Once again, San Beda College Alabang (SBCA) inside Alabang Hills Village will be hosting the bar exams schedule for September 6, 9 and 13. In relation to this, the Alabang Hills Village Association (AHVA) announced the security plan to ensure safe, secure and traffic-free conditions along Don Manolo and Don Jesus Boulevards during the conduct of the exams.
To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the AHVA’s official announcement. Some parts in boldface…
We would like to inform you that the Supreme Court of the Philippines has once again decided to have the 2026 Bar Exams conducted at San Beda College Alabang (SBCA). Exam dates/times are set for September 6, 9 & 13, from 0700H to 1800H.*
For this 3-day event, AHVA Security has developed a comprehensive security plan in coordination with relevant authorities. The objective of the plan is to ensure safe, secure and traffic-free conditions along Don Manolo and Don Jesus Boulevards during the conduct of the exams.
Following are the restrictions:
A. VEHICLE CONTROL
During the examination dates, only vehicles with valid AHVA stickers and Supreme Court car passes will be authorized to enter Alabang- Zapote & Tirona gates.
Vehicles of expected visitors, delivery & village workers are requested to enter the Don Jesus Blvd gate
B. CROWD CONTROL
Bar supporters and well wishers are not allowed to gather at the drop-off area and in Alabang-Zapote & Tirona gates
Village workers with valid AHVA IDs are requested to enter the Don Jesus Blvd gate
Media Personnel who wish to cover the on- going bar examination are not allowed to enter the village.
For further updates from the AHVA, visit https://alabanghillsvillage.com/ or call them at 88508254. You can visit their office at 1 Don Jesus Boulevard inside Alabang Hills Village from Monday to Friday, 8AM to 5PM. Always remember to follow their rules and speed limits whenever you are in the village.
For more South Metro Manila community news and developments, come back here soon. Also say NO to fake news, NO to irresponsible journalism, NO to misinformation, NO to plagiarists, NO to reckless publishers and NO to sinister propaganda when it comes to news and developments. For South Metro Manila community developments, member engagements, commerce and other relevant updates, join the growing South Metro Manila Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/342183059992673
Following the unfortunate decision made the by Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) regarding birthright citizenship, US President Donald J. Trump signed two new Executive Orders to formally end birth tourism while also protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship.
To put things in perspective, posted below is the News24 (formerly Sky News Australia) video covering the Oval Office. Watch it and pay close attention to the details.
In America, birth tourism is already a huge problem that has yet to be full resolved. If it is left unchecked, it will negatively impact and even deform democracy in the US. That said, President Trump signed the Executive Order ending birth tourism. To understand it fully, posted below is the entire content of the said Executive Order sourced from the White House website. Some parts in boldface…
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. United States citizenship is among the greatest inheritances the Nation can bestow. It embodies a sacred bond between the American people and the Nation in which they live, and carries profound rights, privileges, and responsibilities reflective of the enduring allegiance of citizens to the United States and our Constitution. Citizenship is not a commodity to be acquired through calculated exploitation and evasion of the immigration laws, such as by entering the United States on a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth within the Nation’s borders.
Birth tourism operators use deceptive advertisements and inducements to entice foreign nationals to travel to the United States for the purpose of giving birth on American soil. They promise citizenship; access to public benefits; and short-term stays in specialized facilities, hotels, or rentals, but often fail to deliver on these promises. These operators coach their clients to misrepresent the purpose and duration of their travel to consular and border officials to obtain visas authorizing entry into the United States. Failure to appropriately combat these schemes has resulted in thriving industries around the world that profit by enabling the evasion of American immigration laws to obtain citizenship and other immigration benefits for foreign visitors, and the exploitation of the women who travel here for purposes of giving birth.
The immigration laws of the United States establish discrete categories of temporary nonimmigrant visas to allow foreign visitors into the United States for study, exchange, temporary employment, tourism, and other transitory activities that are now exploited by birth tourism operators. Participants in birth tourism schemes abuse these categories to establish a permanent foothold in the United States by securing the advantage of citizenship for their children and then potentially for themselves.
Birth tourism, defined in section 3 of this order, undermines the integrity of the Nation’s immigration system by enabling foreign nationals to exploit their temporary admission to obtain permanent immigration-related benefits. Birth tourism also diverts limited consular inspection and enforcement resources away from legitimate visa applicants, erodes public confidence in the faithful enforcement of the immigration laws, and impairs the executive branch’s ability to protect the national security.
The United States has a compelling interest in ensuring that each visa category is used only for the purpose for which it was established. Foreign nationals seeking temporary admission into the United States must adhere to the purposes for which the Congress has authorized their temporary admission, and cannot be permitted to circumvent the immigration laws in an attempt to vest themselves and their children with lasting benefits that are irreconcilable with their nonimmigrant status.
It is therefore the policy of the United States to promote the integrity of its immigration system, to ensure that nonimmigrant visa classifications are used only for their lawful and intended purposes, and to prevent the exploitation of those classifications by persons engaging in birth tourism.
Sec. 2. Authorities. Pursuant to section 301 of title 3, United States Code, the authority granted to the President under section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1185(a), is hereby delegated to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to the extent necessary to implement this order, including the authority to issue or adopt rules, policies, operational guidance, or other guidance to carry out this order.
Sec. 3. Definition. For purposes of this order, “birth tourism” is defined as:
(a) the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil; or
(b) any effort by any foreign national to facilitate the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil.
Sec. 4. Scope and Implementation. (a) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions and update any rules, policies, operational guidance, or other guidance as necessary to effectuate the policy set forth in this order. Such actions may include, within the Secretaries’ respective discretion and authority, appropriate action to prevent the entry into the United States of, or the granting of any visa or other travel authorization to, any alien entering or attempting to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism; revoking the visa or travel authorization and permanently barring entry of any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism; denial of entry to, or removal of, any alien who previously engaged or plans to engage in birth tourism; or other appropriate action against entities, organizations, or individuals, within or outside of the United States, responsible for facilitating or enabling birth tourism in any manner.
(b) All other relevant executive departments and agencies shall provide such records and information as are necessary for the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement the terms of this order and the rules, policies, operational guidance, or other guidance issued pursuant to it, subject to applicable law.
Sec. 5. Exemptions. Notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by this order, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may exempt a foreign national from actions taken pursuant to this order on humanitarian grounds or when the foreign national’s entry is in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstances, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of any of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(e) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Homeland Security.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Let me end this piece by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this development? Do you think the two new Executive Orders signed by Trump will effectively end birth tourism while protecting the value of American citizenship? What kind of responses do you think the Democrats will come up with to oppose the Executive Orders. Do you think Islamist states like Iran, Pakistan, Qatar and Bangladesh are deliberately sending their citizens to America with birth tourism in mind? Did you spot any Chinese nationals engaging in birth tourism in America lately?
Did a local government unit (LGU) outside of Metro Manila confiscate your driver’s license because you committed a traffic violation within their jurisdiction? The Land Transportation Office (LTO) clarified publicly that all LGUs have no legal basis to confiscate the licenses of drivers who committed traffic violations, according to a news report by GMA News.
To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the GMA News report. Some parts in boldface…
The Land Transportation Office on Thursday said local government units have no legal basis to confiscate the drivers’ licenses of traffic violators.
“The LTO wishes to clarify to the public that it is currently implementing Department of Transportation (DOTr) Memorandum Circular No. 001-2026, which sets the policy regarding the non-confiscation of driver’s licenses during apprehension,” the agency said in a statement on its official Facebook page.
“Bilang pagsunod sa kautusan, pansamantalang hindi kinukumpiska ng mga law enforcement officers na may deputasyon mula sa LTO ang driver’s license ng mga motoristang lumalabag sa batas-trapiko,” it added.
(In compliance with the directive, law enforcement officers deputized by the LTO are temporarily not confiscating the driver’s licenses of motorists who violate traffic laws.)
The LTO said it seeks to clarify that existing Supreme Court jurisprudence does not grant traffic enforcement officers the general authority to confiscate motorists’ driver’s licenses.
The agency issued the statement after the City of Bacoor in Cavite on Wednesday issued a, “Clarification on Traffic Enforcement in Bacoor,” on social media.
“The City Government of Bacoor reminds the public that, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 11‑2019, Section 23 of the Revised Traffic Code, our traffic enforcers are duly authorized to confiscate driver’s licenses of motorists who violate traffic laws within the city,”the city announced on Facebook.
The Bacoor LGU said that “the recent Supreme Court ruling applies only to Metro Manila LGUs under the MMDA. Bacoor, being outside Metro Manila, continues to exercise its authority under the Local Government Code and its duly enacted ordinances.”
To which the LTO countered: “Existing administrative issuances from the (Department of Transportation) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government—including Joint Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of 2008, issued by the former DOTC and DILG—acknowledge that traffic enforcers from local government units (LGUs) may issue citation tickets but lack the legal basis to confiscate motorists’ driver’s licenses.”
Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Is the clarification by the LTO clear and transparent enough? When was the last time a local government confiscated your license because you committed a traffic violation?
Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco
Remember the law granting value-added tax refund (VAT refund) to foreign tourists signed a few years ago? That law was challenged and recently the Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act 12079 (the act creating a VAT refund mechanism for non-resident tourists), according to a news report by GMA News.
To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the report of GMA News. Some parts in boldface…
The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of a law that grants value-added tax (VAT) refunds on select local purchases by non-resident foreign tourists.
In a 30-page decision, the SC En Banc dismissed a petition challenging the validity of Republic Act 12079, or an act creating a VAT refund mechanism for non-resident tourists, adding Section 112-A to the National Internal Revenue Code.
“Granting VAT refund to foreign tourists was not arbitrarily done. It is a policy decision based on legitimate state interests, i.e. the need to remain competitive as a global tourist destination,” the SC said.
“In fine, foreign tourists may be granted privileges and benefits that are not extended to Filipino citizens, so as long as these distinctions are based on reasonable and justifiable classifications, as in here,” it added.
According to the SC, the VAT refund applies to goods brought from duly accredited stores and taken out of the country within 60 days from purchase. The goods must be priced at least P3,000 per transaction.
Meanwhile, the SC said Section 5 of the law’s implementing rules and regulations limit the refund to retail and tangible goods, including clothing, apparel, electronics, gadgets, jewelry, accessories, souvenirs, food or non-food consumables, and other items intended for personal use.
The petitioner, however, argued that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection as it excludes Filipino citizens.
For its part, the SC said equal protection does not require identical treatment for all persons.
It said the act also distinguishes foreign tourists from Filipino citizens.
According to the SC, the VAT refund system follows the basic rule of VAT that goods are taxed where they are consumed. If the goods are consumed in the Philippines, they remain subject to Philippine VAT.
Meanwhile, the SC added that VAT refund for foreign tourists is a well-established international practice.
“The Philippines is among the last few countries in Asia to adopt such a system. Our Asian neighbors, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, China, and Japan have long implemented this VAT refund mechanism for foreign tourists,” it said.
Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision on the law about VAT refund for foreign tourists? Apart from the VAT refund for foreign tourists, what problems that plagued the Philippine tourism industry should the government solve this year?
Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco
Remember years ago when the failed US President Joe Biden welcomed a massive number of Haitians to the United States with the temporary protective status (TPS)? That finally ended when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) approved US President Donald Trump’s authority to put a definitive stop at the TPS of the Haitians as well as other refugees living in America, according to news reports by Breitbart and CBN News. The vote was 6-3.
This development is justice for the nation and the many Americans whose lives got disrupted severely when the numerous, protected Haitians arrived in their local communities causing spikes in rents, taking job opportunities away, entering schools and the like. It also clarifies that the US President has the authority on TPS.
To put things in perspective, posted below is the excerpt from the Breitbart report. Some parts in boldface…
In a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed President Donald Trump’s authority to end “Temporary Protected Status” for at least 450,000 Haitian migrants welcomed by President Joe Biden.
The judges said Congress’s law bars any judicial review of the White House TPS decisions:
The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. It allows “no judicial review of any determination… with respect to the… termination” of a TPS designation. 8 U. S. C. §1254a(b)(5)(A). The term “determination” can be used to describe either an individual decision or the whole process leading to a final decision, and under either understanding of the term, §1254a(b)(5)(A) squarely bars all of respondents’ non-constitutional claims.
The decision is good news for many Americans, including the citizens of Springfield, Ohio. The Ohio town has been radically disrupted because the local elite welcomed at least 10,000 wage-cutting, rent-spiking, diversity-boosting Haitian migrants into the city’s jobs, homes, schools, welfare offices, and roadways.
The decision means that the Haitian migrants will lose their work permits, access to government aid, drivers’ licenses, and legal residency. In turn, employers will face fines if they keep employing the Haitians instead of Americans, and landlords will have to negotiate cheaper rents for Americans as Haitians move out of the local housing market.
Many Haitians were actually provided visas by Biden’s officials to fly from Haiti to American towns — despite the huge economic and civic harm to the millions of left-behind Haitians. The crippling outflow included many doctors, cops, teachers, and politicians.
But the decision is also an economic loss for many investors and a management headache for many employers who hired Haitian migrants instead of competing for Americans in the national labor market.
In April, Breitbart News reported that pro-TPS lobbyists had submitted a legal brief by pro-migration economists which said Biden’s 1.4 million TPS migrants from Haiti, Venezuela, and El Salvador create $20 billion in annual profits for investors.
The report of CBN News mentions Syrians and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s highly unusual way of reading her dissent from the bench. Some parts in boldface…
The Supreme Court issued a key decision on the issue of immigration on Thursday, ruling that the Trump administration has the authority to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain refugees living in the U.S.
The immigrants affected by this case were granted Temporary Protected Status under a law passed by Congress in 1990. The program allows the Homeland Security Secretary to let people from certain countries remain and work in the U.S. when conditions back home make it unsafe to return. That same law also gives the secretary the authority to end those protections.
“It gives people protection while the country’s in turmoil or after they suffer a hurricane,” explained Border Czar Tom Homan during a press briefing Thursday.
The Trump administration first announced its plans to end TPS for Haitians in the summer of last year, and for Syrians in the fall. Those decisions were put on hold by lower courts until Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling.
“The decision creates the type of panic, in a sense, that people in our community are wondering what the best action to do now,” said Viles Dorsainvil, who runs a support center for Haitians in Springfield, Ohio.
He and his wife are also now at risk of deportation.
“We are just TPS holders and asylum seekers. So, we’ll be relying on our asylum. We have our permit in the asylum, that we will continue to work. We will continue to do what we gotta do, but we don’t know how long,” Dorsainvil said.
Thursday’s ruling was 6-3, the majority saying Congress gave the Homeland Security Secretary broad discretion over TPS, including the authority to decide when to end it.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly disagreed with the ruling, taking the unusual step of reading her dissent aloud from the bench. “The consequences of today’s decision are predictable,” said Justice Sotomayor. “More people will die.”
“More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religion, nationality, or political opinion.”
Following her comments, Justice Samuel Alito, who read the majority decision, remarked that, had he known she planned to read her dissent from the bench, he would have said more in defense of the majority decision.
Let me end this piece by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this development? Has your local community been flooded by foreigners with TPS? Do you think the government should start the process of declaring temporary protective status illegal? Apart from the mentioned investors, who else do you think makes a lot of money out of TPS foreigners in America? What should the Trump administration do about the remaining TPS foreigners from other nations? Do you think US Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor tarnished the Court’s image with her unusual move?
The new 15% tariff on imports announced by US President Donald Trump after reacting to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision is already troubling exporters of the Philippines, according to a report by BusinessWorld.
There is concern that the new tariff may dampen the export recovery of the Philippines. It should be recalled that the American tariff on Philippine-made goods was set at 19% following the meeting between President Trump and Philippine President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. last year.
To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the BusinessWorld news report. Some parts in boldface…
THE United States government’s plan to impose a new 15% tariff on imports may dampen the Philippines’ export recovery and disrupt supply chains, according to analysts.
“Under a 15% tariff, there might be a disruption in the supply chain, because other countries might negotiate or diverge [to other markets],” Philippine Exporters Confederation, Inc. President Sergio R. Ortiz-Luis, Jr. said in a phone call.
“Unfortunately, our competitors here in the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) are supported by their governments, but we aren’t,” he added.
Mr. Ortiz-Luis said the Philippine government must resume negotiations with its US counterparts to ensure exports remain competitive.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies Senior Research Fellow John Paolo R. Rivera said the new tariffs could dampen export recovery, especially for electronics, garments, and agricultural sectors.
“The renewed threat of a 15% global tariff signals that protectionist risks remain and could dampen export recovery if implemented, especially for semiconductors and intermediate goods integrated into US supply chains,” he said in a Viber message.
US President Donald J. Trump said he wants to impose a new 15% duty on US imports from all countries, starting Tuesday, Reuters reported. (Read related story “Asian economies weigh impact of fresh Trump tariff, uncertainties” on S1/11).
This after the US Supreme Court struck down his previous tariff program, ruling that Mr. Trump had exceeded his authority when he imposed higher tariffs under an economic emergency law.
Government officials emphasized that the US remains an important trading and investment partner.
“We will continue to engage with (the US). A stable and predictable arrangement with the US will be very beneficial to our stakeholders,” Trade Undersecretary Allan B. Gepty said in a Viber message.
Finance Secretary Frederick D. Go earlier said that the majority of the country’s exports — like semiconductors and key agricultural goods — were already exempted before the US Supreme Court’s ruling.
The US has long been the Philippines’ biggest export market. From January to December 2025, the value of Philippine exports to the US stood at $13.44 billion.
“We don’t know under what authority he (Mr. Trump) will impose those tariffs, and if these will last. We will have to wait until the dust settles to properly assess the impact of his new universal tariffs,” Foundation for Economic Freedom President Calixto V. Chikiamco said in a Viber message.
Reuters reported the new US tariffs are grounded in a separate but untested law, known as Section 122, that allows tariffs up to 15% but requires congressional approval to extend them after 150 days.
Foreign Buyers Association of the Philippines President Robert M. Young said its members have been resuming talks with its US buyers.
“We have survived, for the last eight months, the US’ 19% tariff. So, I think we have to just go on with what we are doing, and we’ll try our best to just lower our price to be competitive with other ASEAN nations,” he said via telephone.
Let me end this piece by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this development? Do you think Filipino exporters will do better with the new 15% tariff instead of the previous one set at 19%? If you are managing a company that makes products for export mainly to the United States, do you have any backup plans when dealing with new tariffs?
Wow! US President Donald Trump sure acts fast and with certainty. Following his reaction to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision that found America’s sweeping global tariffs unconstitutional, President Trump announced that he will increase the rate of his new global tariff on imports from the initial 10% to 15%, according to a Kyodo News report.
To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Kyodo News report. Some parts in boldface…
U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday he will raise the rate of his new global tariff on imports from all countries from the 10 percent announced a day earlier to 15 percent, following the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down a core pillar of his economic policy.
Trump announced the sudden change on social media, adding that during “the next short number of months,” his administration will consider introducing other “legally permissible” tariffs.
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs targeting nearly all of America’s trading partners, as well as fentanyl-related levies he applied to goods from China, Canada and Mexico.
The court ruled that Trump overstepped his presidential powers when he used a 1970s-era emergency law last year to impose those tariffs.
Hours later, Trump responded furiously to the decision at a press conference, announcing the new, across-the-board tariff under a different legal framework, which has never before been used by a U.S. president to impose trade restrictions.
The 10 percent tariff, set to take effect Tuesday, is based on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. It allows import restrictions, including duties of up to 15 percent, if there are “large and serious” trade deficits. Such measures only last 150 days unless Congress approves an extension.
On Saturday, Trump did not say when he plans to raise the rate to the statutory limit.
Let me end this piece by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this development? Considering Trump’s latest action with the new global tariffs, do you think the Supreme Court of the United States made the wrong decision? What is your honest opinion about tariffs right now? Do you think SCOTUS was influenced by foreign entities which opposed Trump’s tariffs?
In response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision that found America’s sweeping global tariffs unconstitutional, US President Donald Trump announced he will impose a 10% global tariff, according to a news report by Kyodo News.
To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Kyodo News report. Some parts in boldface…
U.S. President Donald Trump said Friday that he will impose a new 10 percent “global tariff” after the Supreme Court struck down his duties targeting nearly all of America’s trading partners, delivering a major blow to his signature economic policy and likely complicating Washington’s relations with the rest of the world.
Upholding lower court findings, the highest court ruled that Trump overstepped his presidential powers when he used a 1970s-era emergency law last year to impose the so-called reciprocal tariffs, as well as fentanyl-related levies he applied to goods from China, Canada and Mexico.
Calling the ruling “deeply disappointing,” Trump said, “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.“
At a press conference, Trump unleashed a barrage of criticism against the justices, accusing them of being “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution,” and claimed that the court has been influenced by “foreign interests.”
At the center of the case was Trump’s invocation of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to swiftly bring the tariffs into effect without congressional approval, even though taxation is an enumerated power of the legislative branch.
During oral arguments in early November, a majority of the court’s nine justices, six of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, already appeared skeptical of Trump’s authority to bypass Congress in levying the double-digit tariffs.
Writing for the final 6-3 judgment, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, said Trump could not legally justify his extraordinary action.
“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts said.
Tariffs are the centerpiece of Trump’s “America First” agenda. The Republican president has argued they will revitalize U.S. manufacturing, create jobs, reduce the country’s debt, raise tax revenue and equip the United States with more negotiating leverage to extract concessions from other countries.
In the early months of last year, the Trump administration introduced the tariffs on goods from China, Canada and Mexico, accusing the top three U.S. trading partners of not doing enough to stem the flood of deadly fentanyl coming into the United States.
In April, Trump announced “Liberation Day” tariffs, which consist of a 10 percent universal tariff, plus varying additional duties on dozens of countries with which the United States runs significant trade deficits.
The emergency law, known as IEEPA, stipulates that it can be exercised “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy.”
No president had previously used the law to impose tariffs, with countless U.S. and foreign companies suing the Trump administration to challenge the legality of the IEEPA-based measures and to ensure they receive refunds should the Supreme Court invalidate them.
The Supreme Court did not say whether the U.S. government must refund revenue from the tariffs.
At the press conference, Trump suggested that he would not refund the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the issue would end up in a long court battle.
Trump said foreign countries must be “so happy, and they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long — that I can assure you.”
He stressed that his administration has “very powerful alternatives” to replace the tariffs the court “incorrectly rejected.”
While voicing willingness to advance his trade agenda by other means, Trump said he will introduce a new 10 percent tariff on imports from all countries, on top of the existing duties.
He said the additional tariff will be backed by Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits him to levy such a measure for up to 150 days if there are serious trade deficits that need to be addressed.
Under the country-specific tariff framework, Trump initially threatened to impose a 25 percent levy on Japan, but the figure was lowered to 15 percent after months of negotiations, in return for Tokyo committing to massive investments in the United States in the coming years.
As Japan also promised to buy more American products, a trade agreement struck by the two countries resulted in Japanese automobiles being subject to a 15 percent tariff, down from the hefty 27.5 percent rate that took effect in April.
Let me end this piece by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this development? Are you surprised with the US Supreme Court’s decision? What do you think will happen to the economy of the United States as a result of the US Supreme Court’s decision?
Recently in Japan, the Tokyo High Court ruled that the nation’s ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional, according to a news release published by Kyodo News. Already the woke mob, the liberals, the social justice warriors (SJWs) and the LGBTQ extremists – including those who are not even Japanese and are based outside of Japan – condemned the decision through social media and a fight at the Supreme Court of Japan is anticipated.
To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the news release of Kyodo News. Some parts in boldface…
A Japanese court on Friday ruled that the country’s ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional, becoming the only high court to uphold the state’s position among six rulings on similar lawsuits filed nationwide.
The Tokyo High Court concluded the current civil law provisions that do not allow same-sex marriage are still reasonable under the current circumstances, in contrast with five earlier high court rulings in Sapporo, Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and Fukuoka that said the lack of legal recognition of same sex marriage violated the Constitution. Those other rulings, however, all rejected compensation claims.
In handing down the latest ruling, Presiding Judge Ayumi Higashi said that the current marriage system is useful in preparing an environment for raising children, and that it is reasonable to interpret “husband and wife” as a man and a woman.
The ruling also said that the freedom of marriage guaranteed under Article 24 of the Constitution does not apply to same-sex couples, noting that “part of the effects of marriage can be substituted by contracts,” and that people can marry if they change their legal sex.
The court expressed concern, though, over stalled discussions in parliament, warning that if this situation continues, it could lead to violations of the constitutional guarantee of equality under the law. It also urged that being treated based on gender identity is an important legal interest.
As the plaintiffs plan to appeal, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a unified decision next year at the earliest.
In the latest lawsuit, eight plaintiffs in their 40s to 60s had sought 1 million yen ($6,400) in damages each, arguing civil law provisions that do not allow same-sex marriage violate the right to equality ensured under the Constitution and its guarantee of freedom of marriage.
The government denied that the provisions are unconstitutional, arguing that the Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
The plaintiffs had appealed a Tokyo District Court ruling in March 2024 that found the situation to be “in a state of unconstitutionality” but rejected their damages claims.
Among 12 high and lower court rulings so far, the Osaka District Court was the only other court that ruled that the lack of legal recognition is constitutional.
Let me end this piece by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this development? Do you seriously believe that having same-sex marriage (AKA gay marriage) will be beneficial to Japan socially and economically? Do you think that the LGBTQ and Leftist forces from around the world are secretly funding the same-sex marriage movement in Japan? Do you think it is inevitable for the Supreme Court of Japan to declare the same-sex marriage ban constitutional? Are you convinced that same-sex marriage in Japan will ruin not only Japanese families but also the nation’s society?
Recently in the progressive City of Muntinlupa, the most wanted person was apprehended by the local police over charges of qualified rape and lascivious conduct, according to a Manila Bulletin news report.
To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the news article of the Manila Bulletin. Some parts in boldface…
Police arrested a 42-year-old man tagged as Muntinlupa’s No. 1 top most wanted person for qualified rape and lascivious conduct on Friday, Sept. 6.
The suspect, identified as alias “Ranielle,” was nabbed in Barangay Alabang, Muntinlupa by operatives from the Warrant and Subpoena Unit of Muntinlupa police.
He is facing charges of lascivious conduct under Republic Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and qualified rape under Republic Act 11648 (An Act Promoting for Stronger Protection Against Rape and Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, Increasing the Age for Determining the Commission of Statutory Rape).
According to the Supreme Court website, lascivious conduct, based on the implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act, 7610, is “the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.”
The Supreme Court Office of the Spokesperson stated that “qualified rape, on the other hand, refers to sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, committed under any of the circumstances listed in Article 266-B of the RPC (Revised Penal Code), such as abuse of authority, moral ascendancy, relationship, or the victim’s vulnerability.”
Presiding Judge Phillip Aguinaldo of the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 207 issued the warrant of arrest. Bail was set at P200,000 for each of four counts of lascivious conduct and no bail for qualified rape.
Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? If you are a resident of Muntinlupa City, are there many property owners in your local community who have yet to know about the real property tax amnesty offered?
For more South Metro Manila community news and developments, come back here soon. Also say NO to fake news, NO to irresponsible journalism, NO to misinformation, NO to plagiarists, NO to reckless publishers and NO to sinister propaganda when it comes to news and developments. For South Metro Manila community developments, member engagement, commerce and other relevant updates, join the growing South Metro Manila Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/342183059992673
Author Carlo Carrasco 