hi, please check the design and add comments...thank you
Monday, September 14, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Tañada vs. Angara 272 SCRA 18, May 2. 1997
Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement.The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.
Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement.
Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the “concept of sovereignty as autolimitation.” What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement.
Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the “concept of sovereignty as autolimitation.” What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Bayan vs. Zamora GR # 138570
FACTS :
On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and the United States of America forged a military bases agreement which formalized, among others, the use of installations in the Philippine territory by the US military personnel. To further strengthen their defense and security relationship, the Philippines and the US entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951. Under the treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public vessels and aircraft.
In 1991, with the expiration of RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the periodic military exercises between the two countries were held in abeyance. However, the defence and security relationship continued pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty. On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other things, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Negotiations by both panels on VFA led to a consolitdated draft text and a series of conferences. Eventually, President Fidel V. Ramos approved the VFA.
On October 5, 1998 President Joseph E. Estrada ratified the VFA thru respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting thru Executive Secretary Zamora officially transmitted to the Senate, the Instrument of Ratification, letter of the President and the VFA for approval. It was approved by the Senate by a 2/3 vote of its members. On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially entered into force after an exchange of notes between Secretary Siazon and US Ambassador Hubbard.
The VFA provides for the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions under which US Armed Forces and defense personnel may be present in the Philippines. Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the constitutionality of the VFA and imputing grave abuse of discretion to respondents in ratifying the agreement.
ISSUE : Whether or not the VFA is unconstitutional.
RULING :
Petition is dismissed.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. Sec. 21 Art. VII, which respondent invokes, reads: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate. Sec. 25 Art. XVIII provides : “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the RP and the US concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in and when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senateby the other contracting state”.
The first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and international agreements in general with a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties and international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage or particular designation requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.
In contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence of foreign military bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. Both constitutional provisions share some common ground. The fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that Senate extended its concurrence under the same provision is immaterial.
Undoubtedly, Sec. 25 Art. XVIII which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases and troops should apply in the instant case. Hence, for VFA to be constitutional it must sufficiently meet the following requisites :
a) it must be under a treaty
b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate, and when so required by Congress, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum
c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State
There is no dispute in the presence of the first two requisites. The third requisite implies that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the US treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. They are equally binding obligations upon nations. Therefore, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of the constitution.
The court also finds that there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the executive department as to their power to ratify the VFA.
Plaridel M. Abaya vs. Hon. Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr.
FACTS:
On May 7, 2004 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) issued a Resolution No. PJHL-A-04-012. It was approved by DPWH Acting Secretary Florante Soriquez. This resolution recommended the award to China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road, with the lengt of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.
This Loan Agreement No. PH-204 was executed by and between the JBIC and the Philippine Government pursuant to the exchange of Notes executed by and between Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Philippines, and then Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon, in behalf of their respective governments.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. PH-204 between the JBIC and the Philippine Government is a kind of a treaty.
HELD:
The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes dated December 27, 1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine Government is an executive agreement.
An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other.
…treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes all are refer to international instruments binding at international law.
Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments. These rules are the result of long practice among the States, which have accepted them as binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international customary law.
That case was dismissed by the SCORP last Feb. 14 2007.
What the petitioners wanted was that Foreign funded projects also undergo the procurement process.
The dismissal of the case somehow gave justification for the delay of the implementing rules for foreign funded projects (IRR-B) of the procurement law If we recall the decision of the Abaya vs Ebdane was used by the DOJ when the DOTC Secretary was asking for an opinion from the former, during the ZTE controversy. as ruled by the Supreme Court in Abaya v. Ebdane, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without need of a vote by the Senate and that (like treaties and conventions, it is an international instrument binding at international law, The second issue involves an examination of the coverage of Republic Act No. 9184, otherwise known as the “Government Procurement Reform Act”. Section 4 of the said Act provides that it shall apply to:
… the Procurement of infrastructure Projects, Goods and Consulting Services, regardless of source of funds, whether local or foreign, by all branches and instrumentalities of government, its
departments, offices and agencies, including government-owned and/or -controlled corporations and local government units, subject to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 138. Any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed.
On May 7, 2004 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) issued a Resolution No. PJHL-A-04-012. It was approved by DPWH Acting Secretary Florante Soriquez. This resolution recommended the award to China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road, with the lengt of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.
This Loan Agreement No. PH-204 was executed by and between the JBIC and the Philippine Government pursuant to the exchange of Notes executed by and between Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Philippines, and then Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon, in behalf of their respective governments.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. PH-204 between the JBIC and the Philippine Government is a kind of a treaty.
HELD:
The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes dated December 27, 1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine Government is an executive agreement.
An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other.
…treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes all are refer to international instruments binding at international law.
Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments. These rules are the result of long practice among the States, which have accepted them as binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international customary law.
That case was dismissed by the SCORP last Feb. 14 2007.
What the petitioners wanted was that Foreign funded projects also undergo the procurement process.
The dismissal of the case somehow gave justification for the delay of the implementing rules for foreign funded projects (IRR-B) of the procurement law If we recall the decision of the Abaya vs Ebdane was used by the DOJ when the DOTC Secretary was asking for an opinion from the former, during the ZTE controversy. as ruled by the Supreme Court in Abaya v. Ebdane, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without need of a vote by the Senate and that (like treaties and conventions, it is an international instrument binding at international law, The second issue involves an examination of the coverage of Republic Act No. 9184, otherwise known as the “Government Procurement Reform Act”. Section 4 of the said Act provides that it shall apply to:
… the Procurement of infrastructure Projects, Goods and Consulting Services, regardless of source of funds, whether local or foreign, by all branches and instrumentalities of government, its
departments, offices and agencies, including government-owned and/or -controlled corporations and local government units, subject to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 138. Any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed.
Secretary of Justice vs. Judge Lantion GR 139465
Facts
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the United States requesting for the extradition of Mark Jimenez for various crimes in violation of US laws. In compliance with the related municipal law, specifically Presidential Decree No. 1069 “Prescribing the Procedure for Extradition of Persons Who Have committed Crimes in a Foreign Country” and the established “Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America”, the department proceeded with proceeded with the designation of a panel of attorneys to conduct a technical evaluation and assessment as provided for in the presidential decree and the treaty.
The respondent requested for a copy of the official extradition request as well as the documents and papers submitted therein. The petitioner denied the request as it alleges that such information is confidential in nature and that it is premature to provide such document as the process is not a preliminary investigation but a mere evaluation. Therefore, the constitutional rights of the accused are not yet available.
Issue
1.Whether or not private respondent, Mark B. Jimenez, be granted access to the official extradition request and documents with an opportunity to file a comment on or opposition thereto
2.Whether or not private respondent’s entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RP-US Extradition Treaty
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the private respondent be furnished a copy of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to give him a reasonable period of time within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. In this case, there exists a clear conflict between the obligation of the Philippine Government to comply with the provisions of the treaty and its equally significant role of protection of its citizens of its right of due process.
The processes outlined in the treaty and in the presidential decree already pose an impending threat to a prospective extraditee’s liberty as early as the evaluation stage. It is not an imagined threat to his liberty, but a very imminent one. On the other hand, granting due process to the extradition case causes delay in the process.
The rule of pacta sunt servanda, one of the oldest and most fundamental maxims of international law, requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of a local state. Efforts should be done to harmonize them. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts. The doctrine of incorporation decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
In this case, there is no conflict between international law and municipal law. The United States and the Philippines share a mutual concern about the suppression and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. At the same time, both States accord common due process protection to their respective citizens. In fact, neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes the rights of due process from a prospective extradite.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the United States requesting for the extradition of Mark Jimenez for various crimes in violation of US laws. In compliance with the related municipal law, specifically Presidential Decree No. 1069 “Prescribing the Procedure for Extradition of Persons Who Have committed Crimes in a Foreign Country” and the established “Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America”, the department proceeded with proceeded with the designation of a panel of attorneys to conduct a technical evaluation and assessment as provided for in the presidential decree and the treaty.
The respondent requested for a copy of the official extradition request as well as the documents and papers submitted therein. The petitioner denied the request as it alleges that such information is confidential in nature and that it is premature to provide such document as the process is not a preliminary investigation but a mere evaluation. Therefore, the constitutional rights of the accused are not yet available.
Issue
1.Whether or not private respondent, Mark B. Jimenez, be granted access to the official extradition request and documents with an opportunity to file a comment on or opposition thereto
2.Whether or not private respondent’s entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RP-US Extradition Treaty
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the private respondent be furnished a copy of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to give him a reasonable period of time within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. In this case, there exists a clear conflict between the obligation of the Philippine Government to comply with the provisions of the treaty and its equally significant role of protection of its citizens of its right of due process.
The processes outlined in the treaty and in the presidential decree already pose an impending threat to a prospective extraditee’s liberty as early as the evaluation stage. It is not an imagined threat to his liberty, but a very imminent one. On the other hand, granting due process to the extradition case causes delay in the process.
The rule of pacta sunt servanda, one of the oldest and most fundamental maxims of international law, requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of a local state. Efforts should be done to harmonize them. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts. The doctrine of incorporation decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
In this case, there is no conflict between international law and municipal law. The United States and the Philippines share a mutual concern about the suppression and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. At the same time, both States accord common due process protection to their respective citizens. In fact, neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes the rights of due process from a prospective extradite.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary
FACTS :
The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court which “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdition over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern xxx and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions.” Its jurisdiction covers the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression as defined in the Statute. The Philippines signed the Statute on December 28, 2000. Its provisions, however, require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.
Hence this petition for mandamus filed by petitioners to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with Sec. 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Petitioners contend that ratification of a treaty, under domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate and it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. Respondents, however argue that it has no duty to transmit the copy of Rome Statute to Senate for concurrence.
ISSUE : Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the DFA have a ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute.
RULING :
Petition is dismissed.
In our system of government, the President, being the head of the state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides for a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 votes of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations.
Petitioners equate signing of the treaty with ratification, which are two different and distinct steps in the treaty-making process. Signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of good faith of the parties. Ratification, the other hand, is a formal act, executive by nature, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government.
The signature does not signify the final consent of the state to the treaty. It is ratification that binds the state to the provisions thereof. Under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence to the ratification. Such power of the President cannot be encroached by the courts via mandamus and the courts has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. Therefore, the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the executive branch of the government to transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to Senate.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Fallacies
1. argumenttum ad hominem - you commit this fallacy when you attack the person who made the argument rather than the argument itself (ex. erap does not deserve to be the president because he is a womanizer, a gambler and an alcoholic.)
2. argumentum ad baculum - this fallacy is committed when you are forced to reject your own argument by threat and strong-arm tactics (ex. if erap will not win the presidency, there will be a bloody revolution)
3. argumentum ad misericordiam - this fallacy is committed when the argument is rejected by an appeal to the emotional and miserable consequences of the conclusion (ex. please give me a good grade because, if i fail, my old and sick mother will be very disappointed)
4. argumentum ad ignorantiam - this fallacy is committed when you infer the truth of a conclusion because it cannot be disproved (ex. nobody ever succeeded in disproving the existence of God, therefore He exists)
5. argumentum ad popolum - when you base the soundness of an argument on popularity, then you commit this fallacy (ex. people use Oral B because it is used by 8 out of 10 movie stars)
6. argumentum ad vericundiam - when the strength of the argument is based on some authority that is not reliable and relevant, then you commit this fallacy (ex. vote for erap because bro. eddie villanueva said he is declared by jesus to be the next president)
7. fallacy of false dilemma - you commit this fallacy when you are offered an argument forcing you to accept only two alternatives (e. either Lim or Roco wins the election; Roco will not win; therefore Lim will win)
8. fallacy of false analogy -you commit this fallacy when you are offered an analogy that is not accurate, and a conclusion is drawn as if the analogy is correct (ex. eerap cannot even put his house hold in order, so how can he put the affairs of this country in order?)
9. petitio principii fallacy - you commit this fallacy when you compose an argument when by citing as evidence the conclusion of the argument of bvy repeating the conclusion several times
(ex. i have seen twilight 12 times because it is a good movie. it is a obviously a good movie, otherwise, i would have not seen it 12 times)
10. fallacy of complex question - this fallacy is committed when you ask a question that smuggles the truth of a conclusion (ex. have you stopped cheating in your exams?)
2. argumentum ad baculum - this fallacy is committed when you are forced to reject your own argument by threat and strong-arm tactics (ex. if erap will not win the presidency, there will be a bloody revolution)
3. argumentum ad misericordiam - this fallacy is committed when the argument is rejected by an appeal to the emotional and miserable consequences of the conclusion (ex. please give me a good grade because, if i fail, my old and sick mother will be very disappointed)
4. argumentum ad ignorantiam - this fallacy is committed when you infer the truth of a conclusion because it cannot be disproved (ex. nobody ever succeeded in disproving the existence of God, therefore He exists)
5. argumentum ad popolum - when you base the soundness of an argument on popularity, then you commit this fallacy (ex. people use Oral B because it is used by 8 out of 10 movie stars)
6. argumentum ad vericundiam - when the strength of the argument is based on some authority that is not reliable and relevant, then you commit this fallacy (ex. vote for erap because bro. eddie villanueva said he is declared by jesus to be the next president)
7. fallacy of false dilemma - you commit this fallacy when you are offered an argument forcing you to accept only two alternatives (e. either Lim or Roco wins the election; Roco will not win; therefore Lim will win)
8. fallacy of false analogy -you commit this fallacy when you are offered an analogy that is not accurate, and a conclusion is drawn as if the analogy is correct (ex. eerap cannot even put his house hold in order, so how can he put the affairs of this country in order?)
9. petitio principii fallacy - you commit this fallacy when you compose an argument when by citing as evidence the conclusion of the argument of bvy repeating the conclusion several times
(ex. i have seen twilight 12 times because it is a good movie. it is a obviously a good movie, otherwise, i would have not seen it 12 times)
10. fallacy of complex question - this fallacy is committed when you ask a question that smuggles the truth of a conclusion (ex. have you stopped cheating in your exams?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
