Full text of the Philippine Digital Strategy 2011-2016, as presented by the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT) on June 29, 2011
1-3 Short Paper Personality CharacteristicsPrepare a 1,000–.docxSONU61709
1-3 Short Paper: Personality Characteristics
Prepare a 1,000–1,750-word paper in which you discuss at least three of your personality characteristics. Using your life experiences, explain how these characteristics were developed. Such life experiences should include the following:
· Early development
· Family and social relationships
· Educational background
Assess how these characteristics have influenced your social and occupational choices.
C H A P T E R 11
The Trial Process
[T]here are principles of liberty and justice, lying at the foundation of our civil and political
institutions, which no State can violate consistently with that due process of law required
by the Fourteenth Amendment in proceedings involving life, liberty, or property.
—JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN I, dissenting, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 546 (1884)
479
CHAPTER OUTLINE
THE IDEAL OF THE FAIR TRIAL
Comparing Adversarial and Inquisitorial Trials
Steps in the Jury Trial
IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL
RIGHTS
The Right to Be Present
The Appearance of Fairness
Subpoena: The Right to Compulsory Process
Due Process and Access to Evidence
Right to Silence
Confrontation, Hearsay, and Cross-examination
Presumption of Innocence and Proof beyond a
Reasonable Doubt
THE JURY
Constitutional Requirements
Selecting an Unbiased Jury
Voir Dire and Fairness
LAW IN SOCIETY: JURY TRIALS AND
WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Convicting the Innocent
Why Trials Do Not Stop Wrongful Convictions
The Adversary Trial
SUMMARY
LEGAL PUZZLES
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: THE
TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY COURT: SOUTER,
THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, ROBERTS,
AND ALITO
David H. Souter
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
John G. Roberts Jr.
KEY TERMS
abuse of discretion
accusatorial trial
adversarial trial
adverse comment
bench trial
challenge for cause
character witness
compulsory process
Confrontation Clause
cross-examination
direct examination
dossier
dying declaration
expert witness
hearsay
hung jury
in camera
inquisitorial trial
invidious discrimination
jury deliberation
jury pool
jury trial
“key man” method
master jury list
peremptory challenge
petty crime
presumption of innocence
prima facie case
reasonable doubt
representative cross section
secret informants
venire
verdict
voir dire
waiver trial
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
M11_ZALM7613_06_SE_CH11.QXD 1/11/10 5:35 PM Page 479
R
O
D
D
Y
,
A
N
T
H
O
N
Y
I
S
A
A
C
3
7
2
7
B
U
THE IDEAL OF THE FAIR TRIAL
All cultures develop methods to ascertain the guilt of those accused of serious norm violations or
crimes. Even if offenders are caught “red-handed,” there is a human tendency to conduct formal
processes for declaring guilt. The trial therefore has two functions: first, to determine a suspect’s
guilt in a practical and efficient manner, and second, to provide a formal setting that solemnizes
the conclusion that this person is guilty and must be punished. The jury trial performs these
functions in the Anglo-Amer ...
C H A P T E R 11The Trial Process[T]here are principles.docxRAHUL126667
C H A P T E R 11
The Trial Process
[T]here are principles of liberty and justice, lying at the foundation of our civil and political
institutions, which no State can violate consistently with that due process of law required
by the Fourteenth Amendment in proceedings involving life, liberty, or property.
—JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN I, dissenting, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 546 (1884)
479
CHAPTER OUTLINE
THE IDEAL OF THE FAIR TRIAL
Comparing Adversarial and Inquisitorial Trials
Steps in the Jury Trial
IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL
RIGHTS
The Right to Be Present
The Appearance of Fairness
Subpoena: The Right to Compulsory Process
Due Process and Access to Evidence
Right to Silence
Confrontation, Hearsay, and Cross-examination
Presumption of Innocence and Proof beyond a
Reasonable Doubt
THE JURY
Constitutional Requirements
Selecting an Unbiased Jury
Voir Dire and Fairness
LAW IN SOCIETY: JURY TRIALS AND
WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Convicting the Innocent
Why Trials Do Not Stop Wrongful Convictions
The Adversary Trial
SUMMARY
LEGAL PUZZLES
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: THE
TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY COURT: SOUTER,
THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, ROBERTS,
AND ALITO
David H. Souter
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
John G. Roberts Jr.
KEY TERMS
abuse of discretion
accusatorial trial
adversarial trial
adverse comment
bench trial
challenge for cause
character witness
compulsory process
Confrontation Clause
cross-examination
direct examination
dossier
dying declaration
expert witness
hearsay
hung jury
in camera
inquisitorial trial
invidious discrimination
jury deliberation
jury pool
jury trial
“key man” method
master jury list
peremptory challenge
petty crime
presumption of innocence
prima facie case
reasonable doubt
representative cross section
secret informants
venire
verdict
voir dire
waiver trial
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
M11_ZALM7613_06_SE_CH11.QXD 1/11/10 5:35 PM Page 479
R
O
D
D
Y
,
A
N
T
H
O
N
Y
I
S
A
A
C
3
7
2
7
B
U
THE IDEAL OF THE FAIR TRIAL
All cultures develop methods to ascertain the guilt of those accused of serious norm violations or
crimes. Even if offenders are caught “red-handed,” there is a human tendency to conduct formal
processes for declaring guilt. The trial therefore has two functions: first, to determine a suspect’s
guilt in a practical and efficient manner, and second, to provide a formal setting that solemnizes
the conclusion that this person is guilty and must be punished. The jury trial performs these
functions in the Anglo-American legal tradition.1 Trial by jury was not legislated into being all at
once as the best method to resolve criminal cases. Rather, it evolved over centuries in England.
As a result many have argued that it is not the most efficient or effective method of separating the
guilty from the innocent. Nevertheless, it is embedded in American culture and is guaranteed by
Article III and by the Sixth and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as ...
Full text of the Philippine Digital Strategy 2011-2016, as presented by the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT) on June 29, 2011
1-3 Short Paper Personality CharacteristicsPrepare a 1,000–.docxSONU61709
1-3 Short Paper: Personality Characteristics
Prepare a 1,000–1,750-word paper in which you discuss at least three of your personality characteristics. Using your life experiences, explain how these characteristics were developed. Such life experiences should include the following:
· Early development
· Family and social relationships
· Educational background
Assess how these characteristics have influenced your social and occupational choices.
C H A P T E R 11
The Trial Process
[T]here are principles of liberty and justice, lying at the foundation of our civil and political
institutions, which no State can violate consistently with that due process of law required
by the Fourteenth Amendment in proceedings involving life, liberty, or property.
—JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN I, dissenting, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 546 (1884)
479
CHAPTER OUTLINE
THE IDEAL OF THE FAIR TRIAL
Comparing Adversarial and Inquisitorial Trials
Steps in the Jury Trial
IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL
RIGHTS
The Right to Be Present
The Appearance of Fairness
Subpoena: The Right to Compulsory Process
Due Process and Access to Evidence
Right to Silence
Confrontation, Hearsay, and Cross-examination
Presumption of Innocence and Proof beyond a
Reasonable Doubt
THE JURY
Constitutional Requirements
Selecting an Unbiased Jury
Voir Dire and Fairness
LAW IN SOCIETY: JURY TRIALS AND
WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Convicting the Innocent
Why Trials Do Not Stop Wrongful Convictions
The Adversary Trial
SUMMARY
LEGAL PUZZLES
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: THE
TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY COURT: SOUTER,
THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, ROBERTS,
AND ALITO
David H. Souter
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
John G. Roberts Jr.
KEY TERMS
abuse of discretion
accusatorial trial
adversarial trial
adverse comment
bench trial
challenge for cause
character witness
compulsory process
Confrontation Clause
cross-examination
direct examination
dossier
dying declaration
expert witness
hearsay
hung jury
in camera
inquisitorial trial
invidious discrimination
jury deliberation
jury pool
jury trial
“key man” method
master jury list
peremptory challenge
petty crime
presumption of innocence
prima facie case
reasonable doubt
representative cross section
secret informants
venire
verdict
voir dire
waiver trial
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
M11_ZALM7613_06_SE_CH11.QXD 1/11/10 5:35 PM Page 479
R
O
D
D
Y
,
A
N
T
H
O
N
Y
I
S
A
A
C
3
7
2
7
B
U
THE IDEAL OF THE FAIR TRIAL
All cultures develop methods to ascertain the guilt of those accused of serious norm violations or
crimes. Even if offenders are caught “red-handed,” there is a human tendency to conduct formal
processes for declaring guilt. The trial therefore has two functions: first, to determine a suspect’s
guilt in a practical and efficient manner, and second, to provide a formal setting that solemnizes
the conclusion that this person is guilty and must be punished. The jury trial performs these
functions in the Anglo-Amer ...
C H A P T E R 11The Trial Process[T]here are principles.docxRAHUL126667
C H A P T E R 11
The Trial Process
[T]here are principles of liberty and justice, lying at the foundation of our civil and political
institutions, which no State can violate consistently with that due process of law required
by the Fourteenth Amendment in proceedings involving life, liberty, or property.
—JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN I, dissenting, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 546 (1884)
479
CHAPTER OUTLINE
THE IDEAL OF THE FAIR TRIAL
Comparing Adversarial and Inquisitorial Trials
Steps in the Jury Trial
IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL
RIGHTS
The Right to Be Present
The Appearance of Fairness
Subpoena: The Right to Compulsory Process
Due Process and Access to Evidence
Right to Silence
Confrontation, Hearsay, and Cross-examination
Presumption of Innocence and Proof beyond a
Reasonable Doubt
THE JURY
Constitutional Requirements
Selecting an Unbiased Jury
Voir Dire and Fairness
LAW IN SOCIETY: JURY TRIALS AND
WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Convicting the Innocent
Why Trials Do Not Stop Wrongful Convictions
The Adversary Trial
SUMMARY
LEGAL PUZZLES
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: THE
TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY COURT: SOUTER,
THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, ROBERTS,
AND ALITO
David H. Souter
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
John G. Roberts Jr.
KEY TERMS
abuse of discretion
accusatorial trial
adversarial trial
adverse comment
bench trial
challenge for cause
character witness
compulsory process
Confrontation Clause
cross-examination
direct examination
dossier
dying declaration
expert witness
hearsay
hung jury
in camera
inquisitorial trial
invidious discrimination
jury deliberation
jury pool
jury trial
“key man” method
master jury list
peremptory challenge
petty crime
presumption of innocence
prima facie case
reasonable doubt
representative cross section
secret informants
venire
verdict
voir dire
waiver trial
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
M11_ZALM7613_06_SE_CH11.QXD 1/11/10 5:35 PM Page 479
R
O
D
D
Y
,
A
N
T
H
O
N
Y
I
S
A
A
C
3
7
2
7
B
U
THE IDEAL OF THE FAIR TRIAL
All cultures develop methods to ascertain the guilt of those accused of serious norm violations or
crimes. Even if offenders are caught “red-handed,” there is a human tendency to conduct formal
processes for declaring guilt. The trial therefore has two functions: first, to determine a suspect’s
guilt in a practical and efficient manner, and second, to provide a formal setting that solemnizes
the conclusion that this person is guilty and must be punished. The jury trial performs these
functions in the Anglo-American legal tradition.1 Trial by jury was not legislated into being all at
once as the best method to resolve criminal cases. Rather, it evolved over centuries in England.
As a result many have argued that it is not the most efficient or effective method of separating the
guilty from the innocent. Nevertheless, it is embedded in American culture and is guaranteed by
Article III and by the Sixth and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as ...
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE CRIMINA...authors boards
Article 1. Approval of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania
The Seimas hereby approves the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania.
Article 2. Entry into Force of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania
1. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania shall enter into force concurrently and solely upon co-ordination with the new Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania and the Penal Code of the Republic of Lithuania.
2. A specific date of the entry into force of all the codes as indicated in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be set by a separate law.
Article 3. Procedure for Implementing the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania
A procedure for implementing the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania shall be laid down by a separate law.
10/28/19 Michael Miller-EL Pretrial Hearing & International Tribunal OptionVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
11/04/19 “FIRST” PRETRIAL HEARING - DEMAND FOR FREEDOM OF “HOSTAGE” MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER-EL – A/K/A BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/UNITED STATES’ DESPOTISM GOVERNMENT EMPIRE AS MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER
CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (OHIO) – CRIMINAL CASE NO. 641058
DRAFT: STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE PROSECUTION OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW COMMITTED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SINCE 1921____
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT REFERENCE:
OTP-CR-367/18
People's Choice and Voters Education KitTonyo Cruz
An overview of the Automated Election System, "Election Facts and Figures", "The People's Criteria" vis a vis the nation's situation, and "Where the Presidentiables Stand" (a matrix of the 9 presidential candidates' views vis a vis The People's Criteria)
More Related Content
Similar to Letter of 38 organizations to the Court of Appeals
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE CRIMINA...authors boards
Article 1. Approval of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania
The Seimas hereby approves the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania.
Article 2. Entry into Force of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania
1. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania shall enter into force concurrently and solely upon co-ordination with the new Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania and the Penal Code of the Republic of Lithuania.
2. A specific date of the entry into force of all the codes as indicated in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be set by a separate law.
Article 3. Procedure for Implementing the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania
A procedure for implementing the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania shall be laid down by a separate law.
10/28/19 Michael Miller-EL Pretrial Hearing & International Tribunal OptionVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
11/04/19 “FIRST” PRETRIAL HEARING - DEMAND FOR FREEDOM OF “HOSTAGE” MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER-EL – A/K/A BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/UNITED STATES’ DESPOTISM GOVERNMENT EMPIRE AS MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER
CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (OHIO) – CRIMINAL CASE NO. 641058
DRAFT: STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE PROSECUTION OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW COMMITTED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SINCE 1921____
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT REFERENCE:
OTP-CR-367/18
People's Choice and Voters Education KitTonyo Cruz
An overview of the Automated Election System, "Election Facts and Figures", "The People's Criteria" vis a vis the nation's situation, and "Where the Presidentiables Stand" (a matrix of the 9 presidential candidates' views vis a vis The People's Criteria)
Letter of 38 organizations to the Court of Appeals
1. Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
Court of Appeals of the Philippines
Associate Justices (see Annex)
Court of Appeals of the Philippines
Court of Appeals
Ma. Orosa St, Ermita
1000 Manila
Philippines
Tel: +63 (02) 524 1241 to 52
Email: ca_manila@yahoo.com
CC:
His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III
President, Republic of the Philippines
Malacañang Palace
1610 J.P Laurel St.
San Miguel
Manila, Philippines
Fax:+63 (2) 736-1010
Email: opsnews2004@gmail.com
Hon. Renato C. Corona
Chief Justice, Supreme Court
c/- Clerk of the Court
3rd Floor, New Supreme Court Building Annex
Padre Faura St., Ermita, 1000 Manila.
Philippines
Fax: +63 (02) 525-3208
Email: pio@sc.judiciary.gov.ph
Hon. Leila M. De Lima
Secretary, Department of Justice
Email: lmdelima@doj.gov.ph
Hon. Loretta Ann P. Rosales
Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights
State Accounting & Auditing Center Bldg.
Commonwealth Ave., U.P. Complex
1101 Diliman, Quezon City
Philippines
Fax: + 63 929 0102
chair.rosales.chr@gmail.com
2. June 2, 2011
Dear Justice Reyes and Associate Justices,
RE: Freedom of Expression and Justice in the Ampatuan Massacre Trials
We the undersigned members and partners of the International Freedom of
Expression Exchange (IFEX) are writing to express our deep concerns about the 12
April 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals of the Philippines, Manila Special
Division of Five, requiring Monette Salaysay and Rowena Paraan to explain why they
should not be held in contempt for comments attributed to them in an article in the
Philippine Daily Inquirer regarding the Ampatuan Town Massacre trials.
The Resolution against Salaysay, whose husband Napoleon Salaysay was among
32 journalists and media workers murdered in the massacre of 58 people on 23
November 2009, and Paraan, the General Secretary of the National Union of
Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), leaves both women at risk of a jail term and
financial punishment.
It remains unclear whether the petition was initiated by defence lawyers or
independently by five justices of the Court of Appeals. We note however that the
resolution is remarkably similar in argument and tone to a paid advertisement which
had been placed in national dailies by the accused, Zaldy Ampatuan, whose case
gave rise to the statements which are the subject of the Resolution.
The Resolution accuses Salaysay and Paraan of “foisting bias and corruption upon
the members of the court” through their statements. In substance, the statements
attributed to Salaysay and Paraan noted that although Associate Justices Danton
Bueser and Marlene Gonzales-Sison recused themselves in the case of Andal
Ampatuan Senior, they did not do so in the case of Zaldy Ampatuan. The statements
questioned this apparent inconsistency.
As we gather in Lebanon for the bi-annual conference of IFEX, the international
community of freedom of expression and press freedom defenders, we are alarmed
at the chilling effect of the contempt Resolution, along with separate contempt claims
against several prosecutors.
We note that the right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 19 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and by the Constitution of the Philippines, imposes
strict limits on the ability of courts to restrict freedom of expression to protect the
administration of justice.
As the (then) three special international mandates on freedom of expression – the
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on
Freedom of the Media, and the Organisation of American States (OAS) Special
Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression – stated in a Joint Declaration of 10
December 2002:
Special restrictions on commenting on courts and judges cannot be
justified; the judiciary play a key public role and, as such, must be
subject to open public scrutiny.
3. No restrictions on reporting on ongoing legal proceedings may be
justified unless there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the
fairness of those proceedings and the threat to the right to a fair trial or
to the presumption of innocence outweighs the harm to freedom of
expression.
Courts in many countries have distinguished between statements which are critical
and paint courts and/or judges in a bad light (known in common law jurisdictions as
“scandalising the court”), and statements which undermine the fairness of judicial
proceedings. While historically, courts responded to criticism through contempt
proceedings, in many countries this is effectively a thing of the past.
In the United States, the offence of “scandalising the court” is effectively a dead
letter. The Supreme Court has made it clear, in a series of cases, that only
statements which create a “clear and present danger” to the administration of justice
(i.e. the fairness of proceedings) may attract sanction.1
In Canada, the situation is similar. The standard was set in a 1987 case involving the
most stringent possible criticism, alleging that the courts were “warped” in favour of
protecting the police, made not by a journalist but by a lawyer, an officer of the court.
In response, the Court stated:
But the courts are not fragile flowers that will wither in the hot heat of
controversy…. The courts have functioned well and effectively in
difficult times. They are well-regarded in the community because they
merit respect. They need not fear criticism nor need to sustain
unnecessary barriers to complaints about their operations or
decisions.2
We note that the Resolution of the Court of Appeals of the Philippines appears at
points to confuse the two objectives of the contempt power, noted above (protection
against criticism and protection of the fairness of justice). Thus, on page five, the
Resolution states:
In appropriate cases, the court in order to preserve its dignity, can be
forced to wield its inherent power to punish for contempt persons
responsible for any abuse of or unlawful interference with the
processes or proceedings of a court….”
We accept that there is a need to protect the courts against statements that might
undermine the fairness of proceedings, such as intimidation of witnesses. But we feel
confident that the Philippine courts are able to withstand strong, even unfair, criticism
and yet render justice. This is particularly true where, as is the case here, no jury is
involved.
We therefore call on members of the Court of Appeals of the Philippines to withdraw
the Resolution immediately. We urge the Justices to instead recognise the obligation
of the judiciary to uphold the right to freedom of expression, in accordance with the
international and constitutional obligations of the Philippines.
1
Bridges v. California, 314 US 252, 270-71 (1941); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 US 331 (1946); Craig
v. Harney, 331 US 367 (1947); Wood v. Georgia, 370 US 375 (1962).
2
R. v. Koptyo, (1987), 62 OR (2d) 449, p. 469 (Ontario Court of Appeal).
4. Like many members of the broader Philippine public, we are distressed by the
manner in which hearings into the massacre continue to be vexed by stalling tactics
and unacceptable delays and distractions in prosecuting the accused on charges
related to the murders of 57 of the 58 victims of 23 November 2009.
More than 18 months since the massacre horrified the world, it is imperative that the
judiciary and courts of the Philippines ensure that the focus of judicial actions is the
prosecution of all those responsible for ordering and undertaking this horrendous
crime, rather than permitting continued distractions.
Meanwhile, we continue to stand firmly with the families of the victims and with our
colleagues in the Philippines in their honourable quest for justice and defence of the
right of all peoples to speak out on matters of grave public importance.
Yours Respectfully,
1. Centre for Law and Democracy
2. International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
3. National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP)
4. Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (Alliance of Independent Journalists)
5. Arabic Network for Human Rights Information
6. ARTICLE 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression
7. Association of Caribbean Media Workers
8. Cambodian Center for Human Rights
9. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
10. Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations
11. Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility
12. Center for Media Studies & Peace Building
13. Centre for Independent Journalism
14. Centro de Reportes Informativos sobre Guatemala
15. Egyptian Organization for Human Rights
16. Foundation for Press Freedom
17. Freedom Forum
18. Freedom House
19. Free Media Movement
20. Globe International
21. Hong Kong Journalists Association
22. Independent Journalism Center
23. Index on Censorship
24. IPS Communication Foundation
25. Maharat Foundation (Skills Foundation)
26. Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
27. Media Foundation for West Africa
28. Media Institute of Southern Africa
29. Media Rights Agenda
30. Media Watch
31. Mizzima News
32. National Union of Somali Journalists
33. Norwegian PEN
34. Observatoire pour la liberté de presse, d'édition et de création
35. Pacific Islands News Association
36. Pakistan Press Foundation
37. Southeast Asian Press Alliance
38. South East European Network for the Professionalization of the Media
5. ANNEX
Associate Justices - Court of Appeals of the Philippines
Associate Justice Portia Aliño Hormachuelos
Associate Justice Remedios Salazar Fernando
Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes
Associate Justice Josefina Guevara Salonga
Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia Salvador
Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriques, JR.
Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino
Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III
Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang
Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid
Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam
Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion Vicente
Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, JR.
Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta
Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon
Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso
Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican
Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao
Associate Justice Celia C. Librea- Leagogo
Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos
Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas- Bernabe
Associate Justice Mariflor Punzalan Castillo
Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon
Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja
Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello
Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro
Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia
Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario
Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta
Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz
Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion
Associate Justice Michale P. Elbinias
Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez
Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante
Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro- Javier
Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda
Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino
Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren
Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos
Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios
Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan
Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser
Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba
Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon
Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz
Associate Justice Agnes R. Carpio
Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting
Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan
6. Associate Justice Myra G. Fernandez
Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando
Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio- Valenzuela
Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles
Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes
Associate Justice Abraham B. Borreta
Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino
Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan
Associate Justice Melchor Quirino C. Sadang
Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate Laguilles