List of 2017 Holidays: Proclamation No. 50

MALACAÑAN PALACE
MANILA

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

PROCLAMATION NO. 50

DECLARING THE REGULAR HOLIDAY ANS SPECIAL (NON-WORKING) DAYS FOR THE YEAR 2017

WHEREAS, Republic Act (RA) No. 9422, dated 24 July 2007, amended Section 26, Chapter 7, Book I of Executive Order (EO) No. 292, also known as the Administrative Code of 1987, by declaring certain days (specific or movable) as special or regular holidays;

WHEREAS, RA No. 9492 provides that holidays, except those which are religious in nature, are moved to the nearest Monday unless otherwise modified by law, order or proclamation;

WHEREAS, RA No. 9849 dated 11 December 2009, provides that the Eidul Adha shall be celebrated as a national holiday;

WHEREAS, on 28 January 2017, Chinese nationals all over the world will celebrate Spring Festival, popularly known as Chinese New Year, which is one of the most revered and festive events celebrated not only in China but also in the Philippines, and such date may be declared as a special (non-working) day without detriment to public interest;

WHEREAS, on 25 February 2017, the country will commemorate the 31st Anniversary of EDSA People Power Revolution, which restored and ushered political, social and economic reforms in the country;

WHEREAS, Black Saturday, which falls on 15 April 2017, has been traditionally declared a special (non-working) day throughout the country, the observance of Holy Week being one of the most cherished traditions of our predominantly Catholic people;

WHEREAS, declaring 31 October 2017 (Tuesday), as an additional special (non-working) day throughout the country will strengthen family ties by providing more time for the traditional All Saints’ Day commemorative activities; and will promote domestic tourism as well;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as President of the Philippines, do hereby declare:

SECTION 1.    The following regular holidays and special days for the year 2017 shall be observed in the country:

A. Regular Holidays

New Year’s Day   1   January   (Sunday)
Araw ng Kagitingan   9   April   (Sunday)
Maundy Thursday 13   April
Good Friday 14   April
Labor Day   1   May   (Monday)
 Independence Day 12   June   (Monday)
 National Heroes Day 28   August   (Last Monday of August)
 Bonifacio Day 30   November   (Thursday)
 Christmas Day 25   December   (Monday)
Rizal Day 30   December   (Saturday)

B. Special (Non-Working) Days

 

Chinese New Year 28   January   (Saturday)
EDSA People Power Revolution Anniversary 25   February   (Saturday)
Black Saturday 15   April
Ninoy Aquino Day 21   August   (Monday)
All Saints Day   1   November   (Wednesday)
Last Day of the Year  31   December   (Sunday)
Additional special (non-working) day 31   October   (Tuesday)

SECTION 2.      The proclamations declaring national holidays for the observance of Eidul Fitr and Eidul Adha shall hereafter be issued after the approximate dates of the Islamic holidays have been determine in accordance with the Islamic calendar (Hijra) or the lunar calendar, or upon Islamic astronomical calculations, whichever is possible or convenient. To this end, the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) shall inform the Office of the President on the actual dates on which these holidays shall respectively fall.

SECTION 3.    The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) shall promulgate the implementing guidelines for this Proclamation

SECTION 4.       This Proclamation shall take effect immediately.

SECTION 5.    This Proclamation shall be published in a newspaper or general circulation.

IN THE WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 16th day of August in the year of Our Lord, two thousand and sixteen.

By authority of the President:

(Sgd.) SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA

Executive Secretary

2 comments

  1. BAR EXAMS NOVEMBER 13, 2016
    QUESTION NO.5
    Bernard and Dorothy lived together as common-law spouses although they are both capacitated to marry. After one year of cohabitation, Dorothy went abroad to work in Dubai as a hair stylist and regularly sent money to Bernard. With the money, Bernard bought a lot. For a good price, Bernard sold the lot. Dorothy came to know about the acquisition and sale of the lot and filed a suit to nullify the sale because she did not give her consent to the sale.
    [a] Will Dorothy’s suit prosper? Decide with reasons. (2.5%)
    [b] Suppose Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute money to the acquisition of the lot and her efforts consisted mainly in the care and maintenance of the family and household, is her consent to the sale a prerequisite to its validity? Explain. (2.5%)
    Suggested Answer:

    (a) Yes, Dorothy’s suit to nullify the sale will prosper, Under Articles 147 or 148 of the Family Code provides that: If the parties had no legal impediment to marry each other, the property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership wherein the property they acquired during their union is presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. However, the fruits of the couple’s separate property are not included in the co-ownership. On the other hand, if the common-law spouses suffered a legal impediment to marry or they did not live exclusively with each other, only the property acquired by both of them through their actual joint contribution of money property, or industry shall be owned in common and in proportion to their respective contribution, therefore, the acquisition and sale of the
    lot is void.

    (b) Yes, even though Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute money to the acquisition of the lot and her efforts consisted mainly in the care and maintenance of the family and household and her consent to the sale a prerequisite to its validity still Art. 147 Par. (2) will govern and provides that: In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

    Thumb up Thumb down 0

  2. LEGAL ETHICS BAR EXAMS TIPS

    In April 29, 2013, Judge X was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan of graft and malversation of public funds which he committed while still a city mayor. His MR and MNT being denied, he brought his case to the SC for review, then went on leave of absence and applied for optional retirement, which is supposedly to take effect on December 2013.
    Meanwhile, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended to the SC that its report about Judge X conviction in the Sandiganbayan be converted to a regular administrative complaint against him for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Invoking the SC’s inherent power of supervision over judges, the OCA also recommended his preventive suspension.
    In his comment dated Jan 2014, Judge Ruiz posited that the administrative complaint against him is premature because when it was filed, his Sandiganbayan convictions were not yet final. He also argued that there was no more need to suspend him from office because he should be considered already “retired from government service” when he received the SC resolution dated Nov 20, 2013 suspending him without pay and other monetary benefits.
    (a) Is the Court still has jurisdiction over Judge Ruiz after his separation from the service

    Yes. That a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated from the service does not necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction; the jurisdiction existing at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. Nor does separation from office render a pending administrative charge moot and academic. The Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent public official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof.
    A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. If innocent, respondent public official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation. (Gallos v Cordero, 1995)
    (b) Is the SC can preventively suspend a judge while the administrative complaint is still pending

    Yes. The Court possesses the power to preventively suspend an administratively charged judge until a final decision is reached, particularly when a serious charge is involved and a strong likelihood of guilt exists. This power is inherent in the Court’s power of administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel as a measure to allow unhampered formal investigation. It is likewise a preventive measure to shield the public from any further damage that the continued exercise by the judge of the functions of his office may cause.
    Here, the SC placed the respondent under preventive suspension because he is alleged to have committed transgressions – violations of RA 3019 and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude – which are classified as serious under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
    (c) Is the acts committed by judges or justices prior to their appointment to the judiciary may be a basis for disciplinary measures by the SC

    Yes. It is immaterial that the respondent was not yet a member of the Judiciary when he allegedly committed the acts imputed to him; judges may be disciplined for acts committed prior to their appointment to the judiciary.
    The Rules of Court itself recognizes this situation, as it provides for the immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication of charges against justices and judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to their appointment to the judiciary. It need not be shown that the respondent continued to do the act or acts complained of; it is sufficient that the evidence on record supports the charge/s against the respondent through proof that the respondent committed the imputed act/s violative of Code of Judicial Conduct and the applicable provisions of the Rules of Court.
    (c) Is Judge X is administratively liable

    Yes. Viewed against the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses, which are supported by the documents on record, his denial cannot stand. He even failed to substantiate his claim that the charges against him had been politically motivated. Thus, by substantial evidence, it is fully established that Judge X is guilty of the charges. Considering the nature and extent of the charges, he is now dismissed from service and disbarred.

    Thumb up Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *