Jump to content

Davao City Mayor (Female) punches Sherif


Recommended Posts

Headshot

Well, the Sheriffs' Confederation has now weighed in on the incident. It seems like they want charges brought against the mayor.

 

 

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/225731/nation/group-condemns-dutertes-attack-on-davao-sheriff

 

 

Group condemns Duterte's attack on Davao sheriff

MARK D. MERUEÑAS, GMA News

07/08/2011 | 07:43 PM

 

 

For the first time since the incident happened, the Sheriffs Confederation of the Philippines (Scophil) has finally voiced its collective condemnation of Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte’s assault on a court sheriff.

 

Clad in black, Scophil members simultaneously staged condemnation rallies in Quezon City, Pasay City, and Makati City to slam Duterte for repeatedly punching Davao court sheriff Abe Andres last July 1, according to a GMA News TV Live report.

 

Andres had earlier said he would no longer be taking legal actions against Duterte. Scophil, however, urged him to still press charges against the local chief executive.

 

After going on leave since the incident happened, Andres finally reported back to work on Thursday.

 

At the time, he said he no longer plans to involve himself anymore in the demolition in Agdao. He also said he already submitted an incident report to his superiors.

 

Punching incident

 

Hours before the punching incident, Duterte had requested Andres to push back the serving of the demolition order by two hours so she could personally oversee the operation.

 

Without a court approval, her request went unheeded and violence started to mar the demolition operation. Duterte rushed to the site and punched Andres.

 

Quezon City court sheriff Nestor Rivera, a Scophil member, earlier described Duterte’s actions as “demeaning" to the judiciary and the justice system in the country.

 

Rivera, sheriff of the court hearing the high-profile Maguindanao massacre case, said Duterte should have just spoken with Andres instead of physically hurting him.

 

Several groups in the judicial circle have already condemned Duterte’s assault, including a Scophil’s chapter in Cebu and the Quezon City Trial Lawyers League. — JE, GMA News

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Markham

    26

  • Davolives

    24

  • easy44

    18

  • thebob

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Headshot

And...if anybody is still interested in this...

 

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?publicationSubCategoryId=63&articleId=703885

 

Davao sheriff seeks another 5-day leave to be out of limelight

By Edith Regalado (The Philippine Star)

Updated July 08, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (20)

 

DAVAO CITY, Philippines – Controversial court sheriff Abe Andres yesterday sought another five-day leave of absence, taking himself out of the limelight following the altercation with Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte last week.

 

Andres declared he would not press any charges against Duterte and urged critics to leave him in peace.

 

Andres refused to appear before the two lawyers sent by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to investigate the incident.

 

He said he already submitted his report of the incident to his employer, Davao City Regional Trial Court Branch 16 Judge Emmanuel Carpio.

 

Duterte punched Andres in the face several times in a fit of anger last week in her effort to save thousands of families from being evicted from their homes.

 

Duterte said Andres ignored her request to stay the demolition of a squatter colony in Barangay Soliman in Agdao district since it would affect thousands of families already suffering from the recent floods.

 

Duterte voluntarily went on leave to allow the investigation of the punching incident to proceed.

 

She appointed her father, Vice Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, to take over the administration of the city.

 

The elder Duterte, for his part, defended his daughter’s actions against Andres.

 

Duterte, who served as a government prosecutor, said Andres violated the mandatory 30-day reglamentary period before an eviction order of the court is implemented under Republic Act 7279, or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.

 

He said Judge Carpio issued the eviction order on June 21, thus, it should have been implemented at the earliest on July 21.

 

The eviction order, however, was immediately implemented on July 1, eventually leading to a riot with the police and his daughter Sara punching Andres.

 

Duterte said the court had not only violated the 30-day reglamentary period but also the “good weather” condition under the law.

 

He said Davao City was under a state of calamity at the time the demolition was implemented because of the flashfloods that left 30 people dead.

 

Duterte added the mere presence of the court sheriff in the area before the lapse of the reglamentary period is already a violation of the law, thus Mayor Duterte was simply exercising her authority to arrest violators.

 

“Mayor Duterte was arresting the sheriff because he (Andres) was not supposed to be there,” Duterte said.

 

When asked if he will file a case against Judge Carpio and court sheriff Andres for violation of the law, Duterte only said he does not want to make matters worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Markham

Mark, I'm sorry, but most of the points you bring up are completely irrelevant to the case. The court ordered the land to be returned to the titled landowner, and it ordered the sheriff to proceed. In any event, he was performing the work that the court had ordered.

Wrong. There was a Stay Order in effect from June 29. The Sheriff had no authority to enforce the Eviction and Demolition Order until the Stay Order expires on July 9.

 

The mayor did NOT have the right to prevent the sheriff or the landowner's personnel from performing their duties. She did, however, have the responsibility to protect them from a mob. She failed on both counts.

Where is it said that the Mayor prevented the Sheriff or the landowner's personnel from performing their duties? She didn't. She asked for a two hour delay to give her time to get to Sitio Soliman to speak to the affected citizens and to prevent an outbreak of civil disobedience. He denied her and by continuing the now illegal eviction, he provoked a riot.

 

If the squatters wanted to salvage the materials from their homes and take them to a new location, they should have started tearing the structures down themselves as soon as the court ruling was made (this didn't happen overnight). They certainly shouldn't have waited until the last minute to say, "Please wait because we want to salvage the materials." That was just a delaying tactic.

Do you think finding suitable land, big enough to accommodate all those affected, holding discussions with the relevant Barangay officials, holding discussions with the utility companies (Davao Water and Davao Light and Power) and talking with the affected residents is something that can be achieved in an afternoon? The Mayor's children may believe she is the Tooth Fairy but, sad to say, she's not the Fairy Godmother, she can't wave a magic wand or sprinkle some Fairy Dust and it all just happens. Why do you think the Chair of the Housing Committee telephoned the Sheriff to ask for a delay? Delaying tactics or trying to deal with a difficult situation in a humane manner?

 

Even with the short stay, the court order has to be carried out by tomorrow (July 9th). Did a few days really make a lot of difference? I'll bet very few of the squatters have torn their houses down and moved the materials to another location.

Incorrect.

 

In the end...nothing justifies Mayor Duterte's actions. She overstepped her authority
No!
and committed assault and battery,
Yes, not disputed
obstruction of a court officer in his duties
No!,
and contempt of court.
No - but the Sheriff may have.
She was WRONG.
In your opinion.

 

Your post suggests a complete lack of compassion and understanding of the difficulties that ordinary Philippine men and women, considerably less fortunate than ourselves, face day in and day out. That is something that Inday Sara could never be accused of!

 

You have posted a news story - which appears immediately above this message - which casts even further doubt as to the legitimacy of enforcing the Eviction and Demolition order THREE WEEKS before it should have been. I believe that both Judge Carpio and his Sheriff, Abe Andres, have some explaining to do.

Duterte, who served as a government prosecutor, said Andres violated the mandatory 30-day reglamentary period before an eviction order of the court is implemented under Republic Act 7279, or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.

 

He said Judge Carpio issued the eviction order on June 21, thus, it should have been implemented at the earliest on July 21.

 

The eviction order, however, was immediately implemented on July 1, eventually leading to a riot with the police and his daughter Sara punching Andres.

 

Duterte said the court had not only violated the 30-day reglamentary period but also the “good weather” condition under the law.

 

He said Davao City was under a state of calamity at the time the demolition was implemented because of the flashfloods that left 30 people dead.

 

Duterte added the mere presence of the court sheriff in the area before the lapse of the reglamentary period is already a violation of the law, thus Mayor Duterte was simply exercising her authority to arrest violators.

 

“Mayor Duterte was arresting the sheriff because he (Andres) was not supposed to be there,” Duterte said.

Casts a rather different light on the matter, doesn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark

Edited by Markham
Link to post
Share on other sites
Headshot

Or this...

 

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/225680/regions/davao-sheriff-back-at-work-a-week-after-punching-incident

 

Davao sheriff back at work a week after punching incident

MARK D. MERUEÑAS, GMA News

07/08/2011 | 12:15 PM

 

Court sheriff Abe Andres is back at work a week after he got a beating from Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte over a demolition row on July 1.

 

In a report on GMA Network's Unang Balita, Ivan Mayrina said that on Thursday, Andres reported for work with a vow not to get involved anymore in the demolition operation of more than 200 houses in the city's Agdao district.

 

It was the same demolition operation that triggered Duterte, frustrated over the violence that erupted on the site while she was away, to punch Andres in the face and head at least four times in full view of the residents and the media.

 

"No comment na lang ako. Huwag na natin pag-usapan iyon," Andres said in the same television report.

 

While tight-lipped to media, Andres submitted an incident report to his office at the Regional Trial Court Branch 16.

 

In his report, Andres detailed the chronology of events leading up to Duterte's assault.

 

Andres said a staff of the mayor came up to him about 8:40 a.m. to request that the demolition be pushed back by two hours.

 

Andres said he told the staff that the mayor's office should first get an approval from Judge Emmanuel Carpio of the Regional Trial Court Branch 16 before he could grant the request.

 

Judge Carpio was the one who issued the eviction order against the Agdao residents.

 

At 9:45 a.m., Duterte arrived at the demolition site and was told about the violence that had erupted between residents – armed with stones and bladed weapons – and policemen. Upset by the situation, Duterte then summoned Andres and threw punches at him, Andres said.

 

In his incident report, Andres emphasized that the actual demolition of houses has not even started yet when Duterte arrived and assaulted him.

 

The Sheriffs Confederation of the Philippines (Scophil) has already condemned the punching incident and vowed to make Mayor Duterte answerable for her actions.

 

"Ang Scophil may gagawin pa ring move regarding the incident. Humihingi na rin sila ng [tulong] sa supreme court," said a court staff not identified in the television report. [see related: Ampatuan case sheriff says Duterte’s attack ‘demeaning’]

 

Backed up by words of support from her father, Vice Mayor Rodrigo Duterte and her brother Paolo, the mayor admitted she failed to control her temper but stood pat on refusing to apologize to Andres.

 

Rodrigo was former mayor and incumbent vice mayor of Davao City. He currently sits as officer in charge while his daughter is on leave. Paolo, meanwhile, is president of village chairpersons in Davao City.

 

Meanwhile, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) has yet to conclude its investigation on the incident. — LBG/RSJ, GMA News

Link to post
Share on other sites
Headshot

Wrong. There was a Stay Order in effect from June 29. The Sheriff had no authority to enforce the Eviction and Demolition Order until the Stay Order expires on July 9.

Mark, please show me where this stay order is documented anywhere. I have been searching all over for it, and have found no reference to such an order. You would think that if it existed, it would have benn reported someplace in the media, since it would certainly have changed the dynamics of this case. So...if such an order exists, please give us a published reference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Headshot

You have posted a news story - which appears immediately above this message - which casts even further doubt as to the legitimacy of enforcing the Eviction and Demolition order THREE WEEKS before it should have been. I believe that both Judge Carpio and his Sheriff, Abe Andres, have some explaining to do.

 

Casts a rather different light on the matter, doesn't it?

Well, it is her FATHER talking...and he says,

 

Duterte said the court had not only violated the 30-day reglamentary period but also the “good weather” condition under the law.

 

Duterte added the mere presence of the court sheriff in the area before the lapse of the reglamentary period is already a violation of the law, thus Mayor Duterte was simply exercising her authority to arrest violators.

 

“Mayor Duterte was arresting the sheriff because he (Andres) was not supposed to be there,” Duterte said.

 

If the "COURT" had violated the law, why didn't the mayor also go to the courthouse and "ARREST" the judge who had ordered the eviction. It was actually ordered for June 29th. If they saw the video, how many people do you think would actually believe that she was "ARRESTING" the sheriff. If he was under arrest, why did she have him sent to the hospital? That is all horse hockey and you know it. He also said in an interview, "A father will defend his daughter no matter what." I think this "30-day reglamentary period" tact is nothing more than a smoke screen thrown up to confuse the issue. If it was in force, you have to suppose the judges would know about it and abide by it.

Edited by Headshot
Link to post
Share on other sites
Markham

Mark, please show me where this stay order is documented anywhere. I have been searching all over for it, and have found no reference to such an order. You would think that if it existed, it would have benn reported someplace in the media, since it would certainly have changed the dynamics of this case. So...if such an order exists, please give us a published reference.

 

Here you go

Records obtained by the Manila Bulletin showed that Davao Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio, who had issued the demolition order earlier, also issued a stay order deferring the demolition of the shanties at Sitio Soliman, Agdao district, on the day Andres implemented the order.

 

The 10-day stay order was in effect from June 29, 2011, until July 9, 2011, to “diffuse the social unrest and explosive atmosphere” in the area.

 

Manila Bulletin July 5

 

which I referenced in Post #69 of this thread.

 

 

However, the Stay Order may actually have been unnecessary given that the Eviction and Demolition Order should not have been executed until July 21 at the earliest.

 

 

 

Mark

Edited by Markham
Link to post
Share on other sites
Markham

Well, it is her FATHER talking...

Who just happens to be a former Davao City Prosecutor - a lawyer!

 

It was actually ordered for June 29th.

Oh really? My turn to ask you to post a reference in which that is stated. I think you're confusing the starting date of the Stay Order with the Enforcement date.

 

I think this "30-day reglamentary period" tact is nothing more than a smoke screen thrown up to confuse the issue.

From Post #55 in this thread

In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory: (1) Notice upon the effected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition;

(2) Adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;

(3) Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition; ...

 

 

Complete text is at http://www.chanroble...icactno7279.htm

The emphasis is mine!

 

As the Court Order is dated June 21, the earliest date it could be executed is July 21.

 

You make play of the word "arrest", thinking it means to take someone into custody. Well, that's perfectly true but it also means "to stop" as in to stop a process. Re-read his remarks with that meaning in mind and they sound more plausible and less nonsensical which is what you're implying.

 

 

 

Mark

Edited by Markham
Link to post
Share on other sites
Markham

Headshot asked me to check on the effectiveness of RA 7279 which was referenced in the Vice-Mayor's comments reported above.

 

RA 7279 has not been repealed but was in fact strengthened - specifically Section 28 which deals with Eviction and Demolition - by President Gloria Arroyo in December 2002 (Executive Order 152) which established the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP).

 

Here is the entire text of Section 28. I invite you to pay particular attention to sub-section (8) and particularly the highlighted words (emphasis mine)

Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. — Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:

 

(a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds;

(B) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or

© When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.

In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:

(1) Notice upon the effected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition;

(2) Adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;

(3) Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;
(4) Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition;

 

(5) Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise;

 

(6) No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials;

 

(7) Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; and

 

(8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however,
That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of final judgment by the court,
after which period the said order shall be executed
:
Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned.

 

 

As the City is providing the alternative sites for these people, it really seems to me that this sub-section 8 is applicable - whereas sub-section 2 would seem to apply where alternatives are not being provided. If I'm right, then the Court Order should not have been executed until August 5 - that being 45 days from June 21.

 

Regardless, RA 7279 clearly defines 30 days as being the minimum period, so why was there an unseemly rush to execute the order after only nine days? The landowner had waited for over ten years to retake possession of his property, what difference would an extra 21 days' wait make? Could it be that, having won his case, he was keen to capitalise and trouser a few million as quickly as possible? So what inducements were offered and to whom to make that happen?

 

 

Mark

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
rainymike

Well, I guess it's time after the fact for the legal beagles to make hay out of the incident and the mayor's fate will be determined by the findings. That's fair and how the system works.

 

But in my opinion, every good public official, must use judgement when faced with a crisis - rather than being pinned down by bureaucratic nonsense. At the time there was the fallout from flooding, deaths, and eviction of the poor that could have spelled even greater problems for the public.

 

At the time of the incident, the best judgement was to try to contain the riots and provide sympathy to an uneasy segment of the community that was devastated by the flood compounded by the potential loss of homes. In my opinion, this country needs more leaders who can think like this - rather than hiding behind arcane rules for not doing what needs to be done.

 

Maybe the Mayor will come out smelling like a rose. Maybe she will get her hand slapped. But in my mind, she did the right thing at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Headshot

Mark, thanks for the references, but my question still stands on why the mayor didn't go down to the courthouse and "arrest" the judge. He was the one who ordered the sheriff to do what he did. And BTW, the stay order (although pre-dated to June 29) was NOT issued until July 1 (after the incident had already occurred). The sheriff was NOT given any information about the stay when he went to the site. In fact, from the reports, he had been in contact with the court that day to relay the mayor's request for a two-hour stay. No information on an existing stay was given to him (because no such stay existed at the time). The 30-day moratorium rule is interesting, but was not invoked by the mayor (or by her father until several days after the incident). She had no idea that it existed. She only asked for two hours, so she could talk to the residents before the order was implemented. She wanted to get them ready to move. You have to wonder how this would have played out if that request had been granted by the court.

 

As for the "arrest" itself, she could easily have stopped the activity without hitting anyone. But, in fact, it wasn't an arrest. It was a slap-down. If she had known about the thirty-day rule, do you really think she would have asked for a two-hour stay? I doubt it. No...she was angry, and she took it out on the sheriff. Her daughter was in the hospital, numerous people had died in the floods, many people had lost their homes (also because of the floods), and the sheriff was a handy target (especially after the PNP officers dragged him over to the mayor). I really don't know how anybody can justify her behavior at the incident. Elected officials just can't go around hitting public employees (or anybody for that matter). It showed a terrible lack of anger management skills and a terrible lack of judgement in my opinion. If ANYBODY involved is this (including Papa Duterte) had been on their game prior to the incident, none of this would have happened. That is all I have to say about this incident.

Edited by Headshot
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jess Bartone

Well, it is her FATHER talking.....

 

Perhaps a Freudian slip bit nevertheless fundamental to your distaste for the events as they unfolded. It's possible Sara reacted simply because she had had enough of this kind of attitude, of being seen merely as the daughter of Rodrigo Duterte and, once and for all, made the arrogant "fathers" of the city look directly at her instead of over her shoulder at Rodrigo standing behind her. And for all the displays of prescient insight none of the spruiking foreigners contributing to this thread really have any idea of how the subtle interlacing of personalities works in Philippine law... it's easy to watch it for a while and think you know, as evidenced in some of the comments.

 

I am astounded that in their fervour, some of Sara's detractor's have avoided - or at least overlooked - one very important point which Mark has raised. What is the story behind the Chinese man and the sudden rush to have the lot cleared for an outsider? Does anyone reading this think they could get the sheriff to act so time poor and determined for them?... maybe off topic... How does a foreigner get to own land in the Philippines? Which means the father who bequeathed it to the evictees bought it before 1935. Is it possible that Sara has some knowledge of why the process is being pushed ahead of time instead the usual Filipino time? For you guys to focus on a few girly punches and utterly ignore the background, which I suspect is very ugly and dirty, speaks either of a simple need to be right, or a complete and utter miscomprehension of not only the story, but of the Philippines and her people.

 

The Sheriff stinks, Sara has the moral high ground, and the rest is all just hot air.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Markham

I have removed a number of posts that contributed nothing to this discussion. Let's keep this discussion civil and not resort to yappy terrier-like sniping at members whose views you do not share - there are places on this site where such behaviour is permitted, but this is not one of them.

 

 

 

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites
Headshot

Perhaps a Freudian slip bit nevertheless fundamental to your distaste for the events as they unfolded.

No freudian slip at all. I have no distaste for the mayor or her father. My comment simply meant that it was her father who was defending her, and that he had made a comment in an interview that a father should do whatever is necessary to defend his daughter.

 

What is the story behind the Chinese man and the sudden rush to have the lot cleared for an outsider? Does anyone reading this think they could get the sheriff to act so time poor and determined for them?... maybe off topic... How does a foreigner get to own land in the Philippines?

You have to remember that anyone who has any Chinese ancestry (even if their ancestors have been Philippine citizens for several generations and they were born here) is called "Chinese" here. It doesn't mean he is a foreigner...althugh it does appear that he is wealthy, since he had enough resources to run this issue through the court system for several years before it came to a conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Ward

I have removed a number of posts that contributed nothing to this discussion. Let's keep this discussion civil and not resort to yappy terrier-like sniping at members whose views you do not share - there are places on this site where such behaviour is permitted, but this is not one of them.

 

 

 

 

Mark

 

And the moderator rules state that if you are in the middle of a discussion that another moderator should handle it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...