Kiwi parents gave $1 billion in ‘voluntary donations’ to schools since turn of the centuryOneNewsNow 21 January 2016Figures released to ONE News show New Zealand schools received $70 million in donations during 2014, with the total over the past 15 years at $950 million.“Schools are really caught between a rock and a hard place,” Labour Party education spokesman Chris Hipkins said.“Government funding is simply not keeping up, if they’re not getting the money from government they have to get it from somewhere else so they’re resorting to asking parents to pay more and more of the cost of their kids’ education.”The New Zealand taxpayer contributes $100 to schools for every $1.80 donated privately.Education Minister Hekia Parata also says the Government plans to spend $11 billion on early childhood, primary, and secondary education this year.https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/kiwi-parents-gave-1-billion-in-voluntary-donations-to-schools-since-turn-of-the-centuryKeep up with family issues in NZ. Receive our weekly emails direct to your Inbox.
He also stressed that anadministrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular orerroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy isavailable such as motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition forcertiorari. The judge further stated that on Dec.11, 2019 he had written the Chief Justice requesting for guidance whether hiscourt can proceed notwithstanding the pending case before the Supreme Court. His court has had numerousexpropriation cases disposed promptly, he said, but PECO-MORE Power’s “is acase of first impression.” “So that the public will know andunderstand, the administrative complaint as publicized is based on allegations.It is a basic precept that he who alleges must prove, and that mere allegationsby themselves would not be given weight because it does not amount toevidence,” according to Amular. He further notedthat consumers of Iloilo City filed their complaint-in-intervention which hadbeen admitted by RTC Branch 35; the parties were then yet to file theiranswer-in-intervention. Disciplinary proceedings against ajudge are not complementary or suppletory to, nor a substitute for thesejudicial remedies whether ordinary or extraordinary, stressed Amular. Also in his orderdated Nov. 18, 2019 Amular denied for lack of factual basis MORE Power’s motionseeking his inhibition from the case. To the best of his knowledge,according to Amular, there has been “no precedent of this case ever filedbefore the entire Philippine judiciary…given the present factual setting.” Amular also disclosed that on Dec. 17,2019 he wrote to the Court Administrator regarding the complaint of Teodosio.He added that in due time, when required, he would answer the allegations “withcompetent and admissible evidence.” To hold a judge administrativelyaccountable for every erroneous ruling or decision rendered, assuming he haserred, “would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doublyunbearable,” Amular added, citing the case PhilipSee, Complainant vs Judge Rolando D. Mislag, presiding judge, RTC Branch 167in Pasig City. Amular released this statementyesterday in response to the publicly announced administrative complaint filedagainst him by MORE Power president Roel Castro and legal counsel HectorTeodosio before the Supreme Court on Dec. 12, 2019. He cited Canon 1 of the New Code of JudicialConduct for the Philippine Judiciary, Section 1 of which specifically providesthat “Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the bases oftheir assessment of facts and accordance with the conscientious understandingof the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat orinterference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.” “For obviously, if subsequentdevelopments prove the judge’s challenged act to be correct, there would be nooccasion to proceed against him at all,” he pointed out. ONADMIN CASE It is the duty of the court to see toit that the law is properly and correctly observed, according to the judge, andthat he is always mindful of what is required. WHATWENT BEFORE Thecomplainants-in-intervention have the right to be heard, Amular stressed. Amular recalled that on Dec. 3, 2019after he conducted a Judicial Dispute Resolution Proceedings of two civilcases, Teodosio showed him a copy of the Supreme Court-issued TemporaryRestraining Order directing RTC Branch 209 in Mandaluyong City and PECO tocease and desist from implementing Branch 209’s July 1, 2019 judgement which,among others, declared as void and unconstitutional sections 10 and 17 ofRepublic Act (RA) 11212 (MORE Power franchise) and made permanent therestraining order dated March 14, 2019. In November 2019 Amular suspendproceedings in the expropriation case “in the interest of judicial fairness,respect to the Honorable Supreme Court and for practical considerations.” Amular denied delaying theexpropriation case. According toAmular, the expropriation case is extraordinary as it does not only involveprocedural rules under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court but also theprovisions of RA 10752 (The Right-of-Way Act) and RA 9136 (Electric PowerIndustry Reform Act of 2001 or the EPIRA Law). Amular said he advised Teodosio towait for the Supreme Court decision on the case questioning the decision of theRTC of Mandaluyong City which MORE Power itself brought to the High Court. ILOILO City – The expropriation caseof MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) against Panay Electric Co. (PECO)has become too politicized, according to Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular ofthe Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo, Branch 35. “For the best interest ofthe parties” he suggested that the case be transferred outside the jurisdictionof the RTC of Iloilo “to be tried and heard by the designated judged therein.” “So many legal issues confront thecourt, hence it is most unfair to charge the court that it is delaying thecase,” Amular stressed. The previousjudge handling the expropriation case, Judge Yvette Go, issued a writ ofpossession against PECO’s assets before inhibiting herself. One superveningevent Amular cited was Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No.113-2019 dated July 16, 2019. The OCA required all RTC judges and clerks ofcourt to comply with requirements, specifically the deposit to the court of theamount equivalent to the sum of 100 percent of the value of the land based onthe current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue issuednot more than three years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaintpursuant to RA 10752. Amular noted theSupreme Court’s pronouncement that the issue of constitutionality would be likea prejudicial question to the expropriation case as it would be a waste of timeand effort to appoint evaluation commissioners and debate the market value ofthe property sought to be condemned if it turns out that the condemnation wasillegal. “The question ofconstitutionality is of paramount importance in the interest of legal andprocedural fairness in view of the novelty of the case,” said Amular. In suspending theexpropriation proceedings, Amular cited supervening events that placed thecourt in a situation – whether to proceed not with the implementation of thewrit of possession against PECO. Amular added,too, that there was then a pending petition for review on certiorary before theSecond Division of the Supreme Court filed by MORE Power in connection with thedecision of RTC Mandaluyong declaring sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212 void andunconstitutional. Castro and Teodosio accused Amular ofgrave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Code ofJudicial Ethics. The manner with which Amularpresided over the expropriation case did not sit well with them. They alsosought the judge’s inhibition from the case. CASEWITH NO PRECEDENT “Indeed, theruling of the Honorable SC will guide this Court whether the authorityconferred upon the plaintiff as a quasi-public corporation by Congress has beencorrectly or properly exercised by it,” he added./PN