LET’S CLOSE RANKS: If the perpetrators of the bombings down South think that the violence would stop Philippine-American collaboration in fighting terrorism and phase out US military presence, they are mistaken.

Such outbursts claiming innocent civilian lives fit exactly in the two countries’ shared definition of terrorism. We see the bloody incidents drawing the two partners closer and stepping up US military involvement.

Government response to the mayhem must be swift and firm, because any hint of weakness or indecision will only invite escalation of the violence.

Among the civilian population, we hope to see a closing of the ranks and the citizens’ collaborating with the government. Politicians of whatever stripes must drop petty partisanship and cooperate with the administration in quelling the civil disturbance and restoring order.

We have suffered enough. The nation is bleeding. It’s time we seriously thought about uniting against a common foe and lifting this nation to a higher plane of peace and progress.

* * *

ITEMS ON CARPIO: The chief information officer of the Supreme Court confirmed yesterday that Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio was a former counsel of Vivendi/CGEA, a foreign partner of Jancom Environmental Corp. whose $350-million incineration agreement with the government is being questioned by a group of non-government organizations and pro-environment individuals.

But Asst. Court Administrator Ismael G. Khan Jr., the SC information chief, belied another claim of the oppositors that Carpio was Chief Presidential Legal Counsel for the government during its negotiations with Jancom.

Through its third division, where Carpio is a member, the Supreme Court has ruled with finality that the Jancom contract is valid. Carpio has inhibited himself from the case.

* * *

WAS VIVENDI/CGEA COUNSEL: Khan’s reaction to our column of last Sunday was contained in a letter addressed to STAR editor in chief Isaac G. Belmonte and copy-furnished Postscript.

He said that when Carpio assumed office, he inherited the Jancom case from former Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes. He added that even without any motion from any party, Carpio voluntarily inhibited himself immediately from the case in accordance with the rules.

He did this after disclosing to the third division the fact that he was a former counsel of Vivendi/CGEA. Khan said that Vivendi/CGEA is not a party in the case. He added that the third division consulted the entire court twice on what to do with the case and the court decided that it should stay with the third division.

* * *

CARPIO HAD QUIT EARLIER: Khan said that from the time of the first pre-bid conference on May 2, 1996, to the signing of the waste management contract on Dec. 19, 1997, Carpio was no longer Chief Presidential Legal Counsel.

He added that the contract was submitted to the Office of the President on March 5, 1998, more than two years after Carpio resigned his post on Feb. 15, 1996.

The oppositors said that Carpio’s inhibition was not enough and that, under the rules, the case should have been re-raffled to another division. But Khan countered there was no need for reraffling, and that Carpio’s inhibiting himself was enough.

* * *

WHICH RULE APPLIES?: In saying that the case should have been reassigned to another division, the oppositors cited Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-94-A dated Dec. 10, 1996, which says in part:

“Whenever a member of a division was a counsel or member of a law firm which was counsel in a case before the Division x x x or to an attorney who is counsel of record in the case or is a partner in the law firm (whether or not named in the firm name) which is counsel of record in the case x x x or he was an official, or is the spouse of an official or former official of a government agency or private entity which is a party to the case before the Division, said Member shall inhibit himself from the case, and the same shall be raffled among the members of the other two Divisions of the Court.”

Khan said this paragraph refers to a justice who was formerly a “counsel in a case before the division,” or a former “official of a government agency x x x which is a party to a case before the division.”

He pointed out that Carpio was never a counsel in the Jancom case for any party, whether before the third division, the Court of Appeals, or the Regional Trial Court where the case originated.

* * *

ANOTHER PARAGRAPH CITED: Khan added that neither was Carpio an official of the Office of the President, nor of the Metro Manila Development Authority, nor of any party, during the bidding, awarding or signing of the waste management contract.

He said that what applies in this situation is this paragraph 5 of the court’s circular governing voluntary inhibitions:

“For a compelling reason other than those mentioned in nos. 1 and 2 above, a Division Member may also inhibit himself from a case before the Division but the case shall not be raffled among the members of the other two (2) Divisions. Instead, if the inhibiting Member is the ponente in the Division, the case shall be re-assigned by the Division Chairman to another member of the same Division in accordance with its rules on re-assignment of cases within the Division.”

* * *

SPEAK UP ON I.N.S. RULE: The US Immigration and Naturalization Service wants to hear from individuals affected by the new policy of restricted admission of aliens carrying temporary visitor’s visas as one way of deterring terrorism.

That may include you, especially if you have relatives in the United States or are planning to visit soon. It used to be that upon first application at the port of entry, a non-immigrant is usually granted a six-month stay. Now it will normally be for 30 days only. For more details, go to the website http://www.ins.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/visa.htm.

You have until May 6 to send your comments. You can (1) write the Director, Policy Directives and Instructions Branch, INS, 425 I Street, N.W., Room 4034, Washington, D.C., 20536, Attention: Public Comment Clerk; or (2) send an email to insregs@usdoj.gov.

You may also want to let the relevant officials in the Legislative Division of the Visa Services Section of the State Department know of your concerns by carbon-copying these e-mail addresses: visaregs@state.gov and harperbj@state.gov.

We’re passing on the advice sent to us not to bother composing a great letter. Ultimately, it is the volume of the opposing e-mails/letters that matters. But briefly state your reasons for your comment/stand.