Atty. Jeremiah B. Nazareno

23/06/2026

A minor is any person below eighteen (18) years of age. For purposes of criminal liability under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (Republic Act No. 9344, as amended), minors are classified into the following.

1. Children 15 years old and below are EXEMPT from criminal liability, regardless of the offense committed. However, they may be subjected to appropriate intervention programs.

2. Children above 15 years old but below 18 years old are also generally exempt from criminal liability unless they acted with discernment (meaning they understood the wrongfulness of their act and its consequences). If discernment is proven, they may be held criminally liable, although they are entitled to the special protections and diversion measures provided by law.

Thus, a blanket statement that “minors are criminally liable” ignores the statutory exemptions and qualifications provided by law.

20/06/2026

This decision of the Supreme Court emphasized that falling in love and entering into a lawful marriage cannot, by themselves, be equated with immoral conduct.

14/06/2026

As to the circulating post encouraging Facebook users to repost a certain message in order to exempt themselves from Meta’s privacy terms, please be advised that this has no legal basis.

In the Philippines, the protection of personal information is governed by Republic Act No. 10173, otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012. Users may exercise their privacy rights through the procedures provided by the platform and applicable laws and not through reposted social media declarations.

In short, reposting such a statement does not create, modify, or revoke legal rights. It is not a substitute for understanding and managing one’s actual privacy settings and available legal remedies.

No lawyer can create a legally binding exception to Meta’s Terms of Service simply by advising people to copy and paste a Facebook status.

03/06/2026

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine meaning to stand by things decided. It requires courts to follow legal principles established in previous decisions when deciding similar cases.

The doctrine is recognized through Article 8 of the Civil Code, which states that “Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines”

29/05/2026

Virtual attendance in Congress must not be permitted as a means of evading lawful arrest or judicial processes. To allow a senator subject to a valid warrant or lawful detention to participate remotely would undermine the rule of law and place public office above legal accountability.

The Senate is a legislative institution, NOT a sanctuary from the enforcement of the law.

Permitting remote participation under such circumstances would effectively transform Congress into a safe haven for individuals seeking to avoid the reach of justice. Such a result is incompatible with constitutional governance, equal protection, and the fundamental principle that no person regardless of rank or position above the law.

28/05/2026

Under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, a fortuitous event or force majeure refers to an event that could not be foreseen, or though foreseen, was inevitable, and which renders compliance with impossible.

A possible or speculative conflict between China and Taiwan that may eventually affect the Philippines DOES NOT constitute force majeure because no actual conflict presently exist

Force majeure cannot be based on mere anticipation or speculation of a future event.

24/05/2026

As explained by Dean Mel Sta. Maria,

The propriety of ICC jurisdiction over alleged extrajudicial killings lies in the principle that crimes against humanity transcend national boundaries and warrant international accountability where domestic remedies are perceived to be ineffective.

International tribunals exist not to undermine sovereignty, but to uphold justice, due process, and the rule of law for both victims and the accused.

Thus, the issue is not one of nationalism, but of ensuring impartial adjudication and accountability under international law.

22/05/2026

It is important to understand that there is a clear distinction between the service of notices or pleadings and the ex*****on or service of warrants.

The former may validly be made upon counsel pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, which provides that whenever a party has appeared by counsel, service upon the counsel shall be deemed service upon the party.

On the other hand, the latter must be effected upon the accused personally and effectively pursuant to Rule 113, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires the arresting officer to inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest.

The warrant must therefore be served upon the accused himself, and not merely upon counsel.

21/05/2026

Door 7 VS Ong & Sons Building, 3rd Araneta St. Poblacion Bago City

Associate Lawyer at Arabelo Law Office