aired at a time accessible to viewing children and anchored by a host using foul language, was meted out a preventive suspension by the MTRCB. This was considered allowable "prior restraint" as the "balancing of interest" tilts in favor of the interest of the children not to be exposed to foul and belligerent language. Ultimately however, the Supreme Court simply meted out penalties for the host but did not maintain the suspension of the show.

Recently, the hit TV5 show "T3" hosted by the three Tulfo brothers was meted out a preventive suspension order by the MTRCB for a period of 20 days. The preventive suspension had already prevented the airing of the show. It had already effectively curtailed TV5's, the show's producers' and creators' right to express their thoughts and advocacy as reflected by what has officially been done in the show.

Whether one uses the clear-and–present-danger rule or the balancing-of-interest rule, the special circumstances of this case must still be resolved in favor of freedom of speech.

The objective of the show is obviously one of public service and news. It is not pornography and does not involve false and misleading advertisement. Neither does it endanger national security nor advocate imminent lawless action. Arguably, while the anchors who were suspended by TV5 may have uttered "threatening" statements in a matter of about 4 minutes in a 30 minute-show (directed not to the general public but to two individuals), their utterances do not reflect the advocacy of the show itself, which is designed to help and assist the needy especially against abusive or negligent government officials.

There is clearly no imminent danger of substantive evil that will affect the State should "T3" be allowed to continue. And this became very evident from the fact that, after the anchors' suspension by TV5 management, temporary hosts were made to fill their places. As usual, the show went through with its public service advocacy. It did not endanger the State.

Indeed, the show hosted by the alternate-anchors even aided the State in its program of providing justice for all. The show was able to have a public official, who had been withholding the release of another public official's salary, commit such release to the aggrieved party. Also, the show was instrumental in advising the mother of a murdered rape victim on their remedial actions. The clear-and-present danger rule evidently is not applicable to justify the preventive suspension order issued the MTRCB against the showing of "T3".

The balancing-of-interest-rule likewise is of no help to curtail the constitutional right of expression in this instance. This test mandates that the conflicting rights and obligations “are to be judged in the concrete, not on the basis of abstractions." (Soriano vs. La Guardia et al). Important factors have to be importantly considered in weighing the conflicting rights. One of these is "whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest involved may be achieved by some other measure less restrictive of the protected freedom." (Soriano)

These are the concrete facts. "T3" is a show approved by the MTRCB. Its advocacy is to provide news and also public service. It is rated not for general patronage but for strict parental guidance. It is aired 5:15 in the afternoon. Its lasts 30 minutes. The show has actually helped needy people. The Mon Tulfo incident occurred at the airport. Video showed his mauling. Thereafter the three Tulfo brothers saw the video and, for more or less four minutes they made remarks that seem to suggest retaliation. TV5 promptly suspended the three Tulfo brothers. And three temporary anchors were placed in their stead and continued the advocacy of the program. Then MTRCB called a conference and, thereafter on the same day, promptly issued the preventive suspension order for 20 days.

Just what contending and compelling public interest overrides freedom of the press or expression in this "T3" case is not clear. At the most, any "public interest" here is an abstraction or a general concept of some kind of public good. This is not enough when allowable infringement of constitutional rights is the issue. It must be judged in the concrete. Moreover, is there "some other measure less restrictive of the protected freedom" that will adequately safeguard this undefined "public interest" which MTRCB should or must have found? Or, considering the imposition immediately after the meeting, was there any determination at all of this "public interest"? The excessiveness of the the 20-day preventive suspension highlights the arbitrariness of the preventive-suspension order.

The news-and public-affairs advocacy of "T3" which have helped a lot of needy people should have been distinguished from the particular and personal motive of the three-Tulfo brothers regarding a private matter which, unfortunately, manifested on TV. Should the fate of T3 as a show with a clear and unmistakable mission be made equivalent to the motives of the erring anchors? Surely it should not. And if this is so, then it is clear that the penalty for the anchors cannot be the penalty for the show.

As a lawyer and professor of law, I have always been suspect of any act infringing upon our freedom of speech on the ostensible excuse of saving some general good. When the issue is about freedom of speech, the presumption must always be in favor of its expression and against censorship or any of its forms and nuances.

What makes T3's preventive suspension more frightening is the fact that the curtailing-decision was, in reality, made by men and women who are equally fallible like any of us. I am not saying that they are not qualified as MTRCB members. Perhaps they are. Their motivation may even be in good faith. But having been given a mandate to "monitor" speech, they must be discerning enough to know that they must be patriotic enablers of speech and not its censors.

For the MTRCB to immediately prevent "T3" from airing, despite the very clear detectible root of the problem which is separable from the advocacy of T3 as a platform-program, is to effectively control free thought, speech and expression arbitrarily.

Commendable therefore is the decision of TV5 President Atty. Ray Espinosa and TV5 News/Current Affairs Chief Luchi Cruz Valdes to question what appears to be a grave abuse of power by the MTRCB.

Finally, let me quote former US Associate Justice William Douglas:

"What we must remember, however, is that preservation of liberties does not depend on motives. A suppression of liberty has the same effect whether the suppressor be a reformer or an outlaw. The only protection against misguided zeal is constant alertness to infractions of the guarantees of liberty contained in our Constitution. Each surrender of liberty to the demands of the moment makes easier another, larger surrender..."

source: interaksyon.com

$10M dollar accounts case preparation for new impeachment case vs Corona, defense says

MANILA, Philippines -- Chief Justice Renato Corona's defense lawyer said that the ill-gotten wealth filed against his client is a preparation for another impeachment case if the current one fails to convict the chief magistrate.

“The detractors of the Chief Justice are already laying the groundwork for another impeachment complaint. This is where the investigation by the Ombudsman is headed,” lawyer Ramon Esguerra said on Sunday in reaction to news reports that the Office of the Ombudsman is set to file a forfeiture case against Corona.

“As stated, the route of the investigation is another impeachment in the future based on alleged ill-gotten wealth that has been barred in the current one,” he said

Esguerra said that Corona has expected this kind of retaliation from the administration because the chief magistrate did not inhibit himself from the decision made on the motion for reconsideration filed on the Hacienda Luisita case.

“We have somehow expected it. The complaints were filed more that a month ago. The decision on the MR on Luisita came out last Tuesday, and trial resumes a week from now,” Esguerra told newsmen.

He said that “as stated, the route of the investigation on the alleged ill-gotten wealth against Corona is another impeachment in the future since the current one is marred with legal loopholes and lack of concrete evidence and testimonies that will merit conviction.”

“What is telling is that the complaints made no mention of $10 million but appear to be merely a mirror of accusations in the current impeachment,” he added.

“If i relate it to the law, RA 6770 and the Constitution, the detractors of CJ are already laying the groundwork for another impeachment complaint. It cannot be for alleged unexplained wealth for forfeiture under RA 1379. CJ is still holding his position and any legal action under this law will have to await the verdict in the current impeachment complaint."

source: interaksyon.com

Aquino appeals for privacy for Grace Lee's family

MANILA, Philippines -- After disclosing that he has been dating Korean entertainment host Grace Lee, President Benigno Aquino III is asking for privacy for her family who, he said, was being harassed.

Aquino aired his appeal at the Thursday’s Pulong Bayan after a law student asked him how he and Lee are doing.

Saying they were “okay,” Aquino went on to lament that Lee’s family has been harassed because of the public’s desire for more information on their relationship.

In one instance, he said, Lee’s mother was harassed inside her own grocery store. But he gave no details of the incident.

In an earlier interview, Aquino had cited the right to privacy guaranteed by the 1986 Constitution.

“The Constitution provides for the right to privacy. Maybe you can spare me some of that right under Article 3,” he said.

The bachelor president has often been irked when asked about his love life but has, on several instances, spontaneously discussed this in public.

Before he admitted to dating Lee, Aquino had lamented that his love life had become like a sugar-free soft drink.

His former girlfriend, Valenzuela Councilor and television host Shalani Soledad recently married Pasig Representative Roman Romulo. While he wished them well, Aquino did not attend their wedding.

Aquino has also dated teacher Bunny Calica, celebrity stylist Liz Uy, and stockbroker Len Lopez.

source: interaksyon.com