THE STORY OF MY LIFE

as a Lawyer
Before and After Martial Law

By

ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, A.B., Ll.B., Ll.M., S.J.D.

 THE STORY OF MY LIFE
AS A LAWYER
BEFORE AND AFTER MARTIAL LAW
(AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY)
By

ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, A.B., Ll.B., Ll.M., S.J.D.

Dean, University of Manila, Graduate School of Law
2017 Bar Examiner in Civil Law
3 Place, 1970 Philippine Bar Examinations
rd

Bachelor of Laws (Cum Laude), Class Salutatorian

University of the Philippines (1970)
Master of Laws (Ll.M.)
Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. (1976),
Doctor of Jurisprudential Science (S.J.D.)
Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor. U.S.A. (1982)
Accredited MCLE Lecturer
Bar Reviewer in all Bar Subjects
Former Professorial Lecturer and Bar Reviewer in the UP College of Law,
Ateneo School of Law, San Beda College of Law, University of the East,
Arellano University College of Law, Lyceum of the Philippines -College of Law,
Manila Law College, Philippine Christian University-College of Law, University
of Manila-College of Law
Private Law Practitioner
General Counsel Task Force Humanitarian for Peace and Order,
Federal Party of the Philippines
Bai Ding Pension House, Paduganan St., Cabadbaran City
Caraga Region, Mindanao
Mobile 0917-701-9901

i
 P HILIPPINE C OPYRIGHT © 2023
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO
7th Floor LTA Bldg., 118 Perea Street, Legaspi Village,
Makati City, Metro Manila 1229;
Tel. No. (+632)8 892-12-77; (+632)8816-23-80
Telefax No. (+632) 8812-71-29;
Email: dcclaw2010@gmail.com

THE STORY OF MY LIFE AS A LAWYER BEFORE AND AFTER MARTIAL

LAW (AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY)
N OTICE OF C OPYRIGHT
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced
or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of
the author and publisher except for use of brief quotations in reviews, articles
or books with proper citation.

Any copy of this book without the correlative number and bearing the
signature of the author/editor on this page shall be denounced as proceeding
from an illegal source or is in possession of one who has no authority to
dispose of the same.

AUTHORED BY: Arturo Makalintal de Castro

ii
 DEDICATION

To My wife, Soledad M. Cagampang,

for inspiring me to pursue my noble and sublime goals in life
as the girl of my dreams who led me to where I am now

To my mother, Edita Ozaeta Makalintal,

who encouraged me to remain steadfast in the different path taken
as a lawyer which travelled far beyond my wildest dreams

To the memory of my parents, Iluminado Atienza de Castro of Bgy. Bukal,

Batangas City and Edita Ozaeta Makalintal of Bgy. Taysan, San Jose, Batangas
and my parents in law, Atty. Perfecto L. Cagampang Sr. of Garcia-Hernandez,
Bohol and Soledad D. Monteroso-Cagampang of Cabadbaran, Agusan for their
love and generous support and guidance in their lifetime and beyond.
To my illustrious relatives:
Chief Justice Querube C. Makalintal, Justice Roman Ozaeta, First Assistant
Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Judge Artemon Luna for their dedication
and unsullied reputation and character for honesty and integrity in public
service.

To my esteemed Professors in the UP College of Law:

Dean Bartolome Carale, Dean Vicente Abad Santos, Ambassador Melquiades
Gamboa, Dean Irene Cortez, Justice Arsenio Solidum, Professors Maria Clara
Lopez Campos, Bienvenido Ambion, Arturo Balbastro, Jose Laureta, Rodolfo
Palma, Araceli Baviera, Teodorico Taguinod, among others, for teaching us law
in the Grand Manner.

To all my students who are now practitioners or in the public service who have
learned in my Class the old-fashioned values of hardwork, humility, honesty,
And
To all students of the Law
and those preparing to be future lawyers of this country.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ...................................................................................................................................... v
Foreward ................................................................................................................................ vi
MY THOUGHTS ON THE IDEAL GOVERNMENT ...................................................... 1
PRACTICING LAW AS A YOUNG LAWYER ................................................................. 3
MY ACADEMIC CAREER AS A LAW TEACHER.......................................................... 3
MARTIAL LAW -AN ACCEPTED FACT FOR TWO DECADES AFTER 1972 ... 7
DEALING WITH LEGAL ISSUES DURING POST MARTIAL LAW ....................... 9
THE PETITION FOR MISTRIAL : THE AQUINO-GALMAN DOUBLE MURDER
CASE ......................................................................................................................................... 10
MY MULTIFACETED PRACTICE OF LAW POST EDSA REVOLUTION........... 12
MY THOUGHTS ON THE RETURN OF THE MARCOSES...................................... 21
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT
.................................................................................................................................................... 22

ENDOTES: 22

APPENDICES – Articles of Atty. Arturo M. de Castro

APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
APPENDIX F:
APPENDIX G:
APPENDIX H:
APPENDIX I:
APPENDIX J:

iv
 Preface

This is a publication of the chapter on the Author’s life as a lawyer

before, during and after Martial Law .

The autobiography, by far, is not yet complete because the Author

handled many interesting cases in various fields of law, particularly corporate
suspension of payments, agrarian reform and land cases, which have not been
included in this volume because this chapter deals more significantly with the
author’s law practice before, during and after Martial Law . The other chapters,
beginning with the Author’s younger years particularly on the “Girl of his
Dreams” whom he describes in the reverie of his heart until he found his true
love and forever, and the story of his life as a law teacher, Bar Reviewer and
Mandatory Legal Education (MCLE) Lecturer, giving practical advise and
exercises on how to prepare for the Bari, Practical advice for young lawyersii,
his life as a poetiii, His life as a cocker, being 5x International Derby Champion,
Breeder, Cocker and Gaffer Instructoriv and his life as a Humorist and his
collection of funny stories, which may qualify as a “Joke Book”v, his adventure
in high finance in conjugal partnership with his wife investing in real estate
along the route of the Tourism Master Plan from the mountains and beaches
from Nasugbu, Batangas to San Juan, Batangasvi, and most of all a chapter on his
Advocacy for alternative Herbal Medicine and his Health Protocols for long and
happy lifevii consisting of Diet, Naturopathy and Physical Exercises, Meditation,
Prayers, Anger Control and Management, Peace of Mind and Heart, thru respect,
kindness, forgiveness, love and affection for family members and friends, good
and kind nature to serve others, particularly, the poor and the needy, and joy
and laughters as formulas for a peaceful happy life.

The author was affected by Covid 19 three (3) times and recently
suffered a mild stroke during the first quarter of 2023. While he aims to live up
to 100 years and beyond, he knows he may be called upon by his Maker without
the publication of his completed autobiography because of the continuous
revisions and additions that may be overtaken by the untimely death of the
Author due to advance age, so he decided to publish in advance this chapter as
a lawyer before, during and after Martial Law .

v
 Foreward

This autobiography of a fellow Batangueño, Law Dean Atty. Arturo

Makalintal de Castro of San Jose, of my home province of Batangas, is
essentially a chronicle of his life as a lawyer before and after Martial Law and
the high profile cases he handled before the Highest Court of the land, from both
sides of the Political Spectrum, with heartfelt deep insights on the benefits,
achievements and better option of the Marcos Martial Law Regime for
maintaining peace, order, and social harmony in the New Society under a
Constitutional Authoritarian rule of governance instead of Declaration of a
Revolutionary Government that was fraught with coup de e’tat, widespread
public panic and fear of violence caused by casting aside the basic individual
rights under the Constitution that resulted in mass dismissals of elected local
officials without due process of law and re-appointment of Political supporters
at the whims and caprices of the new power that be brought about by the hating
mob in the guise of People Power in the so called EDSA Revolution that took
over power from the legitimate Marcos Martial Law Government confirmed
valid by the Supreme Court in the Javellana case.

Atty. de Castro has rendered various volunteer legal services to the

members of the Philippine National Police in my province of Batangas. A team
of Police high ranking PNP officials that were organized by Secretary of Justice
Raul Gonzales an order of GMA to track down the robbers who killed tellers,
bank officers and passerby in the RCBC massacre in a town of Laguna, were
prosecuted for mass murder and rub-out before the Department of Justice
(DOJ) by Human Rights Chair Leila Delima. Atty. de Castro defended and
exonerated them in the investigation at the House of Representatives in
Congress by the Committee of Human Rights and in the criminal charge for
multiple murder in the DOJ.

Gen. Rudolfo Yema Magtibay’ appointment as Provincial Director by PNP

Chief upon the retirement of the PNP Regional R\Director was affirmed and
approved by Gov. Mandanas in the Province of Batangas on recommendation
of Atty. de Castro and General Marceliano Villafranca, at the time the
Intelligence Officer of the PNP in Batangas. General Magtibay as Ground
Commander was sued administratively and criminally for the Siege in Luneta
that resulted in mass killings of Chinese tourists while General Alfredo Lim was
negotiating with the hostage taker during the Noynoy Aquino Administration.

vi
 Atty. de Castro defended and exonerated General Magtibay from the
charges putting the blame on him in the Luneta hostage incident handled by
General Alfredo Lim as Mayor of Manila without any visible action done by
President Noynoy Aquino in the long period that the incident was happening
being covered by the Local and International Press.

In grateful appreciation for exonerating, and obtaining justice for my eldest

son, Frederick John Almeda Lirio, I paid homage to Law Dean Atty. Arturo de
Castro by telling him in my public Facebook post - “ In those many years of law
practice, you have given immeasurable joy and happiness to a great number of
families whose legal problem have been solved by your victories in the
unaccountable legal battles you have won all over the land. Many of these battles
were fought all the way to the highest tribunal. One of those families is my own
dear family.”

I commend Atty. de Castro for his dedication and public service as a

Public Interest Private lawyer and Honorary Legal Consultant and Lawyer for
the Government in the course of his Multifaceted practice of law before and
after Martial Law . I am proud of him for being a true Batangueño, brave, kind,
hardworking and persevering in rendering voluntary public service and his
advocacy for unity, respect for others despite diversity in opinion for the
common good and the general welfare of our Country and our people.

November 4, 2023, Tanauan City, Batangas Province.

FRANCISCO E. LIRIO
Former Mayor, Tanauan, Batangas
Chairman, Batangas Forum for Good Governance &
Development, Inc.
Chairman, Philippine Red Cross, Tanauan City , Batangas Chapter
Forum Master of the Fourth Degree, Knights of Columbus

vii
 THE STORY OF MY LIFE
AS A LAWYER
BEFORE AND AFTER MARTIAL LAW

MY THOUGHTS ON THE IDEAL GOVERNMENT

In the twilight years of my life, I ponder in the reverie of my heart the

glorious years of the Martial Law New Society under the leadership of
President Ferdinand Edralin Marcos, who, in my view, is the most illustrious
President of the Republic of the Philippines in terms of political leadership and
as a hardworking and good thinking indefatigable human dynamo, like
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and President Rodrigo Duterte and his
national achievements. In Academic Excellence and as an incomparable writer
and super lawyer he was trained in the grand manner of teaching law in the
Socratic Method at the U.P. College of Law whose mission was not merely to
produce lawyers but to yield great lawyers. He built the legal, economic and
educational fundamental structures of the Philippine Republic under the
Constitutional Authoritarian Regime of Martial Law declared valid by the
Highest Court of the land in the Javellana case.

This system of Constitutional Authoritarian Regime of Martial Law, was

later on be proven by history as a better alternative to a Revolutionary
Government declared by President Corazon Aguino that was beset by Coup de
Etat and more violence, graft and corruption in a government brought about
by the cabal of the insurgent communist rebels in conspiracy with the elite
oligarchies and opposition leaders that set back the reforms achieved by the
Marcos regime on Peace and Order, land reforms, education, agriculture, legal
system (codifications and modernization of laws), and Sound Economic
Fundamental structures under a regime of justice, peace, liberty and equality
for all, rich or poor alike, under Martial Law New Society . As reported by
Majority leader Mike Mansfield, to the US Senate, "Martial Law is declared and
being administered at this time on a constitutional basis in the Philippines x x x
He (President Marcos) has zeroed in on areas which have been widely recognized

1
as prime sources of the Nation's difficulties- land reform and tenancy, official
corruption, tax evasion, and abuse of oligarchic economic power.”viii

In assessing the place of illustrious personae in history, the virtues,

achievements and good deeds must be weighed with the misdeeds, if any. In the
case of President Ferdinand E. Marcos, he was maligned and condemned and
booted out of power by the mob. the "Hoofing crowd" orchestrated by the cabal
of the political opposition, the oligarchs, the insurgents and the biased foreign
media and manipulated local press.

The factual justification for declaration of Martial Law lies in the

background and categorical imperatives of Martial Law that made it absolutely
necessary to save and protect the Philippines from the extremely dangerous
environmental circumstances then obtaining in the early 70's, from takeover
by the group of local communist rebels (Communist Party of the Philippines
[CPP] and the Nationalist People's Army) [NPA] then led by Joma Sison and
other subversive elements, who were perceived to be in conspiracy with the
oligarchs and political oppositions together with foreign elements, such
Constitution at Authoritarian Regime of Martial Law was a better alternative
compared to the declaration of a "Revolutionary Government" by President
Corazon Aquino that brought more violence, "coup de etat", and disorders is
amply supported by self-evident facts from undisputed evidence found no less
than by the Supreme Court in Lansang et. al. vs Garcia et. al. GR. No. L-883964.

I had classmates in the UP College of Law-who were members of the

Militant Kabataang Makabayan- Hermion Lagman and Bong Molonzo, who were
my friends.

I agree with their goal and objective for equality between the rich and the
poor, but I disagree with their advocacy on the means of violent uprising and
revolution, where the slaves and working class of today would be the Tyrants
of Tomorrow in a Jacobian revolutionary society. That would necessary spill the
blood of many precious human lives; resulting in disorder and instability in
society.

I had a first hand background and experience of the Anti-Marcos

sentiments in the University of the Philippines in the second part of the 60’s and
the first part of the 70s. I graduated with a Degree in Economic in 1966 and
from (UP) College of law in 1970 and became a Lawyer in 1971. UP then, as
now, and as always has consistently been, is inveterate anti-Marcos, although FM

2
employed the best minds from UP in the Supreme Court and other Key Executive
Offices and even tapped the UP Law Center in drafting Presidential Decrees
codifying and modernizing all branches of Laws. I was a part of the Committee
on Codification of Laws in the UP Law Center under Dr. Melquiades Gamboa, a
former Ambassador of the Philippines to the Court of St. James in London, Great
Britain, UK.

PRACTICING LAW AS A YOUNG LAWYER

Upon graduating cum laude from the UP College of Law in 1970 and
placing 3rd in the Bar, I was being recruited by Senator Sotero Laurel to join his
legal staff on recommendation of UP Law Dean Froilan Bacungan, but I was not
interested in politics and preferred Corporate Practice, so I joined the
prestigious Sycip Salazar Luna and Feliciano Law Firm in Makati as Assistant
Attorney. I volunteered as a Trial Attorney for the Citizens Legal Aid Society of
the Philippines (CLASP) a group organized by Salvador "Doy Laurel (who later
became Vice-President with Corazon Aquino as President after the exile of
President Marcos) . The first case Doy Laurel assigned to me was to prosecute
a complex crime of Rape with Homicide as a Private Prosecutor in the Court of
First Instance (CFI, now Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.

I distinctly recall that my new car which was a gift given to me by my

parents after passing the 1971 Bar was carnapped a few months thereafter
after at the UP Law Center grounds while I was distributing review materials
for the Bar. My car was retrieved by the Police after declaration of Martial Law
in September of 1972.

MY ACADEMIC CAREER AS A LAW TEACHER

After my post graduate studies and earning my doctorate degree in law

(S.LD.) from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981, I joined the UP
Faculty in the 1980’s and the Ateneo School of Law in the 1990's. Before then I
was already teaching at other law schools in Metro Manila, such as Lyceum of
the Philippines, San Beda College of Law (SBC), Arellano University (AU) School
of Law, University of the East (UE) Law School, Philippine Christian University

3
(PCU) School of Law (PCU) and other downtown law schools; and conducting
Seminars, and MCLE lectures, while I actively practiced law and at the same
time, and published a series of books on how to prepare for the Bar entitled,
"Study Guide for the Bar" that incorporated topics on Speed Reading,
Memorization Skills, listening and taking notes, basic rules of grammar, how to
answer Bar Questions, updates on Law and Jurisprudence and forecast of what
might be asked in the Bar Exams.

I was then teaching at UP College of Law when Presidential Daughter, Imee

Marcos, was in her senior year at the UP College of Law in Commercial Law
Review, which had 2 sections; she was enrolled in the Class of Prof. Arturo
Balbastro, not in my section. She graduated cum laude and Dean Froilan
Bacungan had the graduation ceremonies held at the Meralco Theatre instead
of the UP College of Law. With strong anti-Marcos sentiments of the UP Law
Faculty, Imee Marcos was denied the UP Ll.B. Diploma. From the information I
got, there was some technicality regarding her lack of a proper baccalaureate
degree that qualified as a pre-law degree which is a prerequisite for studies in
law proper. In the case of Imee Marcos, her studies from Princeton and the
degree obtained from Don Mariano Marcos University in Ilocos were not
honored by the law faculty. I remember that my classmate in UP Law Class '70
Ambassador Jean Abuyuan Falcon, who lacked a single subject in her Bachelor
of Arts Course was required to cross-enroll to complete the required subject
before she was allowed to graduate and to take the Bar. I also recall during the
post-war years, which were "extraordinary times,” Jose W. Diokno was allowed
to take the Bar without any law degree together with Jovito Salonga, both of
whom landed as No. 1 topnotchers in the Bar. Per Shakespeare, it is “the
Unkindest Cut of all” to deny Imee Marcos an Ll. B Diploma barring her to take the
Bar.

I have no doubt in my mind that Imee Marcos could have passed and even
topped the Bar if she was allowed to take it at that time. I once had a 4th year
student at UP (Miss Benipayo) who was not permitted by the Dean to take the
Bar. I advised her to file a Petition with the Supreme Court to let her take the
Bar and I guaranteed that she would pass as she was qualified enough to
graduate and be granted an LI.B. diploma but the Dean (now SC Senior Justice
Marvic Leonen) wanted her to defer and take the Bar the next year so she could
be more prepared to pass it. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court,
a Justice called me to verify if I really guaranteed that she would pass the Bar,
jokingly telling me I would be cited for contempt if Miss Benepayo would fail. I
boldly answer “Yes, Justice”. She passed the Bar.

4
 LAW PRACTICE AT THE START OF MARTIAL LAW REGIME

Despite the Regime of Martial Law declared in 1972, Courts continued

to function under the Constitution, The first case I handled and argued as a
young lawyer (Bar '71) , before the Supreme Court en Banc was "Manuel
Lopez Enage VS Secretary of Justice”. My client was Judge Manuel Lopez Enage
of the CFI of Agusan del Norte. The Petition sought to nullify and declare
Proclamation 1081 declaring Martial Law unconstitutional in relation to
Presidential Letter of Instruction No. 11, under which Judge Enage was
dismissed from judicial service “for being notoriously undesirable in view of
the many charges filed against you", none of which had been tried yet. Gross
violation of due process of law, independence of Judiciary and security of
tenure of members of the Judiciary under the Constitution were the main
grounds for nullification of LOI No. 11; and re-instatement was principally
anchored on violation of due process. "which hears before its condemns, and
proceeds to trial before rendering judgment."
I asked permission to handle the highly controversial case from the
Managing Partner of my employer law firm Mr. Alexander Sycip who at first
denied my request, but after I took my resignation letter from my pocket and
handed it to him he agreed reluctantly to let me argue the case before the
Supreme Court en banc so long as I would not drag the name of the law firm.

The oral argument before the Supreme Court en banc was my first
Baptism of Fire. Before I could answer the first question, other Justices would
ask their questions successively like throwing bombs at me. One should be
alert and should think fast. If one couldn't answer at once, the Justice asking
questions to a Novice lawyer like me would point a finger to his head, shake it
and move to adjourn the case and ask you to just file a Memorandum. I humbly
and very politely asked permission to tackle the questions one at a time and
in seriatim (in the order they are propounded) I did not have much difficulty
because my wife, Soledad, was seated beside me and prompting suggested

5
answers because we studied the case together. I recognize that she is a better
lawyer than me, being UP class Valedictorian in 1968 while I was only 1970
UP Class Salutatorian. I was No. 3 in the 1971 Bar while she was No.6 in 1969
Bar. We were both the only UP candidates who were in the Top Ten both in
the 1969 and 1971 Bar, respectively. My wife joined the UP faculty after her
post graduate in Harvard and Michigan in 1973.

During the oral arguments, Chief Justice Fernando told me not to perorate
because I was reciting the definition of due process with oratorical fervor in
order to emphasize violation of due process. I read orally excerpts from cases
from his book on Constitutional Law. He said that is an old book and might be
obsolete. I told him the book might be old and dilapidated, but the author is the
foremost authority on Constitutional Law. When he asked who was that, I
shouted "You, your Honor. He smiled. I seized the opportunity of the moment,
and said, "If I am not a good lawyer, at least I am a good reader." Chief Justice
Fernando jestingly retorted "Even that is highly doubtful". Maybe out of
curiosity, the Justice who were mostly from UP Law and classmates of President
Marcos grilled me with questions. I remember Justices Ramon Aquino, husband of
Atty. Carolina Griño who was a partner at my employer Sycip Law, Justice Ramon
Fernandez, Justice Pacifico de Castro and Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma were
present during the oral argument. My maternal Grand Uncle Justice Querube
Makalintal who later served as Batasan Parliament during the Marcos Regime
inhibited himself.

Chief Justice Fernando was teaching in the UP College of Law and he knew
me and my wife. In one faculty meeting, he told my wife that we had a good case,
but we could not win because of political underpinnings existing at that time.
For some reason, the case became moot and academic because Judge Enage , a
cousin of the First Lady, was taken in as legal adviser in Malacañang and we did
not pursue any claim for back salaries.

During Martial Law, all Courts were open and the Supreme Court
calendared for hearing on oral arguments on high and mighty constitutional
questions involving Public interest of transcendental importance to the Nation.
My next case calendared for hearing on oral argument before the Supreme
Court en banc was a Petition, with myself as the main petitioner, "to disclose to
the people the conditionalities and terms of the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) loans to the Philippine” under the clause on "Freedom of Information" on
public transactions of the 1973 Constitution. I got "due course" but when the

6
case was set for oral argument, I asked for a resetting even for a week because
I had to finish checking papers for graduating students at the Up College of Law.
The Supreme Court denied the re-setting and the oral arguments proceeded
without me, with Estelito “Titong" Mendoza for the Government and other
intervenors attending the hearing. I was sternly rebuked by the Supreme Court
and was made to choose between Law Practice and Teaching. I chose both,
believing that the best way to learn is to teach.

MARTIAL LAW -AN ACCEPTED FACT FOR TWO DECADES AFTER

1972

When I went for post-graduate studies in 1976 as a DeWitt Scholar at the

Law School of the University of Michigan, USA, we Filipinos were proud of the
Martial Law Regime which was then recognized and admired by the United
States and all the free democratic countries of the World for the solid reforms
under the New Society under Martial Law with functioning Civil Courts under
the Constitution.

Sometime after I returned from my studies in the US in 1976, my legal

work was focused on the financial sector with clients from the banking and
quasi-banking industry , until my old friend, Justice Manuel “Lolong" Ballesteros
Lazaro recruited me to be his Deputy Presidential Assistant for Legal affairs in
Malacañang and as Vice President General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of
the Commercial Bank of Manila (Combank), then a subsidiary of GSIS and
successor-in-interest of the defunct Overseas Bank of Don Emerito Ramos. I
first met Lolong Lazaro when I was Assistant Attorney at Sycip Salazar Luna
Manalo and Feliciano Law Firm in Makati, where we worked together in
drafting a transaction between Commonwealth Foods Inc. represented by my
law firm and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), where Lolong
Lazaro was the General Counsel.

Lolong Lazaro is very dear to my heart as a former boss and Benefactor

from whom I learned the elementary virtues of honesty, respect and humility. He
was a very kind and generous. He told me and my wife Soledad, “All my Legal
Assistants are from Ateneo, but I got only 2 from UP but they are the best from
UP”. Lolong Lazaro joined BBM in the hectic campaign for President. When he

7
died shortly after BBM’s Land Slide Victory. I published the following Tribute to
Lolong Lazaro.

TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE MANUEL “Lolong” B. LAZARO

By Dean Arturo M. de Castro, UM Graduate School of Law, Bar
Reviewer, Public Interest Lawyer, MAY 21, 2022

I am deeply saddened by the sudden passing away of

Justice Manuel B. Lazaro Lolong to his friends and
acquaintance, My Best Friend, generous benefactor and
kind and fair and wise BOSS as Presidential Assistant
For Legal Affairs in Malacañang as his Deputy
Presidential Assistant under FM and concurrently as
Vice President for Legal Affairs, Corporate Secretary &
General Counsel of the Commercial Bank of Manila
(ComBank) then a subsidiary of the GSIS.

Lolong Lazaro is a paragon of humility, wisdom, hard

& fast work, good thinking, and respect and kindness and
fairness for others even to lawyers at the opposite side in
the legal battle. I can only join Apparent Speaker to be
Honorable Martin G. Romualdez in describing Lolong
Lazaro JUSTICE PAR EXCELLENCE Atty. Ramon
Barredo describes him as ONE OF THE BEST LEGAL
MINDS OF THE COUNTRY.

I learned from Lolong the habits of hard and fast

work, perseverance, multi-tasking and professional
responsibilities. Lolong Lazaro was an indefatigable
working human dynamo doing multi- tasks as
Presidential hands on Legal Counsel and concurrently
Government Corporate. Counsel. He hosted lunch every
Saturday with his legal assistants and staff to catch up
with pending legal works.

Lolong was a true friend, very generous and kind. I

acquired my house and lot at BF Homes P’que from a
loan from GSIS including for furnitures and household
fixtures. I enjoyed fringe benefits as an Executive at

8
 Combank like an Executive Company Car and liberal
loan policies that enabled me to invest substantially in
real estate along the route of tourism Master Plan from
the beaches in Nasugbu, Batangas to beaches in Laiya,
San Juan, Batangas.

Lolong is close to my heart being a relative of my

daughter in law, Beautiful Wife of my Son Musician
Perfecto, Ma. Fidelis Cervantes, whose Grandmother,
Cresencia Molina Ballesteros, was a cousin of Donya
Josefa E. Marcos and a neighbor and good friend in
Sarrat Ilocos Norte.

I and other friends, admirers and beneficiaries of

Lolong’s kindness and generosity would forever
remember Lolong with love, gratitude and fondest
affection.

DEALING WITH LEGAL ISSUES DURING POST MARTIAL LAW

Jaime V. Ongpin was known to be a key organizer of the Civil Society led
by Jaime Cardinal Sin who opposed Martial Rule. Since 1981, my wife, Soledad
Cagampang de Castro, was a corporate lawyer who worked at the Legal
Department of Benguet Corporations where Jimmy Ongpin was President and
CEO. From 1981 to 1986, the Philippines was in social and political turmoil with
increasing number of sectors clamoring for the end of Martial Law . The
assassination of Benigno " Ninoy” Aquino in 1986, precipitated the public
outcry for the end of the Martial Law Regime. The various legal maneuvers to
find Aquino's assassins who were nonetheless acquitted would eventually
aggravate the dissatisfaction with the Marcos government that finally led to the
overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos upon the outbreak of the EDSA
Revolution led by his widow, Corazon Cojuangco Aquino together with key
officers of the military and the civic and religious leaders and business men who
constitute the civil society.

9
 THE PETITION FOR MISTRIAL : THE AQUINO-GALMAN DOUBLE
MURDER CASE

The Agrava Commission was formed to investigate and the case on the
assassination of Ninoy Aquino. The military escorts who took Ninoy Aquino
from the plane to the tarmac where he was shot to death were prosecuted
before the Sandiganbayan but all the accused were acquitted in mass.

It was after Ninoy’s assassination that I resigned from my work under

Lolong Lazaro. When Mr. Jaime Ongpin called for me, I was ready to give his
group the legal assistance needed in the assassination case of Ninoy Aquino. It
was still during Martial Law Regime when I filed a "Petition for Mistrial" before
the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of mass acquittal of the Military
escorts of Ninoy who were prosecuted for Double Murder for the death of
Ninoy and Galman. My Petitioners were 29 members of Civil Society. The
Petition for Mistrial was dubbed by the press as "the case of the century"; it
was a petition for mistrial to declare the judgment of mass acquittal null and
void on behalf of the people for violation of due process of law represented by
concerned citizens.Since the start of the Cory Regime when I won the mistrial
case up to now there is a provision in the Rules of Court that the Solicitor
General may change the legal position of the Government when there is a
change in the Administration; this time the Solicitor General of the Cory
Administration was with me in the Petition for Mistrial before the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court, not a being trier of facts, created the Vasquez
Commission where I presented evidence, and based on its reports, The
Supreme Court declared a mistrial and ordered a re-trial in the Aquino Galman
double murder case, and all the Accused Military escorts were Convicted. Until
now, there is no answer to the question who shot Aquino and Galman, Where
a charge is conspiracy as a means of committing a crime committed by two or
more persons who come to an agreement to commit the crime and decide to
Commit it, without the principal by direct participation, the co-conspirators
cannot be convicted, and the subsequent conviction after an acquittal is
barred by double jeopardy and res judicata.

The Mistrial case was essentially a political one decided under the new
Administration filed as a separate and independent Petition after the finality of

10
the judgment of acquittal which was not appealable. The Petition was not an
appeal because an acquittal after arraignment and trial bars subsequent
prosecution for the same offense after the finality of the judgment of acquittal.
Re-trial is not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to order because the
criminal acquittal was immediately final and executory and non-appealable.
The Petition for mistrial I filed was an independent people's civil action to
declare the mass acquittal null and void on behalf of the people to declare the
judgment of mass acquittal null and void because the Prosecution and the
Sandigan Bayan Justices were guilty of bias and prejudice as shown by the
notorious note passing incident from the Prosecution to the Sandigan Bayan
Justices in the course of the trial as testified to and confirmed by Prosecutor
Herrera before the Vasquez Commission where l, together with Atty. Lupino
Lazaro, lawyer for Galman, and Prosecutor Francisco presented evidence in
support of the Petition for Mistrial. Being a long time Professor of Criminal Law
and Criminal Procedure, I wonder if a re-trial may be ordered by the Supreme
Court as a post judgment remedy after a judgment of acquittal had long become
final and executory. The appeal I made to the Supreme Court in the Aquino
Galman Double Murder case was limited to civil liability on the portion of the
decision of conviction, declaring that there is no evidence regarding civil
liability for damages. The Decision of the Supreme Court might have run against
the principle of Pro Rio that criminal law and procedure are strictly construed
against the state and more favorably to the accused who are entitled to the
constitutional presumption of innocence unless the guilt is proven with moral
certainty beyond reasonable doubt. Under Rule 135 of the Revised Rules of
Court, the Courts have inherent equitable jurisdiction to amend their orders
and processes to serve the ends of justice including the authority to suspend
the most mandatory technical procedural law in the interest of substantial
justice through its fair Administration in order to serve the Paramount interest
of justice and equity. I cited in the petition for mistrial the inherent jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court to review and invalidate the acts of the Executive
Department, its agencies, subordinate offices and instrumentalities done with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. I still have
lingering doubts whether these principles were correctly and justly applicable
in criminal cases without running against the grains of the Doctrine of Pro Reo;
the Constitutional Presumption of Innocence and the Constitutional Rights
Against Double Jeopardy. Among the 29 Petitioners I represented in the
"Mistrial Case" were the key leaders of Civil Society who later became the
Cabinet officials of the new Cory Aquino Administration when Marcos was
toppled down by the EDSA revolution with people coming from various sectors

11
of the Philippine population — religious leaders led by Cardinal Sin,
businessmen, the political opposition, members of the Reform the Army
Movement (RAM) from the armed forces, rebel communists, oligarchs, and
members of the local and foreign press corps. As in the first case for Judge
Enage, I crossed sword again with Estelito "Titong" Mendoza, as Solicitor
General and Secretary of Justice at that time while Marcos was still President.
Titong Mendoza was also a Professor at the UP College of law, and we consider
each other as friends. Titong Mendoza and I became on the same side of ill-
gotten wealth cases before the Sandiganbayan when I represented former
Marcos officials retained by Cory Aquino prosecuted criminally and civilly for
ill-gotten wealth during the Cory Aquino Administration.

MY MULTIFACETED PRACTICE OF LAW POST EDSA REVOLUTION

The Petition for Mistrial resulted in the re-trial and conviction of the
military escorts of Ninoy Aquino for the double murder of Aquino and Galman.
Cory Aquino assumed office as President of the Philippines and my 29 clients
as Petitioners in the Mistrial case assumed their respective positions in the
new Cory government, like Jaime Ongpin who became Secretary of Finance
and my co-counsels in the Mistrial case, Andres Narvasa as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court and Marcelo Fernan who succeeded as Chief Justice upon
Narvasa's retirement. I was recommended by both Chief Justices for
appointment as Tanod Bayan (now Ombudsman). Only the 3 of us, (myself,
Prosecutor Simeon Ferrer and Judge Edilberto Sandoval) were in the shortlist
submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to Cory Aquino and I was
already advised by Chief Justice Fernan that I was appointed and to await the
appointment papers for the position of Ombudsman. In a twist of fate, Aniano
Desierto who was not in the short list, took his oath as Ombudsman before a
Municipal Trial Judge in Cebu. To this day, I wonder how he was appointed
when he was the Military Adjutant General who prosecuted and got the
conviction of Ninoy Aquino by the Military Tribunal. There was a speculation
that the appointment paper for Arturo de Castro was changed to appear as
Aniano Desierto. Later I was told that if Desierto's appointment were recalled,
it would cause a constitutional crisis because Aniano Desierto had already
taken oath of office and the shaky Revolutionary Government could not afford
a constitutional crisis. I am not sure about that, but I am sure Aniano Desierto
was not included in the shortlist submitted by JBC to Cory. Only Simeon Ferrer,
Edilberto Sandoval and Arturo de Castro were in the shortlist. My wife and I
were already informed by Chief Justice Fernan of the appointment. This was

12
followed by another disappointment when I was also groomed for
appointment as Solicitor General but my friend and my patron, Jimmy Ongpin,
was removed by Cory Aquino as Secretary of Finance, and Frank Chavez, a co-
lawyer of joker Arroyo in Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) was appointed
instead as Solicitor General.

I was earlier appointed as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of

PhilGuarantee, which was under the Secretary of Finance, Jaime Ongpin with
the CB Governor Ramon Fernandez and National Treasurer Victor Macalincag,
and others as Directors. Of the 33 cases filed by the Cory Aquino Administration
for ill-gotten wealth before the Sandiganbayan against the former officials of
Marcos, I became the lawyer in 17 cases, involving such personalities as : DBP
Chairman Cesar Zalamea, CB Governor Ramon Fernandez , Tony Ozaeta, Kokoy
Romualdez, Jose De Venecia, and many others.

The Supreme Court during the Martial Law years were liberal in
entertaining direct Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus on grave
abuse of discretion or lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the other
Departments of Government, the Executive and Legislative Departments and
their subordinate agencies and instrumentalities wherein taxpayer and
concerned citizen may initiate the Petition involving Public interest of
transcendental importance to the Nation such as disbursements of public funds
even when the Petitioners do not have direct and personal interests other than
the interest shared with the public at large. The Supreme Court nowadays is
very strict on the legal capacity to sue of petitioners even on high and mighty
constitutional issues affecting public interest of transcendental importance to
the Nation. I filed a case in my name as petitioner on behalf of the people before
the Supreme Court in recent history when the Senate and the House of
Representatives could not agree on the votes for amendments to the
Constitution, whether the 2/3 votes should be counted separately or per capita
in a joint session assembled. The Senate wanted the voting to be done
separately but the House wanted per Capita voting in a joint session assembled.
In order to resolve the issue, I filed a Petition with the Supreme Court in order
to diffuse the tension gripping the Nation in my own name as Petitioner as a
Tax payer, a concerned citizen and a public interest Private lawyer, Law Dean
and Law Professor. My petition was dismissed outright for lack of legal
personality to sue because I did not have direct and personal interest although
I thought the issue involved high and mighty Constitutional issue dividing the
Nation. Under the doctrine of literal interpretation in Statutory Construction,
the House was correct because the constitutional provision requires voting in

13
a joint session assembled, not each house voting separately. Under the Doctrine
of anima legis, spirit over literal language, the Senate was correct because
historically the House and the Senate voted separately in proposing
amendments to the Constitution. It is absurd under the verba legis or literal
interpretation of the language of the Constitution if the Senate with only 24
members and the House of Representatives with over 200 members would vote
per capita when the two (2) chambers of Congress are co-equal and separate
from each other. The Supreme Court dismissed my Petition saying that I have
no direct personal interest enough to be personally affected, and that the
Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinion but adjudicates only where
there is a Judicial Controversy. Hence, I was held lacking Legal Personality to
file the Petition. Another case in point was the Petition filed by opposition
Senators to declare the unilateral withdrawal of President Rodrigo Duterte
from membership in and from universal jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) on crimes against humanity committed by the heads of
states and their agents including genocide, forced Disappearances or
Extrajudicial killings committed by the agents of the Government without the
concurrence of 2/3 of the Members of the Senate. The decision discussed the
merit of the case fully, but the Petition was dismissed for lack of legal
personality to sue because the Petition was not supported by a favorable
Resolution of the Senate and the opposition Senators who filed the Petition
were held to have no legal personality to sue for lack of direct personal interest
in the outcome of the case. There is a high and mighty constitutional issue
involved, which is imbued with public interest. During the Marcos Regime. I
filed a Petition before the Supreme Court to compel the Committee on Justice
in the House of Representatives to give due course to the Impeachment Petition
against President Marcos, The Supreme Court entertained but dismissed my
Petition, holding that it was a political question left to the discretion of the
Committee on Justice and its members and the exercise of a discretionary power
cannot be compelled by mandamus. A distinction should be made between a
Petition for Certiorari Prohibition or Mandamus under Section 1, Article VIII of
the Constitution on grave abuse of discretion or lack or excess of jurisdiction
under the equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review the acts of the
Executive and Legislative Departments involving constitutional issues of
paramount public interest of transcendental importance to the Nation, such as
when disbursements of public funds are involved which should be
distinguished from original Civil Action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus on grave abuse of discretion or
lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by a judicial body or quasi- judicial

14
agency under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure where personal
and direct interest of the petitioner is necessary.

In my humble view, under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution the

discretionary power of judicial review of the Supreme over acts of other
departments, their instrumentalities that are tainted with grave abuse of
discretion and/or lack or excess of jurisdiction does not require personal and
direct interest of the Petitioner on the outcome of the litigation as long as public
interest is involved to set to rest the high and mighty constitutional questions
of transcendental importance to the Nation.

In my humble view, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, My Dean

when I was teaching Commercial Law Review at the UP College of Law should
have resolved on the merit the constitutional issue whether President Rodrigo
Duterte's unilateral withdrawal from the Jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) under the Rome Statute without the concurrence of 2/3
members of the Senate is valid under our Constitution that requires 2/3 votes
of concurrence for the ratification of the Rome Statute as a Treaty. In my
humble view the Supreme Court should ideally have resolved the case on the
merit, instead of dismissing it on lack of personal interest of the Senators-
Petitioners. The Decision is a paragon of elegance of poetic language in the
scholarly exposition of the Pros and Cons on the question better than any
treatise or exposition of the laws, both Under the Constitution and the Vienna
Convention on the law of Treaties.

The Constitution requires the concurrence by 2/3 votes of all the

members of the Senate to enable the President to ratify the treaty, in this case
the Rome Statute that creates the International Criminal Court (ICC) with
universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, including enforced
disappearance and extrajudicial killings committed by the agents of the
Government. Our Constitution does not require concurrence of the Senate for
the withdrawal by the President from the treaty because the Constitution is
silent in case of withdrawal of the President from any treaty. Under the Vienna
convention, it is the authority who can ratify the treaty that has the authority
to withdraw from the Treaty. It is true under our Constitution, that the
President is authorized to ratify a treaty, but the President cannot ratify a treaty
without the concurrence by 2/3 votes of the Senate. Conversely, the authority
to withdraw from a treaty must have the concurrence of the Senate as a matter
of simple logic. That was the ruling of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The
unilateral withdrawal from the ICC of the President of South Africa was

15
declared unconstitutional for lack of concurrence of the Senate. South Africa
remains a member under the universal jurisdiction of the ICC up to now.

Our Constitution is patterned after the Constitution of the United States

with identical provision on process for the ratification of treaties. When U.S.
President Carter abrogated unilaterally a treaty with Taiwan without the
concurrence of the Senate, the Federal Supreme Court of the United States
declined to assume jurisdiction and the unilateral withdrawal by Carter was
respected even without the concurrence of the Senate.

In the Philippines, there is a precedent, Philippines Ambassador

plenipotentiary Manalo signed the Rome Statute which was forwarded to the
President for ratification. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo refused to send
the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence, because the Philippines joined
the United States in the Coalition of the Willing Countries which liberated
Kuwait, Iraq, a war crime being without the support by the Security Council of
the United Nations. Under International Law, war is justified only as an act of
self-defense and when supported by Resolution of the Security Council of the
United Nations. The Philippines under GMA followed President Bush, her allies,
in refusing membership with the ICC under the Rome Statute, which punishes
War Crimes and other Crimes against Humanity committed by heads of state
and agents of Government. Then Senate President Aquilino Pimentel sued the
Office of the President to compel it to send the Rome Statute to the Senate for
concurrence. The Supreme Court declined to assume jurisdiction in Pimentel vs.
Ermita because the conduct of foreign relations is the sole prerogative of the
President for which she is responsible only to the people under the political
question doctrine, Pimentel had the legal personality to file a Petition, got due
course and his Petition was resolved on the merits.

The result would be the same if the Supreme Court entertained the
Petition of the Opposition Senators and resolved the question based on the
precedent in the Pimentel vs. Ermita case that the conduct of foreign relations
is a Political Question that falls outside the power of Judicial review being an
exclusive prerogative of the President to be respected and not interfered with
under the principle of Separation of sphere of powers between the Judicial and
Executive Departments as co-equal branches of Government.

I have published a legal article right after the case was filed by the
Opposition Senators with the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the
unilateral withdrawal from the ICC by Duterte with a fearless prediction that

16
the case is doomed from the beginning, because the withdrawal made by
Duterte is a political question involving foreign relations citing the case of
Pimentel vs. Ermita involving the political nature of ratification of treatise by
the Presidentix. I was a legal consultant of Secretary Dennis Hernandez of
Tanauan Batangas, Presidential Adviser for Southern Tagalog of PDU30 at that
time.

As a young Lawyer, I learned early in my life that my character is not fit

to be a politician. A client once told me that I am brutally frank. He was
explaining that the admission made by a subordinate officer of the corporation
whose property was sequestered by the PCGG for being an ill-gotten wealth is
not binding on the corporation, I shot out said defense by saying that the
corporation is bound by the implied admission made by the officer by
surrendering the assets to the PCGG to avoid being foreclosed by a commercial
Bank. I frankly discussed the elements of estoppel. I advised to abandon the
defense of lack of knowledge and authority by the corporation and instead
concentrate on other defenses to show that the sequestered assets did not fall
under the definition of ill-gotten wealth because the same came from legitimate
sources and not amassed, acquired or accumulated through graft and
corruption. The act of a subordinate officer, if unauthorized by the board is not
binding unless the corporation was benefitted. I advised to forget the defense
of lack of authority to avoid raising the issue of estoppel. We obtained favorable
results on the defenses we adopted up to the Supreme Court.

I was privileged to handle all the "Land Oil Cases" of Speaker Joe De
Venecia in the PCGG up to the Supreme Court on the foreign loans obtained by
the Land Oil Group of Companies abroad with sovereign guarantee which I won
all the way to the Supreme Court. I had the honor to appear before the War
Damage Claims in the United Nations War Damage Claims Compensation
Commission in Switzerland. I defended successfully Speaker Joe De Venecia in
more than 3000 estafa cases filed by overseas workers of land oil in Saudi
Arabia, including obtaining a Temporary Restraining Order from the Supreme
Court against his arrest for lack of probable cause on contracted obligations
involving only civil liability which we paid off when we won, a case on
International Insurance Claims in the United States against the Lloyd of London.

During the GMA Administration, there was an issue that confronted

President Gloria Arroyo whether she could appoint a Chief Justice within the 2
months ban before the National election. I filed a Petition in my name as
Petitioner (Arturo M. de Castro et al. vs. Judicial and Bar Council) to compel the

17
JBC to send a short list of nominees to replace retiring Chief Justice Reynato
Puno, although the Constitution prohibits appointment within 2 months
preceding the National Election. I argued that the spirit and philosophy of the
Law do not apply to appointment to the Supreme Court. The appointment is
prohibited to avoid influence on the outcome of the elections, a reason which
does not apply to appointment of members of the Supreme Court. The remedy
of mandamus is not available to compel the discretionary authority of the JBC
to vet candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. There is no specific
duty enjoined by the Law for the JBC to act one way or another. Mandamus is
technically not a remedy, but the Supreme Court, in its wisdom resolved the
issue on the merit and sustained my theory that appointment to the Supreme
Court is not covered by the prohibition under the Anima Legis as against Verba
Legis Statutory Rule of interpretation of the Constitution. The J BC sent the short
list of nominees and Renato Corona was appointed Chief Justice by President
Gloria Arroyo during the election ban period. I filed the petition in my name as
a Petitioner but I credit Estelito Mendoza more than myself for winning the case
by his appearance and oral argument as Counsel for an Intervenor.

During the Duterte Administration, I served as Confidential Legal

Assistant for Secretary Dennis Hernandez, Presidential Adviser for Southern
Tagalog and at the same time I was, and still am, General Counsel of Task Force
Humanitarian for Peace and Order of the Federal Party of the Philippines, I have
publicly spoken on and written many articles on Federalismx which in my
humble view and opinion may soon materialize because decentralization of
functions of Government is provided in the present Constitution and actually
implemented by the Local Government Code and by the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the twin Mandanas and Garcia Decisions vesting local
autonomy to the Local Government Units and automatically allocating 20% of
all revenues such as all taxes, customs duties collected by the National
Government to fund functions devolved to the Local Governments.

Fast forward to the Present Administration, I fully support the call of the
Present Administration for unity, reconciliation, forgiveness and to set aside
hatred and anger nurtured in the past. Nobody is perfect, everybody makes
mistakes. Let us forgive, love and respect one another and unburden the pain
and agonies in the past, we forgive and sow love in place of anger and hatred
for our peace of minds and hearts. Anger and hatred and intent to retaliate and
cause damage and injury to others are debilitating to the heart and troublesome
to the mind, the Spirit and the Soul, In the Muslim faith, it is mortal sin not to
forgive a repentant sinner. We forgive and have peace, if we live not for
18
ourselves, but for others, with love and compassion particularly to family
members, friends, the poor and the needy.

The Cory Administration declared a Revolutionary Government

operating outside the Constitution, and slaughtered local government officials,
Governors, Mayors, Councilors, without the benefit of investigation and
hearing. Elected local officials were replaced arbitrarily by officers-in-charge
(OIC). Elected Public Officials were replaced at the whims and caprices of the
power that be.

I was retained by then Mayor Francisco Lecaroz of Marinduque to

question his summary dismissal as Mayor of Marinduque which was given due
course and set for oral arguments before the Supreme Court en banc. I argued
that all the elected officials became all casuals under Cory Aquino arbitrarily
without rhyme and reasons except the whims and caprices of the new
Government. Justice Ramon Fernandez, a best friend and drinking buddy of my
mentor, atty. Fidel Manalo, the Head of the litigation department of my former
law firm, Sycip, Salazar, Luna, Manalo and Feliciano quipped that my client was
not only a casual but already a casualty, Dean Andres Narvasa was the Chief
Justice who was my co-counsel together with Marcelino Fernando in the
Petition for mistrial in the Aquino-Galman double murder case. They allowed
me to argue before the jampacked Supreme Court en banc. Many dismissed
local officials lined up in my law office for me to represent them before the
Supreme Court. I remember Governor Ligot of Sorsogon was one of them. Only
Mayor Francisco Lecaroz was reinstated by the Supreme Court as Mayor, with
headlines in the Philippine Inquirer featuring my victory for Mayor Francisco
Lecaroz with my big picture bannered in the front page. Other Local officials
lost because they were appointed Officers-ln-Charge and considered temporary
casuals, while Mayor Francisco Lecaroz was not an OIC but a duly elected Mayor
of Marinduque not included in the massacre at the onset of the Cory
Administration which distributed the spoils to the supporters that toppled the
regime of Ferdinand Marcos, collectively referred as the yellow group of civil
society, businessmen sleeping in bed with leftist elements urging rebellion
against the Marcos Regime to deliver the reign of Government to a foreign
communist power.

During the Ramos Administration I stopped thru Executive Secretary

Alexander Aguirre the cock derby scheduled by Willie Red at the Sports
Complex in Marinduque by filing a Petition for issuance of a Presidential
Restraining Order against Willie Red because it is prohibited to hold cockfights

19
and any gambling activities in Government Buildings and Facilities. There was
a precedent which I set when I was the Deputy Presidential Assistant for Legal
Affairs of Lolong Lazaro in Malacañang. Two rival groups in a town in Mindoro
who were about to clash with each other over the land subject of a dispute
pending in Malacañang Legal Office. In the absence of Lolong Lazaro, I issued a
Presidential Restraining Order to avert bloodshed and save precious human
lives. Lolong was fuming mad at me, but I told him I was taking full
responsibility as his Deputy Presidential Assistant for legal affairs. The dispute
was settled amicably and all ended well. Extraordinary situation calls for
extraordinary daring solution.

During the Cory Administration I could not be appointed to any top

position because of my association with the Marcos regime. I was considered
by the JBC for appointment as Ombudsman, but Aniano Desierto was instead
appointed, though he was the Military Prosecutor of Ninoy Aquino who
obtained conviction before the Military Tribunal. I was recommended by Jaime
Ongpin to be Solicitor General, but Ongpin lost to Joker Arroyo in the power
struggle in Malacañang and was terminated as Secretary of Finance, although
Jimmy was nominated and awarded the Best Secretary of Finance in a summit
of Finance Ministers of the World in Malacañang for the reason that in an
interview with the foreign press when asked if he would have supported Ninoy
as the President, Jimmy stated "Ninoy is more corrupt than Marcos”.

On a Friday before Secretary Jimmy Ongpin died the following Monday,

he was in my law office at 11 0'clock in the morning, after my conference with
Anding Roces earlier on his shares in Manila Bulletin which he surrendered to
the PCGG through my representation without any consideration to him. Jimmy
stayed with me the whole afternoon bypassing lunch discussing advice on the
testimonies he would give before the Batasang Pambansa Blue Ribbon
Committee. I advised him to say "l do not recall" or I invoke his right to remain
silent and refuse to answer questions on too sensitive matters. He said he would
not lie; he would speak the truth. He felt betrayed by his close friends. I advised
him that he could not show up if the investigation is not an aid of legislation.
Jimmy Ongpin was the President of Benguet Corporation and the Convenor of
Civil Society of Businessmen opposed to President Marcos along with Jaime
Cardinal Sin. Being connected with Jimmy at Benguet as Head of legal, Audit and
Administration, my wife served as legal counsel of the Group.

Jimmy Ongpin requested me not to go out of town the Monday following

our meeting in my office because ominously he said something would happen

20
Monday and he wanted me to be around. On Monday, I got a call informing me
that Jimmy was dead. He left a Suicide Note which I did not see. I saw him in his
office sitting on his high chair before his desk with a bullet that penetrated at
the right back of his head, with hairs protruding at the right side of his head
above his right ear. Jimmy was sitting inclined backward on his high chair with
a gun held by his right hand inserted in his Barong at the level of his breast. OIC
Mayor Jejomar Binay asked me what was the pleasure of the family, whether to
investigate the case. We were told by the family members not to investigate and
just get the necessary permits. There was no need to investigate.

The first person to arrive at the scene was Father Joaquin Bernas
followed by myself. Looking at the physical evidence, I do not believe Jimmy
committed suicide. I knew him to be very brave and he had cockfighting for a
hobby. He did not go to the cockfight, but he asked for a written blow by blow
account of the fight of his Feathered Warriors from his handlers.

My belief that Jimmy did not commit suicide is reinforced by the fact that
Father Bernas gave him a Catholic Burial, which is not allowed for a person who
took his own life. It was impossible for Jimmy to shoot himself at the backside
of his head by himself. The hairs above his right ear were protruding, as though
pulled by the left hand by triggerman and shot with the right hand holding the
gun. The direction of the bullet was towards the left forehead and did not exit.
If the hair above his right ear was not pulled leftward, Jimmys head and upper
body would have been thrown forward because the bullet which entered at the
right side back of the head did not exit at the front left side of his skull. Jimmy
once stated that he found the solution to pay off all foreign debts of the
Philippine Government. I was not privy to his solution. I keep wondering
whether it had to do with the crash in The New York Stock market. As a Lawyer,
I cannot speculate and jump to conclusion without concrete proof and clear
evidence.

MY THOUGHTS ON THE RETURN OF THE MARCOSES

The Marcoses (BBM) were brought back to power on the advocacy for
kindness, reconciliation and unity. The detractors of BBM are “full of sound and
fury, signifying nothingxi”, without solid proof of cheating in the light of modern
technology that facilitates early results of the elections worldwide. Besides,
BBM has the overwhelming support of leaders in my province of Batangas and

21
all over the land who bring back the glory, honor and pride of the Philippines
on the goal of his illustrious Father to make this Nation Great Again.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THE

GOVERNMENT

The citizens should be vigilant to protect the paramount interest of the

sovereign people on the certain issues that confront the Nation by being
constructive in making public comments to promote the welfare of the people
by suggesting solutions and not destructive fault finding and criticisms, such as
on the following problems:

1. Implementation of payment of just compensation for agricultural laws

place under Land Reform.

a) The Executive Order waiving payment of just compensation and

requiring the Government to pay just compensation to the land
owners, without an enabling law is fraught with complicated legal
problems such as 1.) Whether BBM has the legal authority to
implement the Executive Order without an enabling law passed by
the Congress which has the power of the purse in the separation of
powers between the Legislative and the Executive.

b) Will the Executive Order vest equal benefit to farmer beneficiaries

who already paid just compensation by refunding them what they
already paid that has now been waived under the equal protection
of the law clause of the Constitution

2. Rising Price of Rice and other staple food.

3. Floods for lack of national policy for drainage system all over the country.

4. The Sabah claims

5. Graft and corruption

6. Maharlika Funds

22
 7. Federal Form of Government and Decentralization of Governmental
Functions under the Constitution and the Local Government Code as
directed by the Supreme Court in the Mandanas Decision

8. Neutral Foreign Policies on the South Philippines Seas and other foreign
diplomatic relations, among other national pressing issues that confront
the Nation.

Concerned citizens should suggest action plans to solve national problems,

which should be the subject of public discussion to get the pulse of the people
in a government for the people and by the people and of the people under the
democratic and Republican forms of government that all government
authorities emanate from the people from whom and in whom sovereignty
resides

ENDNOTES:

i
Appendix C
ii
Appendix D
iii
Appendix E
iv
Appendix F
v
Appendix G
vi
Appendix H
vii
Appendix I
viii
Ferdinand Marcos, Notes on the New Society of the Philippines (1983 ed. P.54)
ix
Appendix A, ICC
x
Appendix B. (Federalism)
xi
Shakespeare

23