The Cybercrime Law was brought to you by 7 senators & 12 congressmen

Share:

Exclusive

By Raïssa Robles

With a bit more digging, I have found out SIX MORE THINGS how Congress came up with a horrible Cybercrime Law.

FIRST, we owe the present law mainly to 19 lawmakers who crafted the final version in a Bicameral Conference Committee.

The Bicam –  senators and congressmen working together to hammer out one bill –was co-chaired by Senator Edgardo Angara and Congressman Sigfrido Tinga. I tried interviewing Angara, the main sponsor, last week but was told he was in Rome. I set an appointment but has yet to get word about it to date.

Senator Edgardo Angara and Congressman Sigfrido Tinga co-chaired the Bicam Conference Committee on the Cybercrime Law

The Senate was represented by Senators Angara, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Jinggoy Estrada, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Antonio Trillanes, Bong Revilla and Manuel Villar, according to Senate records.

Clockwise: Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Antonio Trillanes, Edgardo Angara (leader of the Senate contingent), Bong Revilla, Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Manuel Villar.

The House of Representatives was represented by Tinga (leader of the House contingent), Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara (Aurora), Diosdado “Dato” Macapagal, Jr. (Camarines Sur), Roilo Golez (Paranaque) Miro Quimbo (Marikina), Susan Yap (Tarlac), Ma. Rachel Arenas (Pangasinan), Eric Singson Jr. (Ilocos Sur), Teodoro Marcelino (Marikina), Mel Sarmiento (Western Samar), Cesar Sarmiento (Catanduanes) and Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro City).

Macapagal’s mother, Congresswoman Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, was listed as one of the bill’s co-sponsors.

Congressman Angara is Senator Angara’s son who is now running for senator.

The House of Representatives was represented by Susan Yap (Tarlac), Tinga, Ma. Rachel Arenas (Pangasinan), Roilo Golez (Paranaque) ; (Row 2, L to R) Eric Singson Jr. (Ilocos Sur), Teodoro Marcelino (Marikina), Diosdado Macapagal, Jr. (Camarines Sur), Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara (Aurora), (Row 3, L to R) Mel Sarmiento (Western Samar), Miro Quimbo (Marikina), (Bottom Row, L to R) Cesar Sarmiento (Catanduanes)& Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro City).

SECOND, the Cybercrime Prevention Act was a “priority legislation” of President Benigno Aquino III and could therefore be rushed through Congress. Even faster than the Reproductive Health (RH) bill and the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill, it turns out.

THIRD, it was Senator Pia Cayetano who at the Senate  “inserted” – according to the Senate Journal of January 24, 2012 – that two highly controversial provisions were inserted: The Real Time Collection of Traffic Data and the “take down.” The latter, especially, gives the Department of Justice awesome powers to block Filipino access to websites that are the subject of complaints.

But at the time that Cayetano (a lawyer) had proposed it and Angara had acceded to the insertion, it did not quite have the potential to enable the justice department to build the equivalent of the “Great Firewall of China”, which would in effect censor the Internet. I’ll explain that later.

UPDATE: As of 10:30 pm, October 8, 2012

The Office of Sen. Pia Cayetano has provided the actual transcript of the January 24, 2012 Senate proceedings. Accordingly, I am inserting corrections in this report that it was not Sen. Pia Cayetano who had inserted the two controversial provisions I mentioned. Sen. Cayetano’s Facebook Fan Page stated it was Sen. Edgardo Angara who had inserted these. But the transcript does not indicate that too. All we know is that these were inserted during the period of amendments at the Senate.

I am explaining what had happened in my new post entitled: To the staff of Senator Pia Cayetano

 

UPDATE: As of 8:15 am, Oct 5, 2012

The “Office of Sen. Pia Cayetano” told me on the social networking site “Twitter” this morning that it wasn’t she who had inserted the two controversial provisions.

When I asked WHO and “was it Senator Angara?”, the one twitting did not reply. But promised to send me documents to prove it.

The Senate Journal indicated the amendments under the heading – “Remarks of Sen. Cayetano.”

The one on Twitter said:

“Journal says so, as clear as day. If those were hers, the Journal would have bore the heading “Sen @piacayetano amendments.”

I am awaiting the docs.

FOURTH, It was the bicam committee that unlocked the DOJ’s enormous power to censor the Internet because of a section that the bicam added to the law. I will also explain this later.

FIFTH, the House of Representatives approved its version of the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading in “por kilo” fashion. This national law was sandwiched among 40 other mainly local bills and the entire lot was approved at one go during one voting under the direction of Congresswoman Mar-Len Abigail “Nancy” Binay, who was then the presiding officer. She is the daughter of Vice-President Jejomar Binay and is now running for senator. This means by simply voting “Yes” just once, each congressman signified approval of ALL 41 bills, including the Cybercrime bill.

UPDATE: As of Oct 5, 2012 7:01 AM -

Mar-Len and Nancy Binay are two different Binay daughters. Nancy is the eldest duaghter, currently working under Vice-President Jejomar Binay. I never imagined there were that many Binays wanting to run for office.

SIXTH, among those who had approved the House version of the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading was Congressman Teddy Casiño (who is running for senator). He explained to me why he backed the bill at that time.

However,  Anakbayan Kabataan Partylist Representative Mong Palatino told me he himself doesn’t recall approving the bill on Third Reading even though his name is listed in the House journal as having voted “yes”.

And now for the nitty gritty details of how the law was made

For starters, let’s review briefly how Congress passes a law. The 1987 Constitution merely states that every law has to undergo THREE READINGS in both chambers of Congress “on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.”

The Cybercrime Crime law was a “certified” piece of legislation by PNoy, according to House Journal 49 on the May 9, 2012 floor deliberations. [Note: It was for this reason that its passage was rushed.] On the same day, amendments to the bill were introduced and the bill was approved on SECOND READING.

Por kilo approval

On May 16, 2012 – only a week after the SECOND READING – the House approved the Cybercrime Bill on THIRD READING. What actually happened was that someone read out the titles of 41 bills up for Third Reading, according to House Journal No. 50. Most of them dealt with establishing high schools or a fish port or converting an existing road into a national road or establishing a Land Transportation Office in a certain village or declaring a non-working holiday in a certain town. The Cybercrime bill was number 26 among the names of the 41 bills read out.

It was for this reason that Congressman Neri Colmenares told me in an interview that he was unaware the Cybercrime Law was approved on May 16:

That’s really a surprise for me. Pag national bill dapat separate approval. [This should be approved separately by itself.]

I asked him where in the House rules is that stated.

Colmenares replied it was “a tradition” to approve local bills en masse, but not national bills of national significance like the Cybercrime Act. The journal did not have him casting any vote on the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading.

Personally, from what I know, the Constitution empowers each chamber of Congress to make its own rules of procedure. And if the majority allow this kind of wholesale approval and no one really questions it, then it continues.

Congressman Raymond “Mong” Palatino was only one of two lawmakers who officially expressed objections to certain sections of the Cybercrime bill. I asked him why House Journal No. 50 says he had voted “Yes” on Third Reading.

He was surprised to learn that and said:

I don’t recall I ever voted for the Cybercrime habang nandoon ako sa plenary. Hindi ko inexpect na ganon kabilis. May 9 lang ako nag-interpellate. [I don't recall I ever voted for the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading during the May 16 plenary. I did not expect it to be that fast since I only interpellated on May 9.]

Maaring nandoon ako ng alas-cuatro, nagbotohan 5:30. Dahil walang nag-object nilagay na ang lahat na nandoon sa roll-call na bumoto ng yes. [I may have been present at the plenary at 4 pm, but the voting happened at 5:30 pm. Because no one objected, they must have just placed all those present at the roll-call as having voted "yes".]

The May 16, 2012 House Journal No. 50 stated that Palatino was present at 4 PM. However, after 5 PM, the Journal stated:

The Chair ( Mar-Len Abigail Binay) directed the Secretary General to call the Roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, pursuant to the Rules of the House, a second Roll Call was made.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative:
Abad
Abaya
Abayon
Acop
Aggabao
Agyao
Albano
Almario
Almonte
Alvarez (A.)
Andaya
Angping
Antonio
Apacible
Apostol
Aquino
Arago
Arenas
Arnaiz
Arquiza
Arroyo (D.)
Asilo
Aumentado
Bagasina
Bagatsing
Balindong
Banal
Bataoil
Batocabe
Bautista
Bello
Belmonte (F.)
Belmonte (V.)
Benitez
Bichara
Binay
Bulut-Begtang
Cabaluna
Cabilao Yambao
Cagas
Calimbas-Villarosa
Calixto-Rubiano
Canonigo
Casiño
Castro
Catamco
Celeste
Cerafica
Cerilles
Co
Cojuangco (K.)
Cojuangco (E.)
Collantes
Cosalan
Cruz-Gonzales
Cua
Dalog
Datumanong
Dayanghirang
Daza
De Venecia
Defensor
Del Mar
Del Rosario (A. A.)
Del Rosario (A. G.)
Dimaporo (I.)
Duavit
Dy
Ebdane
Ejercito
Emano
Eriguel
Escudero
Espina
Estrella
Fabian
Ferrer (A.)
Ferrer (J.)
Ferriol
Flores
Fortuno
Fua
Fuentebella
Fuentes
Garay
Garbin
Garcia (A.)
Garcia (P.)
Garcia (P.J.)
Garin (J.)
Gatchalian
Go (A.C.)
Go (A.)
Golez (A.)
Golez (R.)
Gonzales (A.)
Gonzales (N.)
Gonzalez
Guanlao
Gullas
Gunigundo
Haresco
Herrera-Dy
Ilagan
Jaafar
Jalosjos (S.)
Javier
Joson
Kho (A.)
Kho (D.)
Labadlabad
Lacson-Noel
Lagdameo (A.)
Lagdameo (M.)
Lapus
Lazatin
Leonen-Pizarro
Lico
Loong
Lopez (C.)
Lopez (C.J.)
Loyola
Madrona
Magsaysay (E.)
Maliksi
Mandanas
Marcoleta
Marcos
Mariano
Matugas
Mellana
Mendoza (J.)
Mendoza (M.)
Mendoza (R.)
Mercado (H.)
Mercado (R.)
Miraflores
Montejo
Noel
Obillo
Ocampo
Ocampos
Olivarez
Ong
Ortega (F.)
Ortega (V.)
Osmeña
Padilla
Paez
Palatino
Palmones
Pancho
Pangandaman (N.)
Panotes
Paras
Payuyo
Piamonte
Pichay
Ping-ay
Ponce-Enrile
Puno
Quisumbing
Radaza
Ramos
Relampagos
Rivera
Robes
Rodriguez (I.)
Rodriguez (M.)
Rodriguez (R.)
Roman
Romarate
Romualdez
Romualdo
Romulo
Sacdalan
Sakaluran
Salvacion
Sambar
San Luis
Sarmiento (C.)
Sarmiento (M.)
Sema
Singson (E.)
Singson (R.L.)
Socrates
Suarez
Sy-Alvarado
Tan
Teodoro
Teves
Tieng
Tinga
Tinio
Tomawis
Treñas
Tugna
Ty
Umali (R.)
Unabia
Ungab
Unico
Valencia
Velarde
Velasco
Vergara
Villafuerte
Villarica
Yap (A.)
Yu
Zubiri

Negative: None
Abstention: None

With 211 affirmative votes, no negative votes and no abstentions, the Body approved on Third Reading the aforementioned Bills.

And that was how the House approved the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading.

Congressman Teddy Casiño explains his “YES” vote on Third Reading

I phoned House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to ask him about his “Yes” vote. He did not answer his mobile. Neither did Congressman Roilo Golez.

Fortunately, I got through to Congressman Casiño.

Casiño confirmed that he did vote for the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading:

Because it was a good law when it passed the House. Our version had no libel (clause).

Casiño explained to me that both Congressmen Palatino and Tonchi Tinio had succeeded in removing “cyberdefamation” from the House version during the period of amendments. [Note: Cyberdefamation includes libel which is smearing someone in print; and slander which is oral defamation.]

Casiño said:

From the start we were alarmed. We talked about it. There were seven versions of this bill. We decided we have to remove the objectionable provisions, the somewhat draconian provisions. We did that in the plenary. We removed cyberdefamation. We ensured that all actions of the Department of Justice when it comes to search and seizure should be covered by court warrants to ensure due process.

Casiño said that as far as he knew, the House version that was approved on Third Reading no longer carried cyberdefamation and had tightened the search and seizure provisions.

But the Senate “inserted” online libel and a “take down” provision to the law

Separately on January 24, 2012, the Senate held its floor deliberations and period of amendment on its own Cybercrime bill.

It was on that day that Senator Vicente Sotto III inserted “online libel”, which was never in the consolidated bill that Senator Angara, the principal sponsor, had presented as the working draft.

Sotto was the last senator to propose amendments and he himself moved to close the period of amendments.

Before Sotto spoke, however, Senator Pia Cayetano inserted her own amendments to the bill. Angara told his colleagues what amendments he had accepted.   Among them were the “Real-Time Collection of Computer Data” and the “take down” provision. He did not say who had proposed them. 

Cayetano successfully replaced this section in Angara replaced the following in the consolidated bill:

28 SEC. 9. Real-time Collection of Computer Data. — Law enforcement authorities,
29 with due cause, and upon securing a court warrant, shall be authorized to collect or record
30 by technical or electronic means, and service providers are required to collect or record
31 by technical or electronic means, and/or to cooperate and assist law enforcement
32 authorities in the collection or recording of, traffic data, in real-time, associated with
33 specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.

With her own  this amendment which went this way:

SEC. 9. REAL-TIME COLLECTION OF
TRAFFIC DATA. – LAW ENFORCEMENT

AUTHORITIES, WITH DUE CAUSE, SHALL
BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT OR
RECORD BY TECHNICAL OR ELECTRONIC
MEANS TRAFFIC DATA IN REAL-TIME
ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIED COMMUNICATIONS
TRANSMITTED BY
MEANS OF A COMPUTER SYSTEM.
TRAFFIC DATA REFER NOT ONLY
TO COMMUNICATION’S ORIGIN, DESTINATION,
ROUTE, TIME, DATE, SIZE,
DURATION, OR TYPE OF UNDERLYING
SERVICE, BUT NOT CONTENT, NOR
IDENTITIES.
ALL OTHER DATA TO BE COLLECTED
OR SEIZED OR DISCLOSED WILL REQUIRE
A COURT WARRANT.
SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE REQUIRED
TO COOPERATE AND ASSIST LAW
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES IN THE
COLLECTION OR RECORDING OF THE
ABOVE-STATED INFORMATION.

Cayetano, a lawyer, also successfully inserted this new section, which Internet and the Law expert JJ Disini calls this new section  “the take down provision”:

SEC. 13. RESTRICTING OR BLOCKING
ACCESS TO COMPUTER DATA. – WHEN
A COMPUTER DATA IS PRIMA FACIE
FOUND TO BE VIOLATIVE OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, THE CENTRAL
AUTHORITY SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER TO
RESTRICT OR BLOCK ACCESS TO SUCH
COMPUTER DATA.;

 

She was only referring to the cyber offenses like cybersex.

 

But after Sotto’s inclusion of “online libel”, this meant that “real-time collection of traffic data” and the “take down provision” could also be applied to this crime of cybersex. This also meant that websites which commit “online libel” could be blocked and the alleged perpetrator could be subjected to electronic surveillance.

What happened at the Bicam Conference on the Cybercrime Law

During the Bicam Conference on the law, the 19 lawmakers collectively decided to adopt the Senate version as THE BASIS for the consolidated version.

This meant that Senator Sotto’s insertion of “online libel” and Senator Cayetano’s the insertions on “real-time collection of traffic data” and the “take down” provision automatically became part of the final version of the law.

In addition, the Bicam did something that greatly expanded the scope of the Cybercrime Law. Instead of this being restricted to the listed electronic crimes of cyber-squatting, hacking and cybersex, it covered the entire body of crimes found in the Revised Penal Code and all special laws.

All because someone in the the Bicam inserted an entirely new section, which used to be a sub-section in the House bill version.

Let me explain the huge impact of this, but I have to back-track a little.

When I talked to Congressman Casiño, I had asked him how he could have voted “yes” for the House version of the Cybercrime bill that had crammed the entire Revised Penal Code into the bill without taking into account the nature of the Internet.

For instance, I told him, if a woman commits adultery using a computer, she would be guilty of a cybercrime and her penalty would be one degree higher.

Casiño told me that would not happen since adultery is not among the cybercrimes enumerated by the House bill on Third Reading. He also said that making the penalty for cybercrime offenses one degree higher was never in the House version.

But I pointed out to him that the House version contained the following paragraph under “Section 4: Cybercrime Offenses”

All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special criminal laws committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant
provisions of this Act.

Casiño told me he was not bothered at all by this inclusion of the Revised Penal Code because it was under Section 4, listing the crimes of cyber-squatting, hacking, computer fraud and forgery, cybersex and advertising spam. This meant, Casiño said, that only those crimes in the Revised Penal Code that had to do with similar offenses were covered.

It was then I understood what the Bicam Conference did which exponentially expanded the scope of the Cybercrime Law.

If you notice, all Philippine laws are written in the form of an outline in order to show clearly the relation of one part to all the other parts. CHANGING THE LOCATION OF A SINGLE PARAGRAPH can have profound effects on the meaning of the law.

This was what happened to the Cybercrime Law. Let me explain with a simple illustration.

Suppose a certain school named Wanbol University issued a set of rules of behavior for its students.

The rules were issued in outline form:

Rules of Student Behavior in Wanbol University

1. During exams:

(a) Students cannot glance at their seat mate’s test paper

(b) Students cannot use calculators

(c) Students cannot go to the bathroom

However, someone edited it and what came out was the following:

Rules of Student Behavior in Wanbol University

1. During exams:

(a) Students cannot glance at their seat mate’s test paper

(b) Students cannot use calculators

2. Students cannot go to the bathroom

From this example, you can see that the original intention of Wanbol was to bar students from going to the bathroom only during exams. But with the editing, the Wanbol students are barred from going to the bathroom at all times.

A similar thing happened at the Bicam Committee on the Cybercrime Law. The Bicam lifted that portion of Section 4 that had to do with the Revised Penal Code – insofar as the listed cyberoffenses were concerned – and placed this as a new section.

Senator Angara told senators on June 5, 2012 that the Bicam did the following:

A new Section 6 was added to the reconciled
version which reads as follows:

“Sec. 6. – All crimes defined and
penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and special laws, if committed by,
through and with the use of information and
communications technologies shall be
covered by the relevant provisions of this
Act. Provided, That the penalty to be imposed
shall be one degree higher than that provided
for by the Revised Penal Code and special
laws.”

Implications of Bicam’s insertion of Section 6

This insertion not only turned all jailable crimes in the country into cybercrimes. It added that “if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies…the penalty imposed shall be one degree higher…”

To use my previous example of the case of the woman accused of adultery, because of Section 6, if a married woman’s e-mail to her lover were submitted as evidence,  her penalty if convicted automatically becomes one degree higher.

And even if we were to remove the “online libel” section inserted by Senator Sotto, libel will still be a cybercrime if Section 6 is retained.

In addition, if you relate Section 6 to Senator Pia Cayetano’s the “take down” provision, you will have many many more requests to block sites. And as Atty JJ Disini explained to me in an interview:

When you add up all the requests together [for blocking content] – whether the requests involve copyright or trademark infringement, entire domain names, or any other kind of violation of Philippine law, then the sum is equivalent to the ‘Great Firewall of China’.

The Constitution is silent on the role of Bicam Committees.

“It can do anything,” Congressman Casiño said. “That’s the Third House. The weakness is that whatever the result of the Bicam, the House members are no longer told. We only know what the Bicam version contained after the President signs it into law.”

638 Responses to “The Cybercrime Law was brought to you by 7 senators & 12 congressmen”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. 146
    Mel says:

    An Internet Libel case goes global between two billionaires.

    A Thrilla in Manila, whilst Phils’. Cybercrime Law on TRO.

    Sounds exciting, a test case for what would have been a first for The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175). But alas, “… internet libel may be ‘dealt with’ or prosecuted under the existing provisions of the RPC on libel,” could suffice.

    Japanese billionaire Okada brings feud with Wynn to Manila

    ABS-CBNnews.com
    Posted at 12/13/2012 7:34 PM
    Updated as of 12/13/2012 7:34 PM

    MANILA, Philippines – Japanese billionaire Kazuo Okada is bringing his feud with American casino magnate Steve Wynn to Manila.

    In a disclosure to the JASDAQ Securities Exchange on Thursday, Okada’s Universal Entertainment Corp. said its subsidiary Tiger Resort Leisure and Entertainment has filed a criminal complaint for “criminal defamation” against Stephen A. Wynn with the Department of Justice Office of the City Prosecutor in Paranaque.

    The company said Tiger Resorts is filing the complaint after it was “subject to defamation, damage to credit and other harm as a result of the press release posted by Wynn Resorts on its official website on February 19, 2012 (United States time).”

    “On 19 February 2012, Wynn Resorts, under the direction and control of respondent (Wynn), maliciously issued a global press release, published on its website, containing the following libelous accusations against Mr. Okada and his associates and companies, i.e., complainant Tiger Resort Leisure and Entertainment, Inc., Universal Entertainment Corporation, and Aruze USA Inc.,” Universal said.

    Universal noted the DOJ’s primer on cybercrime provides that “as of the moment, cybercrime-related cases are dealt with using existing laws.”

    “This means that internet libel may be ‘dealt with’ or prosecuted under the existing provisions of the RPC on libel,” it added.

    Wynn vs Okada

    Wynn Resorts’ February 19 press release gave details of its investigation into the alleged improper activities of Okada and his associates.

    The press release stated: “Mr. Okada and his associates and companies appear to have engaged in a longstanding practice of making payments and gifts to his two chief gaming regulators at the Philippines Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), who directly oversee and regulated Mr. Okada’s Provisional Licensing Agreement to operate in that country,” according to the Freeh Report.

    The report further stated that Mr. Okada and his associates have “consciously taken active measures to conceal both the nature and amount of these payments’.”

    As a result of the investigation, Wynn Resorts filed a lawsuit against Okada, accusing him of spending more than $110,000 in travel expenses and gifts to PAGCOR chairman Efraim Genuino and current chairman Cristino Naguiat.

    Feuding tycoons

    Okada and Wynn’s successful 12-year partnership ended in acrimony earlier this year, with both sides accusing each other of making improper payments to gaming regulators to curry favor for their projects in Macau and the Philippines.

    Universal said the dispute between Okada and Wynn began when the Japanese businessman opposed an anomalous donation pledged by Wynn Macau Limited to the University of Macau.

    “Mr. Okada’s actions did not sit well with respondent, as the latter feared that an investigation would reveal that the purpose for the huge donation in Macau was improper and illegal. This prompted respondent Wynn to use the Philippine project as a pretext to eliminate and take over Mr. Okada’s stockholdings (through Universal Entertainment Corporation and Aruze USA Inc.), and remove him from Wynn Resorts,” Universal said.

    Wynn forcibly redeemed Okada’s stake and removed him as vice chairman of Wynn last February.

    “The Board meeting of Wynn Resorts determined that Mr. Okada and his companies must have engaged in corrupt activities in connection with the Philippine project, based on the supposition that “the Philippines is a corrupt country’,” Universal said.

    Universal further alleged that Wynn had “maliciously caused copies of the Freeh Report,” which detailed the alleged irregular activities of Okada, to the press.

    Last week, Universal sued Thomson Reuters and three of its journalists for defamation over news articles relating to millions of dollars in payments Universal made to an ex-consultant of Pagcor.

    Source: Japanese billionaire Okada brings feud with Wynn to Manila ABS-CBNnews.com

  2. 145
    Mel says:

    Out of Topic:

    Not Cyberbullying but SMSbullying (texting) that caused the highest leader/speaker of the House of Representatives of Australia to resign.

    The Speaker of the House of Representatives quits for offensive text messages which were revealed in legal action against him, but then decided he could not continue in the post.

  3. 144
    Parekoy says:

    Breaking News!

    SC stops Cybercrime law, issues TRO

    From rappler.com

    Wow, this is godd new Netizens!

    • 144.1
      Parekoy says:

      Democracy at work!

      Importance of independent SC is shown today. Hopefully they decide that the Libel provision is unconstitutional, otherwise baka magkaron ng Cyber Edsa Revolution!

    • 144.2
      leona says:

      TRO…SC…breaking the news…breaking Cybercrime law…as a start!

      1 in Palace did not see….211 in Lower House did not see it…14 in Upper House did not see it…

      Millions of Filipinos saw it…now 14 SC JUSTICES sees it….this country hopes SC will finally break this law to get back people’s belief in that we have a new Supreme Court!

      The writing in the wall…break also family dynasties! Break ‘EM all! Make ‘em all lose!

  4. 143
    Johnny Lin says:

    I have direct message to baycas, was placed in moderation

  5. 142
    chit navarro says:

    FROM the FB page of Bam Aquino:

    CYBERCRIME LAW NEEDS AMENDMENTS – BENIGNO BAM AQUINO
    by Bam Aquino on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 at 15:01 ·

    20 September 2012 – Benigno “Bam” Aquino, the first senatorial aspirant from the “Facebook generation”, says that the recently passed Cybercrime Law is “welcome, but needs amendments.”

    “The presence of a cybercrime law is welcome, as child rightsand women’s rights advocates have long been pushing for the protectionof children, youth, and women against such crimes ascyber-trafficking, cyber-prostitution, cyber-pornography, and thelike,” Aquino says. “We have seen reports pointing to an increase inthe number of crimes committed with the aid of the Internet, socialmedia, and even SMS—and there is cause for alarm.”

    According to Aquino, both data and anecdotal evidence point toincreased incidences of cybercrimes, including cyber-stalking andcyber-harassment, and even rape and violence against women that occurduring “eyeballs.”

    “If we don’t do something about it, criminal elements and syndicatesoperating online might think that they can get away scot-free. Withmore and more Filipinos going online—many of them being exposed to the Internet and social media at a younger age—we need to ensure that our laws can protect children and youth from cybercrimes.”

    “We can’t turn a blind eye on changing realities and advancingtechnologies,” Aquino adds.

    However, Aquino also points to problematic provisions in the Cybercrime Law including one that makes it “appear to be curtailing netizens’ freedom of speech.”

    “Some provisions in this version of the Cybercrime Law are too vague,”he points out. According to him, these include the provisions oncybersquatting, on libel, and on warrantless arrests, among others.“We should look into amending the law so that it does not violate ourconstitutional right to freedom of speech. Nakakatakot kasi dahilpuwede itong gamiting para kitilin ang karapatan ng marami.”

    Aquino expresses his confidence over the government’s openness to“make the law work,” saying that this administration is known to bepromoting openness, good governance, and transparency.

    “We are confident that the national government will heed the call ofnetizens to discuss and amend the law. This is a government anchoredon ideals of freedom and democracy, and we are sure that thistranslates even to the online realm.”

  6. 141
    baycas says:

    Excuses, Excuses

    raissa says:
    October 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    xxxxxx

    How do I argue with someone who insists on using a diff set of facts?

    @raissa,

    You MUST ask yourself that question.

    The Senate Journal of January 24, 2012 is enough to show that Sen. Pia Cayetano et al were CORRECT and you were wrong.

    An investigative journalist like you MUST not assume things and MUST at once admit mistakes.

    I still have high regard for you though.

    However, I will now thank you for having me here. Farewell to this blog.

    P.S. No, you were not and never been moderated. I don’t know why your comments kept landing in the spam box.

    • 141.1
      raissa says:

      Dear Baycas,

      I will miss you, but you have the right.

      I differ with you, though, in the interpretation of the Senate Journal.

      As I said, the first two amendments mentioned by Senator Angara were those of Sen. Cayetano.

      In many, many instances, I have relied on – and with accurate results – in this kind of interpretation of the Senate Journal.

      Apparently, the Senate journal can no longer be interpreted in this manner.

      The reason why my apology took so long was because I needed to be sure. I asked for the transcript of the proceedings last Friday from Senator Cayetano’s office and someone said this would only be available by Monday.

      You see, the actual transcript is not placed online. I don’t know why. If I wanted to get it, I would physically have to go to the Senate and request for it there. Asking for it through Sen. Cayetano’s office was the simplest and fastest way.

      P.S. No, your comments were never moderated. I don’t know why they all kept landing in the spam box.

      • 141.1.1
        leona says:

        I will truly MISS you @baycas! Adios! Hasta la vista! bay…@baycas.

        cy.PS…many thanks too reading your good works here!

    • 141.2
      Parekoy says:

      @Baycas,

      You are the only one here who was able to point that the interpretation of the journal was confusing and prone to misinterpretation.

      Raissa usually follow up with corrections when mistakes are made, and even columnists issue an erratum afterwards.

      It seems that this particular differences with is the last straw for you. i hope you reconsider bidding farewell, because this site needs your great insight, your attention to details and your passion to educate the visitors and participants in this site.

      Your departure will be our loss. I hope after a few rounds of cyber beer or jack daniels, you’ll be back the soonest.

    • 141.3
      Johnny Lin says:

      @ baycas
      My friend, in my post way down, i expressed that enough already on the tome we spent on this matter. We have voiced put pur concerns, every machineries have moved. Many senators have expressed regrets and will to amend.

      You advised me to stay. I told you I will. Honestly, i dont understand how that journal works because the process is so confusing, that is why i said enough already since we basically know whonare mainly responsible. You might have different understanding because of your greater perception and knowledge of the process. And I admire your insistence to have a wider discussion. You could be right or both of you could be right, the way each of you understood the process. At the end of the day, i believe, to many of us it does not matter anymore as far as the guilty parties are concern.

      Please relax, cool off like you or I did before. Do come back because your input is much appreciated especially those links you kept feeding us. Personally I will miss your service attaching my links, to that my sincere gratitude. But I wish you keep doing it for me, pleeeeease.

      I am giving Raissa the permission to give you my email in case you want to communicate personally and privately for posterity and new friendship

    • 141.4
      pinay710 says:

      sir baycas, bakit po saan kayo pupunta? mami miss ko po ang mga comments nyo. ang dami ko pong natutunan sa inyo. sana huwag kayo umalis marami pa po kayong matutulungan na maliwanagan ang mga bagay bagay. pero kung talagang dapat kayo umalis dahil sa ikabubuti nyo ok lang po. paalam po at maraming maraming salamat sa mgga magagandang naiparating nyo sa amin.

    • 141.5
      Rolly says:

      Please don’t leave baycas…don’t give up easily. The likes of you is what the people need to disseminate informations that otherwise would not reach readers like me.

      Your are one of the top twenty commenters on this site. I for one, rely most of the time to your posts. I may not agree to a very few of your comments, but that’s how discussions work.

      You’ve been doing greats baycas, not only here, but also to other blogs. I read one of your posts dated 2005…couldn’t help to be wowed.

    • 141.6
      rOSARIO says:

      @ Sir Baycas, alis na po kayo? bakit po? hindi po ba pupuwede na mag agree to disagree kayo ni ma’m raissa. hindi lang naman po kayo ang namomoderate eh. ako rin madalas, isip ko nalang mabagal ang isp ko. or ma traffic papunta kina ma’m raissa.
      sayang sir baycas, mamimiss ko rin po kayo. ang dami dami at ang gaganda pa naman ng tula, at mga links mo. marami ako natutunan din po sa inyo. maraming salamat po. meron din po ba kayong blog na pwede ko pong mabisita paminsan-minsan? sana po, bumalik din po kayo dito paminsan-minsan.

  7. 140
    kalakala says:

    @Johnny Lin says:
    October 8, 2012 at 8:42 am

    Read Special Report in Manila Bulletin by Andrew Masigan:
    “A Few Deserving Senatorial Bets”
    Maybe @baycas could attach link

    His first candidate is Jun Magsaysay.

    Guess the names he recommends NOT TO BE ELECTED

    A Few Deserving Senatorial Bets
    Numbers Don’t Lie
    By ANDREW JAMES MASIGAN
    October 7, 2012, 2:14pm

    But before I reveal my first senatorial choice, let me first tell you who I am NOT voting for. I am not voting for candidates who are next of kin to any incumbent senator. I say this because no single family should have more than one vote in the formation of national policy. This could prove dangerous especially if the family has inclinations, or already is, a political dynasty. Moreover, no candidate should gain undue advantage just because he or she enjoys the benefit of name recall.

    I will not vote for those intellectually and experientially deficient, those suspect of having committed crime, and (especially) those who, in the past, sabotaged the economy by mounting a power grab through military rebellion. These are people who do not deserve the vote of hardworking citizens like you and me.

  8. 139
    cocogas says:

    Hi Raissa,

    Teddy Locsin qouted you in tonight’s TEDiitorial Oct. 8

    titled “The assasination of virtual freedom”

  9. 138
    Johnny Lin says:

    Response to Mr Vince Borneo of the House of Representative letter comment #37.1 addressed to me directly in response to my comment.

    To Mr. Vince Borneo:

    First, my gratitude for meriting a formal response. Secondly, I am assuming you are responding in this forum as official representative of Congressman Teddy Casino. Finally, to address your pointers this way.

    Our exchanges started when you pointed to @Ralph #37 that Teddy did not sign anything. Although I believed Ralph meant that Teddy voted yes on the bill, nevertheless, he did write the word”sign” which you pounced on in return, adding too in the process that Teddy signed a petition in the Supreme Court. Since you knew that Teddy co authored with Congressman Palatino a bill repealing the law, why did you not say so in the first place? If you did your letter was unnecessary. My initial comment was a citizen concern on the intelligence and ability of a congressman on how to correct a flawed law under his power before going to the Supreme Court.

    You told me to read Raissa’s blog again and here is exactly what is written:
    “Casino said as far as he knew, the House version approved on Third Reading no longer carried cyberdefamation and tightened the search and seizure provisions”

    “as far as he knew” is a complacent approach on an important issue involving freedom of the people. Congressman Casino being a party list representing nationalistic interest especially the youth including Congressman Palatino for that matter, must have made sure to have read and scrutinized the final version of the bill before sending to the office of the president for signature. I am sure there is a process that a legislator could ask for a copy of a bill after passage by both Houses. If one congressman did just that, he could have hollered and go to the press immediately to expose the deficiencies and cruelties of the bill.we would not be pointing fingers now if someone, repeat, only one, performed his/her constitutional duty as elected legislator.

    If a congressman does not have time to do that, his staff is obligated to perform in their official capacity which includes looking at all the dots on letter “i” and crosses on the “t” of every bill, especially those that are of special concern to the people.

    Making excuses or justification afterwards which in my opinion Casino did in trying to explain to Raissa does not absolve the shortcoming which you are trying to justify. Lessons were learned, monday quarterbacking will not reverse the law. Current corrections are in place and hopefully everybody will do right this time not only for the people but also for the integrity of their office that our legislators are working hard for the betterment of the nation and welfare of the people.

    Good luck to the new quest of Congressman Casino and so far you know he is on my list and I, like the rest of the electorates, am watching his every move.

    • 138.1
      vander anievas says:

      bravo johnny lin. teddy is also a strong contender in my shortlisting hunt. hope he can hurdle the amendment to patch up shortcoming/s…

    • 138.2
      kalakala says:

      good job sir jhonny.! congressman casino is one of candidates i am considering of. and to congeressman casino, we, the electorates would be glad to be by your side in pushing the anti dynasty bill.

  10. 137
    Sam says:

    A wild question hope you guys don’t mind… just being curious lang..

    what if the late FM was still in rule today, you think he would also issue a PD similar to RA 10175?
    If so .. how extensive kaya will be his policy would be?

    wala lang just a wild wild question lang :)

    • 137.1
      vander anievas says:

      @sam,
      my guess is we don’t have internet at all…
      wala nang pagkukumahugan ang assembly para sa pagsasabatas. anyway all alws shall be promulgated by fm himself, the supreme…

    • 137.2
      leona says:

      a very wild answer you need…if FM is to rule today?…he can’t he’ll be around 95 years old…he’ll be still grappling whether that was a fake or true ambots! You need also a wild wild curiousity!

      • 137.2.1
        rOSARIO says:

        he may be 95 and dead long gone. but the wife and son and daughter are still around holding their ground. sila ang namumuno, walang internet, tahimik DAW ang pilipinas. pero hindi nila alam, tahimik sa labas dahil sa takot pero sa loob ay juice ko!!! kayo na magdagdag! and for sure, wala ng mga batas na maidadagdag. at kung meron man, yon ay para maproteksyunan ang mga sarili nila.

  11. 136
    Johnny Lin says:

    Latest News Rappler

    Sotto in another privilege speech today:
    “Stop Paranoia on Cyber Law Passage”

    Maybe someone could attach the link for further discussion about his new twist over his cyberbullying. To me it’s blaming Raissa’s initial blog about Insertion.

    • 136.1
      • 136.1.1
        Johnny Lin says:

        Thanks again Mel. Although Rappler link might be good too because entire speech is printed.

        Sotto keeps rehashing the issue or is he muddling it more?

        After Raissa posted her blog, Sotto initial interview denied his culpability on insertion; followed by another interview on CBS admitting his fault and now this latest speech, denying again.

        Hmmm, he sounds like his boss, Enrile on his fake ambush;
        or that forlorn suitor picking rose petals- she loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not………..

        He he he

        • 136.1.1.1
          vander anievas says:

          i didn’t get it, cyberbully weeping boy? ano talaga?…

        • 136.1.1.2
          Mel says:

          Sa tutuo lang, we are at the dark who has been feeding the CBS and The Wall Street Journal of those supposedly admissions of Sen T Sotto.

          In my previous comments where I commented on the CBS similar story, I tried to search the website of Interaksyon where the CBS quoted its story from, but not available or non-existent in that site where Sen T Sotto was quoted “verbatim” to the last minute or “midnight” admission to Libel amendment.

    • 136.2
      rOSARIO says:

      http://www.rappler.com/nation/13833-sotto-stop-paranoia-on-cyber-law-passage

      “MANILA, Philippines – Calling himself the “cyberbully whipping boy,” Senate Majority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III sought to defend himself on the Senate floor from allegations he was behind the insertion of controversial provisions in the anti-cybercrime law.

      In a privilege speech on Monday, October 8, Sotto read into the records what he called the legislative history of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

      Sotto reiterated that he was not behind any insertions in the law and was not a member of the Bicameral Conference Committee that unified the Senate and House versions.

      “Nais ko pong banggitin na ang Cybercrime Law ay dumaan sa tamang proseso. Wala ang sinasabi nilang insertion. Insertion is used by the Senate secretariat for something that is proposed in an amendment, not an amendment itself. Ang amendment binabago eh, ang insertion, sinasama pero ang dating sa kanila, ang insertion parang snimuggle.” (I want to mention that the Cybercrime Law passed through the proper process. There is none of the reported insertions. The amendment is changed, the insertion, they include that but the impression to them is it’s as if the insertion is smuggled.)

      Sotto said he sought to set the record straight and to clear his name.

      “Para lumawak ang kaisipan ng mga iba nating kababayan na patuloy akong hinuhusgahan sa cybercommunity, para doon sa mga paranoid at marurumi ang isip kasi napakarami pong magagaling, responsible users ng ating cyberspace ngunit may mga ilan na talagang ‘di ko maintindihan kung bakit nagkakaganoon ang takbo ng kaisipan.” (To broaden the minds of those who continue to judge me in the cybercommunity, for those who are paranoid and have dirty minds. Because we have many good, responsible users of cyberspace but there are some who are otherwise.)

      He added, “Ang dating kasi, pag nagkapatayan sa Senado, ako ang killer eh.” (The impression is that when there’s murder in the Senate, I’m the killer.

      Sotto’s speech came following backlash and finger-pointing over the law, which critics said violated freedom of expression, freedom of speech and gave the government too much power over Internet users. There are at least 14 petitions against it pending before the Supreme Court.

      Some senators who voted for the bill admitted their lapse, and vowed to measures to amend it.

      Various versions

      In his speech, Sotto said various senators filed their own versions of the bill starting July 2010. In May 2011, a joint version was passed by several committees, substituting the earlier bills filed.

      Those who authored the bill were Senators Antonio Trillanes IV, Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Lito Lapid, Manuel Villar, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, and Ramon Revilla.

      Sotto said the bill underwent the period of interpellations or debate for the rest of 2011. In January 2012, the period of amendments was closed.

      The Senate approved the bill on 3rd reading on Jan 30, 2012, with only Sen Teofisto Guingona III voting against it.

      Sotto pointed out that in the bicameral conference committee deliberations in May 2012, he was not among the conferees. Those who were designated to be part of the bicam discussions were Angara, Santiago, Estrada, Marcos, Revilla, Trillanes and Villar.

      ‘Why we are so rude online’

      He reiterated that because the bicameral conference report was approved in June 2012, it could not have been possible that he supported it to get back at his critics in the Reproductive Health (RH) debates.

      Sotto claimed he was a victim of “cyberbullying” only in August and September 2012.

      “These cyberbullies should not be too presumptious, parang KSP eh, (they lack attention) feeling important eh. The Senate will enact a law for them, kokontrahin sila, reretaliate sila (contradict them retaliate against them), excuse me ah.”

      Sotto ended his speech by calling on his colleagues and the public to read an article of the Wall Street Journal titled “Why we are so rude online.”

      Libel bill withdrawn

      In an interview before the start of the session, Sotto said he filed but soon withdrew a bill “abolishing libel” for all types of media.

      Sotto filed the bill last Friday, October 5, and withdrew it on Monday, October 8.

      Asked why he changed his mind, Sotto said, “Winidraw ko, alam mo kung bakit, kasi gusto rin ni Noynoy ang libel kaya winidraw ko, hintayin ko muna ang desisyon ng Supreme Court, The president is not against it why will I go against it?” (I withdrew it, you know why, because Noynoy also likes libel. I will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court first.)

      President Benigno Aquino III said last week that he does not agree with calls to remove the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

      “If you wrote something libelous, you have a responsibility. If you are a broadcaster and you said something on radio or TV, you also have responsibility. If you said the same thing on the Internet, I believe that is also libelous. Whatever the format, if what you said was wrong, I believe that the victim should have the right for redress,” Aquino told reporters in Filipino.

      Asked why he filed the bill abolishing libel in the first place, Sotto told reporters, “Kailangan patas patas hindi lang online pati kayo. Sayang naman apo ko ni press freedom law author, Sotto Law. Pinapantay ko lang, nile-level ko lang sila sa inyo ang online media. Kayo meron responsibilidad. Kung ayaw nila at ‘pag sinabi ng Supreme Court, hindi dapat ‘di kayo rin hindi dapat.” (It has to be fair, not just online but also you. It’s a shame. I’m the grandson of the Press Freedom Law author, Sotto Law. I am just leveling the playing field with online media. You have responsibility. If they don’t like it and the Supreme Court says something, then you should also not be liable.)

      ‘Setting the record straight’

      Below is the full speech of Sotto on the Senate floor as delivered:

      I rise to set the record straight, particularly on the passage of the Senate on RA 10175, the Anti-Cybercrime Act. I rise as your favorite neighborhood cyberbully whipping boy because I have been again the subject of criticism because of the passage of the anti-cybercrime act. Kaya po ako tumatayo to set the record straight para lumawak ang kaisipan ng mga iba nating kababayan na patuloy akong hinuhusgahan sa cybercommunity, para doon sa mga paranoid at marurumi ang isip kasi napakarami pong magagaling, responsible users n gating cyberspace ngunit may mga ilan na talagang di ko maintindihan kung bakit nagkakaganoon ang takbo ng kaisipan. Ang dating kasi, pag nagkapatayan sa Senado, ako ang killer eh.

      Nais ko pong banggitin na ang cybercrime law ay dumaan sa tamang proseso. Wala ang sinasabi nilang insertion. Insertion is used by the Senate secretariat for something that is proposed in an amendment, not an amendment itself. Ang amendment binabago eh, ang insertion, sinasama pero ang dating sa kanila, ang insertion parang snimuggle.

      So let me set the record straight. This is the legislative history ng Cybercrime Act:

      July 1, 2010 – After elections po ito, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Trillanes, Antonio, Sonny.

      July 1, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Angara, Edgardo J.

      July 5, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Enrile, Juan Ponce.

      July 8, 2010 – Anti-computer Fraud and Abuses Act of 2010 by Lapid, Manuel Lito.

      July 8, 2010 – Anti-cybercrime Act of 2010 by Villar, Manny V.

      September 22, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 by Marcos, Ferdinand “Bongbong.”

      February 3, 2011 – Cybersecurity Education Enhancement Act by Defensor-Santiago, Miriam.

      February 28, 2011 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2011 by Revilla, Jr Ramon.

      May 3, 2011 – After that, Mr President, after all those bills proposed on the Cybercrime Act, an Act Defining Cybercrime Providing for Prevention, Investigation and Imposition of Penalties, therefor and other purposes was filed, prepared and submitted jointly by the Committee on Science, Technology, Constitutional Amendments, Revisions of Codes and Laws, Education, Arts and Culture, Justice and Human Rights, Trade and Commerce, Public Information and Mass Media, and Finance, May 3, 2011.

      Again, I’m sure you heard the committees that submitted with Senators Antonio Trillanes, Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Manuel “Lito” Lapid, Manny Villar, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos and Ramon Revilla as authors.

      Per Committee Report Number 30, and recommending its approval in substitution of the Senate bills I mentioned earlier, taking into consideration Senate Resolution 75164 and 254.

      May 10, 2011 – Ngayon, Mr President, pagdating po ng May 10, 2011, committee report was calendared for ordinary business. That same day, it was sponsored by Sen Edgardo Angara, chairman of the Committee on Education and Science and Technology.

      May 11, 2011 – On May 11, it was transferred from the calendar for ordinary business to the calendar for special orders. Ganoon po ang sistema sa atin para doon sa nakikinig sa atin sa labas, lalo na sa cyberspace.

      May 11, 2011 – Sponsorship speech was Sen Angara was followed by co-sponsorship by Sen Loren Legarda and Sen Loren Legarda was made co-author on the same day.

      September 12, 2011 – The period of interpellations were open. Interpellations were conducted by Miriam Defensor Santiago and Vicente Sotto III.

      December 12, 2011 – Interpellations continued with Sen Vicente Sotto III, Teofisto Guingona III and Aquilino Pimentel III.

      December 13, 2011 – Interpellations by Sen Juan Ponce Enrile

      And after that Dec 13, 2011, the period of interpellations was closed.

      January 24, 2012 – After the Christmas break, there were inquiries conducted by Sen Teofisto Guingona III and Sen Panfilo Lacson during the period of committee and individual amendments and no longer in the period of interpellations.

      January 24, 2012 – The period of individual amendments was closed. It was approved on second reading with amendments, lahat na ng amendments na pinag-usapan dito noon na laman ng Senate bill nang lumabas, nandoon na, products of the interpellations in December and onto January.

      January 26, 2012 – Printed copies were distributed to the senators.

      January 30, 2012 – It was approved on 3rd reading. Those who voted in favor: Pia Cayetano, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Chiz Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Bongbong Marcos, Koko Pimentel, Ralph Recto, Ramon Revilla Jr, Vicente Sotto, Manny Villar. There was one who voted against: Sen TG Guingona. There were no abstentions.

      January 31, 2012 – This was sent to the House of Representatives requesting for concurrence, inabot po ito nang ilang buwan sapagkat di pa pasado ang House version.

      May 30, 2012 – The Senate requested the House of Representatives for a conference on the disagreeing provisions because the House passed it already, designating Senators Angara, Santiago, Estrada, Marcos, Revilla, Trillanes and Villar as its conferees to the bicameral conference committee.

      Wala hong Sotto doon sa bicam member!

      May 30, 2012 – The House of Representatives accepted the request of the Senate for conference on the disagreeing provisions for Senate Bill 2796 and House Bill 5808. Representatives were Tinga, Yap, Singson Jr, Angara, Rodriguez, Sarmiento, Arenas, Quimbo, Golez, Sarmiento, Arroyo D as the conferees in the bicameral conference committee, May 30, 2012.

      June 5, 2012 – The conference committee report submitted to the Senate recommending Senate Bill 2796 in consolidation with House Bill 5808 be approved as reconciled and Sen Angara delivered a sponsorship speech after the bicam so sa bicam ito, ang proseso natin, 2nd reading, 3rd reading, magmi-meet ang House at Senate, pag-uusapan ang disagreeing provisions, pag-uusapan nila, paplantsahin nila, babalik sa Senate, babalik sa House. Pagbalik sa Senate, parehong-pareho na ng House version.

      So the committee report, conference committee report was approved by the Senate on June 5.

      June 4, 2012 – Approved by the House of Representatives, one day ahead Mr President.

      So ang totoo niyan as of June 5, it was already out of the hands of the Senate. It was already enrolled, pinadala sa kinauukulan lalo na sa Pangulo ng Pilipinas.

      May mga nagce-claim na ito raw ay retaliation ko for the cyberbullying that I got. Mr President, the cyberbullying attacks I got was on August and September 2012, way, way beyond June 5, na tapos na tapos na sa Senado ito. Sa totoo nga, January 24, wala na sa kamay ng Senate, lumabas na. So it was after my turno en contra that the cyberbullying started, Mr President.

      These cyberbullies should not be too presumptious, parang KSP eh, feeling important eh. The Senate will enact a law for them, kokontrahin sila, reretaliate sila, excuse me ah.

      May I suggest, para sa kalinawan ng marami at medyo magandang kaisipan, I suggest our colleagues and the public read an online article written in the Wall Street Journal is entitled “Why we are so rude online.” “Online browsing lowers self-control and is linked to higher debt and higher weight” by Elizabeth Bernstein of the Wall Street Journal.

      And also, I would like to commend the editorial of the Manila Times today, “Libel and Freedom of Speech.” I suggest our colleagues and the public to also read that instead of your cyberbully whipping boy read it into the records of the Senate.

      I thank you. I hope I am able to set the record straight para matigil ang pagbibintang at paranoia ng iba nating kababayan. – Rappler.com”

      • 136.2.1
        Johnny Lin says:

        Sabi ni Sotto:
        dating daw sa mga netizens ng “insertion” ay inismuggle.

        Mr Sotto, ikaw ang mali ng interpretasyon. Ikaw ang nagkamali ng sapantaha at intindi.

        Sa amin ang “insertion”, bagong panukala na isiningit sa unang(orihinal) panukala na kakaunti lamang ang nakalaalam bago naging batas at hindi dumaan sa masinsinan pagdibati ng dalawang kapulungan.

        Isa pa, yung nakalahad sa isinigit na panukala ang defecto, kaya yung taong nagsingit ang maysala. Hindi lamang proseso ng pagsingit ang mali, mas importanteng mali ang nilalaman ng isiningit.

        Entiendes?

      • 136.2.2
        leona says:

        File, the Withdraw? Withdraw, then File? Ano ito? Walang stability ang thinking!

        Eh, kung sabihin ni president “Ah, kamali ako! I really now believe I don’t like libel in that Cybercrime Law. I want it removed!” Sotto, immediately Files again to abolish libel?

        The the SC rules, it is “O.K.”, the law is constitutional! Sotto again Withdraw his Filing?

        Ano ito? Then the SC reconsiders its ruling by a new voting, declares the law really unconstitutional as a violation of Free Speech and of the PRESS! Sotto hurridely, Files what he Withdrew, and now stays at the filing Section, waiting for any more filings and withdrawals [ just in case! ]. He never learns.

    • 136.3
      Cha says:

      For someone who has made a name for himself as a comedian, Senator Sotto is displaying an annoying propensity for drama.

  12. 135
    Mel says:

    No more mudslinging from Sen T Sotto?
    He backtracks on his promised Bill to file to remove Online Libel from Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012.

    Libel bill withdrawn

    In an interview before the start of the session, Sotto said he filed but soon withdrew a bill “abolishing libel” for all types of media.

    Sotto filed the bill last Friday, October 5, and withdrew it on Monday, October 8.

    Asked why he changed his mind, Sotto said, “Winidraw ko, alam mo kung bakit, kasi gusto rin ni Noynoy ang libel kaya winidraw ko, hintayin ko muna ang desisyon ng Supreme Court, The president is not against it why will I go against it?” (I withdrew it, you know why, because Noynoy also likes libel. I will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court first.)

    President Benigno Aquino III said last week that he does not agree with calls to remove the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

    SOURCE: www rappler com/nation/13833-sotto-stop-paranoia-on-cyber-law-passage

    • 135.1
      Mel says:

      While Sen T Sotto withdraws his Oct 5 Bill, “Senator Loren Legarda filed a bill to repeal the libel and takedown provisions of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.”

      Press Release

      Legarda Files Bills to Amend Cybercrime Prevention Act and Decriminalize Libel

      Senator Loren Legarda filed a bill to repeal the libel and takedown provisions of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

      “In seeking repeal of the two clauses through Senate Bill 3295, I hope to eliminate the chilling effect that may impose undue boundaries on our people’s exercise of freedom of expression,” Legarda said.

      “Consistent with the Constitutional mandate of promoting free expression, it is imperative for institutions such as the legislative branch of government to adopt a policy towards the proliferation of a free market of ideas,” she added.

      Legarda also noted the need to strike a balance between the government’s role to protect its citizenry and uphold its freedom of expression.

      “The vulnerability of the cyberspace to pollutants, such as pornography, cybersex, fraudulent practices and promotion of human trafficking were precisely the reasons for the passage of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” she noted.

      “However, adopting such policy to prevent pollutants from spoiling the minds of our people must not be done at the expense of our valued right to free speech,” Legarda noted.

      Moreover, the Senator filed Senate Bill 3294 to decriminalize libel, removing the penalty of fine and imprisonment in libel cases.

      “While the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, experience has shown us that such is easily stifled with the mere threat of criminal libel,” Legarda noted.

      “Apart from threatening our citizenry’s long-cherished Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom, the continued criminalization of libel will be a huge hindrance in efforts aimed at promoting good governance and exacting accountability on our public officials,” she added.

      Legarda filed similar bills in 2001 and 2007.

      Source: www senate gov ph/press_release/2012/1008_legarda4 asp

    • 135.2
      Mel says:

      Test case for Sen T Sotto to use his Cybercrime Prevention Act against US Base mainstream media with Online website presence.

      pull quote:

      “Last week Philippine Senate majority leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III admitted that he was behind a last-minute amendment to a cybercrime law that came into effect on Wednesday. Offenders face up to 12 years in prison if they “cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person” through “malicious imputation” online.”

      Sen T Sotto still currently denies any last minute or “midnight-insertion” to the Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012.

      The Wall Street Journal, REVIEW & OUTLOOK ASIA
      Updated October 5, 2012, 2:50 a.m. ET

      Manila’s Political Cyber Bullies

      The Philippines’ new cybercrime law threatens to silence politicians’ critics.

      The Philippines has enacted a law to stamp out online bullying, which sounds like a good thing. But the supposed victims are top politicians, and they are using draconian penalties and a vaguely worded definition of the crime to silence critics.

      Last week Philippine Senate majority leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III admitted that he was behind a last-minute amendment to a cybercrime law that came into effect on Wednesday. Offenders face up to 12 years in prison if they “cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person” through “malicious imputation” online.

      Mr. Sotto claims to be a bullying victim because bloggers accused him of plagiarizing an August Senate speech. In the Senator’s defense, his aide argued, “Even our image was copied from God. We are all plagiarists.”

      Down on earth, Mr. Sotto’s noble-sounding amendment extends the country’s harsh libel rules to the country’s once-free Internet sphere. In the Philippines, libel is a criminal offense rather than a tort, and previous governments used it to intimidate journalists.

      Libel 2.0 has more than journalists worried. Many citizens have rightly questioned whether they could face jail for posting (or even “retweeting” on Twitter or “liking” on Facebook) criticisms of the country’s elite. They organized demonstrations in Manila and online campaigns against politicians who supported the law.

      Philippine businesspeople initially argued that the cybercrime law’s penalties against online fraud would help the country’s IT industry flourish. But restrictions on Internet speech elsewhere, for instance Thailand’s 2007 Computer Crimes Act, have nipped online innovation in the bud.

      Signing Senator Sotto’s amended Cybercrime Prevention Act into law was a rare misstep for President Benigno Aquino. The economy has boomed, and his reformist administration has proclaimed that “good governance is good economics.” The new Internet law is neither.

      Source: online wsj com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578036064127537342html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle

    • 135.3
      Mel says:

      Sen T Sotto’s Memoir on the House history of Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012.

      ‘Setting the record straight’

      Below is the full speech of Sotto on the Senate floor as delivered:

      I rise to set the record straight, particularly on the passage of the Senate on RA 10175, the Anti-Cybercrime Act. I rise as your favorite neighborhood cyberbully whipping boy because I have been again the subject of criticism because of the passage of the anti-cybercrime act. Kaya po ako tumatayo to set the record straight para lumawak ang kaisipan ng mga iba nating kababayan na patuloy akong hinuhusgahan sa cybercommunity, para doon sa mga paranoid at marurumi ang isip kasi napakarami pong magagaling, responsible users n gating cyberspace ngunit may mga ilan na talagang di ko maintindihan kung bakit nagkakaganoon ang takbo ng kaisipan. Ang dating kasi, pag nagkapatayan sa Senado, ako ang killer eh.

      Nais ko pong banggitin na ang cybercrime law ay dumaan sa tamang proseso. Wala ang sinasabi nilang insertion. Insertion is used by the Senate secretariat for something that is proposed in an amendment, not an amendment itself. Ang amendment binabago eh, ang insertion, sinasama pero ang dating sa kanila, ang insertion parang snimuggle.

      So let me set the record straight. This is the legislative history ng Cybercrime Act:

      July 1, 2010 – After elections po ito, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Trillanes, Antonio, Sonny.

      July 1, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Angara, Edgardo J.

      July 5, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Enrile, Juan Ponce.

      July 8, 2010 – Anti-computer Fraud and Abuses Act of 2010 by Lapid, Manuel Lito.

      July 8, 2010 – Anti-cybercrime Act of 2010 by Villar, Manny V.

      September 22, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 by Marcos, Ferdinand “Bongbong.”

      February 3, 2011 – Cybersecurity Education Enhancement Act by Defensor-Santiago, Miriam.

      February 28, 2011 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2011 by Revilla, Jr Ramon.

      May 3, 2011 – After that, Mr President, after all those bills proposed on the Cybercrime Act, an Act Defining Cybercrime Providing for Prevention, Investigation and Imposition of Penalties, therefor and other purposes was filed, prepared and submitted jointly by the Committee on Science, Technology, Constitutional Amendments, Revisions of Codes and Laws, Education, Arts and Culture, Justice and Human Rights, Trade and Commerce, Public Information and Mass Media, and Finance, May 3, 2011.

      Again, I’m sure you heard the committees that submitted with Senators Antonio Trillanes, Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Manuel “Lito” Lapid, Manny Villar, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos and Ramon Revilla as authors.

      Per Committee Report Number 30, and recommending its approval in substitution of the Senate bills I mentioned earlier, taking into consideration Senate Resolution 75164 and 254.

      May 10, 2011 – Ngayon, Mr President, pagdating po ng May 10, 2011, committee report was calendared for ordinary business. That same day, it was sponsored by Sen Edgardo Angara, chairman of the Committee on Education and Science and Technology.

      May 11, 2011 – On May 11, it was transferred from the calendar for ordinary business to the calendar for special orders. Ganoon po ang sistema sa atin para doon sa nakikinig sa atin sa labas, lalo na sa cyberspace.

      May 11, 2011 – Sponsorship speech was Sen Angara was followed by co-sponsorship by Sen Loren Legarda and Sen Loren Legarda was made co-author on the same day.

      September 12, 2011 – The period of interpellations were open. Interpellations were conducted by Miriam Defensor Santiago and Vicente Sotto III.

      December 12, 2011 – Interpellations continued with Sen Vicente Sotto III, Teofisto Guingona III and Aquilino Pimentel III.

      December 13, 2011 – Interpellations by Sen Juan Ponce Enrile

      And after that Dec 13, 2011, the period of interpellations was closed.

      January 24, 2012 – After the Christmas break, there were inquiries conducted by Sen Teofisto Guingona III and Sen Panfilo Lacson during the period of committee and individual amendments and no longer in the period of interpellations.

      January 24, 2012 – The period of individual amendments was closed. It was approved on second reading with amendments, lahat na ng amendments na pinag-usapan dito noon na laman ng Senate bill nang lumabas, nandoon na, products of the interpellations in December and onto January.

      January 26, 2012 – Printed copies were distributed to the senators.

      January 30, 2012 – It was approved on 3rd reading. Those who voted in favor: Pia Cayetano, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Chiz Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Bongbong Marcos, Koko Pimentel, Ralph Recto, Ramon Revilla Jr, Vicente Sotto, Manny Villar. There was one who voted against: Sen TG Guingona. There were no abstentions.

      January 31, 2012 – This was sent to the House of Representatives requesting for concurrence, inabot po ito nang ilang buwan sapagkat di pa pasado ang House version.

      May 30, 2012 – The Senate requested the House of Representatives for a conference on the disagreeing provisions because the House passed it already, designating Senators Angara, Santiago, Estrada, Marcos, Revilla, Trillanes and Villar as its conferees to the bicameral conference committee.

      Wala hong Sotto doon sa bicam member!

      May 30, 2012 – The House of Representatives accepted the request of the Senate for conference on the disagreeing provisions for Senate Bill 2796 and House Bill 5808. Representatives were Tinga, Yap, Singson Jr, Angara, Rodriguez, Sarmiento, Arenas, Quimbo, Golez, Sarmiento, Arroyo D as the conferees in the bicameral conference committee, May 30, 2012.

      June 5, 2012 – The conference committee report submitted to the Senate recommending Senate Bill 2796 in consolidation with House Bill 5808 be approved as reconciled and Sen Angara delivered a sponsorship speech after the bicam so sa bicam ito, ang proseso natin, 2nd reading, 3rd reading, magmi-meet ang House at Senate, pag-uusapan ang disagreeing provisions, pag-uusapan nila, paplantsahin nila, babalik sa Senate, babalik sa House. Pagbalik sa Senate, parehong-pareho na ng House version.

      So the committee report, conference committee report was approved by the Senate on June 5.

      June 4, 2012 – Approved by the House of Representatives, one day ahead Mr President.

      So ang totoo niyan as of June 5, it was already out of the hands of the Senate. It was already enrolled, pinadala sa kinauukulan lalo na sa Pangulo ng Pilipinas.

      May mga nagce-claim na ito raw ay retaliation ko for the cyberbullying that I got. Mr President, the cyberbullying attacks I got was on August and September 2012, way, way beyond June 5, na tapos na tapos na sa Senado ito. Sa totoo nga, January 24, wala na sa kamay ng Senate, lumabas na. So it was after my turno en contra that the cyberbullying started, Mr President.

      These cyberbullies should not be too presumptious, parang KSP eh, feeling important eh. The Senate will enact a law for them, kokontrahin sila, reretaliate sila, excuse me ah.

      May I suggest, para sa kalinawan ng marami at medyo magandang kaisipan, I suggest our colleagues and the public read an online article written in the Wall Street Journal is entitled “Why we are so rude online.” “Online browsing lowers self-control and is linked to higher debt and higher weight” by Elizabeth Bernstein of the Wall Street Journal.

      And also, I would like to commend the editorial of the Manila Times today, “Libel and Freedom of Speech.” I suggest our colleagues and the public to also read that instead of your cyberbully whipping boy read it into the records of the Senate.

      I thank you. I hope I am able to set the record straight para matigil ang pagbibintang at paranoia ng iba nating kababayan. – Rappler com

      Source: www rappler com/nation/13833-sotto-stop-paranoia-on-cyber-law-passage

      As of this comment submission, there are no Senate records available of Sen T Sotto’s Oct 5 Bill and Withdrawal of same Bill today. Not even his privilege speech today about this Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012 were available at the Senate Archives (2012) – www senate gov ph/news asp?year=2012#10

  13. 134
    andrew lim says:

    UST’s VARSITARIAN EDITORIAL ATTACKS ATENEO AND LA SALLE ON RH STAND

    How I wish I was still in college today. It must be fun.

    It’s not only in the UAAP that Ateneo and UST are battling:

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/277346/news/nation/ust-student-paper-attacks-ateneo-la-salle-on-rh-stands?ref=bannerh1

  14. 133
    Rene-Ipil says:

    Let’s have a break.

    Atty. Romulo Makalintal says that the repeated and deliberate absence of Supreme Court justices from the flag raising ceremony may constitute betrayal of public trust, which is a gound for impeachment.

    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    11:19 pm | Sunday, October 7th, 2012
    Share on facebook_likeShare 2

    The repeated absence of some associate justices of the Supreme Court at its regular Monday flag-raising rites just because of their alleged “displeasure” over the appointment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno may constitute a grave violation of Republic Act 8491, or the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines. It may also create the wrong impression in the minds of our youth, especially young students, that there is nothing wrong in not attending the school’s flag rites if they do not like their teachers.

    Section 18 of RA 8491 provides that “all government offices and educational institutions shall observe the flag-raising ceremony every Monday morning” while Section 2 mandates that “reverence and respect at all times shall be accorded the flag (and) the anthem.” Its Section 50 provides that a violator of the law “shall be punished by a fine of not less than five thousand pesos or imprisonment for not more than one year; provided that for any second or additional offenses, both fine and imprisonment shall always be imposed.”

    Pursuant to this law, the Supreme Court issued Circular No. 62-2001 on Sept. 21, 2001, directing all executive judges to supervise the holding of the flag rites in their courthouses and “ensure the attendance of all judges and court personnel in the rites.”

    On March 25, 2009, the Supreme Court First Division ruled in Martinez vs. Lim, Case No. A. M. P-04-1795, that “flag ceremonies inspire patriotism and evoke the finest sentiments of love of country and people” and reiterated the law’s mandate for government offices to observe the Monday flag rites. The resolution was penned by former Chief Justice Renato Corona and concurred in by Associate Justices Consuelo Yñares-Santiago, Antonio Carpio and Teresita Leonardo-de Castro.

    Last September 17 it was reported that, for the third time, several Supreme Court justices were again absent during the Monday flag-raising ceremony.

    If there is anyone who should show strict compliance with the law, it is a justice of the Supreme Court; the justices are the embodiment of a law-abiding citizen of the land. Their repeated and deliberate absences from the flag-raising rites, which the law compels them to attend, may constitute betrayal of public trust, which is a ground for impeachment.

    If the justices of the Supreme Court could compel lower courts and their personnel to comply with the flag law and penalize them for noncompliance therewith, there is no reason why the justices should be exempt from any punishment should they continue disregarding the law mandating them to attend the regular Monday flag ceremony.—ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, Las Piñas City

    • 133.1
      TOL says:

      Again, ano na naman ang tingin ng mga justices na ito sa sarili nila? Are they above the law? In that sense alone, it shows that they are not fit to hold their positions.

      • 133.1.1
        duquemarino says:

        “If leaders are ethical, they can ensure that ethical practices are carried out throughout the organization. (Wikipedia)

    • 133.2
      leona says:

      That law is weak for its wording, thus it can be ignored as what is happening.
      It says, as quoted by @ Rene-Ipil, “all government offices and government instirutions xxx”.

      The phrase is weak as read. Revise the phrase: “All government officers and employees of government offices and institutions are punishable for failure to attend Flag ceremonies every Monday morning. Second offense shall be suspension for one (1) week from work without pay. Third offense shall be punished with Six months suspension without pay. And further offense shall be ground for summary dismissal and forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from employment in the government..’ Make the law as harsh as the Cybercrime Law.

      “Chiefs and Head of the such offices shall implement this law. Failure to do so shall constitute suspension or dismissal from the government service.”

      Let us see what happens.

      • 133.2.1
        vander anievas says:

        @leona,
        “Chiefs and Head of the such offices shall implement this law. Failure to do so shall constitute suspension or dismissal from the government service.”

        and i like the phrase “make the law as harsh as the Cybercrime Law.”

        if ever one idiot lawmaker proposes that, i bet you, it’ll take forever to pass into law. just like the rhbill and the FOI.

        ano? kukuha sila ng batong pamukpok sa ulo nila. LOL

    • 133.3
      baycas says:

      @Rene-Ipil,

      Thanks. I badly need a break.

      A long break. So long…

  15. 132
    Johnny Lin says:

    CPM version of FACT CHECK
    “LOPEZ family VICTIMS OF MARTIAL LAW AGAIN AFTER 40 Years”

    When Martial Law was declared by Marcos in 1972, Enrile staged a faked ambush in Wack Wack right in front of Oscar Lopez house. The family Lopez lost their businesses at that time to Marcos and his cronies. Geny Lopez was incarcerated.

    40 years after, Oscar Lopez, thru the intercession of his in law Ex Pres Erap Estrada, subsidized the publishing of Enrile book Memoir including the staging of a political personalities studded book launching and complete TV coverage? Unknowingl to Lopez, Enrile wrote a watered down fiction of his 1972 ambush totally contradicting the autobiographical book of Oscar Lopez in which he vividly detailed on what really happened on the fake ambush staged in front of his house by Enrile.

    Go figure this historical partnership of Enrile and Estrada:

    1. FPJ was convinced to run for president by both of them, leaving him behind fending his electoral protest against GMA until he suffered a stroke. Enrile allied with GMA while Estrada was arrested.
    2. Oscar Lopez was the victim of an elaborate book launching which contained lies about his own version in his book of the fake ambush of Enrile
    3. Binay has now partnered with the same couple who drafted their sons to be senatorial candidates, but Binay was forced lately to enter his reluctant daughter into the political arena after supposed backers like Escudero, Legarda, Poe Llamanzares and De Venecia started abandoning their partnership. Binay must take a second look!

    Suggestion to Binay to read my book, “The Art of Doublecross”
    He he he

  16. 131
    rigo says:

    Hello there,
    It is a scary thought to have these Politicians made a hasty decision on Laws that affect the very human existence of all filipinos..and at the same time try to exclude themselves from the debacle and mess that themselves created..(shame,shame)..It is really a time of change..You don’t want those people to go on creating havoc..get rid of them comes election day..

    On a lighter note, I noticed that getting elected in a government post is a sure way of having a lucrative job in Phil, better life without really working hard for it. Am sure missing the fun in the Phil.

  17. 130
    Johnny Lin says:

    Latest News Inquirer:
    “Enrile and Trillanes Resume Word War”

    Raissa, is your name in that ” white paper”?

  18. 129
    Johnny Lin says:

    Latest News: Inquirer Headlines

    TRUE OR FALSE: WAS 1972 ENRILE AMBUSH FAKED?

    TRUE, AMBUSH WAS FAKED!

    Enrile is a LIAR, based on his book!

    Sue me
    He he he

    • 129.1
      • 129.1.1
        Johnny Lin says:

        Before his book was launched, been posting here about his fake ambush that he would twist to his favor. Even to the publisher, Oscar Lopez, the rough draft of the memoir was not provided.

        Refused to show an advance copy to the press and printed the book with extreme secrecy. He did not want adverse publicity, like what is happening now. Finally, every columnist, media, bloggers are attacking his incredible fictional autobiography.

        Read the detailed account of Oscar Lopez recalling the incident because it happened almost in front of his house in Wack Wack in 1972 on Billy Esposo column in Inquirer. “Where are his women”, he asked?

        Do NOT vote Enrile in next election. Time to retire that name forever.

        • 129.1.1.1
          filipino_mom says:

          his book belongs in the philippine myths and legends section. to be read and taken in with a huge boulder of salt.

          • 129.1.1.1.1
            Mel says:

            People who bought it should return or exchange it for something else.
            It is not what real history recounts (according to Inquirer online news – FACT CHECK). The book doesn’t include guarantees nor ‘warranty’ of facts. The purported unfake ambush tale spoils the rest of the book.

            Mabuti pa si R Saguisag, nanghiram lang.

            Ohh, owwwh. JPE might file a bill to make his book available in school libraries.

          • 129.1.1.1.2
            duquemarino says:

            Like “Ti Biag ni Lam-ang”???????

        • 129.1.1.2
          David says:

          The same goes for his son.

      • 129.1.2
        Johnny Lin says:

        @ baycas
        Latest Spy News:

        The co-author of the “memoir” would be blamed for changing the story on the Fake Ambush without the knowledge of the biographer.

      • 129.1.3
        erwin says:

        @ baycas, @ angela

        I really love reading fiction books and even try to collect their books….Some of my favorite authors are Irving Wallace, Harold Robbins, Arthur Hailey, Sidney Sheldon, John Grisham, Robert Ludlum, Dan Brown, Tom Clancey, Andrew Greeley and still many others.

        Hindi kaya masayang itong libro ni Enrile kung bibilhin ko kasi aawasin ko ang pambili ng libro niya sa aking SSS monthly pension at sa aking maintenance medicines?

        • 129.1.3.1
          Rene-Ipil says:

          Erwin @ 129.1

          Why bother yourself reading 700 pages of uncertainty if not falsity. I suggest that you save your money and just read the post of Parekoy @ 128 to know the true story about Enrile. It seems that Parekoy knows more than what ordinary mortals like us know, including Enrile himself. Maybe you can try to invite Parekoy over a cup of coffee for the details.

          • 129.1.3.1.1
            raissa says:

            Enrile book is always useful as a viewpoint and as a perspective.

            I wish more political personalities would write their own tell-all books :)

            • Rene-Ipil says:

              Yes. Even useless books and people can be used as example of useless matters and human beings.

            • chit navarro says:

              It’s not complete if it does not speak about his “love life”….What is a man’s life without a woman of strength and substance?

            • saxnviolins says:

              Agreed. Useful.

              Like blog posts, you can just ignore what you don’t agree with. But there will be insights about other people from the vantage point of one who worked with them.

              You do not have to agree with people to derive insights from their work. Even peaceniks read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.

              One of the best I read was Treasury Secretary Paul O Neill’s book on George W. Bush.

              One of the shortest assessments of Marcos and Cory was made by Enrile in a talk in UP in 87. When asked to compare, he said one was a reckless driver, and the other a student driver. With whom would you hitch a ride?

              Want to read his take on other people – Ramos, Virata, Paeng Salas, etc.

              • Rolly says:

                Once asked by a reporter whether Cory was a communist, Enrile replied…if it looks like a duck, wobbles (sic) [maybe he meant waddles] like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

          • 129.1.3.1.2
            erwin says:

            @ Rene-Ipil,

            Thanks for your advice. I won’t waste my pension money for that book. But if ever some CPMers would lend this book to me then I will be forced to read it.
            To tell you frankly I love to read comments of my idol Johnny Lin, ( Justice ) Baycas, Parekoy , Pareng Tony, Maria A, (fiery) Leona, ( well researched comments ) Yvonne, Andrew Lim, jcc and lately (the courageous and fiery too) Joe America and many other- CPMers. …di ba?

            Next time I gonna write another “tula” for all trapos and their dynasties……

      • 129.1.4
        Cha says:

        Ahaha, thanks for the link @baycas.

        Best review of Enrile’s memoirs right there in that photo. Sandwiched between mommyporn Shades of Grey book 2 and James Patterson thriller Zoo, top left is Ripley’s Believe it or Not. Nuff said. :)

        • 129.1.4.1
          erwin says:

          @ Cha,

          Yes, that’s true. I have noticed that too. So, it’s really true that his book is considered a fiction. I’ll try to read some more reviews of his book before spending my pension money……hehehehehe..

          • 129.1.4.1.1
            Cha says:

            erwin,

            You might be better off spending your pension money on Marites Vitug’s new book Hour Before Dawn: The uncertain rise and fall of the Supreme Court, which tells the story of Corona from his appointment as Chief Justice to his impeachment. At least we can be sure this one will be a TRUE story :)

            Haven’t read it yet myself, don’t want to get the e-book so I am waiting till I can ask someone to get me a hard copy from there.

    • 129.2
      Mel says:

      FACT-CHECK

      True or false: Was 1972 Enrile ambush faked?

      By Inquirer Research
      Philippine Daily Inquirer
      12:24 am | Monday, October 8th, 2012

      Did he or did he not fake his ambush 40 years ago?

      In response to numerous requests from our readers, the Inquirer did a fact-check on a controversial claim that the Senate president made in his newly published book, “Juan Ponce Enrile: A Memoir.”

      Enrile, the martial law administrator of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, said in his book that the ambush on his convoy on the night of Sept. 22, 1972, was not staged—a turnaround from what the then defense secretary disclosed during a historic press conference on Feb. 23, 1986, when he and then Lt. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos announced their revolt against Marcos.

      In other interviews with certain foreign correspondents, Enrile was also reported as saying that the ambush—one of the reasons cited by then President Marcos to justify his imposition of martial law—was faked.

      So, which is which?

      In his book, Enrile said that on Sept. 22, 1972, his three-vehicle convoy was driving through Wack Wack subdivision on his way home to Dasmariñas Village from Camp Aguinaldo where he had just briefed top military officers on the implementation of martial law.

      “A speeding car rushed and passed the escort car where I was riding. Suddenly, it opened several bursts of gunfire toward my car and sped away. The attack was so sudden that it caught everyone by surprise. No one in the convoy was able to fire back,” Enrile said in the book.

      Enrile’s convoy left the bullet-riddled car and returned to Camp Aquinaldo where he reported the incident to Marcos. The soon-to-be-dictator, according to Enrile’s account, uttered some expletives: “Lintik ang mga ’yan!” (Damn those fools!).

      In his book, Enrile said his political opponents were the ones who spread the word after the 1986 People Power Revolution that the ambush was faked to justify the imposition of martial law.

      “This is a lie that has gone around for far too long such that it has acquired acceptance as the truth … . This accusation is ridiculous and preposterous,” Enrile said in his book. “Whether I was ambushed or not, martial law in the country was already an irreversible fact. So what was the need to fake my own ambush?”

      Conflicting accounts

      The banner headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s front page published on Feb. 23, 1986 read: “Enrile, Ramos lead ‘revolt’ against FM.” One of the dropheads accompanying the headline read: “1972 ambush fake—Enrile.”

      In its research, the Inquirer also came upon several journalists who said that Enrile himself had admitted not only during the Feb. 22, 1986, press conference but also in several interviews that the ambush was fake.

      In his 1988 book, “Waltzing with a Dictator,” New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner wrote that while Enrile’s wife, Cristina, said that God had saved her husband, “God had had nothing to do with it. Marcos and Enrile had staged the ‘ambush,’ as the final justification for martial law.”

      Bonner said he had two long interviews with Enrile in December 1985. “He was emphatic that the attack on him had not been staged, but in February 1986, after he had broken with Marcos and led the revolt that ousted the Philippine president, Enrile admitted that the attack on his car had been faked,” Bonner wrote.

      “Several American intelligence officers told me that the car attack was phony. ‘Flimflam,’ said one,” Bonner added.

      In her 1989 book, “Impossible Dream,” Time correspondent Sandra Burton wrote: “Seasoned observers believed from the start that the attack had been staged. Years later, as he was in the midst of his own revolt from the Marcos regime, Enrile would confirm those suspicions.”

      Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Katherine Ellison also said that Enrile himself admitted that the ambush was fake.

      In her 1988 book, “Imelda,” Ellison wrote: “(Enrile) revealed that he had narrowly escaped injury in a spectacular ambush of his car—an event he conceded in 1986 had been staged.”

      In his 1986 book, “The Quartet of the Tiger Moon,” National Artist Nick Joaquin wrote about the people’s reaction to the “confession” of a certain Capt. Ricardo Morales about an alleged plot to attack Malacañang and kill Marcos:

      “The ‘confession’ sounded hollow to people who had just heard Enrile reveal that the 1972 attempt on his life was staged to give Mr. Marcos an excuse to declare martial law. People sneered that Marcos was so used to faking (fake feats, fake medals, fake literary works, fake health) that he would fake even his own assassination and death.”

      READ the remainder of the article at newsinfo inquirer net/284836/true-or-false-was-1972-enrile-ambush-faked

      • 129.2.1
        Johnny Lin says:

        Latest ABS CBN NEWS

        “Enrile defends son, Binay daughter”
        Enrile is defending the candidacy of his son and Binay daughter on the criticisms that they are positioning their children to become senators without obvious qualifications.

        Enrile says, “let the people decide, they are intelligent. Nobody has monopoly of opinion, no monopoly of truth”

        Enrile has two versions of truth all the time to cover all bases.
        1. What he said to reporters
        2. What he wrote in his book.

        • 129.2.1.1
          leona says:

          About this alleged important ambush story, I will wait for the next “mea culpa” for the ending of a tall tale or tail.

          Since that is the way it is, so be it…not to be believe… true or false, false or true and back again to true or false. Kaka pagod sundan. Just forget or ignore it!

        • 129.2.1.2
          duquemarino says:

          @Johnny Lin

          His defending the candidacy of the Binays is simply to justify the candidacy of his son.

  19. 128
    Parekoy says:

    About Political Dynasties…

    Yung bang mga kamag-anak at anak ay pwede nating tawaging:

    Anak ng PU_ _ _ _ _ _!

    (PULITIKO)…

    So itong mga AnakngPU

    PNoy- Anag ng Hero

    Let us imagine what Ninoy and Cory could have said to their son.

    ‘Anak, very proud ako sayo, pinagpapatuloy mo ang ang sinumulan! Pero minsan nakalimutan mo na yong freedom of expression ay aking pinaglaban at sana naman tanggalin mo na ang Libel provision sa CyberCrime law dahil pagod na ako rito sa ataul dahil ikot ako ng ikot. please lang. I luv you anak..Daddy Ninoy’

    ‘Noynoy ko, iho, nasa likod mo ako saka si Cardinal Sin pagdting sa Pro RH Bill. Sabi sa akin ni Cardinal effective daw yong condoms, kaya wala aw mga Sin Jrs. Iurong mo na rin yong Libel a yan, hwag kang mana sa akin na balat sibuyas kaya tuloy nademanda ko si Beltran dahil nagtatago daw ako sa kama. Alam ko naman na figure of speech lang yon, si kris kasi sabi ‘Mommy mafafayagan mo ba yan na isang tabatsoy lahng na columnist na laitin ka’.

    • 128.1
      Parekoy says:

      AnakngPU….

      Bongbong Marcos- Anak ng Diktador

      ‘Anak kahit na naki apid ang partido mo sa anak ng mortal kong kalaban, naiintindihan ko dahil political realities yan. Proud ako sa pagtatanggol mo sa record ko sa Martial Law good job! Ingat ka dyan kay Jackie Enrile, mas matapang yan kaysa sa Tatay, pero hindi yan matalino tulad ni Johnny kaya ala yan sauo sa debate.

      Paki-dna test pala yung mga kapatid mo, noon kasing kapanahunan ko wala pang ganyang technology. Mahalin mo nanay mo, matanda na yan saka sana matagal pa syang makapiling ko dito kasi ok lang dito jindi maingay…Yon nga palang libing ko sa mga kamposanto ng Mga Bayani, paki lakad ulit kay PNoy, kalimutan na nya kamo ang nakaraan. Yung mga Avsecom ko pala, alagan mong mabuti ang mg pamila kasi baka mag-sing-along eh ma-implicate pamila natin. Si johnny pati, tsismoso na rin, pero hayaan mo at kokumprontahin ko sya dito, malapit na rin appointment nya.—Love Daddy777′

      ‘Bong, Nanay mo to. Wag ka ng magpa DNA dahil baka maging telenovela ang buhay natin at mabulgar kung bakit napatay si Ninoy. Sana wag kang masyadong palaaway kay PNoy, malay mo related pa tayo jan.

      PS..
      Xmas na, alam mo na ang paborito ni Mommy…Manolo Blanik saka Gucci na shoes, mga ilang libong pairs lang. loveyou bbko.’

    • 128.2
      pinay710 says:

      @parekoy, ok yung paalala ng magulang ni noynoy pero alalahanin mo na ang magulang ay hindi palagi nakatutok sa kanya. eh pagka nakapaligid na ang barkada (opisyal or staff) nakakalimutan na ang bilin ng magulang. malakas ang impluwensya ng barkada at kapaligiran. “SIGE KA NOY PAGHINDI KA NAKI -IN SA AMIN HINDI KA NA NAMIN ISASAMA SA MGA GIMMICKS NA PUPUNTAHAN NAMIN.”eh parang ang daling kumbinsihin or salisihan si noy. para sayang walang kamuwang muwang sa mundo. AKALAIN MO PANGULO EH NASALISIHAN PATI NA NG MGA KABARKADA NYANG AKALA NYA EH MAY MGA MATANG LAWIN NA TUTULONG SA KANYA EH HINDI NAKITA NA NASINGITAN NA SILA..

      • 128.2.1
        Parekoy says:

        @Pinay710

        Salamat.

        Para na kasing manok na Andok si Ninoy sa kaiikot, kaya maawa naman sya sa Daddy nya pagod na at hilong-hilo na.

        Ang makikinabang kasi ng Libel provisions na yan mga Pulitiko at hinde naman tayo kaya sa tingin ko, nagkaisa ang mga yan magpa Admin at magpa Una. Ngayon hugas kamay na lang. Si Sotto tuwa yan dahil napunta na kay PNoy ang puna at hindi na sa kanya.

    • 128.3
      Parekoy says:

      AnakngPU

      Jackie Enrile – Anak ng Arkitekto ( MartialLaw)

      liham galing kay Daddy

      ‘Jack, alam mong hindi ako naging mabuting Daddy habang kayo ay lumalaki kayo ni Katrina. Alam nyo na mahirap at long hours ang trabaho ko, marami akong pinipirmahan na ipakulong, mga rebelde, mga suspected na kontra martial law, mga manunulat na sakit sa aming ulo ni Apo Macoy, mga estudyante na parally rally. Mabuti na lang naikulong agad namin ito si Ninoy, delikado kaki rito, mahal ng Pilipino, balakid sabi ni Apo.

      Matanda na ako, 88, at madali na ring iwanan ang mundo, pero ang ikinakabahala ko ay papaano na ang ating angkan, ang ating mga negosyo, pinaghirapan ko yan simula pa Martial Law. Isa ayo sa pinakamayaman sa buong Pilipinas at ngtaka nga ako at hindi ako nailista sa Forbes, pero okay lang yun, dapat low profile lang. Ikaw ang tagapagmana at papalit sa akin, pero kung hindi ka maging Senador baka hindi tayo maprtektahan ng mga bata ko na nasa ibaibang pwesto sa gobyerno, mga supreme court justices na ka brod ko, at mga nasa militar.

      Pero pag natalo ka, hwag mong kalimutan ang safe na naglalaman ng ma dossiers natin ng iba-ibang mga pulitiko at malalaking negosyante sa bansa, lahat ng dumi nila ay nandoon. Gamitin mo kung kinakailangan, kasi siguradong tayo ang sunod na target at bulatlatin ang yaan natin. Tingnan mo si Gloria hindi na tinatantanan ng Ombudsman, hindi pa sya suspek ng pamilya aquino sa pagkapatay sa Daddy nila.

      Kung sakasakaling kailangan mo ng firepower, andyan si Greg, grabe na ang piagdaanan nyan, ilang Coup na ang in-implement nya.

      Kung sakasakaling manalo ka, dapat alam mong bumalimbing kung saan tayo magsurvive. Kung sino ang nasa Malacanyang doon din tayo para safe. Tingnan mo record ko, kay Ramos, Erap, Gloria, ki Pnoy…laging nakakapit. Alam kong noong kabataan nyo ay hindi kayo magkasundo ni Bongbong pero kalimutan nyo na yon, mas malakas pwersa nyo pag kayo ay magkakampi.

      Advice ko sayo dahil maiinitin ulo mo, ang Pulitika iba kukutyain ka, sasabihan ka nila ng kung anu anong masamang paratang:

      tulad ng pinatay mo daw si Alfie Anido (inayos ko na an sa libro ko sabi ko sa kanila pakana ni Ver yon, wala na si Ver so wala na ring verification so wala naman talagang ebidensya;

      Adik ka raw, sabihin mo pag namumula ang mata mo, napuyat ka lang ng kababasa ng mga bills na nasa senado, pwede ka ring magsuot ng shades;

      Hindi ka raw matalino at utak pulbura- hwag kang pikon, gayahin mo style ni Lito Lapid, no talk no mistake, hwag na hwag kang gagaya kay Sotto, nabuko na palakopya at mayabang pa at nag-insert pa ng Libel provision, yon nagkagulo na ang mga nag-iinternet, nadamay pa kaming lahat sa katarantaduhan at pagkaarogante nya, pati presidente damay, What a mess pati electability mo mukhang delikado sa galit ng mga nag-cu-computer na mga yan.

      Yung pass word ko nga pala bangko kunin sa favorite secretary ko.

      Love
      Daddy

      PS.
      Pag wala na ako sa mundong ito, gwag na wag mong gagalawin si Freddie Aguilar. Ilang beses kong sasabihin to sayo, yung kantang ANAK ay hindi yon ginawa para ka asarin. Pag nilabag mo yan mumultuhin kita…’

      • 128.3.1
        Johnny Lin says:

        Read Special Report in Manila Bulletin by Andrew Masigan:
        “A Few Deserving Senatorial Bets”
        Maybe @baycas could attach link

        His first candidate is Jun Magsaysay.

        Guess the names he recommends NOT TO BE ELECTED

      • 128.3.2
        Rene-Ipil says:

        Parekoy@128

        Napakagaling, Parekoy. Halos halos himatayin ang asawa ko sa tuwa habang binabasa at ipinaririnig ko sa kanya nang buong puso at damdamin ang mga sulat sa mga anak ng PU…….

        Seriously, I think that not all the contents of the letters are true but most of them are. My spouse insists vehemently that all of them are true.

        Ako ay naniniwala sa kasabihan ng mga sinaunang matatanda na ang kasalanan ng magulang ay pagbabayaran ng anak. At sa magandang ipinunla ng magulang ang anak din ang aani.

        • 128.3.2.1
          Parekoy says:

          @Rene-ipil

          Salamat naman at may sense of humor ang mrs mo!

          Hwag seryosohin, halo-halo ito , may haka-haka, halaw sa mga past blind items, sa mga bubwit na spy, at mismong galing sa kanilang bibig. Bahala na kayong mag decipher kung alin ang totoo. Ang aliw at pagpaalala ng mga pamilyang ang lakas ng hawak sa kapangyarihan sa gobyerno. Know your favorite Dynasty kumbaga!

      • 128.3.3
        Parekoy says:

        I just finished viewing the interview of Jackie Enrile at “#Talk Thursday” at rappler.

        http://www.rappler.com/

        It was good interview. You can get a glimpse about his personality.

        He was shy in the interview. When the Alfie Anido issue was raised, he obviously got uncomfortable, he was sweating, he kept on wiping his forehead and other gestures not seen when he was answering other issues. When he was talking about his differences with his Dad, he was real and can feel the pain which he had been through. He was a reluctant candidate then for the Cagayan seat. I still believe that he currently is as a Senator. I think he succumbed to his Dad’s pleading and the obvious reality that in order to preserve their wealth and legacy of their name, he needs to put his hat in the ring.

        I’m surprised, I like the guy?!

    • 128.4
      Parekoy says:

      AnakngPU

      JV Ejercito/Estrada – Anak ng Jueteng

      Liham ni Erap

      ‘ JV, anak, wala ka ng maisusumbat sa akin, pinayagan na kitang tumakbo sa pagka senador. Simula ng bata ka lagi ka lang umiiyak na hindi pantay ang pagmamahal ko sainyo ni Jinggoy. Naalala ko, yung Xmas gift ko sainyo pareho Robot at tinapon mo yung sayo at bigla kang nagsumbong sa Mommy mo. Natigil ka lang ng pinalitan ko na Barbie yung gift ko sayo.

      Pag nanalo ka, tulungan mo ang kuya mo saka ipaalala mo sa kanya na hwag syang masyadong mayabang at magpapogi nababaas sa kana ang manonood. Hwag mong kalimutan na bigyan sya ng sandwich na may palaman na margarine para tumangkad pa sya ng konti.

      Ang payo ko sayo hwag kang mag file ng bill tungkol sa same sex marriage, hindi pa tanggap ng mga mamamayan yan. Alam kong malapit sa puso mo ang mga may pilantik pero dapat wais ka dahil baka kalabanin ka ng simbahan. Hayaan mo nang si Koko o si Jamby ang magsulong ng bill na yan.

      Yun nga palang sa RH bill, kontrahin mo yon at hindi ako ayon doon. Magpasalaat ka wala pang RH bill noon kung hindi eh hindi ka amin nabuo ni Mommy mo, pero sa tingin ko pwede pa rin. Saka pag natuloy yang RH bill na yan na maging batas, patay tayo dyan. Kokonti yung base natin na masa lalo na yung mga sobrang mahihirap, kokonti na lang ang bilang nila. Pano na yung Erap para sa Mahirap kung uunlad na ang buhay ng mga Pilipino dahil sa lintek na RH Rh na yan!

      Matuto na kayo ni Jinggoy, hwag kayong tatanggap ng Jueteng money, bwisit yan sa buhay natin. May pork na ang mga Senador na P 200,000,000 bawat taon so tanong ka na lang kay Jinggoy kung paano style…

      Proud ako sa angkan natin, mahal tayo ng masa. Tingnan mo ikaw JV at si kuya Jinggoy mo Senador, Ako Mayor ng Maynila, Mommy mo Mayor ng San Juan, first cousin mo na si Jeorg Ejercito, governor ng Laguna, asawa nyang si Girlie Mayor ng Pagsanghan.

      Hwag na hwag makipag away kila Ping, Atong at Chavit, ang nakaraan ay nakraan na. Mga astig ang mga yan, baka tayo malasin.

      Ngayon sigurong nasa tamang edad ka na, maiintindihan mo kung bakit lagi kong sinasabi na kamukha ko si Jinggoy at ikaw kamukha ni Mommy mo. Sa mga anak ko si Jinggoy ang pinaka guapo at ikaw ang pinaka maganda!

      Daddy

      PS
      Pag naka video ang Senate session, dapat naka make-up ka kasi makintab ang mukha pag walang powder. Manghiram ka ng beauty products kay Loren at hwag na hwag kay Mirriam, sige ka baka magkamukha kayo.

    • 128.5
      leona says:

      One of PNoy’s news interviews makes mention of that “man falsely yelling fire in a crowded theatre.” Someone,like Mr. Harry Kalven, commented that that example is a sterile example.

      The New York Times case put the freedom of speech clause in the US Constitution, right side up for the first time, according to him.

      In ‘Pinas, our lawmakers did throw “down all sides for the first time” our freedom of speech. Ang mga pinoys pag nag wawala, ibang-iba …mag hubad ‘o baliktad ang suot na damit!

      • 128.5.1
        Parekoy says:

        @ Leona

        isang example:

        Nasa entablado ang mga kandidato ng UNA AT Admin, may sumigaw, “Magnanakaw ka”.

        Wala man lang sumagot na hindi ako magnanakaw sa mga Senatoriables. Nagtanong ang isang reporter sa isang Senatoriable kung bakit hindi lang naman nagalit. Sabi noon isang Senatoriable, akala ko kasi hindi ako at itong mga katabi ko. Ako kasi noong pumasok ako sa Pulitika mayaman na, itong mga kasama ko mga wala ito noon, nagkaron lang ng limpak-limpak na yaman ng makapasok na sa gobyerno. Sabi naman ng isa, hindi ako umimik kasi yung “Magnanakaw” na term ay pang small time lang, pag yung binanggit noong tao na “PLUNDERER” IBA NA YON tinatamaan na ako noon.

    • 128.6
      Parekoy says:

      Anak ng PU
      Nancy Binay –Anak ni Stallone (Rambo)
      —————— Anak ni Janice (Kung maniniwala tayo sa sinulat at pasaring ni Korina tungkol sa mga Maligno)

      Liham ni Daddy

      ‘Anak, alam kong nagdadalawang isip ka sa pagtakbo sa Senado. Kung sa tingin mo hindi ka pa hinog, kami na ang bahala sa pagpahinog sayo, kapartido natin si Enrile. Tingnan mo si Sotto, si Honasan, si Jinggoy, natuto na lang din on the job. Kung si Lapid nga high school gradweyt lang ikaw pa kaya.

      Kapag inenterbyu ka at paratangan na gumagawa tayo ng Dynasty, ngiti ka lang at sabihin na “We are a Dynasty of Service”, pero hwag mung sabihin na kung sino ang beneficiary ng service na yan, dapat Malabo para may out tayo.

      Alam mo na siguro na huwag tayong kokontra kay PNoy, sa 2016 babana sya at tayo na ang nasa Malacanyang. Dami na natin kakampi na nasa Malacanyang, andyan si Ochoa at Samar Group. Sila Balsy at Kris sa atin yan. Grabe ang utang na loob sa akin ni Kris. Natatandaan mo noong nagkatulo si Kris dahil sa lintek na Joey Marquez nay an, ako agad ang tinawagan ni Kris para tumahimik muna itong si Joey. Si Peping atin na rin, kaya nerbyos lang ni Mar.

      Nasa Pulitika tayo, dapat makapal ang balat natin pero kailangan matapang din.
      Minsan itong si Korina ay may mga pasaring na parang pinupuntirya tayo na mga “Maligno at Maiitim”. Hayaan mo lang dahil pagkakamali nila yon. Masosorpresa na lang sila pagdating ng halalan dahil matatalo natin sila sa kanilang balwarte sa Capiz, Iloilo at Antique. Alam mo na rin siguro na may mga aswang dyan at akala nila maligno tayo, so iboboto nila ako kaysa kay Roxas.

      Hwag kang pikon pag sinabing maitim. Uso na yan ngayon. Tingnan mo si Obama, lamang lang ako ng konting paligo dyan. Yung Ilocos vote saka Visaya vote na maraming mga kakulay natin, siempre atin na rin yan. Ayaw ng mga yan sa konyo.

      Yong mga kalaban ko bubulatlatin kung saan natin kinuha ang ating yaman. Dedma ka lang. Habang nasa atin ang control sa pagka mayor at congress ng Makati, dami nating tauhan dyan. Kung si Gloria nga hindi ako mapatalsik ito pa kayang Vice na ako? Yung mga imbestigasyon ng graft dyan sa Makati, magdadalawang isip ngayon ang COA kasi mas malakas tayo ngayon.

      Hindi ako nagsasawa sa pagsariwa ng mga dinaanan ko. Bata pa lang ako namatay na mga magulang ko, kayod ako para lang makapag aral ng abogasya. Lumaki ako na streetwise sa Makati saka sa Pasay, kailangan kong maging matapang at matalino dahil yun lang ang puhunan ko.

      Sa UP nakapasok ako sa frat ng APO (Alpha Phi Omega) at yung mga kalaban naming frat takot yan pag ako ang nangunguna sa rambol, tingin ko kasi para lang silang mga bata kumpara sa mga nakaengkwentro kong mga Batang Makati ant Batang Pasay. Yung pagka Batanggueno ko ay talagang nasa dugo ala eh. Noong Martial Law, napaka idealist ko, ayokong naaapi ang mga kaliitan. Naging Human Rights Lawyer ako at yong mga Political prisoners ay tinutulungan ko. Nong Edsa I. barikada kami, nakasukbit lang an Uzi ko at bahala na kung maputokan ng mga tuta ni Ver at Marcos. Tanggal si Marcos at na appoint ako ni Cory na Mayor ng Makati noong 1986. Doon na nabago ang buhay natin, naging maginhawa na rin.

      Ang politika weder weder lang yan. Noon mortal mong kalaban ngayon kasamahan mo na. Tingnan mo si Enrile, Honasan, at Erap, mga Marcos yan ngayon kakampi na natin at kalaban na natin yong mga kasama ko sa Edsa noon. Pag nananalo ako babalimbing din yung iba dyan, yung Samar Group nga satin na!

      Pagnasa senado ka na, Anti RH ka dapat. Dapat hwag lumiit ang bilang ng mahihirap. Paano na lang ang mga eskwater sa Guadalupe eh baka umunlad ang mga yan at magka-computer di makakabasa ng mga blogs sa internet, patay tayo dyan. Mas marami mahirap sa Makati mas mabuti para sa politika.

      Si Jun-jun na ang bahala sa Makati, ikaw ang mata at tenga ko sa Senado, at si Abigail sa 2nd District of Makati. Wow! I’m really proud of my family. A family of service!

      Isa lang ang hihingin ko sayo, dapat proud ka sa pamilya natin at kulay ng ating balat, huwag kang mag endorse ng Belo Whitening Soap.

      Love,
      Proud Tatay

  20. 127
    raissa says:

    Hi guys,

    I’m preparing something but it’s very tedious.

    You’ll be surprised.

    Hopefully by tomorrow.

    • 127.1
      Mel says:

      Don’t be in a hurry.

      Cover your bases. Please, don’t leave holes or question marks.

      Kindly make it clear, simple like a two edged sword cutting to the bone.

      Thanks. Looking forward for that meal, again.

      • 127.1.1
        raissa says:

        Wow.

        You want it to be “like a knife that slides clean into the astonished flesh beneath the dark root of a scream.” – from Blood Wedding , Federico Garcia Lorca.

        • 127.1.1.1
          Mel says:

          Semblance of crafty characters that congregated to pass the Cybercrime Prevention Act circa 2012? Many of them flipped flop, back tracked and admitted lapses.

          At bloody play enraged on enclosing where the mother [ginang] declares -

          “This is the knife”!

          “The scream of death,”

          Will it put the final rites to the Act that once thought ago answers the questions, but alas punishes alike the innocent who dobs and whistles against those who wish to trample on the Bride’s lovers’ rights for freedom of expression and free speech?

          (Or will the mother let the bride to live?)

    • 127.2
      Ella Tovara says:

      Take your time … but gezzz can’t wait ti read it.

  21. 126
    Jett Rink says:

    Is Pnoy not blameless here ? Don’t be kind now ….

    • 126.1
      Johnny Lin says:

      Of course, he shares the blame.
      Buck ends in his desk.

      Could he have been blindsided or undercut by his allies in senate in connivance with members of his executive staff? Absolutely, yes! He learned his lessons, realizing piece by piece who are his enemies within own circle.

      Watch his back! Remember what happened to Roxas support.

    • 126.2
      Bayonic says:

      Its ironic that somebody who benefited from social media and the internet signed a law that seeks to curtails the freedom and transparency that can contribute to the common goal of reducing the corruption in this country.
      He became president with no small thanks from social media which exposed and spread the alleged excess of his predecessor. He got rid of what he called a stumbling block to the road of judicial reform by impeaching a CJ , again with lots of help from social media and the internet which helped sway the impeachment court to a conviction.

    • 126.3
      Rene-Ipil says:

      Jett, Johnny, Bayonic@126

      Raissa wrote:

      “I’m not against a libel law covering netizens. Let me explain my personal stand on online libel. I am not against punishing people who make libelous statements online. But the law has to be well-defined on what are considered libelous statements; who gets punished for them; and what the punishment is. I also don’t believe in a jail term.”

      Pnoy said also that online libel should remain in the statute but he is amenable to amendments that reduce the penalty.

      I believe that both Raissa and Pnoy are correct. Online libel should be punishable but the penalty should be reduced to only a fine. And the offender should also be liable for damages when warranted.

      • 126.3.1
        leona says:

        The short or long of this Cybercrime Law is SELF-CENSOR.

        It is already in the Revised Penal Code! Bring it further into cyberspace! Into the INTERNET! Put and use a net to catch writers, bloggers, wacha all of ‘em, using the INTERNET! If our lawmakers can only “make us drink a liquid for this, they’ll surely do it by law!”

        Self-censor. Chill ‘em! Freeze the temptation to write, write anything all. Suppress the minds. Their ideas! Whatever comes into their heads don’t let it come it!

        Symbolically cut their fingers too with those KEYBOARDS! Block everything it is libelous! Protect the innocent victims of libel you protect all, including the corrupt in government. It is the end of free speech. End of free press.

        Increasing the penalties, many if not thousands, will be afraid to use the INTERNET! Let us give this law a chance to stifle free speech and the press!

        Imprison computer users and INTERNET for long imprisonment sentences! It will help to give a chance to this law.

        Btw, if and when proposed amendments are taken up in this law, both Lower House and Upper House should participate to find if the law is properly protecting free soeech and of the PRESS under SECTION 4, an absolute provision to preserve this RIGHT. The courts must work out the balancing tests and not instead expect free speech is chilled. Free Press is frozen!

        What is actually happening is the reverse. Just chill and freeze all speech and the Press and let courts just send the violators to jail.

        Self Censor.

  22. 125
    CBC says:

    Here’s something from Teddy Casino’s blog: Cybercrime law covers text and calls as well

  23. 124
    baycas says:

    @raissa,

    I was addressing you in some comments strewn out below but got no replies from you.

    If Sen. Pia Cayetano et al is to be believed (which you chose not to pending the necessary documents you “fished” from them) the Senate Journal of January 24, 2012 bears them out as being truthful.

    Sen. Angara was reading into the Record what was already agreed upon by the Body as INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS then. The recital of these Individual Amendments was enumerated in the Journal of that day as bulleted list with own page numbers and of the font size smaller than specific REMARKS and specific AMENDMENTS by some members of the Senate.

    On Page 876 of the said Journal, Sen. Guingona interrupted Sen. Angara first…

    REMARKS OF SENATOR GUiNGONA

    At this juncture, Senator Guingona expressed concern that the definition of cybersex smacked of prior restraint and he feared that this would violate the Constitution.

    Senator Angara stated that the Committee did not intend to impose any prior restraint. He appealed to the Body to first hear the individual amendments and after which, the Committee could go back to Senator Guingona’s query.

    Note here that Sen. Angara appealed not to be interrupted as he recited the already agreed upon INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS into the Senate Record in Open Session (akin to what they were doing during the impeachment trial: decisions done in caucus were read into the Senate Record in Open Court).

    Sen. Angara then resumed the reading only to be interrupted by another senator. Same Page 876 of the said Journal states in between bulleted items…

    REMARKS OF SENATOR CAYETANO (P)

    Senator Cayetano (P) requested that she be given time to make sure that the bill’s definition of child pronography is aligned with that of RA 9775.

    Senator Angara explained that the particular provision was amended upon the request of Senator Cayetano (P) so that there will be no conflict with the definition of child pornography on the bill and that of RA 9775.

    Cognizant of Sen. Angara’s appeal to let him finish his recitation of the Individual Amendments first before allowing remarks from colleagues, Sen. Pia Cayetano nonetheless interrupted Sen. Angara just to stress what she believes a very important thing. She was given time.

    After which, Sen. Angara resumed his reading into the Record of the Individual Amendments (numbering 44 in all). The end of the recitation was noted at Page 878. It is also where we can read, as promised at the end of the recitation, Sen. Angara’s answer to Sen. Guingona’s query.

    So, @raissa, unless you can prove that Sen. Pia Cayetano indeed introduced the amendments you so clearly attributed to her in the blog post above, Sen. Pia Cayetano is believable and the January 24, 2012 Senate Journal does not lie on her.

    • 124.1
      leona says:

      O.k. O.k. Maybe the “Senate Journal does not lie on her.” But passing the bill for the president’s signature, without the Lower House knowing what the Upper House did put in into that bill, is not lying?

      Is that a good work of a BICAM committee? No. A national bill affecting free speech and of the Press, not being dessiminated anew to the Lower House? Not even many senators of the Upper House knew what happened? Look, even Sen. Santiago said she was not rpesent anymore as she was sick. What was the good reason to HURRY UP PASSING THIS BILL?

      Is our Congress running against time? Who is running after them? Running by the way is now for the coming elections. Is that the reason?

      Wring people’s necks? Wring people’s minds? Wring people’s use of the INTERNET?
      Wring ‘em all?

      When Congress is told to hurry up, it slows down or goes into a stand still. When important bills like this shouldn’t be hurried up, it is hurried up! Ano yon?

      Our Congress, a lawmaking body, should be like this? Doing the opposites? Against free speech and of the Press? To protect the innocents against libel? Is that it? That’s unacceptable! Hurtful! Shameful! Very bad. Don’t re-elect many, especially those of the monarchy-types…POLITICAL DYNASTIES….thumbs down with rest of fingers CLINCHED!

      Believing in the INTERNET that lawmakers can be EJECTED from their seats, is their FEAR! But just the same, LET US DO IT !

      • 124.1.1
        baycas says:

        That’s beside the point.

        @raissa’s update above (inserted in the body of the blog post) reads…

        UPDATE: As of 8:15 am, Oct 5, 2012

        The “Office of Sen. Pia Cayetano” told me on the social networking site “Twitter” this morning that it wasn’t she who had inserted the two controversial provisions.

        When I asked WHO and “was it Senator Angara?”, the one twitting did not reply. But promised to send me documents to prove it.

        The Senate Journal indicated the amendments under the heading – “Remarks of Sen. Cayetano.”

        The one on Twitter said:

        “Journal says so, as clear as day. If those were hers, the Journal would have bore the heading “Sen @piacayetano amendments.”

        I am awaiting the docs.

        Now, the burden of proof lies on Pia Cayetano’s camp in producing documents when the Senate Journal uploaded on the Net (which @raissa based the THIRD assertion in the blog post) already bears the truth. The amendments were not part of the senator’s remarks.

        It’s kinda weird making the senator appear to have lied and then must prove her innocence simply because @raissa doesn’t believe the senator.

        • 124.1.1.1
          baycas says:

          The THIRD assertion in the blog post still stands presently…pending Sen. Pia Cayetano’s camp of exonerating the senator from the THIRD assertion.

          Guilty ka muna unless you prove otherwise!

          • 124.1.1.1.1
            leona says:

            Ye know, people… when they ran out of their minds really, can hang ‘em up before finding ‘em guilty!

            Just what did they do? Want to block internet, chill us to the bones, freeze our fingers & keyboards, FREEZE PRESS, before anyone can shout HEY! WHATCHA MuTTA?

            Whatta mutta? GIVE THE LAW A CHANCE!

            A chance for what? TO CHILL US?

            Yea! chilling yoooh all! One of yooohh might shout FIRE WALL IN THE CROWDED THEATER!

            yooh’RE sterilized! Nooo Mutations allowed!

            then, next is CONFISCATION OF ALL COMPUTERS and keyboards! as tools of the crimes! WHACHA MuTTA?

            bitter-funny episodes ‘Pinas styles!

            • baycas says:

              As I told you, that’s beside the point. The senators made mistakes…big time!

              My comments are about the MISREADING of @raissa of the January 24, 2012 Senate Journal.

              If we’re going to ask the State to stay away from cyberspace and leave us be with our cyber freedom, there must be a form decorum in what, where, when and how we upload our thoughts. Irresponsibility attracts policing outside our cyber community.

              We certainly do not want self-censorship brought about by this uber effing Cyber Libel Law BUT we must self-regulate so the State will not hover above our cyber freedom.

              • leona says:

                Things are out of hand. To self-regulate for the people will embolden the politicians into more causes for us people to continue to self-regulate. They are the causes of all this mess and we have to think of self-regulating for our good? Not for them?

                it’s the other way around…the people trying to teach our political leaders who really have no care. They all want to stick to their posts forever! Unto their children and grandchildren will they hand down the political inheritances of public offices! And we are expected to self-regulate. It will never happen. That is idealism. Reality will reverse us all in it.

                We cannot govern ourselves directly. It is through representatives. But it is not going to happen in the near future. The signs are disturbing. We many sons, daughters, kins of TRAPOS all interested to get into the wagon of politics. We will be the serfs in the end. Look, our lawmakers even will create a new province in Cam Sur! Just to give it to someone that ambitious. No stopping!

                Mind us all…we will see one day all places in this country will be ruled by FAMILIES! And we will self regulate. No. We will be regulated!

                Apply as same measures as unspeakable measures are applied to us. That is the only dose that will be effective and faster as they are faster. It’s a race who gets ahead…the good or the bad.

      • 124.1.2
        caliphman says:

        Is there no one else but me that is bothered by the deafening silence from this forum in response to baycas in his points above. I see no flaw in his line of reasoning nor do I discern any distortion nor insufficiency in the material on which he premises his conclusions. No one is saying that this lady senator is without guilt as a senate member who enacted this legal monstrosity. For that matter, are we not also all collectively responsible as the electorate who chose her and the others to be responsible for our laws. She is specifically accused of an act that it now appears she is innocent of based on Baycas’ comments. It is up to Raissa to decide how she will
        respond or if at all. But for this entire forum to just ignore one of its own just because it may lead to an awkward or unpopular conclusion is shameful.

        • 124.1.2.1
          vander anievas says:

          @caliphman,
          pards, raissa is awaiting for the doc pia’s staff promised to furnish her.
          i’m also waiting…

        • 124.1.2.2
          leona says:

          Please do not try to teach us how we want to speak our minds. If you read things here as if “there is silence” are you saying you are noisy? And loud?

          What do you think I and the others are doing here? Reading only?

          Galing ang comment mo. @Caliphman…I hear you!

  24. 123
    baycas says:

    @raissa,

    I was addressing you in some comments strewn out below but got no replies from you.

    If Sen. Pia Cayetano et al is to be believed (which you chose not to pending the necessary documents you “fished” from them) the Senate Journal of January 24, 2012 bears them out as being truthful.

    Sen. Angara was reading into the Record what was already agreed upon by the Body as INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS then. The recital of these Individual Amendments was enumerated in the Journal of that day as bulleted list with own page numbers and of the font size smaller than specific REMARKS and specific AMENDMENTS by some members of the Senate.

    On Page 876 of the said Journal, Sen. Guingona interrupted Sen. Angara first…

    REMARKS OF SENATOR GUiNGONA

    At this juncture, Senator Guingona expressed concern that the definition of cybersex smacked of prior restraint and he feared that this would violate the Constitution.

    Senator Angara stated that the Committee did not intend to impose any prior restraint. He appealed to the Body to first hear the individual amendments and after which, the Committee could go back to Senator Guingona’s query.

    Note here that Sen. Angara appealed not to be interrupted as he recited the already agreed upon INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS into the Senate Record in Open Session (akin to what they were doing during the impeachment trial: decisions done in caucus were read into the Senate Record in Open Court).

    Sen. Angara then resumed the reading only to be interrupted by another senator. Same Page 876 of the said Journal states in between bulleted items…

    REMARKS OF SENATOR CAYETANO (P)

    Senator Cayetano (P) requested that she be given time to make sure that the bill’s definition of child pronography is aligned with that of RA 9775.

    Senator Angara explained that the particular provision was amended upon the request of Senator Cayetano (P) so that there will be no conflict with the definition of child pornography on the bill and that of RA 9775.

    Cognizant of Sen. Angara’s appeal to let him finish his recitation of the Individual Amendments first before allowing remarks from colleagues, Sen. Pia Cayetano nonetheless interrupted Sen. Angara just to stress what she believes a very important thing. She was given time.

    After which, Sen. Angara resumed his reading into the Record of the Individual Amendments (numbering 44 in all). The end of the recitation was noted at Page 878. It is also where we can read, as promised at the end of the recitation, Sen. Angara’s answer to Sen. Guingona’s query.

    So, @raissa, unless you can prove that Sen. Pia Cayetano indeed introduced the amendments you so clearly attributed to her in the blog post above, Sen. Pia Cayetano is believable and the January 24, 2012 Senate Journal does not lie on her.

  25. 122

    I thought all along that the Upper and Lower Houses of Congress breeds crocodiles. I am wrong, but there is something more sinister and threatening which I thought have gone extinct: DINOSAURS.

    Dinosaurs are those that I term to people who are afraid to touch a cellphone or a computer and I believe now we have a nation of 24 and 211 Tyranosaurus Rexes in the Senate and Congress. What a sad chapter for a country who tries to be an IT heavyweight in SE Asia.

  26. 121

    Call for Donation

    Folks, we, the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA), need your help for our Supreme Court TRO petition and to keep our campaign going.

    We need to raise 30,000 pesos (20k filing fee, 10k other expenses, like printing, photocopying, etc.; lawyers are volunteering their time / walang bayad / pro bono) to file the said petition on Monday, Oct 8.

    Kahit maliit na halaga ay napakalaking tulong na po noon sapagkat napakarami nating nagsusulong ng ating adhikain.

    Please visit => http://www.astigtayo.com/Thread-Call-for-Petitioners-Cybercrime-Prevention-Act-of-2012-RA-10175

  27. 120
    Parekoy says:

    @Johnny Lin soliciting a way to choose who to vote among the candidates, here is my 2cents:

    Let’s have an analogy that these Politicians are parasites inside a Filipino malnourised child, with ribs protruding, eyes bulging, and its belly disproportionately inflated like a balloon on a tiny frame.

    We need to clarify that there are good parasites a bad ones.

    Say we categorize them into three:

    1. Good Parasite-Lactobacillus, which helps the body to digest and harvest the nutrients from the food.

    2. Bad Parasite – Abdominal Tapeworm (BULATE sa Tiyan ), which sucks and eats most of the nutrients from the food.

    3. Worst Parasite – Brain Tapeworm (BULATE sa Utak), which can cause paralysis and eventual death.

    So I propose to do a triage to save ths Filipino child from these Parasites.

    1. First, Get rid of the worst Parasite, BULATE sa Utak

    2. Retain and add more Good parasites, Lactobacillus.

    3. Choose a bad parasite that can be MUTATED to a benign parasite (BULATE sa Tiyan)

    I will place some names in the category of Parasites as seed, and everybody can hel us populate the categories.

    1. BULATE sa Utak

    -Sotto
    -Enrile
    -Honasan
    -Binay
    -Estrada/Ejercito
    -Mitos Magsaysay

    2. Lactobacillus

    -Poe -Llamanzares
    -Hontiveros
    -Aquino
    -Trillanes
    -Casino
    -Pimentel
    -Ramon Magsaysay

    3. BULATE sa Tiyan

    -Escudero
    -Legarda
    -Angara
    -Maceda (My suspicion is that if elected he will try to leave a good legacy to vindicate his name– I think he will side with the Filipino People. my justification is that he has an appointment to the Lord anytime, so kailangan ng maghugas…)

    -Cayetano?- mukhang dalawang isip ako rito, not a good example of siblings in the Senate. Too much power is dangerous, bumalik na lang ang isa sa kanila sa local, para hwg naman tayong magmukhang tanga na we are voting against our interest. Similar sa kapatid ni Jinggoy.

    Please help to categorize these PARASITES so that this Filipino Malnourished child can have a respite from eating away his body.

    Salamat po…

    • 120.1
      clementejak says:

      Lets this be clear to all readers when using the word “parasites”

      Center for Disease Control (CDC) defines parasite as; A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. Therefore, in a proper context there can never be a good parasite/s.

      When we equate our politicians as parasites none of them will be good.

      • 120.1.1
        Parekoy says:

        http://blog.energeticnutrition.com/2009/10/probiotics-and-intestinal-parasites/

        http://health.wikinut.com/The-human-body-s-good-parasites/1fr3-s8j/

        These are just some of the links that say there are good parasites in our body.

        So I’m not going to split hairs with this one. It is about Triage and how to save the Filipino Malnourished Child, which is a metaphor on how to save our deteriorating political system.

        Appreciate fact checking that you did though.

        • 120.1.1.1
          Johnny Lin says:

          The link author is deceitful.

          Upon glancing, “good parasites” is enclosed with parenthesis and categorized them as mutualists. However, initial description of intestinal mutualists is bacteria.

          Sorry, did not finish reading because the concept is defective. To the uninformed, it might fascinating and believable.

      • 120.1.2
        vander anievas says:

        parasite will drain its host of all energy and nutrients. so, clementejak is correct.
        if i may add, bacteria have the good and the bad.
        likewise, worms have good and bad also..
        virus are all bad.

        • 120.1.2.1

          PARASITES, these authors and signatories of the cybercrime law?
          Is That NOT being too kind and generous or being clueless?
          Look what I said weeks ago:

          “AT THE MOMENT this posting is corny but should not be stupid as life and the law proceeds into the future. Cyber-libel part of the law as it falls in the realm of free speech and reason Will be time tested as an evil versus good struggle where many combatants will get hurt or be demolished. If it does not become a dead law. All the authors of the law and their descendants if they are motivated by evil designs to protect or abet their evil deeds will somehow be the firsts to get the backlash and karmic payback.

          Cyber-libel law will lead to more inventive ways of exposing, castigating and shaming evil-doers WITHOUT NAMING THEM. It will be WORST and BRUTAL for Public officials and politicians under investigations NOT BECAUSE THEY had been named by newspapers and other media. CYBERSPACE, because of the cyber-libel law will become the extra terrestrial space sans borders of never ending FIESTA for nasty or even evil blind items (about people which anyhow everybody knows who anyway).

          They will not be named by the righteous but will be given coded names unfit even to heinous criminals or predator animals. THEY WILL HAVE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES (these parasites?), admit and prove to the court and the interested public that indeed, they are the persons alluded to as octopus, sharks, crocodiles and snakes, for example [parasites]. As lawyers often invoke: The law might be harsh even to the complainant, but it is the law. Even if it is a nuclear stink bomb. “

    • 120.2
      gil G says:

      i like your analogy @parekoy, pero wala bang grupo ng multi-vitamin para naman pagkatapos maneutralize yong mga bulate sa tiyan ay maumpisahan nang malagyan ng lakas at sigla ang malnourished na Filipino child?

      • 120.2.1
        Parekoy says:

        @gil G

        Tayong mga Netizens ang multi-vitamins!

        Saka pwede ring Combatrin, peron agip lang yung mga BULATE sa Tiyan at hindi kaya yong mga BULATE sa Utak. Kailangan maoperahan.

    • 120.3
      Johnny Lin says:

      Kudos to your effort for coming up with this analogy. On the other hand a med tech student will easily recognize that you do not have much background knowledge of living organisms.

      Lactobacillus is a bacteria, not parasite. Tapeworm is indeed a bad parasite but it could not be mutated to a good parasite, no such thing since parasite by definition is existing thru reliance from others or host. In the brain, the deadliest organism would be a virus as in West Nile virus.

      Beg to disagree with Maceda. He is more of a virus that has mutated to be immuned from any form of vaccine. Kind of virus that does not matter anymore which organ it settles on, it’s very infectious causing sickly feelings immediately.

      Your list has incomplete names from both parties and independents.

      • 120.3.1
        Parekoy says:

        @johnny please visit the links for justification of Lactovacillus as good parasite. Kahit ako noong una ay hindi naniniwala pero may back-up din sa mga sites sa internet.

        Si Maceda kasi mukhang benign virus na pwedeng bumaligtad at sumuporta sa tuwid na daan. Baka gusto ring sumulat ng Libro ala Enrile. Gusto kong mabasa yong allegations ng pag cross dress nya at kulay ng lipstick with John Osmena. :-)

        I was trying to choose lang sa mga tumatakbo, so si Biay ay siempre yung anak, same with Enrile na si Jackie, si Cayetano yung mukhang totoy, Angara yung anak na british educated, si Pimentel eh yung dating ex ni Zubiri (kalaban)

        Kung pwede nga lang na may ma-adopt tayo na galing sa ibang partido na hindi aling sa Admin saka UNa na balia natin ay para sa Tuwid na Daan ay ok ako. Sayang si Erin Tanada, may prinsipyo kasi pero mukhang nabanas yung mga malapit ki PNoy dahil masyadong independent minded-mana, sa Lolo.

        Figure of speech lang ang parasite, maganda kasing pakinggan pag nakakabit sa politiko. Kaya may clarification sa bawat isa. Meaning may Bulate na ayo panahon pa ni Macoy, dumami pa nga…

        • 120.3.1.1
          Johnny Lin says:

          @parekoy
          Dont get me wrong about your opinion on Maceda. I am only offering a different opinion. cant categorized him as benign anymore since he had existed, discovered explored, investigated, exploited, transplanted, reinvented and rejected in longevity. There is no such benign virus, only deadly. He he he.

          In the strict terminology of living organisms, bacteria are never parasites. Under simpe English description of a word, “parasite” might have been used for lack or absence of a synonym. Yet it does not mean that lactobacillus is classified also under parasites in scientific nomenclatures, unless there is a new accepted classification like “homorganism (homosexual)

        • 120.3.1.2
          Coco says:

          These politicians are all biological organism mainly living from taxpayers money. Thereforefor me as a layman the word parasite is quite well chosen.

          Some give more back than they take, directly or indirectly, some are more or less neutral, but the bad ones just take billions without returning anything except some meager gifts in election times.

          • 120.3.1.2.1
            Parekoy says:

            @coco

            Tumpak!

            @johnny i agree with you about Maceda, that is why I’m soliciting opinions so we an improve our choices.

            • Johnny Lin says:

              agree with the use in general term of parasites relating to Philippine politicians, thus clarifying with translation notation “bulate” would have cleared the issue. If done that way there would have been no need for Clementejack and I elucidating scientific nomenclatures of parasites to avoid confusion by layreaders.

              I was surprised too, Jamby was not included in your good parasites.

              • Parekoy says:

                I don’t think Madrigal can add value in the senate, but I don’t think she was one then, mayaman pa sya noon. Naubos na ata dahil sa gastos sa eleksyon. I think we need a wild card from the less known candidates para test case kung pwede manalo ang isang kandidato na wala sa Admin o UNa pero dahil sa suppot ng Netizens y maprop-up ang chances.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Appreciate your candor.

                In my other posting below, I noted Jamby as fiscalizer, being unattached to corruption, hates corruption and courage to expose publicly the evildoers is a plus plus in senate especially Blue Ribbon committee. Ala Lacson, but she has the “wealthy name” credential to back up her “expose”

                What she did to GMA and Villar in understanding abuse of positions to gain business advantage is example of her “no holds barred” principle.

        • 120.3.1.3
          Johnny Lin says:

          Parekoy
          Do you honestly believe that Maceda will write in his memoir that “lipstick” rumor?

          Enrile wrote in his memoir the women of Ver but not his own romantic interludes.

          You are well informed with that dynasty litany. Wish under Pacquiao it would have been under “social climbing dynasty”

          that Pimentel dynasty clarification of yours “stepsister ni PNoy. I understand “stepsister” part.

          but “ni PNoy” puzzles me. Are you talking like “vice Ganda/BB Ganda” or Jinggoy/JV identity? He he he

          • 120.3.1.3.1
            Parekoy says:

            @johnny

            The stepsister is just to remind the voter that Koko’s Dad was the lone politician, who believed that Cory can bring down Marcos Regime bynunning for president. Aquilino is so close to Cory that there were biro then na ‘oy so close sila’ but it was nothing. @ being a sister, I think PNoy is barako, but Korina can attest to it since meron din silang pinagsamahan. Si Koko ay bina-blind item na ‘sister’, (i don’t have anything against gays, in fact I have a gay brother) and for verification, pwede raw kindatan ni JV at pag may ibang ningning ang mata ay baka maconfirm :-)

            The reader usually needs a breather withnall these technical and legalese, kaya I contributed my opinions ala satyrical.

    • 120.4
      springwoodman says:

      The three proposed categories are all right except for terminology. Just rename them to:

      1. Outs – Should not be voted absolutely.
      2. Ins – Should be voted in absolutely; at least a minimum of 8 should be agreed on.
      3. Possibles – May be voted in but should be ranked according to the least evil; individuals may have their own rankings.

      • 120.4.1
        springwoodman says:

        Parekoy’s initial 7 recommendations can form the core of the Magic 8. Just add Escudero?

        • 120.4.1.1
          Parekoy says:

          @springwoodman

          You can add him. What i wrote is an opinion and we can even change the composition as the development of the issue of whether they repeal the libel provisions. Please feel free to propose your composition of the triage.

          My issue with these three adopted senators is that they should really be principled and take a stand. Hwg mamangka sa dalawang ilog dahil nakatutok ang taumbayan. Under probation sila kumbaga. Chiz doing a mea culpa is a good start, pero status coup pa rin at nandyan ang libel provision, so they have not delivered yet.

          • 120.4.1.1.1
            springwoodman says:

            @Parekoy

            Thanks. Just to clarify, I wasn’t proposing Escudero; I was asking. Reviewing Johnny’s remarks, he seems to prefer Madrigal. So Escudero goes to the Possbiles basket.

            While I’m clarifying, I might as well question whether Trillianes should be within the Magic 8. Perhaps on the basis of helping unseat Enrile?

            I would put Maceda in the Out basket. Your reason was the possibility that he might make amends because of his age. Little chance of that. He would just write a book like Enrile.

  28. 119
    springwoodman says:

    Off topic. Here’s an article on the possibility of a male contraceptive pill from Australia. Aussies, like Ian Thorpe, are know for their swimming prowess. Now they may be known for developing a pill that makes sperms incapable of swimming. Go figure.

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/sperm-stunner-could-lead-to-male-pill-20121006-2761r.html

    • 119.1
      vander anievas says:

      hahaha, aantayin ko ang availability niyan. palagay ko ay iyan ang makakalutas ng problema natin sa dynasticism ng bansa…

    • 119.2
      Johnny Lin says:

      In the Philippines the experiment should be on wings, not tails or fins, as in political butterflies.

      He he he

  29. 118
    Bayonic says:

    The Rolling Stones sang ” You can’t always get what you want ” ……

    We wanted Freedom Of Information Bill…. What we got is the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

    This piece by Raissa just demonstrates more than ever …. That we really need FOI.

  30. 117
    Pedrito says:

    raissa, shouldn’t your title read, …brought to you by 7 senators, 12 congressmen and one president? the one who signed this into law should not be spared of the blame.

    • 117.1
      raissa says:

      Yes, you’re right.

    • 117.2
      baycas says:

      @Pedrito,

      How about the watchdog of the government?

      Will you spare them too?

      • 117.2.1
        vander anievas says:

        lol…:)

        • 117.2.1.1
          baycas says:

          @vander,

          December 2011 and January 2012 are Corona impeachment peak months.

          The media, sotto speak, was left sleeping in the noodle house…

          • 117.2.1.1.1
            baycas says:

            Oops, that was:

            Ang media, gaya nang karaniwang sabi, ay nakatulog sa pansitan.

            • curveball says:

              hindi nakatulog sa pansitan kasi busy ang lahat sa impeachment eh. parang na-salihan ng salisi gang

              • baycas says:

                Pero bawa’t haus, sa ibaba at sa itaas, may nakatutok na taga-media na miembro ng mga media outfit.

                Gising lang sila sa kung saan sigurado ang benta ng balita. Sa ibang balita nakatulugan na…

              • vander anievas says:

                @baycas,
                oo nga, nakatulog sa pansitan…
                the print media, let’s admit, is more inclined in a news that will sell. or a title twisted to be salable.
                this insertion is very salable at talagang naisagawa na almost perfect o perfect na nga kasi naisabatas na.
                in those grueling days, the impeachment was really the apple of all eyes and ears. at sinamantala iyan ng LOLO ng salisi gang…:)

              • baycas says:

                Tumpak kayo ni @curveball, @vander.

                Salisi gang struck while everyone was asleep.

    • 117.3
      Parekoy says:

      It shows na talagang kahit na papaano ay protective ang site na ito kay PNoy dahil binigyan nya tayo ng pagkakataaon na umasa na seryoso sya sa Daan na Matuwid. Pero sabit si PNoy dito at ang slant pa natin sa CPM ay dahil sa mga legal staff ni PNoy ang pumalpak at nakalusot ang libel provision. Pero sa recent official statements ni PNoy na i-retain ang libel, mukhang agrabyado ang mga tumutulong sa Matuwid na Daan. Handicapped tayo masyado kung yung inaasahan natin na kakampi at Tatay ang nagbuwis buhay para sa maibalik ang ating freedom of expression ay sya rin pala ang mag pirma at i-justify ang pagsikil sa ating kalayaan sa pagtatalakay sa Internet.

      Sana ma realized ni PNoy ang tulong ng mga Netizens sa pagsuporta sa kanyang Daang Matuwid. Uunahin nya pa bang maki apid sa mga Villarroyo at itakwil ang mga tunay nyang kakampi sa kanyang programa na walang hinihinging kapalit?

  31. 116
    Jan says:

    Both chambers of congress keep a record of their proceedings. The records are more detailed than the journal. In fact, they contain a transcription of everything said on the floor by every lawmaker. If you want to identify which senator or congressman introduced or inserted what provision to the bill, it is the records that you should check. Perhaps a copy of the records of the senate proceedings is what Sen. Cayetano was referring to when she said she’ll send you documents to prove she wasn’t responsible for the insertion of the take down provision.

  32. 115
    Mel says:

    Case Study touching on Internet/Online materials (commentaries):

    pull quote –

    “It added that Valino “only made ‘innuendos,’ but failed to provide direct evidence and presented only internet/online materials without any evidence to support or confirm his story.”

    Comelec junks case vs Kris Aquino, Boy Abunda

    By Tina G. Santos
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    October 6, 2012 | 6:27 pm

    MANILA, Philippines–Citing lack of merit, the Commission on Elections has dismissed the election offense case filed against television hosts Kris Aquino and Boy Abunda who were accused of using their programs to promote the candidacy of President Benigno Aquino in 2010.

    “The instant case is bereft of such facts and circumstances that would excite in our minds the belief that herein respondents are guilty of committing an election offense. Wherefore, premises considered, the instant complaint … is hereby dismissed for lack of merit,” the Comelec said in a 20-page resolution.

    Apart from Kris, Mr. Aquino’s youngest sister, and Abunda, also named defendants in the petition filed by Elpidio Valino were ABS-CBN executives Eugenio Lopez, Maria Rosario “Charo” Santos-Concio and Ramon Osorio.

    Valino claimed the five unduly favored the candidacy of Mr. Aquino, in 2010.

    He said the television hosts and the network executives violated Sections 80 (Election Campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period) and 261 (Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device and other forms of coercion) of the Omnibus Election Code Section 6.6 (Equal access to media, time and space) of the Republic Act 9006 of the Fair Election Acts.

    However, the Comelec upheld the recommendation of its law department to dismiss the case after finding “no probable cause” to hold the defendants for trial on such violations.

    It added that Valino “only made ‘innuendos,’ but failed to provide direct evidence and presented only internet/online materials without any evidence to support or confirm his story.

    In his complaint, Valino said that on September 9, 2009, Kris had expressed support to the presidential bid of her brother by initiating fund raising by selling her house and started campaigning for him on her television shows on ABS-CBN.

    On October 27, 2009, Valino alleged that Kris and Abunda had conceptualized Mr. Aquino’s music video, which was aired three days later.

    He added that on February 10, 2010, Kris appeared as a judge in the talent show “Pilipinas Got Talent” and “wittingly used the program as a jumping board for the provincial campaign” of her brother.

    Valino also claimed that Kris had committed an election offense when she announced and thanked the Iglesia ni Cristo for supporting her brother on her Twitter account on May 5, 2010.

    On the other hand, Valino accused the ABS-CBN management of “favoring the candidacy of Mr. Aquino over other candidates as shown by its ‘frequent and numerous coverage’ of him.”

    He also noted that the network did not ask Kris to take a leave or resign during the campaign to prevent her from using the television station.

    But the Comelec, on the issue of Kris’ Twitter messages, ruled that Valino failed to produce any witness or evidence that Kris’ acts “coerced, unduly influenced, threatened, intimidated or defrauded any person into voting for her brother.”

    Valino likewise failed to prove that Kris and Abunda did not resign or take a leave of absence during the campaign period, the poll body said.

    Further, the Comelec ruled that violation of Sec. 80 of OEC is comprised of two elements–the election campaign and the candidates–which, it claimed, are both not present in Valino’s petition.

    The resolution showed that Mr. Aquino filed his certificate of candidacy on November 29, 2009 or after the airing of the music video.

    It also cited the decriminalization of premature campaigning in Supreme Court ruling on Penera vs Comelec case.

    “While we wail and lament its demise, Sec. 80 is dead and remains entombed in the world of lifeless until the day of its resurrection … From Nov. 29, 2009 to February 8, 2010, he was not yet a candidate. President Aquino became a candidate only on February 9 which is the start of the campaign period when election campaign is no longer prohibited,” the Comelec added.

    Source: entertainment inquirer net/61576/comelec-junks-case-vs-kris-aquino-boy-abunda

  33. 114
    Johnny Lin says:

    Latest News:

    GMA back in VMMC hospital after warrant of arrest was issued

    Manoling Morato admitted at St Luke’s hospital after being placed in custody of NBI

    Senator Honasan has retracted sport on Cybercrime bill.

    Miriam Defensor claims Cybercrime law is unconstitutional.

    Escudero,Legarda, Bongbong, Pia Cayetano, Congressman Angara amenable to amending Cybercrime law.

    Only in the Philippines.
    On issuance of warrant of arrest, REturn to the hospital or REtire to secluded place and hide.
    When discovered to be looney for voting on a bill without thinking, REtract, REmorse, REtrench, REcoup, REvote.

    RE – word flavor of the season had replaced impeachment.

    Its always RE-fun in the Philippines!
    He he he

    • 114.1
      Mel says:

      ’tis the season to REhash for REvotes.

      Once REturned to Office, REgrets naman ang taong bayan.

    • 114.2
    • 114.3
      gayyem says:

      @Johnny Lin, it turns out, they’re just like, an ordinary “mamamayan”: their hindsight is sharper than their foresight.”. Which should not be the case, them being elected by the people with the assumption that they possessed “sharper foresight” for the betterment of things in our poor country.

    • 114.4
      pinay710 says:

      talagang trend ngayon ng mga nako convict na mga naging opisyales ng ating pamahalaan na sa mga hospital ang kanilang “asylum” paghinuhuli na. samantalang ang mga pagkaraniwang tao napaghihinalaan pa lang nasa likod na ng rehas itong mga opisyales nasa ibabaw ng malambot na kama at maginahwa pa ang kalagayan . DIOS NA MAAWAIN AT MAHABAGIN BAKIT NAMAN NAPAKA WALANG KATARUNGAN NAMAN. KAIBA ANG GINAWA MONG PAGTATANGKILIK SA MGA NAGSAMANTALA SA AMING BAYAN AT SA PANGKARANIWANG TAO NA ANG KASALANAN AY ANG PAGIGING MAHIRAP AT WALANG LAKAS NA IPAGLABAN ANG KARAPATAN/?NASAAN ANG KATARUNGAN?nakakasakit talaga ng damdamin ang nangyayari sa ating bayan. kaya tuloy ang iba nating kababayan ay umaayon na lang sa agos ng buhay at ayaw nang makialam dahil sa ang katarungan ay para lang sa mga may inpluensya at may salapi.

      • 114.4.1
        vander anievas says:

        @pinay710,
        sang-ayon ako sa iyo…
        iyan ay isa lang sa maraming karumaldumal na nangyayari sa bansa natin. kawawa ang mga walang salapi o impluwensya. garapalan ang pagpapakita nila ng kanilang kabulukan. ipinamumukha nila sa ating lahat ang kanilang walang takot na pagyurak sa hustisya ng ating bansa. nangyayari ito dahil pinapayagan itong mangyari ng ating hudikatura, ng ating ehekutibo, ng ating kongreso at ng mga mamamayan na rin.
        ang mga hindi kanais-nais na mga gawaing ganyan ang lalong magbibigay gatong sa init ng ating pagnanasa na walisin ang kanilang kaimbihan.
        kaya’t lalo dapat tayong magkaisa upang masuportahan nating ang mga programa ni Pnoy at ng kanyang mga gabinete. napakarami pang dapat asikasuhin. itutok natin ang ating marubdob na hangaring maipakita sa kasalukuyang pamunuan ang ating pagsuporta sa matuwid na daan…

    • 114.5
      Bayonic says:

      Let’s REmember all their names come election day and next time they run for public office.

      Name REcall works both ways.

  34. 113
    Kaeskuela ni CJ says:

    Raissa,

    In the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 26, paragraph 2, it is provided that:

    “ 2. No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.” (Underscoring supplied)

    It seems that in your report of your interviews with some congressmen, there is no mention at all of the required ”printed copies in its final form” having been read by any of them.

    Perhaps we could check if these copies were indeed distributed to them three (3) days before its passage. If otherwise, the law may be challenged (by the concerned congressmen, or senators) as legally infirm, not only formally but in substance – lack of “due process”. Their intervention in the TRO hearing may help convince the justices.

    • 113.1
      Kaeskuela ni CJ says:

      In the “Legislative Process” outlined in the website of the House of Representatives, on the portion re Conference Committee, it says:

      3. The Conference Committee prepares a report to be signed by all the conferees and the Chairman.
      4. The Conference Committee Report is submitted for consideration/approval of both Houses. No amendment is allowed.

      In the last portion of your exposition you quoted Casiño referring to the Bicameral Committee, thus:

      “It can do anything,” Congressman Casiño said. “That’s the Third House. The weakness is that whatever the result of the Bicam, the House members are no longer told. We only know what the Bicam version contained after the President signs it into law.”

      It appears that the cited steps have not been followed in the case of subject law. Perhaps such non-observance of their own legislative procedure may be considered as a “substantial” defect enough to invalidate the Cybercrime law.

  35. 112
    Mel says:

    Technical Knock Out, or momentarily a Knock Down

    Miriam predicts SC will strike down Cybercrime Prevention Act as unconstitutional

    By: Karl John C. Reyes
    InterAksyon com
    October 6, 2012 3:15 PM

    The online news portal of TV5

    MANILA, Philippines — Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago predicted on Saturday that the Supreme Court will strike down as unconstitutional the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act, which she said uses language that is over-broad and too vague.

    Santiago, a former trial court judge, said when she attended postdoctoral studies on Internet law at Harvard University, cybercrimes and the temptation for governments to impose online censorship had already been anticipated.

    “Prior censorship violates the over-breadth doctrine and the vagueness doctrine in constitutional law,” she said at the inter-university conference on business and economics at Adamson University, where she was keynote speaker.

    “Under the over-breadth doctrine, since the law is so broadly written that it deters free expression, then the Supreme Court will strike it down on its face, because of its chilling effect,” Santiago said.

    Under the vagueness doctrine, on the other hand, the law provides for punishment but without specifying what conduct is punishable, which violates the constitutional guarantee to due process.

    Besides, Santiago said, on its face, the Constitution, through Section 4 of the Bill of Rights, provides for absolute freedom of speech when it says, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

    “Notice that the constitutional language is absolute,” she stressed even as she acknowledged that, “jurists have tried to balance the absolute language with vital social needs.”

    The Senator said that in constitutional law, freedom of speech occupies a so-called preferred position.

    “The preferred position of free speech in the Constitution means that any law limiting free speech should be presumed to be either neutral or presumed to be unconstitutional. There is no presumption of constitutionality,” she said.

    Santiago identified the provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act she said are too broad or too vague and, thus, unconstitutional, as:

    - Sec. 4 (4) – includes libel in the crimes punishable
    - Sec. 5. – punishes a person who aids or abets the commission of a cybercrime, even if it is only through Facebook or Twitter;
    - Sec. 6. – adopts the entire Penal Code, if the crime is committed by the use of information technology but makes the penalty one degree higher
    - Sec. 7 – makes the same crime punishable, both under the Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act, thus violating the guarantee against double jeopardy
    - Sec. 19 – authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict access to computer data found to be prima facie in violation of the law, the so-called “takedown clause”

    During the period of amendments for the then bill, Santiago said she managed to include the requirement of a court order before data, other than traffic data, can be collected, seized or disclosed; and for search and seizure.

    However, during voting on the measure, she was absent because of hypertension.

    Santiago said a properly crafted anti-cybercrime law would be effective in preventing many cases of fraud, citing the case of the “I love you” virus, which was created by a Filipino and which attacked and destroyed data in an estimated 45 million computers, causing some $10 billion in damage in 2000.

    SOURCE: www interaksyon com/article/44894/miriam-predicts-sc-will-strike-down-cybercrime-prevention-act-as-unconstitutional

    • 112.1
      leona says:

      Walang “counting” dito! When the gavel strikes it down, it is finished!

    • 112.2
      vander anievas says:

      are we gonna believe what she says? insinuation or sort?

      • 112.2.1
        Mel says:

        No official word if she filed her seat to be vacant soon.
        The COC deadline was last Friday.

        Is she really or is she not leaving for ICC?

        She may not leave at all in spite of her ICC appointment.

        The downside of the netizens’ appeal to ICC against her appointment during her lackluster and erratic performance during the SC CJ R Corona Impeachment.

      • 112.2.2
        leona says:

        I don’t believe …never will I believe…a fool of me to believe…ano ako GAGO? Let her be!

    • 112.3
      Bayonic says:

      Pardon my Hiligaynon …. But WTF did she not object or correct any of these flaws when she was itting on the Bicam Conference ?

      • 112.3.1
        Mel says:

        :lol: That’s a good question @Bayonic.

        She was recorded late arriving after the roll call.

        • 112.3.1.1
          Mel says:

          erra

          She was recorded late arriving after the roll call.

          Senators Arroyo, Defensor Santiago, Drilon, Guingona, Osmefia and Pangilinan arrived after the roll call.

      • 112.3.2
        leona says:

        Sinple! She couldn’t! Why? The others will ask “What are you? Who are you? Are you disturbing our waters? Stop it!”

        So, quiet na lang. Leave and get sick! Tomorrow, I will speak and tell all the idiots I got sick. So, I didn’t know what really happened after I left. That’s my true story.

        Idiots will be elected by idiots also! That’s the fact!

  36. 111
    kalakala says:

    motto of those building a political dynasty: WE WANT TO SERVE… yes DaY NASTY of service to the FILIPINO PEOPLE

    • 111.1
      Mel says:

      wrong, mistake.

      Political Dynasty Families’ agenda is simple –

      We want you to serve US, pay US and enrich US.
      To US is your Undying Service till death do you part.

      Oras na, panahon na para mag raissap ang sambayanang Filipino.

      • 111.1.1
        kalakala says:

        you are right mel (@107.1 mel)

        kaya nga: yes DaY ( short cut for inday)… N-A-S-T-Y of service to/for all of us

        • 111.1.1.1
          Mel says:

          @kalakala, hindi maganda aminin pero TUTUO. :shock:

          Marami din ba ang buboto sa kamag-anak incorporated? OO :sad:

          Tama rin ang pasabi ni “andrew lim says: October 6, 2012 at 9:44 am” :mad:

          • 111.1.1.1.1
            kalakala says:

            @ mel & “andrew lim says: October 6, 2012 at 9:44 am” , kamag-anak incorporated – i can relate this to a sales rep; selling company’s product, he/she is representing the company he/she’s working. kaya malakas ang loob ng mga employee (this refers to their family members) ng kamag-anak incorporated. as they are banking on the name of their incorporation and product lines (Day NASTY services, agimat, among anothers). at talagang tama “@ andrew lim says: October 6, 2012 at 9:44 am”

            now, am crossing my fingers na sana mayroon ng result iyong case ng ex-mayor ng makati so the electorate can have a clear picture kung anong ibig sabihin ng anak ni binay..

            • erwin says:

              @ kalakala,,

              Kaya ang mga Binays takot kay Heidi…kaya hanggang ngayon nakabiting pa ang kaniyang confirmation ….di ba? Maraming mga trapos takot na takot kay Heidi at kina Alan at Raissa…

              Sabi nga ni idol Johnny Lin….hehhehehehehe…

      • 111.1.2
        Johnny Lin says:

        He he he

        • 111.1.2.1
          Mel says:

          Once in a blue moon and ganang reply. :smile:

          Its back to the old idiom with political patronage too.
          It’s Them or US.

          ellen tordesillas wrote about it quite sarcastically in her web page –

          “Campaigning is campaigning.”

          Thanks, Secretary Lacierda for this statement: “Campaigning is campaigning. There [These] were words that were exchanged during that time but we move on for the sake of the country.”

          At least now, we know how to take your words, the words of President Aquino and all politicians in the coming campaign for the May 2013 elections.

          Many of us were not wise enough to have taken your and your partymates’ words seriously in the 2010 elections. That’s a valuable lesson learned.

          Lacierda made the above statement when asked about the inclusion of Cynthia Villar, wife of Senator Manny Villar, in the administration 2013 senatorial ticket.

          The inclusion of Cynthia Villar in the admin ticket is a result of the coalition with the Nacionalista Party for the 201s elections. Aside from Villar, the two other NP representatives in the still to be named admin ticket are re-electionists Alan Peter Cayetano and Antonio Trillanes IV.

          It must be recalled that during the 2010 presidential campaign, the most vicious battle was between Aquino and Villar (who ended up third, behind former President Joseph Estrada).

          Aquino’s “Tuwid na Daan” slogan made a dig with the C-5 issue, with a lot of help from Sen. Jamby Madriga.But what really did Villar in was the Villaroyo tag that Aquino’s propagandists effectively pinned on Villar.

          After the election, nothing came out of those issues. Not only was the alleged irregularities of the C-5 project forgotten, it has in fact been pursued by the Aquino administration under its Public-Private Partnership program.

          Villaroyo? Has that ever been raised after the election?

          Lacierda said “Senator Villar has been supportive—correct me if I’m wrong—of some of the admin measures in the Senate…You’re looking at the Nacionalista Party and who will be there. You’re looking at Alan Cayetano who stood for good governance… Party principles transcend individual differences.”

          Ganun naman pala e.

          We share the disappointment of many of the absence of Quezon Rep. Erin Tañada in the admin senatorial slate.

          Sure, Tañada was not doing well in the surveys but is survey to be-all and end-all of politics?

          Anyway, here’s the administration senatorial slate: Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, Sen. Francis Escudero, Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara, Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Risa Hontiveros, Ramon Magsaysay Jr., Jamby Madrigal, Mary Grace Poe Llamanzares, Sen. Loren Legarda, Rep. Cynthia Villar and Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III.

          The United Nationalist Alliance has only eight candidates with the withdrawal of Joey de Venecia, son of former House Speaker Jose de Venecia, who exposed the anomalous NBN/ZTE deal that incloved Gloria and Mike Arroyo.

          The UNA slate includes Cagayan Rep. Jack Enrile, San Juan Rep. JV Ejercito, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Margarita “Ting-ting” Cojuangco, Ernesto Maceda, Richard Gordon, reelectionist Sen. Gregorio Honasan and Zambales Rep. Mitos Magsaysay.

          Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño, who will be filing today his certificate of candidacy, will run for senator as an independent candidate.

          The beautiful thing about democracy is that everybody is free to dream and run for an elective position. I even see it as an occasion for a redistribution of wealth.

          The people are also free to choose who to vote. I just hope that the people vote wisely.

          Source: www ellentordesillas com/2012/10/02/campaign-lies/#more-20574

          PNoy has now started to compromise too on Kamaganak Inc. (read “Bam Aquino wants cousin Kris to help in his Senate campaign” By Kristine Mangunay
          Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2:26 am | Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012, newsinfo inquirer net/281080/bam-aquino-wants-cousin-kris-to-help-in-his-senate-campaign).

          It’s Them Or US.

          Heck, what has Bam Aquino have to run and potentially be a Senator!?

          Apart from his semblance err Look Alike (black & white) logo of Ninoy Aquino to him, what life’s experience (Occupation: Social Entrepreneur) and public service does the boy have worthy of the Office?

          And the boy’s rallying cry to win office?

          “We will need all the help that we can get from relatives, from friends … all those who became my classmates,” Bam said.

          The fourth generation Paolo ‘Bam’ Benigno Aquino IV does not only have the spectacles to appeal more for visually impaired votes, he could have adopted a “y” or eek to sound alike as Barney.

          As the campaign rolls on with Kris A providing the entertainment, patrons would be looking up and hear –

          Barney – I Love You
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ&feature=plcp

          It is a sure winner, it has 65,920,395 views already.

          The Senate would become a play school next time around. Sad but could be true.

          • 111.1.2.1.1
            chit navarro says:

            I am all for Paolo Benigno Aquino in his candidacy for Senator. At 35 years old, he ahs made his mark in the world for his “SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP” with his “Hapinoy Program” – helping the less marginalized members of society moved to a better life. His MicroVentures Foundation provides a greater avenue sor sari-sari stores owner to improves their plight.

            In 2006, he was awarded as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum and was chosen to be part of Asia Society’s pioneer batch of Asia 21 Fellows also in the same year.

            In 2010, he was chosen as one of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Philippines (TOYM).

            In 2011, The Hapinoy Program won the UN’s Project Inspire Award besting over 400 social enterprises from all over the world.

            In 2011, Bam was named as the Asian Social Entrepreneur of the Year by the World Economic Forum’s Schwab Foundation for Social Enterprises.

            Graduated valedictorian and summa cum laude from Ateneo de Manila University, he became the Chairperson of the National Youth Commission in Feb. 2003 making him the youngest person in Philippine history to head a government agency.

            Despite his proximity to power (nephew of a former President and cousin of our current President), has there been any news about his family (Paul Aquino) being abusive or having enriched themselves during these times?

            Hence, his credentials is NBOT ONLY being a memebr of the Aquino family. In fact, this may become his liability in view of the calls agaisnt political dynasty.

            In my book, BAM AQUINO well deserves to be in the Senate and continue his work in SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUSHIP. Check out how many sari-sari stores are there in the Philippines and you can very well see the grassroots reach of his HAPINOY Program.

            • Ella Tovara says:

              Thank you Chit Navarro for this enlightening article about Bam Aquino. I hope many more of the voters will read this.

              The Philippines would rather have him as a senator than most of those that are running for the senate. Most of them have only their names as their credentials.

              Only in the Philippines!

              Go Bam Aquino go! I hope and pray you will be elected. If you are them I am assured that there is one less trapo in the senate.

              • raissa says:

                I’d like 2 interview him

              • emong says:

                Thanks Raissa.. please do.. para malaman naman natin kung totoo siya.. sa ngayon, number 1 sya sa list ko eh.. :)

                Thanks Chit!!

              • leona says:

                From nothing to …? Sus Ma! How lucky to have a name AQUINO nowadays! And try to get into the carnival hall! Waaaa!

                Inter-related candidates will be saying “We are not building a political dynasty!” What are building then? Family Dynasty? Sam thing! May you all lose!

          • 111.1.2.1.2
            vander anievas says:

            @mel,
            “Heck, what has Bam Aquino have to run and potentially be a Senator!?”
            choose from bam aquino and nancy binay…
            bam has the legacies of ninoy and cory and sooner, pnoy.
            and nancy has her family too…and the hardhitting qualification…”nancy is my daughter” binay said.
            let’s enjoy the fun in the philippines…:)

            • Mel says:

              @vander

              For a Senatorial post? I wouldn’t elect nor vouch for a young “Bam” Benigno Aquino IV. That would be my choice decision between another Senator who may have better skills, legislative work experiences and accomplishments suited for a Senatorial position.

              For a Congress Representative seat, if I were one of his constituents, I may consider “Bam”. But that’s my choice, I’d rather vote for a competent and better candidate among the official line ups for that district. IF BY COMPARISON, Bam Aquino stands out in my criteria, then I may vote for him in a Representative Seat.

              There are scores of many competent filipinos, not only qualified, who are well prepared to do an outstanding Senatorial job in the UPPER HOUSE of Legislation.

              A young with limited or no legislative work experience may be too overly dependent on party political agendas. Not necessarily independent and vocal, passive even. Just a number to bolster party machinery and clout. There will definitely be a learning curve, mentoring, settling… and the like. How he stands out in the campaign lineup? Benigno Aquino is a very popular, embedded name in the psyche of filipino voters. That would save millions of campaign funds just to promote a party candidate.

              What about the fourth (IV) generation namesake holder? Read on…

              In an open Political Dynasty election, a Senatorial selection between Lorenzo “Erin” Reyes Tañada III and Bam Benigno Aquino IV, I would choose “Erin”.

              “Due to term limits (he is on his third consecutive and final term), he is considering a bid to be the third Tañada to be elected in the Senate in the 2013 election.” – Source en wikipedia org/wiki/Lorenzo_Ta%C3%B1ada_III

              Unfortunately, Erin was not selected as part of the LP party Senatorial Candidates. He didn’t choose to run as an independent.

              An informed and educated choice between political dynasty candidates from the three (Erin, Bam & nancy) – I’d go for Erin. Since he is not running, its time to check the other official lineups too. There are 84 senatorial bets that filed their COCs. Minus the Comelec’s nuisance senatorial candidates in due time, it will be very interesting what the purged senatorial list would comprise then.

              Thanks. Just my opinion.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Both of you are entitled to your own opinions.

                Consider the election as an examination, there are 12 answers to one question. There are specific 84 names Iisted as answers. Select the most probable correct answers.

                Unfortunately, Erin is not on the list.

              • Mel says:

                Too early for “… 84 names Iisted as answers.”

                The COMELEC has to sniff thru the list for nuisance candidates. To save time, I’d wait for the official COMELEC Senatorial List.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                84 names or less on final count, is correct.

                What is absolutely correct, Erin is not on the list because he did not file.

                So far the contention is whom to select among the announced documented candidates. Until purged, the list so far stands at 84. This is where I, Vander and probably everyone supports as foundation of discussion. Erin is not a candidate.

                Of course one could also insist and speculate that Comelec might change its mind and entertain new applicants or so what if my preference is not on the Comelec list, this one is my preferred choice compared to those on the list. In that case, there is no common basis for discussion, so I would like to REtreat from the
                fray. Lol

                He he he

              • Mel says:

                There’s also the wildcard position of Sen MDS. There’s still time to declare it vacant should she fly-out to The Hague.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Or one incumbent senator suddenly dies. So on and on….

                Argument based on unknowns or lack of common foundation is difficult to rationalize

              • Mel says:

                What you could also avoid are fallacious arguments, simply based on overarching need to be ahead of the pack. Over confident?

                The official campaign periods and next registration dates?

                - October 31, 2012: Last day for local voters to file applications for registration, transfer of records, reactivation and correction of entries; deadline for overseas Filipinos to file applications for registration or certification as overseas voters

                - February 12, 2013 to May 11, 2013: Campaign period for candidates for senator and for party-list groups

                - March 29, 2013 to May 11, 2013: Campaign period for candidates for the House of Representatives and elective regional, provincial, city and municipal officials

                - April 13, 2013 to May 13, 2013: Casting of votes by overseas voters

                - May 13, 2013: Election day

                Source: Fast facts about the 2013 elections, newsinfo inquirer net/279700/fast-facts-about-the-2013-elections

              • vander anievas says:

                “In an open Political Dynasty election, a Senatorial selection between Lorenzo “Erin” Reyes Tañada III and Bam Benigno Aquino IV, I would choose “Erin”.”
                true. so sad that erin was excluded(?). i will definitely choose him vis-a-vis bam.
                my list of 12 isn’t complete yet and still sorting. i’m convinced that cpmers’ wisdom pouring in this blog will finally get me into the best chosen 12 strong senatoriables sieved through the most potent analytical and reasoning exchanges. and passing thru the criteria being set as standard for the new generation of senators chosen by thinking public. i’m one also of those who want not to vote for the lesser evil.
                i appreciated your view. we are one here in selecting the cream of the crops…

      • 111.1.3
        rejtatel says:

        @Mel
        There you go, you have just coined the word to counteract these shenanigans masquerading as “public servants”… RAISSAp.

        I propose to define RAISSAp as follows:

        1. verb., a peaceful spontaneous uprising by means of the ballot permanently trashing, destroying and obliterating political dynasties actually established, presently being established, and attempted to be established.

        • 111.1.3.1
          Mel says:

          @rejtatel.

          I haven’t given it a thought that far as you proposed as a definition.

          Nagamit etong RAISSAp during the SC CJ Corona impeachment.

  37. 110
    popla says:

    Ask ko lang, what about dun sa facebook account na may nag post sa wall niya.. super related about sa mga activities ko in facebook.. and then after awhile, ng post din ako pang rebat saknya dahil alam kong ako ung tinutukoy niya.. and nirebat din niya ko at maraming ngcomment na mga friends niya na hindi naman alam ung the whole issue… and the last time sa sobrang inis ko.. dinilete ko siya sa fb and and binlock ko siya.. at minessage ko ung friend ko na friend niya na siya ung tinutukoy ko sa post ko.. pwede ba akong makasuhan ng cybercrime if sabihin ng friend ko na friend niya din na siya nga ung tinutukoy ko? please help me! I need answers!!

    • 110.1
      raissa says:

      Bakit ka naman kakasuhan?

      Sino ang magkakaso sa yo?

    • 110.2
      Rolly says:

      Sleep well popla.

    • 110.3
      leona says:

      @popla…Sa ma iksing salita…wala siyang alam kundi galing lang sa “friend” niya na friend mo?
      WALANG KASO yan! Maski walang Cybercrime, sa Penal Code wala rin kaso yan!

      Itong pang isang “answers”…sa susunod, wag kang mag facebook uli ! Ang book na yan ay para sa “Socializing” hindi para “in-fighting!” Kumuha ka ng book para ART OF WAR, by Tsu Mang Tsu. Lahat labanan doon!

      MATULOG KA NA!

  38. 109
    osang says:

    lol to parekoy’s well researched names! It made my day..anyways Raissa thanks for sharing this

  39. 108
    eye says:

    The Cybercrime Law should be trashed completely IF we care at all about the BPO businesses that have uplifted the lives of a lot of our citizens. Confidentiality is an absolute must in this business especially in medical and sales with credit card information … we can kiss them all good-bye if RA 10175 is retained however amended.

    • 108.1
      Isabelle says:

      @gmanews: Atty. JJ Disini: BPO industry was the one really pushing for the cybercrime law | via @ShaiPanela – saw this on twitter last week.

    • 108.2
      Johnny Lin says:

      Cybercrime law is necessary for crimes like identity theft, child sex distribution or sexual crimes, or plain harassment or bullying.

      Dont believe BPO would be affected by creating law against identity theft crime. BPO should in fact support it because it values confidentiality.

  40. 107
    mark says:

    ang cybercrime law ay crafted sa kongreso,
    ipinasa ng senado,
    at pirmado ng pangulo.
    simple lang,
    ito ang trophy natin kay pangulong aquino.

    ang online libel ba ay
    para sa mga cyber bully?
    o para sa mga media?
    sabi nga nila pag tinira mo si gloria, sa malakanyang ka.
    at kung si aquino naman sa kulungan ka na.

  41. 106
    andrew lim says:

    Im compiling a list of excuses and justifications they have given out for political dynasties:

    1. Cayetanos – “reformist” dynasty

    2. Binays – dynasty of service

    Any additions?

    • 106.1
    • 106.2
      springwoodman says:

      4. Bataan Garcias – “dynasty of epal”

      http://beta.taopo.org/isyu/02/27/2012/dynasty-epal

    • 106.3
      Parekoy says:

      Marcoses- kleptocratic dynasty (actually the idols of current political dynasties)

      Aquinos – Martyr dynasty

      Enriles – coup plotter dynasty

      Honasans- alalay dynasty

      Estradas – anak-ng-jueteng dynasty

      Villars – basura swimmers dynasty

      Macedas- basahan dynasty

      Sottos- Xerox dynasty

      Angaras – Kalyo dynasty

      Legarda – geriatricphilia dynasty

      Gordon – Amboy dynasty

      Zubiri – Ampatuan dynasty

      Cojuangco – Babalu dynasty

      Pimentel – StepbrotherniPnoy dynasty

      Escudero -batangbasahan dynasty

      Pacquiaos -pugilistic dynasty, herme(s)tic dynasty

      Casinos-Maoist Dynasty

      Madrigal – Heiress Dynasty

      Hontiveros – Beauty-n-Brains dynasty (in the making)

      Revillas – Agimat-at-akin-ang-Public-Works-Commitee dynasty

      Poe – Blacksmith Dynasty

      (Jun)Magsaysays – My real Guy Dynasty

      (Mitos) Magsaysay – My-not-favorite-in-law dynasty

      Macapagal-Arroyos — HelloGarci dynasty, Plunder Dynasty, The-mother-of-all-scam dynasty

      Defensor-Santiagos— Multi-Personality dynasty

      Trillaneses — Brat-ta-tat Dynasty

      Hagedorns – Seven-Wonders-of-the-World Dynasty, ka-brodko-si-Duterte Dynasty

      Tanadas – Mababa-ratings Dynasty

      Binays – Stallone Dynasty

      Pangilinans-Rectos– Asawa-ako-sikat-Artista-para-sikatnarin Dynasty

      Villafuertes – Family-War-has-some-Advantage Dynasty

      Fuentebellas- Gerrymandering Dynasty

      Osmenas – Chairs (Cheers!) Dynasty man dong

      Abads – True-to-its-namesake Control of Finance Dynasty

      Pinedas – katas-ng-jueteng Dynasty

      Guingonas – Cyberhero Dynasty (We can nominate him for President in 2016, but Binay and Roxas will accuse him of being a British Citizen-a twin of Mr. Bean?)

      Roxases- Padyak Dynasty

      Arroyos- Gra(u)mpy Dynasty

      De Venecias – Pork-Barrel Dynasty

      Ampatuans – Massacre Dynasty

      Singsons – fill in the blanks dynasty (Takot akong martilyohin ang aking manoy, bahala na kayo)

      • 106.3.1
        Joe America says:

        Positively brilliant.

        • 106.3.1.1
          Joe America says:

          Especially “the twin of Mr. Bean” comment. ROFLMAO

        • 106.3.1.2
          Parekoy says:

          Thanks! You are one of the brave ones to put your reactions in writing! I notice that the effect of the libel provision is felt now. A lot of CPMers are reluctant to even write down their opionions when PNoy announce that he would still like to retain the libel provision.

          PNoy is treating us with disservice by offending and ‘mouth-cuffing’ the very important sector who supports him and help expose the sins and wrongdoings of the dirty politicians. Traditional newspapers are owned by conglomerates in the philippines which has its own agenda and can turn down the volume at theor own choosing so as not to offend their patrons, whereas in cyberspace we are free to expose them because most of us are given a voice.

          Our politicians are scared of this medium, they know what happened in Egypt, in Syria, in Libya, which we can definitely attribute as the ‘Facebook Revolution’.

          Because of our free speech in the cyberspace, We can definitelynsay that the Emperor has no clothes!

      • 106.3.2
        leona says:

        You really enticed me NOT TO LIKE what your dynastamic efforts did! See U in dynastamingDOM.

      • 106.3.3
        Parekoy says:

        The libel provisions in the Cybercrime Law is Meteoric at the same time Anti-Meteoric.

        Meteor and meteorite come from space and shower down the earth. Tagaloginn na lang natin: Bato-Bato sa Langit.

        One required trait of a politician shall be having a thick hide, if not get out. You can’t take people’s money and use it to harass them with libel?

        Some politicans might not have known it yet that they already committed cybercrime by ‘Wiring’ money to their accounts. If those are stolen money from the coffers of government or ‘lagay’ money, eventhough how small it is then it can be elevated to plunder because of the ‘one notch higher punishment’ when the crime is committed thru cyberspace. Just a thought….what do you think?

        • 106.3.3.1
          leona says:

          Plunder for more than P50M up is reclusion perpetua…1 degree higher is what?
          Death by cyberlaser penalty! But we haven’t restored death penalty yet…kailan?

          Yan ang sinasabi ko…mag ingat sa gawa-gawa ng batas, baka yun gumagawa ma tamaan when & where there’s a “changing of the guards” like in 2016!

      • 106.3.4
        Johnny Lin says:

        Parekoy

        Pimentel- stepbrother ni PNoy dynasty

        Sino sa kanila? Baka internet libel yan
        He he he

        • 106.3.4.1
          Parekoy says:

          That is the beauty of internet, we can write things in a hodgepodge. We can be serious or seriously satyrical. We might not impute malice, but it boils down to the eyes of the beholder!

          I propose a compromise:

          Retain the libel provisions but make it only applicable to private citizens and non-publicly traded corporations.

          Exemptions to the libel provisions are those articles, blogs and discussions about the politicians, public officials from the Baranggay level up to the presidency, Senators, Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices and employees, Board of Directors to Government Corporations. We need to include showbiz people though since they are mooching for our attentions.

          The wisdom of the exemptions is the good outweighs the bad effect to the greater good of the Filipinos!

          Just wondering…Why is it that a Senator or a Congressman/Congresswoman can say anything when he or she is deliveing a previledge speech in aid to strengthen legislation, while an ordinary Netizen can’t make the same thing in aid to strengthen our government institutions?

          • 106.3.4.1.1
            Parekoy says:

            I don’t know who to attribute this saying:

            “Those who have less in life should have more in law.”

            Who do you think who have more in law, the
            Netizens or these Politicians? Note that a Senator said that he is not answerable to anybody and implies that he is above the law?

            Netizens, we have less in power to criticize these politicians, we do not own newspapers, we do not have legal departments to assess our criticisms are libelous, we do not have the money accumulated by amassing it from pork barrels, advantageous policies and other dirty perks that these politicians have, what we have is the freedom to criticize them in a medium we can afford. And these politicians have the audacity and the temerity to terrorize us with this draconian libel provisions?

            Elementary may dear Watson, find out who has the motive, who is going to gain and you can cath the criminal! In this case the aggressor is playing the victim here to mislead us.

          • 106.3.4.1.2
            Mel says:

            @Parekoy,

            You wrote, “Just wondering…Why is it that a Senator or a Congressman/Congresswoman can say anything when he or she is deliveing a previledge speech in aid to strengthen legislation, while an ordinary Netizen can’t make the same thing in aid to strengthen our government institutions?”

            That’s a misnomer. Of course you can. To be safe, in my opinion, refrain from personal level opinions or comments or “attacks”. Strictly on their work or political commentaries about their work performance, re policy stances and political agendas.

            Unless you have an irrefutable evidence of guilt to prove your exposé at a personal level.

            • Parekoy says:

              How can we attack well entrenched dynasties?

              Dynasties are parasites that plagues our political system. Maybe a little bit name calling will give us a brief relief from their blood sucking. The brief relief can give us some respite to produce more blood for these leeches. An intelligent parasite is programmed not to kill the host.

              There are good dynasties and there are bad dynasties. The bad ones outnumbers the good ones though. So the guilty will feel a bit of pang but the good ones feel better that there are Netizens helping their cause.

              • Mel says:

                Political Dynasties (good or bad) in the Philippines, according to the 1987 Philippines Constitution, under the State Policies states that –

                SECTION 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

                There are several studies, research including backgrounds on Philippine Oligarchy and a pending Anti-Dynasty Law in Congress since 1987.

                You asked “How can we attack well entrenched dynasties?” Do not vote for them. Support politicians who are against it as well. Write your representative to work on the Anti-Dynasty Law for immediate passage.

                Join mainstream groups or organisations who have the same stance(s) as yours on Political Dynasties. Field candidate(s) or nominate yourself to run for public office (e.g. Congress) so that numbers for passing the Anti-Dynasty Law would be given utmost attention.

          • 106.3.4.1.3
            erwin says:

            @ Parekoy,

            “Just wondering…Why is it that a Senator or a Congressman/Congresswoman can say anything when he or she is deliveing a previledge speech in aid to strengthen legislation, while an ordinary Netizen can’t make the same thing in aid to strengthen our government institutions?”

            Parekoy, I beg to disagree with your assessment …” in aid to strengthen legislation ” pwede pa siguro in “AID TO STRENGTHEN GRANDSTANDING AND MEDIA EXPOSURE” hhehehehehe …. di ba?

            • Parekoy says:

              Agree!

              • leona says:

                Actually, lawmakers should not be given such privilege as they can “make” laws without speaking. But that is the practice. So, they get that privilege. Ikaw, you are not a lawmaker. So, what you have could be “bilibid speech” good for Bilibid! Ingat!

        • 106.3.4.2
          Parekoy says:

          Stepsister pala. Joke lang…

    • 106.4
      kalakala says:

      @ andrew lim …”binays – dynasty of service”….it’s now a reality that they are building a political dynasty. dynasty of what kind of service? service to/for whom?…. naging kapit bahay namin sila sa pio del pilar mkti since the last term of the late mayor nemesio yabut until the last term of j. binay. then his wife, now his son…; na ko po DAY! (short cut for inday) DaY NASTY of service

  42. 105
    viewko says:

    gmorning ms. raissa, everyone;

    sa akin, scrap na lang yang cybercrime law. ang dami na nating laws.
    yung internet, advancement lang sa technology. just another hi-way, ekanga. nagdagdag ng hi-way, e di expand na lang ung coverage ng existing na batas, wherever applicable.
    which means, our lawmakers could review each existing law, and amend if necessary, to cover the new hi-way. tedious, but more rational in the end. hindi ung gagawa ng separate na batas na shotgun approach ang resulta.
    mas marami pang ma ke claim na activity mambabatas natin. heh, heh. joke.

  43. 104
    baycas says:

    @raissa,

    I viewed the Senate Journal of that fateful day, 24 January 2012. It is a searchable PDF uploaded in the senatedotgovdotph site.

    The Individual Amendments to SB No. 2796 were already approved by the Senate Body and were read into the record (Senate Journal).

    As the already approved amendments were being read Sen. Pia Cayetano was given time for her remark on child pornography. After that the reading of the Individual Amendments to SB No. 2796 resumed.

    The reading of the Individual Amendments to SB No. 2796 was bulleted and the font size is smaller than Sen. Pia’s (same with Sen. Guingona’s on the same page) remarks.

    The Journal did not specify who authored each amendment. The reading of the Individual Amendments is a consolidation of what was already approved by the Body.

    But what was clearly apparent in the 24 January 2012 Journal that was approved on January 30 were the Amendments made by Defensor-Santiago and Sotto.

    • 104.1
      Mel says:

      SECOND TRY TO SUBMIT
      ————

      Having read too the Senate Journal of the day, it boils down to the skeletal outline use of Headings, Sub headings where inconsistent use of Remarks, or as per Amendment to, that ascribe’s a Senator’s suggestions, inputs – aka changes as Inserts.

      see RR’s comment at raissa says: October 6, 2012 at 7:46 am.

      The gist was the Senator’s (e.g. P Cayetano) opportunity to influence or amend the Bill Sponsor’s craft version of his Cybercrime into Law.

      I don’t think the Senate as a body of lawmakers do follow a template or format to document their conference undertakings. The Law product (final version signed into law) proves its vagueness, since the lawmakers concerned are now backtracking or admitting no fault for political convenience because of the ramifications to their chances of winning back their their congressional and/or senatorial seats towards the May 2013 elections.

      Backtracking, how? They (e.g. P Cayetano) NOW refuse to own to their oversight and shortcomings after the fact.

      (see also Honasan backtracks on cybercrime law. ABS-CBNnews com. Posted at 10/06/2012 6:21 PM | Updated as of 10/06/2012 6:21 PM)

      • 104.1.1
        baycas says:

        Please cut to the chase. Just prove that Sen. Pia Cayetano made the specific amendments @raissa wrote about.

        A senator cried foul on the write-up (this blog post).

        If you find the Journal writing to be wierd then at least ask someone knowledgeable to “translate” it for you.

        • 104.1.1.1
          Mel says:

          fyi,

          My comment at #180.1 of “Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute?” is awaiting moderation.

          You wrote, “If you find the Journal writing to be wierd then at least ask someone knowledgeable to “translate” it for you.”

          Definitely, you won’t be at the top of the list.

      • 104.1.2
        baycas says:

        And @Mel,

        My earlier post is only about the Journal. Why would you refer me to matters which are immaterial to my post.

        The senators erred alright (in crafting the law) but @raissa could have also erred (in attributing particular amendments to a senator who didn’t introduce such amendments).

        • 104.1.2.1
          Mel says:

          You wrote, “I viewed the Senate Journal of that fateful day, 24 January 2012.” AND “My earlier post is only about the Journal.” So was I (“Having read too the Senate Journal of the day” – 24 January 2012). Though I didn’t view it only, but read it too.

          “Why would you refer me to matters which are immaterial to my post.” Oops, I didn’t realize you were that zealous about your post. Would you accept a free zone commentary from a bogan?

          “The senators erred alright (in crafting the law) but @raissa could have also erred (in attributing particular amendments to a senator who didn’t introduce such amendments).”

          re comment “The senators erred alright (in crafting the law)” I knew it was Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was due for amendments. See “Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute?” September 18, 2012 at 10:03 pm.

          re your “@raissa could have also erred”. If you could read my comment at #67.1 dated October 5, 2012 at 11:01 pm. Thanks.

          We’ll see by Monday week what docus P Cayetano would supply.

          (its 5.31 am SUN AEDST here, good am)

  44. 103
    Kabayan says:

    this might be of interest.. the original cybercrime bill.. i stumbled upon – http://tmblr.co/ZzCFxwCkayks

  45. 102
    Lorena says:

    Ingat ka Raissa baka ma-accuse ka ng trademark infringement for using WANBOL :) ha-ha

  46. 101
    Mel says:

    OFF Topic:

    Chit Estella Journalism Awards 2012

    SEPTEMBER 6, 2012

    NOMINATIONS to the 1st Chit Estella Journalism Awards are now open, the family of the late VERA Files trustee and journalism professor Lourdes “Chit” Estella-Simbulan and VERA Files announced yesterday.

    The award will honor the best journalistic report in print and online media. The theme for this year’s contest is human rights as enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

    The contest is open to investigative, features, news features and in-depth news articles published between Oct. 1, 2011 and Oct. 1, 2012, the last day for submission of entries.

    Nominees can submit a maximum of three stories, written in either English or Filipino. An accompanying recommendation/nomination letter from the editors or publishers is a requirement.

    The winners will be announced on Dec. 10, 2012, the International Human Rights Day, at the UP College of Mass Communications Auditorium. They will be chosen by a board of judges composed of four representatives from the Estella/Simbulan family, VERA Files, the UP College of Mass Communications and a human rights organization.

    Each awardee will be given a cash prize of P10,000 and a trophy.

    The Chit Estella Journalism Awards are intended to keep alive Simbulan’s ideals of excellent and principled journalism. At the time of her death last year, Simbulan, who was known by her byline “Chit Estella,” was a journalism professor of the University of the Philippines-Diliman.

    Entries must be submitted personally or by mail to:

    Lucia P. Tangi
    Chit Estella Journalism Awards
    Department of Journalism
    College of Mass Communication
    University of the Philippines
    Diliman, Quezon City

    For more information, please call Lucia P. Tangi at 9206852.

    Source: verafiles org/chit-estella-journalism-awards-2012/

  47. Mel says:

    Out of Topic:

    Not Cyberbullying but SMSbullying (texting) that caused the highest leader/speaker of the House of Representatives of Australia to resign.

    The Speaker of the House of Representatives quits for offensive text messages which were revealed in legal action against him, but then decided he could not continue in the post.

  48. Parekoy says:

    Breaking News!

    SC stops Cybercrime law, issues TRO

    From rappler.com

    Wow, this is godd new Netizens!

    • Parekoy says:

      Democracy at work!

      Importance of independent SC is shown today. Hopefully they decide that the Libel provision is unconstitutional, otherwise baka magkaron ng Cyber Edsa Revolution!

    • leona says:

      TRO…SC…breaking the news…breaking Cybercrime law…as a start!

      1 in Palace did not see….211 in Lower House did not see it…14 in Upper House did not see it…

      Millions of Filipinos saw it…now 14 SC JUSTICES sees it….this country hopes SC will finally break this law to get back people’s belief in that we have a new Supreme Court!

      The writing in the wall…break also family dynasties! Break ‘EM all! Make ‘em all lose!

  49. Johnny Lin says:

    I have direct message to baycas, was placed in moderation

  50. chit navarro says:

    FROM the FB page of Bam Aquino:

    CYBERCRIME LAW NEEDS AMENDMENTS – BENIGNO BAM AQUINO
    by Bam Aquino on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 at 15:01 ·

    20 September 2012 – Benigno “Bam” Aquino, the first senatorial aspirant from the “Facebook generation”, says that the recently passed Cybercrime Law is “welcome, but needs amendments.”

    “The presence of a cybercrime law is welcome, as child rightsand women’s rights advocates have long been pushing for the protectionof children, youth, and women against such crimes ascyber-trafficking, cyber-prostitution, cyber-pornography, and thelike,” Aquino says. “We have seen reports pointing to an increase inthe number of crimes committed with the aid of the Internet, socialmedia, and even SMS—and there is cause for alarm.”

    According to Aquino, both data and anecdotal evidence point toincreased incidences of cybercrimes, including cyber-stalking andcyber-harassment, and even rape and violence against women that occurduring “eyeballs.”

    “If we don’t do something about it, criminal elements and syndicatesoperating online might think that they can get away scot-free. Withmore and more Filipinos going online—many of them being exposed to the Internet and social media at a younger age—we need to ensure that our laws can protect children and youth from cybercrimes.”

    “We can’t turn a blind eye on changing realities and advancingtechnologies,” Aquino adds.

    However, Aquino also points to problematic provisions in the Cybercrime Law including one that makes it “appear to be curtailing netizens’ freedom of speech.”

    “Some provisions in this version of the Cybercrime Law are too vague,”he points out. According to him, these include the provisions oncybersquatting, on libel, and on warrantless arrests, among others.“We should look into amending the law so that it does not violate ourconstitutional right to freedom of speech. Nakakatakot kasi dahilpuwede itong gamiting para kitilin ang karapatan ng marami.”

    Aquino expresses his confidence over the government’s openness to“make the law work,” saying that this administration is known to bepromoting openness, good governance, and transparency.

    “We are confident that the national government will heed the call ofnetizens to discuss and amend the law. This is a government anchoredon ideals of freedom and democracy, and we are sure that thistranslates even to the online realm.”

  51. baycas says:

    Excuses, Excuses

    raissa says:
    October 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    xxxxxx

    How do I argue with someone who insists on using a diff set of facts?

    @raissa,

    You MUST ask yourself that question.

    The Senate Journal of January 24, 2012 is enough to show that Sen. Pia Cayetano et al were CORRECT and you were wrong.

    An investigative journalist like you MUST not assume things and MUST at once admit mistakes.

    I still have high regard for you though.

    However, I will now thank you for having me here. Farewell to this blog.

    P.S. No, you were not and never been moderated. I don’t know why your comments kept landing in the spam box.

    • raissa says:

      Dear Baycas,

      I will miss you, but you have the right.

      I differ with you, though, in the interpretation of the Senate Journal.

      As I said, the first two amendments mentioned by Senator Angara were those of Sen. Cayetano.

      In many, many instances, I have relied on – and with accurate results – in this kind of interpretation of the Senate Journal.

      Apparently, the Senate journal can no longer be interpreted in this manner.

      The reason why my apology took so long was because I needed to be sure. I asked for the transcript of the proceedings last Friday from Senator Cayetano’s office and someone said this would only be available by Monday.

      You see, the actual transcript is not placed online. I don’t know why. If I wanted to get it, I would physically have to go to the Senate and request for it there. Asking for it through Sen. Cayetano’s office was the simplest and fastest way.

      P.S. No, your comments were never moderated. I don’t know why they all kept landing in the spam box.

      • leona says:

        I will truly MISS you @baycas! Adios! Hasta la vista! bay…@baycas.

        cy.PS…many thanks too reading your good works here!

    • Parekoy says:

      @Baycas,

      You are the only one here who was able to point that the interpretation of the journal was confusing and prone to misinterpretation.

      Raissa usually follow up with corrections when mistakes are made, and even columnists issue an erratum afterwards.

      It seems that this particular differences with is the last straw for you. i hope you reconsider bidding farewell, because this site needs your great insight, your attention to details and your passion to educate the visitors and participants in this site.

      Your departure will be our loss. I hope after a few rounds of cyber beer or jack daniels, you’ll be back the soonest.

    • Johnny Lin says:

      @ baycas
      My friend, in my post way down, i expressed that enough already on the tome we spent on this matter. We have voiced put pur concerns, every machineries have moved. Many senators have expressed regrets and will to amend.

      You advised me to stay. I told you I will. Honestly, i dont understand how that journal works because the process is so confusing, that is why i said enough already since we basically know whonare mainly responsible. You might have different understanding because of your greater perception and knowledge of the process. And I admire your insistence to have a wider discussion. You could be right or both of you could be right, the way each of you understood the process. At the end of the day, i believe, to many of us it does not matter anymore as far as the guilty parties are concern.

      Please relax, cool off like you or I did before. Do come back because your input is much appreciated especially those links you kept feeding us. Personally I will miss your service attaching my links, to that my sincere gratitude. But I wish you keep doing it for me, pleeeeease.

      I am giving Raissa the permission to give you my email in case you want to communicate personally and privately for posterity and new friendship

    • pinay710 says:

      sir baycas, bakit po saan kayo pupunta? mami miss ko po ang mga comments nyo. ang dami ko pong natutunan sa inyo. sana huwag kayo umalis marami pa po kayong matutulungan na maliwanagan ang mga bagay bagay. pero kung talagang dapat kayo umalis dahil sa ikabubuti nyo ok lang po. paalam po at maraming maraming salamat sa mgga magagandang naiparating nyo sa amin.

    • Rolly says:

      Please don’t leave baycas…don’t give up easily. The likes of you is what the people need to disseminate informations that otherwise would not reach readers like me.

      Your are one of the top twenty commenters on this site. I for one, rely most of the time to your posts. I may not agree to a very few of your comments, but that’s how discussions work.

      You’ve been doing greats baycas, not only here, but also to other blogs. I read one of your posts dated 2005…couldn’t help to be wowed.

    • rOSARIO says:

      @ Sir Baycas, alis na po kayo? bakit po? hindi po ba pupuwede na mag agree to disagree kayo ni ma’m raissa. hindi lang naman po kayo ang namomoderate eh. ako rin madalas, isip ko nalang mabagal ang isp ko. or ma traffic papunta kina ma’m raissa.
      sayang sir baycas, mamimiss ko rin po kayo. ang dami dami at ang gaganda pa naman ng tula, at mga links mo. marami ako natutunan din po sa inyo. maraming salamat po. meron din po ba kayong blog na pwede ko pong mabisita paminsan-minsan? sana po, bumalik din po kayo dito paminsan-minsan.

  52. kalakala says:

    @Johnny Lin says:
    October 8, 2012 at 8:42 am

    Read Special Report in Manila Bulletin by Andrew Masigan:
    “A Few Deserving Senatorial Bets”
    Maybe @baycas could attach link

    His first candidate is Jun Magsaysay.

    Guess the names he recommends NOT TO BE ELECTED

    A Few Deserving Senatorial Bets
    Numbers Don’t Lie
    By ANDREW JAMES MASIGAN
    October 7, 2012, 2:14pm

    But before I reveal my first senatorial choice, let me first tell you who I am NOT voting for. I am not voting for candidates who are next of kin to any incumbent senator. I say this because no single family should have more than one vote in the formation of national policy. This could prove dangerous especially if the family has inclinations, or already is, a political dynasty. Moreover, no candidate should gain undue advantage just because he or she enjoys the benefit of name recall.

    I will not vote for those intellectually and experientially deficient, those suspect of having committed crime, and (especially) those who, in the past, sabotaged the economy by mounting a power grab through military rebellion. These are people who do not deserve the vote of hardworking citizens like you and me.

  53. cocogas says:

    Hi Raissa,

    Teddy Locsin qouted you in tonight’s TEDiitorial Oct. 8

    titled “The assasination of virtual freedom”

  54. Johnny Lin says:

    Response to Mr Vince Borneo of the House of Representative letter comment #37.1 addressed to me directly in response to my comment.

    To Mr. Vince Borneo:

    First, my gratitude for meriting a formal response. Secondly, I am assuming you are responding in this forum as official representative of Congressman Teddy Casino. Finally, to address your pointers this way.

    Our exchanges started when you pointed to @Ralph #37 that Teddy did not sign anything. Although I believed Ralph meant that Teddy voted yes on the bill, nevertheless, he did write the word”sign” which you pounced on in return, adding too in the process that Teddy signed a petition in the Supreme Court. Since you knew that Teddy co authored with Congressman Palatino a bill repealing the law, why did you not say so in the first place? If you did your letter was unnecessary. My initial comment was a citizen concern on the intelligence and ability of a congressman on how to correct a flawed law under his power before going to the Supreme Court.

    You told me to read Raissa’s blog again and here is exactly what is written:
    “Casino said as far as he knew, the House version approved on Third Reading no longer carried cyberdefamation and tightened the search and seizure provisions”

    “as far as he knew” is a complacent approach on an important issue involving freedom of the people. Congressman Casino being a party list representing nationalistic interest especially the youth including Congressman Palatino for that matter, must have made sure to have read and scrutinized the final version of the bill before sending to the office of the president for signature. I am sure there is a process that a legislator could ask for a copy of a bill after passage by both Houses. If one congressman did just that, he could have hollered and go to the press immediately to expose the deficiencies and cruelties of the bill.we would not be pointing fingers now if someone, repeat, only one, performed his/her constitutional duty as elected legislator.

    If a congressman does not have time to do that, his staff is obligated to perform in their official capacity which includes looking at all the dots on letter “i” and crosses on the “t” of every bill, especially those that are of special concern to the people.

    Making excuses or justification afterwards which in my opinion Casino did in trying to explain to Raissa does not absolve the shortcoming which you are trying to justify. Lessons were learned, monday quarterbacking will not reverse the law. Current corrections are in place and hopefully everybody will do right this time not only for the people but also for the integrity of their office that our legislators are working hard for the betterment of the nation and welfare of the people.

    Good luck to the new quest of Congressman Casino and so far you know he is on my list and I, like the rest of the electorates, am watching his every move.

    • vander anievas says:

      bravo johnny lin. teddy is also a strong contender in my shortlisting hunt. hope he can hurdle the amendment to patch up shortcoming/s…

    • kalakala says:

      good job sir jhonny.! congressman casino is one of candidates i am considering of. and to congeressman casino, we, the electorates would be glad to be by your side in pushing the anti dynasty bill.

  55. Sam says:

    A wild question hope you guys don’t mind… just being curious lang..

    what if the late FM was still in rule today, you think he would also issue a PD similar to RA 10175?
    If so .. how extensive kaya will be his policy would be?

    wala lang just a wild wild question lang :)

    • vander anievas says:

      @sam,
      my guess is we don’t have internet at all…
      wala nang pagkukumahugan ang assembly para sa pagsasabatas. anyway all alws shall be promulgated by fm himself, the supreme…

    • leona says:

      a very wild answer you need…if FM is to rule today?…he can’t he’ll be around 95 years old…he’ll be still grappling whether that was a fake or true ambots! You need also a wild wild curiousity!

      • rOSARIO says:

        he may be 95 and dead long gone. but the wife and son and daughter are still around holding their ground. sila ang namumuno, walang internet, tahimik DAW ang pilipinas. pero hindi nila alam, tahimik sa labas dahil sa takot pero sa loob ay juice ko!!! kayo na magdagdag! and for sure, wala ng mga batas na maidadagdag. at kung meron man, yon ay para maproteksyunan ang mga sarili nila.

  56. Johnny Lin says:

    Latest News Rappler

    Sotto in another privilege speech today:
    “Stop Paranoia on Cyber Law Passage”

    Maybe someone could attach the link for further discussion about his new twist over his cyberbullying. To me it’s blaming Raissa’s initial blog about Insertion.

      • Johnny Lin says:

        Thanks again Mel. Although Rappler link might be good too because entire speech is printed.

        Sotto keeps rehashing the issue or is he muddling it more?

        After Raissa posted her blog, Sotto initial interview denied his culpability on insertion; followed by another interview on CBS admitting his fault and now this latest speech, denying again.

        Hmmm, he sounds like his boss, Enrile on his fake ambush;
        or that forlorn suitor picking rose petals- she loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not………..

        He he he

        • vander anievas says:

          i didn’t get it, cyberbully weeping boy? ano talaga?…

        • Mel says:

          Sa tutuo lang, we are at the dark who has been feeding the CBS and The Wall Street Journal of those supposedly admissions of Sen T Sotto.

          In my previous comments where I commented on the CBS similar story, I tried to search the website of Interaksyon where the CBS quoted its story from, but not available or non-existent in that site where Sen T Sotto was quoted “verbatim” to the last minute or “midnight” admission to Libel amendment.

    • rOSARIO says:

      http://www.rappler.com/nation/13833-sotto-stop-paranoia-on-cyber-law-passage

      “MANILA, Philippines – Calling himself the “cyberbully whipping boy,” Senate Majority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III sought to defend himself on the Senate floor from allegations he was behind the insertion of controversial provisions in the anti-cybercrime law.

      In a privilege speech on Monday, October 8, Sotto read into the records what he called the legislative history of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

      Sotto reiterated that he was not behind any insertions in the law and was not a member of the Bicameral Conference Committee that unified the Senate and House versions.

      “Nais ko pong banggitin na ang Cybercrime Law ay dumaan sa tamang proseso. Wala ang sinasabi nilang insertion. Insertion is used by the Senate secretariat for something that is proposed in an amendment, not an amendment itself. Ang amendment binabago eh, ang insertion, sinasama pero ang dating sa kanila, ang insertion parang snimuggle.” (I want to mention that the Cybercrime Law passed through the proper process. There is none of the reported insertions. The amendment is changed, the insertion, they include that but the impression to them is it’s as if the insertion is smuggled.)

      Sotto said he sought to set the record straight and to clear his name.

      “Para lumawak ang kaisipan ng mga iba nating kababayan na patuloy akong hinuhusgahan sa cybercommunity, para doon sa mga paranoid at marurumi ang isip kasi napakarami pong magagaling, responsible users ng ating cyberspace ngunit may mga ilan na talagang ‘di ko maintindihan kung bakit nagkakaganoon ang takbo ng kaisipan.” (To broaden the minds of those who continue to judge me in the cybercommunity, for those who are paranoid and have dirty minds. Because we have many good, responsible users of cyberspace but there are some who are otherwise.)

      He added, “Ang dating kasi, pag nagkapatayan sa Senado, ako ang killer eh.” (The impression is that when there’s murder in the Senate, I’m the killer.

      Sotto’s speech came following backlash and finger-pointing over the law, which critics said violated freedom of expression, freedom of speech and gave the government too much power over Internet users. There are at least 14 petitions against it pending before the Supreme Court.

      Some senators who voted for the bill admitted their lapse, and vowed to measures to amend it.

      Various versions

      In his speech, Sotto said various senators filed their own versions of the bill starting July 2010. In May 2011, a joint version was passed by several committees, substituting the earlier bills filed.

      Those who authored the bill were Senators Antonio Trillanes IV, Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Lito Lapid, Manuel Villar, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, and Ramon Revilla.

      Sotto said the bill underwent the period of interpellations or debate for the rest of 2011. In January 2012, the period of amendments was closed.

      The Senate approved the bill on 3rd reading on Jan 30, 2012, with only Sen Teofisto Guingona III voting against it.

      Sotto pointed out that in the bicameral conference committee deliberations in May 2012, he was not among the conferees. Those who were designated to be part of the bicam discussions were Angara, Santiago, Estrada, Marcos, Revilla, Trillanes and Villar.

      ‘Why we are so rude online’

      He reiterated that because the bicameral conference report was approved in June 2012, it could not have been possible that he supported it to get back at his critics in the Reproductive Health (RH) debates.

      Sotto claimed he was a victim of “cyberbullying” only in August and September 2012.

      “These cyberbullies should not be too presumptious, parang KSP eh, (they lack attention) feeling important eh. The Senate will enact a law for them, kokontrahin sila, reretaliate sila (contradict them retaliate against them), excuse me ah.”

      Sotto ended his speech by calling on his colleagues and the public to read an article of the Wall Street Journal titled “Why we are so rude online.”

      Libel bill withdrawn

      In an interview before the start of the session, Sotto said he filed but soon withdrew a bill “abolishing libel” for all types of media.

      Sotto filed the bill last Friday, October 5, and withdrew it on Monday, October 8.

      Asked why he changed his mind, Sotto said, “Winidraw ko, alam mo kung bakit, kasi gusto rin ni Noynoy ang libel kaya winidraw ko, hintayin ko muna ang desisyon ng Supreme Court, The president is not against it why will I go against it?” (I withdrew it, you know why, because Noynoy also likes libel. I will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court first.)

      President Benigno Aquino III said last week that he does not agree with calls to remove the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

      “If you wrote something libelous, you have a responsibility. If you are a broadcaster and you said something on radio or TV, you also have responsibility. If you said the same thing on the Internet, I believe that is also libelous. Whatever the format, if what you said was wrong, I believe that the victim should have the right for redress,” Aquino told reporters in Filipino.

      Asked why he filed the bill abolishing libel in the first place, Sotto told reporters, “Kailangan patas patas hindi lang online pati kayo. Sayang naman apo ko ni press freedom law author, Sotto Law. Pinapantay ko lang, nile-level ko lang sila sa inyo ang online media. Kayo meron responsibilidad. Kung ayaw nila at ‘pag sinabi ng Supreme Court, hindi dapat ‘di kayo rin hindi dapat.” (It has to be fair, not just online but also you. It’s a shame. I’m the grandson of the Press Freedom Law author, Sotto Law. I am just leveling the playing field with online media. You have responsibility. If they don’t like it and the Supreme Court says something, then you should also not be liable.)

      ‘Setting the record straight’

      Below is the full speech of Sotto on the Senate floor as delivered:

      I rise to set the record straight, particularly on the passage of the Senate on RA 10175, the Anti-Cybercrime Act. I rise as your favorite neighborhood cyberbully whipping boy because I have been again the subject of criticism because of the passage of the anti-cybercrime act. Kaya po ako tumatayo to set the record straight para lumawak ang kaisipan ng mga iba nating kababayan na patuloy akong hinuhusgahan sa cybercommunity, para doon sa mga paranoid at marurumi ang isip kasi napakarami pong magagaling, responsible users n gating cyberspace ngunit may mga ilan na talagang di ko maintindihan kung bakit nagkakaganoon ang takbo ng kaisipan. Ang dating kasi, pag nagkapatayan sa Senado, ako ang killer eh.

      Nais ko pong banggitin na ang cybercrime law ay dumaan sa tamang proseso. Wala ang sinasabi nilang insertion. Insertion is used by the Senate secretariat for something that is proposed in an amendment, not an amendment itself. Ang amendment binabago eh, ang insertion, sinasama pero ang dating sa kanila, ang insertion parang snimuggle.

      So let me set the record straight. This is the legislative history ng Cybercrime Act:

      July 1, 2010 – After elections po ito, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Trillanes, Antonio, Sonny.

      July 1, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Angara, Edgardo J.

      July 5, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Enrile, Juan Ponce.

      July 8, 2010 – Anti-computer Fraud and Abuses Act of 2010 by Lapid, Manuel Lito.

      July 8, 2010 – Anti-cybercrime Act of 2010 by Villar, Manny V.

      September 22, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 by Marcos, Ferdinand “Bongbong.”

      February 3, 2011 – Cybersecurity Education Enhancement Act by Defensor-Santiago, Miriam.

      February 28, 2011 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2011 by Revilla, Jr Ramon.

      May 3, 2011 – After that, Mr President, after all those bills proposed on the Cybercrime Act, an Act Defining Cybercrime Providing for Prevention, Investigation and Imposition of Penalties, therefor and other purposes was filed, prepared and submitted jointly by the Committee on Science, Technology, Constitutional Amendments, Revisions of Codes and Laws, Education, Arts and Culture, Justice and Human Rights, Trade and Commerce, Public Information and Mass Media, and Finance, May 3, 2011.

      Again, I’m sure you heard the committees that submitted with Senators Antonio Trillanes, Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Manuel “Lito” Lapid, Manny Villar, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos and Ramon Revilla as authors.

      Per Committee Report Number 30, and recommending its approval in substitution of the Senate bills I mentioned earlier, taking into consideration Senate Resolution 75164 and 254.

      May 10, 2011 – Ngayon, Mr President, pagdating po ng May 10, 2011, committee report was calendared for ordinary business. That same day, it was sponsored by Sen Edgardo Angara, chairman of the Committee on Education and Science and Technology.

      May 11, 2011 – On May 11, it was transferred from the calendar for ordinary business to the calendar for special orders. Ganoon po ang sistema sa atin para doon sa nakikinig sa atin sa labas, lalo na sa cyberspace.

      May 11, 2011 – Sponsorship speech was Sen Angara was followed by co-sponsorship by Sen Loren Legarda and Sen Loren Legarda was made co-author on the same day.

      September 12, 2011 – The period of interpellations were open. Interpellations were conducted by Miriam Defensor Santiago and Vicente Sotto III.

      December 12, 2011 – Interpellations continued with Sen Vicente Sotto III, Teofisto Guingona III and Aquilino Pimentel III.

      December 13, 2011 – Interpellations by Sen Juan Ponce Enrile

      And after that Dec 13, 2011, the period of interpellations was closed.

      January 24, 2012 – After the Christmas break, there were inquiries conducted by Sen Teofisto Guingona III and Sen Panfilo Lacson during the period of committee and individual amendments and no longer in the period of interpellations.

      January 24, 2012 – The period of individual amendments was closed. It was approved on second reading with amendments, lahat na ng amendments na pinag-usapan dito noon na laman ng Senate bill nang lumabas, nandoon na, products of the interpellations in December and onto January.

      January 26, 2012 – Printed copies were distributed to the senators.

      January 30, 2012 – It was approved on 3rd reading. Those who voted in favor: Pia Cayetano, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Chiz Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Bongbong Marcos, Koko Pimentel, Ralph Recto, Ramon Revilla Jr, Vicente Sotto, Manny Villar. There was one who voted against: Sen TG Guingona. There were no abstentions.

      January 31, 2012 – This was sent to the House of Representatives requesting for concurrence, inabot po ito nang ilang buwan sapagkat di pa pasado ang House version.

      May 30, 2012 – The Senate requested the House of Representatives for a conference on the disagreeing provisions because the House passed it already, designating Senators Angara, Santiago, Estrada, Marcos, Revilla, Trillanes and Villar as its conferees to the bicameral conference committee.

      Wala hong Sotto doon sa bicam member!

      May 30, 2012 – The House of Representatives accepted the request of the Senate for conference on the disagreeing provisions for Senate Bill 2796 and House Bill 5808. Representatives were Tinga, Yap, Singson Jr, Angara, Rodriguez, Sarmiento, Arenas, Quimbo, Golez, Sarmiento, Arroyo D as the conferees in the bicameral conference committee, May 30, 2012.

      June 5, 2012 – The conference committee report submitted to the Senate recommending Senate Bill 2796 in consolidation with House Bill 5808 be approved as reconciled and Sen Angara delivered a sponsorship speech after the bicam so sa bicam ito, ang proseso natin, 2nd reading, 3rd reading, magmi-meet ang House at Senate, pag-uusapan ang disagreeing provisions, pag-uusapan nila, paplantsahin nila, babalik sa Senate, babalik sa House. Pagbalik sa Senate, parehong-pareho na ng House version.

      So the committee report, conference committee report was approved by the Senate on June 5.

      June 4, 2012 – Approved by the House of Representatives, one day ahead Mr President.

      So ang totoo niyan as of June 5, it was already out of the hands of the Senate. It was already enrolled, pinadala sa kinauukulan lalo na sa Pangulo ng Pilipinas.

      May mga nagce-claim na ito raw ay retaliation ko for the cyberbullying that I got. Mr President, the cyberbullying attacks I got was on August and September 2012, way, way beyond June 5, na tapos na tapos na sa Senado ito. Sa totoo nga, January 24, wala na sa kamay ng Senate, lumabas na. So it was after my turno en contra that the cyberbullying started, Mr President.

      These cyberbullies should not be too presumptious, parang KSP eh, feeling important eh. The Senate will enact a law for them, kokontrahin sila, reretaliate sila, excuse me ah.

      May I suggest, para sa kalinawan ng marami at medyo magandang kaisipan, I suggest our colleagues and the public read an online article written in the Wall Street Journal is entitled “Why we are so rude online.” “Online browsing lowers self-control and is linked to higher debt and higher weight” by Elizabeth Bernstein of the Wall Street Journal.

      And also, I would like to commend the editorial of the Manila Times today, “Libel and Freedom of Speech.” I suggest our colleagues and the public to also read that instead of your cyberbully whipping boy read it into the records of the Senate.

      I thank you. I hope I am able to set the record straight para matigil ang pagbibintang at paranoia ng iba nating kababayan. – Rappler.com”

      • Johnny Lin says:

        Sabi ni Sotto:
        dating daw sa mga netizens ng “insertion” ay inismuggle.

        Mr Sotto, ikaw ang mali ng interpretasyon. Ikaw ang nagkamali ng sapantaha at intindi.

        Sa amin ang “insertion”, bagong panukala na isiningit sa unang(orihinal) panukala na kakaunti lamang ang nakalaalam bago naging batas at hindi dumaan sa masinsinan pagdibati ng dalawang kapulungan.

        Isa pa, yung nakalahad sa isinigit na panukala ang defecto, kaya yung taong nagsingit ang maysala. Hindi lamang proseso ng pagsingit ang mali, mas importanteng mali ang nilalaman ng isiningit.

        Entiendes?

      • leona says:

        File, the Withdraw? Withdraw, then File? Ano ito? Walang stability ang thinking!

        Eh, kung sabihin ni president “Ah, kamali ako! I really now believe I don’t like libel in that Cybercrime Law. I want it removed!” Sotto, immediately Files again to abolish libel?

        The the SC rules, it is “O.K.”, the law is constitutional! Sotto again Withdraw his Filing?

        Ano ito? Then the SC reconsiders its ruling by a new voting, declares the law really unconstitutional as a violation of Free Speech and of the PRESS! Sotto hurridely, Files what he Withdrew, and now stays at the filing Section, waiting for any more filings and withdrawals [ just in case! ]. He never learns.

    • Cha says:

      For someone who has made a name for himself as a comedian, Senator Sotto is displaying an annoying propensity for drama.

  57. Mel says:

    No more mudslinging from Sen T Sotto?
    He backtracks on his promised Bill to file to remove Online Libel from Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012.

    Libel bill withdrawn

    In an interview before the start of the session, Sotto said he filed but soon withdrew a bill “abolishing libel” for all types of media.

    Sotto filed the bill last Friday, October 5, and withdrew it on Monday, October 8.

    Asked why he changed his mind, Sotto said, “Winidraw ko, alam mo kung bakit, kasi gusto rin ni Noynoy ang libel kaya winidraw ko, hintayin ko muna ang desisyon ng Supreme Court, The president is not against it why will I go against it?” (I withdrew it, you know why, because Noynoy also likes libel. I will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court first.)

    President Benigno Aquino III said last week that he does not agree with calls to remove the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

    SOURCE: www rappler com/nation/13833-sotto-stop-paranoia-on-cyber-law-passage

    • Mel says:

      While Sen T Sotto withdraws his Oct 5 Bill, “Senator Loren Legarda filed a bill to repeal the libel and takedown provisions of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.”

      Press Release

      Legarda Files Bills to Amend Cybercrime Prevention Act and Decriminalize Libel

      Senator Loren Legarda filed a bill to repeal the libel and takedown provisions of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

      “In seeking repeal of the two clauses through Senate Bill 3295, I hope to eliminate the chilling effect that may impose undue boundaries on our people’s exercise of freedom of expression,” Legarda said.

      “Consistent with the Constitutional mandate of promoting free expression, it is imperative for institutions such as the legislative branch of government to adopt a policy towards the proliferation of a free market of ideas,” she added.

      Legarda also noted the need to strike a balance between the government’s role to protect its citizenry and uphold its freedom of expression.

      “The vulnerability of the cyberspace to pollutants, such as pornography, cybersex, fraudulent practices and promotion of human trafficking were precisely the reasons for the passage of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” she noted.

      “However, adopting such policy to prevent pollutants from spoiling the minds of our people must not be done at the expense of our valued right to free speech,” Legarda noted.

      Moreover, the Senator filed Senate Bill 3294 to decriminalize libel, removing the penalty of fine and imprisonment in libel cases.

      “While the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, experience has shown us that such is easily stifled with the mere threat of criminal libel,” Legarda noted.

      “Apart from threatening our citizenry’s long-cherished Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom, the continued criminalization of libel will be a huge hindrance in efforts aimed at promoting good governance and exacting accountability on our public officials,” she added.

      Legarda filed similar bills in 2001 and 2007.

      Source: www senate gov ph/press_release/2012/1008_legarda4 asp

    • Mel says:

      Test case for Sen T Sotto to use his Cybercrime Prevention Act against US Base mainstream media with Online website presence.

      pull quote:

      “Last week Philippine Senate majority leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III admitted that he was behind a last-minute amendment to a cybercrime law that came into effect on Wednesday. Offenders face up to 12 years in prison if they “cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person” through “malicious imputation” online.”

      Sen T Sotto still currently denies any last minute or “midnight-insertion” to the Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012.

      The Wall Street Journal, REVIEW & OUTLOOK ASIA
      Updated October 5, 2012, 2:50 a.m. ET

      Manila’s Political Cyber Bullies

      The Philippines’ new cybercrime law threatens to silence politicians’ critics.

      The Philippines has enacted a law to stamp out online bullying, which sounds like a good thing. But the supposed victims are top politicians, and they are using draconian penalties and a vaguely worded definition of the crime to silence critics.

      Last week Philippine Senate majority leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III admitted that he was behind a last-minute amendment to a cybercrime law that came into effect on Wednesday. Offenders face up to 12 years in prison if they “cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person” through “malicious imputation” online.

      Mr. Sotto claims to be a bullying victim because bloggers accused him of plagiarizing an August Senate speech. In the Senator’s defense, his aide argued, “Even our image was copied from God. We are all plagiarists.”

      Down on earth, Mr. Sotto’s noble-sounding amendment extends the country’s harsh libel rules to the country’s once-free Internet sphere. In the Philippines, libel is a criminal offense rather than a tort, and previous governments used it to intimidate journalists.

      Libel 2.0 has more than journalists worried. Many citizens have rightly questioned whether they could face jail for posting (or even “retweeting” on Twitter or “liking” on Facebook) criticisms of the country’s elite. They organized demonstrations in Manila and online campaigns against politicians who supported the law.

      Philippine businesspeople initially argued that the cybercrime law’s penalties against online fraud would help the country’s IT industry flourish. But restrictions on Internet speech elsewhere, for instance Thailand’s 2007 Computer Crimes Act, have nipped online innovation in the bud.

      Signing Senator Sotto’s amended Cybercrime Prevention Act into law was a rare misstep for President Benigno Aquino. The economy has boomed, and his reformist administration has proclaimed that “good governance is good economics.” The new Internet law is neither.

      Source: online wsj com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578036064127537342html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle

    • Mel says:

      Sen T Sotto’s Memoir on the House history of Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012.

      ‘Setting the record straight’

      Below is the full speech of Sotto on the Senate floor as delivered:

      I rise to set the record straight, particularly on the passage of the Senate on RA 10175, the Anti-Cybercrime Act. I rise as your favorite neighborhood cyberbully whipping boy because I have been again the subject of criticism because of the passage of the anti-cybercrime act. Kaya po ako tumatayo to set the record straight para lumawak ang kaisipan ng mga iba nating kababayan na patuloy akong hinuhusgahan sa cybercommunity, para doon sa mga paranoid at marurumi ang isip kasi napakarami pong magagaling, responsible users n gating cyberspace ngunit may mga ilan na talagang di ko maintindihan kung bakit nagkakaganoon ang takbo ng kaisipan. Ang dating kasi, pag nagkapatayan sa Senado, ako ang killer eh.

      Nais ko pong banggitin na ang cybercrime law ay dumaan sa tamang proseso. Wala ang sinasabi nilang insertion. Insertion is used by the Senate secretariat for something that is proposed in an amendment, not an amendment itself. Ang amendment binabago eh, ang insertion, sinasama pero ang dating sa kanila, ang insertion parang snimuggle.

      So let me set the record straight. This is the legislative history ng Cybercrime Act:

      July 1, 2010 – After elections po ito, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Trillanes, Antonio, Sonny.

      July 1, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Angara, Edgardo J.

      July 5, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Enrile, Juan Ponce.

      July 8, 2010 – Anti-computer Fraud and Abuses Act of 2010 by Lapid, Manuel Lito.

      July 8, 2010 – Anti-cybercrime Act of 2010 by Villar, Manny V.

      September 22, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 by Marcos, Ferdinand “Bongbong.”

      February 3, 2011 – Cybersecurity Education Enhancement Act by Defensor-Santiago, Miriam.

      February 28, 2011 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2011 by Revilla, Jr Ramon.

      May 3, 2011 – After that, Mr President, after all those bills proposed on the Cybercrime Act, an Act Defining Cybercrime Providing for Prevention, Investigation and Imposition of Penalties, therefor and other purposes was filed, prepared and submitted jointly by the Committee on Science, Technology, Constitutional Amendments, Revisions of Codes and Laws, Education, Arts and Culture, Justice and Human Rights, Trade and Commerce, Public Information and Mass Media, and Finance, May 3, 2011.

      Again, I’m sure you heard the committees that submitted with Senators Antonio Trillanes, Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Manuel “Lito” Lapid, Manny Villar, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos and Ramon Revilla as authors.

      Per Committee Report Number 30, and recommending its approval in substitution of the Senate bills I mentioned earlier, taking into consideration Senate Resolution 75164 and 254.

      May 10, 2011 – Ngayon, Mr President, pagdating po ng May 10, 2011, committee report was calendared for ordinary business. That same day, it was sponsored by Sen Edgardo Angara, chairman of the Committee on Education and Science and Technology.

      May 11, 2011 – On May 11, it was transferred from the calendar for ordinary business to the calendar for special orders. Ganoon po ang sistema sa atin para doon sa nakikinig sa atin sa labas, lalo na sa cyberspace.

      May 11, 2011 – Sponsorship speech was Sen Angara was followed by co-sponsorship by Sen Loren Legarda and Sen Loren Legarda was made co-author on the same day.

      September 12, 2011 – The period of interpellations were open. Interpellations were conducted by Miriam Defensor Santiago and Vicente Sotto III.

      December 12, 2011 – Interpellations continued with Sen Vicente Sotto III, Teofisto Guingona III and Aquilino Pimentel III.

      December 13, 2011 – Interpellations by Sen Juan Ponce Enrile

      And after that Dec 13, 2011, the period of interpellations was closed.

      January 24, 2012 – After the Christmas break, there were inquiries conducted by Sen Teofisto Guingona III and Sen Panfilo Lacson during the period of committee and individual amendments and no longer in the period of interpellations.

      January 24, 2012 – The period of individual amendments was closed. It was approved on second reading with amendments, lahat na ng amendments na pinag-usapan dito noon na laman ng Senate bill nang lumabas, nandoon na, products of the interpellations in December and onto January.

      January 26, 2012 – Printed copies were distributed to the senators.

      January 30, 2012 – It was approved on 3rd reading. Those who voted in favor: Pia Cayetano, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Chiz Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Bongbong Marcos, Koko Pimentel, Ralph Recto, Ramon Revilla Jr, Vicente Sotto, Manny Villar. There was one who voted against: Sen TG Guingona. There were no abstentions.

      January 31, 2012 – This was sent to the House of Representatives requesting for concurrence, inabot po ito nang ilang buwan sapagkat di pa pasado ang House version.

      May 30, 2012 – The Senate requested the House of Representatives for a conference on the disagreeing provisions because the House passed it already, designating Senators Angara, Santiago, Estrada, Marcos, Revilla, Trillanes and Villar as its conferees to the bicameral conference committee.

      Wala hong Sotto doon sa bicam member!

      May 30, 2012 – The House of Representatives accepted the request of the Senate for conference on the disagreeing provisions for Senate Bill 2796 and House Bill 5808. Representatives were Tinga, Yap, Singson Jr, Angara, Rodriguez, Sarmiento, Arenas, Quimbo, Golez, Sarmiento, Arroyo D as the conferees in the bicameral conference committee, May 30, 2012.

      June 5, 2012 – The conference committee report submitted to the Senate recommending Senate Bill 2796 in consolidation with House Bill 5808 be approved as reconciled and Sen Angara delivered a sponsorship speech after the bicam so sa bicam ito, ang proseso natin, 2nd reading, 3rd reading, magmi-meet ang House at Senate, pag-uusapan ang disagreeing provisions, pag-uusapan nila, paplantsahin nila, babalik sa Senate, babalik sa House. Pagbalik sa Senate, parehong-pareho na ng House version.

      So the committee report, conference committee report was approved by the Senate on June 5.

      June 4, 2012 – Approved by the House of Representatives, one day ahead Mr President.

      So ang totoo niyan as of June 5, it was already out of the hands of the Senate. It was already enrolled, pinadala sa kinauukulan lalo na sa Pangulo ng Pilipinas.

      May mga nagce-claim na ito raw ay retaliation ko for the cyberbullying that I got. Mr President, the cyberbullying attacks I got was on August and September 2012, way, way beyond June 5, na tapos na tapos na sa Senado ito. Sa totoo nga, January 24, wala na sa kamay ng Senate, lumabas na. So it was after my turno en contra that the cyberbullying started, Mr President.

      These cyberbullies should not be too presumptious, parang KSP eh, feeling important eh. The Senate will enact a law for them, kokontrahin sila, reretaliate sila, excuse me ah.

      May I suggest, para sa kalinawan ng marami at medyo magandang kaisipan, I suggest our colleagues and the public read an online article written in the Wall Street Journal is entitled “Why we are so rude online.” “Online browsing lowers self-control and is linked to higher debt and higher weight” by Elizabeth Bernstein of the Wall Street Journal.

      And also, I would like to commend the editorial of the Manila Times today, “Libel and Freedom of Speech.” I suggest our colleagues and the public to also read that instead of your cyberbully whipping boy read it into the records of the Senate.

      I thank you. I hope I am able to set the record straight para matigil ang pagbibintang at paranoia ng iba nating kababayan. – Rappler com

      Source: www rappler com/nation/13833-sotto-stop-paranoia-on-cyber-law-passage

      As of this comment submission, there are no Senate records available of Sen T Sotto’s Oct 5 Bill and Withdrawal of same Bill today. Not even his privilege speech today about this Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012 were available at the Senate Archives (2012) – www senate gov ph/news asp?year=2012#10

  58. andrew lim says:

    UST’s VARSITARIAN EDITORIAL ATTACKS ATENEO AND LA SALLE ON RH STAND

    How I wish I was still in college today. It must be fun.

    It’s not only in the UAAP that Ateneo and UST are battling:

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/277346/news/nation/ust-student-paper-attacks-ateneo-la-salle-on-rh-stands?ref=bannerh1

  59. Rene-Ipil says:

    Let’s have a break.

    Atty. Romulo Makalintal says that the repeated and deliberate absence of Supreme Court justices from the flag raising ceremony may constitute betrayal of public trust, which is a gound for impeachment.

    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    11:19 pm | Sunday, October 7th, 2012
    Share on facebook_likeShare 2

    The repeated absence of some associate justices of the Supreme Court at its regular Monday flag-raising rites just because of their alleged “displeasure” over the appointment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno may constitute a grave violation of Republic Act 8491, or the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines. It may also create the wrong impression in the minds of our youth, especially young students, that there is nothing wrong in not attending the school’s flag rites if they do not like their teachers.

    Section 18 of RA 8491 provides that “all government offices and educational institutions shall observe the flag-raising ceremony every Monday morning” while Section 2 mandates that “reverence and respect at all times shall be accorded the flag (and) the anthem.” Its Section 50 provides that a violator of the law “shall be punished by a fine of not less than five thousand pesos or imprisonment for not more than one year; provided that for any second or additional offenses, both fine and imprisonment shall always be imposed.”

    Pursuant to this law, the Supreme Court issued Circular No. 62-2001 on Sept. 21, 2001, directing all executive judges to supervise the holding of the flag rites in their courthouses and “ensure the attendance of all judges and court personnel in the rites.”

    On March 25, 2009, the Supreme Court First Division ruled in Martinez vs. Lim, Case No. A. M. P-04-1795, that “flag ceremonies inspire patriotism and evoke the finest sentiments of love of country and people” and reiterated the law’s mandate for government offices to observe the Monday flag rites. The resolution was penned by former Chief Justice Renato Corona and concurred in by Associate Justices Consuelo Yñares-Santiago, Antonio Carpio and Teresita Leonardo-de Castro.

    Last September 17 it was reported that, for the third time, several Supreme Court justices were again absent during the Monday flag-raising ceremony.

    If there is anyone who should show strict compliance with the law, it is a justice of the Supreme Court; the justices are the embodiment of a law-abiding citizen of the land. Their repeated and deliberate absences from the flag-raising rites, which the law compels them to attend, may constitute betrayal of public trust, which is a ground for impeachment.

    If the justices of the Supreme Court could compel lower courts and their personnel to comply with the flag law and penalize them for noncompliance therewith, there is no reason why the justices should be exempt from any punishment should they continue disregarding the law mandating them to attend the regular Monday flag ceremony.—ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, Las Piñas City

    • TOL says:

      Again, ano na naman ang tingin ng mga justices na ito sa sarili nila? Are they above the law? In that sense alone, it shows that they are not fit to hold their positions.

      • duquemarino says:

        “If leaders are ethical, they can ensure that ethical practices are carried out throughout the organization. (Wikipedia)

    • leona says:

      That law is weak for its wording, thus it can be ignored as what is happening.
      It says, as quoted by @ Rene-Ipil, “all government offices and government instirutions xxx”.

      The phrase is weak as read. Revise the phrase: “All government officers and employees of government offices and institutions are punishable for failure to attend Flag ceremonies every Monday morning. Second offense shall be suspension for one (1) week from work without pay. Third offense shall be punished with Six months suspension without pay. And further offense shall be ground for summary dismissal and forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from employment in the government..’ Make the law as harsh as the Cybercrime Law.

      “Chiefs and Head of the such offices shall implement this law. Failure to do so shall constitute suspension or dismissal from the government service.”

      Let us see what happens.

      • vander anievas says:

        @leona,
        “Chiefs and Head of the such offices shall implement this law. Failure to do so shall constitute suspension or dismissal from the government service.”

        and i like the phrase “make the law as harsh as the Cybercrime Law.”

        if ever one idiot lawmaker proposes that, i bet you, it’ll take forever to pass into law. just like the rhbill and the FOI.

        ano? kukuha sila ng batong pamukpok sa ulo nila. LOL

    • baycas says:

      @Rene-Ipil,

      Thanks. I badly need a break.

      A long break. So long…

  60. Johnny Lin says:

    CPM version of FACT CHECK
    “LOPEZ family VICTIMS OF MARTIAL LAW AGAIN AFTER 40 Years”

    When Martial Law was declared by Marcos in 1972, Enrile staged a faked ambush in Wack Wack right in front of Oscar Lopez house. The family Lopez lost their businesses at that time to Marcos and his cronies. Geny Lopez was incarcerated.

    40 years after, Oscar Lopez, thru the intercession of his in law Ex Pres Erap Estrada, subsidized the publishing of Enrile book Memoir including the staging of a political personalities studded book launching and complete TV coverage? Unknowingl to Lopez, Enrile wrote a watered down fiction of his 1972 ambush totally contradicting the autobiographical book of Oscar Lopez in which he vividly detailed on what really happened on the fake ambush staged in front of his house by Enrile.

    Go figure this historical partnership of Enrile and Estrada:

    1. FPJ was convinced to run for president by both of them, leaving him behind fending his electoral protest against GMA until he suffered a stroke. Enrile allied with GMA while Estrada was arrested.
    2. Oscar Lopez was the victim of an elaborate book launching which contained lies about his own version in his book of the fake ambush of Enrile
    3. Binay has now partnered with the same couple who drafted their sons to be senatorial candidates, but Binay was forced lately to enter his reluctant daughter into the political arena after supposed backers like Escudero, Legarda, Poe Llamanzares and De Venecia started abandoning their partnership. Binay must take a second look!

    Suggestion to Binay to read my book, “The Art of Doublecross”
    He he he

  61. rigo says:

    Hello there,
    It is a scary thought to have these Politicians made a hasty decision on Laws that affect the very human existence of all filipinos..and at the same time try to exclude themselves from the debacle and mess that themselves created..(shame,shame)..It is really a time of change..You don’t want those people to go on creating havoc..get rid of them comes election day..

    On a lighter note, I noticed that getting elected in a government post is a sure way of having a lucrative job in Phil, better life without really working hard for it. Am sure missing the fun in the Phil.

  62. Johnny Lin says:

    Latest News Inquirer:
    “Enrile and Trillanes Resume Word War”

    Raissa, is your name in that ” white paper”?

  63. Johnny Lin says:

    Latest News: Inquirer Headlines

    TRUE OR FALSE: WAS 1972 ENRILE AMBUSH FAKED?

    TRUE, AMBUSH WAS FAKED!

    Enrile is a LIAR, based on his book!

    Sue me
    He he he

      • Johnny Lin says:

        Before his book was launched, been posting here about his fake ambush that he would twist to his favor. Even to the publisher, Oscar Lopez, the rough draft of the memoir was not provided.

        Refused to show an advance copy to the press and printed the book with extreme secrecy. He did not want adverse publicity, like what is happening now. Finally, every columnist, media, bloggers are attacking his incredible fictional autobiography.

        Read the detailed account of Oscar Lopez recalling the incident because it happened almost in front of his house in Wack Wack in 1972 on Billy Esposo column in Inquirer. “Where are his women”, he asked?

        Do NOT vote Enrile in next election. Time to retire that name forever.

        • filipino_mom says:

          his book belongs in the philippine myths and legends section. to be read and taken in with a huge boulder of salt.

          • Mel says:

            People who bought it should return or exchange it for something else.
            It is not what real history recounts (according to Inquirer online news – FACT CHECK). The book doesn’t include guarantees nor ‘warranty’ of facts. The purported unfake ambush tale spoils the rest of the book.

            Mabuti pa si R Saguisag, nanghiram lang.

            Ohh, owwwh. JPE might file a bill to make his book available in school libraries.

          • duquemarino says:

            Like “Ti Biag ni Lam-ang”???????

        • David says:

          The same goes for his son.

      • Johnny Lin says:

        @ baycas
        Latest Spy News:

        The co-author of the “memoir” would be blamed for changing the story on the Fake Ambush without the knowledge of the biographer.

      • erwin says:

        @ baycas, @ angela

        I really love reading fiction books and even try to collect their books….Some of my favorite authors are Irving Wallace, Harold Robbins, Arthur Hailey, Sidney Sheldon, John Grisham, Robert Ludlum, Dan Brown, Tom Clancey, Andrew Greeley and still many others.

        Hindi kaya masayang itong libro ni Enrile kung bibilhin ko kasi aawasin ko ang pambili ng libro niya sa aking SSS monthly pension at sa aking maintenance medicines?

        • Rene-Ipil says:

          Erwin @ 129.1

          Why bother yourself reading 700 pages of uncertainty if not falsity. I suggest that you save your money and just read the post of Parekoy @ 128 to know the true story about Enrile. It seems that Parekoy knows more than what ordinary mortals like us know, including Enrile himself. Maybe you can try to invite Parekoy over a cup of coffee for the details.

          • raissa says:

            Enrile book is always useful as a viewpoint and as a perspective.

            I wish more political personalities would write their own tell-all books :)

            • Rene-Ipil says:

              Yes. Even useless books and people can be used as example of useless matters and human beings.

            • chit navarro says:

              It’s not complete if it does not speak about his “love life”….What is a man’s life without a woman of strength and substance?

            • saxnviolins says:

              Agreed. Useful.

              Like blog posts, you can just ignore what you don’t agree with. But there will be insights about other people from the vantage point of one who worked with them.

              You do not have to agree with people to derive insights from their work. Even peaceniks read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.

              One of the best I read was Treasury Secretary Paul O Neill’s book on George W. Bush.

              One of the shortest assessments of Marcos and Cory was made by Enrile in a talk in UP in 87. When asked to compare, he said one was a reckless driver, and the other a student driver. With whom would you hitch a ride?

              Want to read his take on other people – Ramos, Virata, Paeng Salas, etc.

              • Rolly says:

                Once asked by a reporter whether Cory was a communist, Enrile replied…if it looks like a duck, wobbles (sic) [maybe he meant waddles] like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

          • erwin says:

            @ Rene-Ipil,

            Thanks for your advice. I won’t waste my pension money for that book. But if ever some CPMers would lend this book to me then I will be forced to read it.
            To tell you frankly I love to read comments of my idol Johnny Lin, ( Justice ) Baycas, Parekoy , Pareng Tony, Maria A, (fiery) Leona, ( well researched comments ) Yvonne, Andrew Lim, jcc and lately (the courageous and fiery too) Joe America and many other- CPMers. …di ba?

            Next time I gonna write another “tula” for all trapos and their dynasties……

      • Cha says:

        Ahaha, thanks for the link @baycas.

        Best review of Enrile’s memoirs right there in that photo. Sandwiched between mommyporn Shades of Grey book 2 and James Patterson thriller Zoo, top left is Ripley’s Believe it or Not. Nuff said. :)

        • erwin says:

          @ Cha,

          Yes, that’s true. I have noticed that too. So, it’s really true that his book is considered a fiction. I’ll try to read some more reviews of his book before spending my pension money……hehehehehe..

          • Cha says:

            erwin,

            You might be better off spending your pension money on Marites Vitug’s new book Hour Before Dawn: The uncertain rise and fall of the Supreme Court, which tells the story of Corona from his appointment as Chief Justice to his impeachment. At least we can be sure this one will be a TRUE story :)

            Haven’t read it yet myself, don’t want to get the e-book so I am waiting till I can ask someone to get me a hard copy from there.

    • Mel says:

      FACT-CHECK

      True or false: Was 1972 Enrile ambush faked?

      By Inquirer Research
      Philippine Daily Inquirer
      12:24 am | Monday, October 8th, 2012

      Did he or did he not fake his ambush 40 years ago?

      In response to numerous requests from our readers, the Inquirer did a fact-check on a controversial claim that the Senate president made in his newly published book, “Juan Ponce Enrile: A Memoir.”

      Enrile, the martial law administrator of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, said in his book that the ambush on his convoy on the night of Sept. 22, 1972, was not staged—a turnaround from what the then defense secretary disclosed during a historic press conference on Feb. 23, 1986, when he and then Lt. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos announced their revolt against Marcos.

      In other interviews with certain foreign correspondents, Enrile was also reported as saying that the ambush—one of the reasons cited by then President Marcos to justify his imposition of martial law—was faked.

      So, which is which?

      In his book, Enrile said that on Sept. 22, 1972, his three-vehicle convoy was driving through Wack Wack subdivision on his way home to Dasmariñas Village from Camp Aguinaldo where he had just briefed top military officers on the implementation of martial law.

      “A speeding car rushed and passed the escort car where I was riding. Suddenly, it opened several bursts of gunfire toward my car and sped away. The attack was so sudden that it caught everyone by surprise. No one in the convoy was able to fire back,” Enrile said in the book.

      Enrile’s convoy left the bullet-riddled car and returned to Camp Aquinaldo where he reported the incident to Marcos. The soon-to-be-dictator, according to Enrile’s account, uttered some expletives: “Lintik ang mga ’yan!” (Damn those fools!).

      In his book, Enrile said his political opponents were the ones who spread the word after the 1986 People Power Revolution that the ambush was faked to justify the imposition of martial law.

      “This is a lie that has gone around for far too long such that it has acquired acceptance as the truth … . This accusation is ridiculous and preposterous,” Enrile said in his book. “Whether I was ambushed or not, martial law in the country was already an irreversible fact. So what was the need to fake my own ambush?”

      Conflicting accounts

      The banner headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s front page published on Feb. 23, 1986 read: “Enrile, Ramos lead ‘revolt’ against FM.” One of the dropheads accompanying the headline read: “1972 ambush fake—Enrile.”

      In its research, the Inquirer also came upon several journalists who said that Enrile himself had admitted not only during the Feb. 22, 1986, press conference but also in several interviews that the ambush was fake.

      In his 1988 book, “Waltzing with a Dictator,” New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner wrote that while Enrile’s wife, Cristina, said that God had saved her husband, “God had had nothing to do with it. Marcos and Enrile had staged the ‘ambush,’ as the final justification for martial law.”

      Bonner said he had two long interviews with Enrile in December 1985. “He was emphatic that the attack on him had not been staged, but in February 1986, after he had broken with Marcos and led the revolt that ousted the Philippine president, Enrile admitted that the attack on his car had been faked,” Bonner wrote.

      “Several American intelligence officers told me that the car attack was phony. ‘Flimflam,’ said one,” Bonner added.

      In her 1989 book, “Impossible Dream,” Time correspondent Sandra Burton wrote: “Seasoned observers believed from the start that the attack had been staged. Years later, as he was in the midst of his own revolt from the Marcos regime, Enrile would confirm those suspicions.”

      Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Katherine Ellison also said that Enrile himself admitted that the ambush was fake.

      In her 1988 book, “Imelda,” Ellison wrote: “(Enrile) revealed that he had narrowly escaped injury in a spectacular ambush of his car—an event he conceded in 1986 had been staged.”

      In his 1986 book, “The Quartet of the Tiger Moon,” National Artist Nick Joaquin wrote about the people’s reaction to the “confession” of a certain Capt. Ricardo Morales about an alleged plot to attack Malacañang and kill Marcos:

      “The ‘confession’ sounded hollow to people who had just heard Enrile reveal that the 1972 attempt on his life was staged to give Mr. Marcos an excuse to declare martial law. People sneered that Marcos was so used to faking (fake feats, fake medals, fake literary works, fake health) that he would fake even his own assassination and death.”

      READ the remainder of the article at newsinfo inquirer net/284836/true-or-false-was-1972-enrile-ambush-faked

      • Johnny Lin says:

        Latest ABS CBN NEWS

        “Enrile defends son, Binay daughter”
        Enrile is defending the candidacy of his son and Binay daughter on the criticisms that they are positioning their children to become senators without obvious qualifications.

        Enrile says, “let the people decide, they are intelligent. Nobody has monopoly of opinion, no monopoly of truth”

        Enrile has two versions of truth all the time to cover all bases.
        1. What he said to reporters
        2. What he wrote in his book.

        • leona says:

          About this alleged important ambush story, I will wait for the next “mea culpa” for the ending of a tall tale or tail.

          Since that is the way it is, so be it…not to be believe… true or false, false or true and back again to true or false. Kaka pagod sundan. Just forget or ignore it!

        • duquemarino says:

          @Johnny Lin

          His defending the candidacy of the Binays is simply to justify the candidacy of his son.

  64. Parekoy says:

    About Political Dynasties…

    Yung bang mga kamag-anak at anak ay pwede nating tawaging:

    Anak ng PU_ _ _ _ _ _!

    (PULITIKO)…

    So itong mga AnakngPU

    PNoy- Anag ng Hero

    Let us imagine what Ninoy and Cory could have said to their son.

    ‘Anak, very proud ako sayo, pinagpapatuloy mo ang ang sinumulan! Pero minsan nakalimutan mo na yong freedom of expression ay aking pinaglaban at sana naman tanggalin mo na ang Libel provision sa CyberCrime law dahil pagod na ako rito sa ataul dahil ikot ako ng ikot. please lang. I luv you anak..Daddy Ninoy’

    ‘Noynoy ko, iho, nasa likod mo ako saka si Cardinal Sin pagdting sa Pro RH Bill. Sabi sa akin ni Cardinal effective daw yong condoms, kaya wala aw mga Sin Jrs. Iurong mo na rin yong Libel a yan, hwag kang mana sa akin na balat sibuyas kaya tuloy nademanda ko si Beltran dahil nagtatago daw ako sa kama. Alam ko naman na figure of speech lang yon, si kris kasi sabi ‘Mommy mafafayagan mo ba yan na isang tabatsoy lahng na columnist na laitin ka’.

    • Parekoy says:

      AnakngPU….

      Bongbong Marcos- Anak ng Diktador

      ‘Anak kahit na naki apid ang partido mo sa anak ng mortal kong kalaban, naiintindihan ko dahil political realities yan. Proud ako sa pagtatanggol mo sa record ko sa Martial Law good job! Ingat ka dyan kay Jackie Enrile, mas matapang yan kaysa sa Tatay, pero hindi yan matalino tulad ni Johnny kaya ala yan sauo sa debate.

      Paki-dna test pala yung mga kapatid mo, noon kasing kapanahunan ko wala pang ganyang technology. Mahalin mo nanay mo, matanda na yan saka sana matagal pa syang makapiling ko dito kasi ok lang dito jindi maingay…Yon nga palang libing ko sa mga kamposanto ng Mga Bayani, paki lakad ulit kay PNoy, kalimutan na nya kamo ang nakaraan. Yung mga Avsecom ko pala, alagan mong mabuti ang mg pamila kasi baka mag-sing-along eh ma-implicate pamila natin. Si johnny pati, tsismoso na rin, pero hayaan mo at kokumprontahin ko sya dito, malapit na rin appointment nya.—Love Daddy777′

      ‘Bong, Nanay mo to. Wag ka ng magpa DNA dahil baka maging telenovela ang buhay natin at mabulgar kung bakit napatay si Ninoy. Sana wag kang masyadong palaaway kay PNoy, malay mo related pa tayo jan.

      PS..
      Xmas na, alam mo na ang paborito ni Mommy…Manolo Blanik saka Gucci na shoes, mga ilang libong pairs lang. loveyou bbko.’

    • pinay710 says:

      @parekoy, ok yung paalala ng magulang ni noynoy pero alalahanin mo na ang magulang ay hindi palagi nakatutok sa kanya. eh pagka nakapaligid na ang barkada (opisyal or staff) nakakalimutan na ang bilin ng magulang. malakas ang impluwensya ng barkada at kapaligiran. “SIGE KA NOY PAGHINDI KA NAKI -IN SA AMIN HINDI KA NA NAMIN ISASAMA SA MGA GIMMICKS NA PUPUNTAHAN NAMIN.”eh parang ang daling kumbinsihin or salisihan si noy. para sayang walang kamuwang muwang sa mundo. AKALAIN MO PANGULO EH NASALISIHAN PATI NA NG MGA KABARKADA NYANG AKALA NYA EH MAY MGA MATANG LAWIN NA TUTULONG SA KANYA EH HINDI NAKITA NA NASINGITAN NA SILA..

      • Parekoy says:

        @Pinay710

        Salamat.

        Para na kasing manok na Andok si Ninoy sa kaiikot, kaya maawa naman sya sa Daddy nya pagod na at hilong-hilo na.

        Ang makikinabang kasi ng Libel provisions na yan mga Pulitiko at hinde naman tayo kaya sa tingin ko, nagkaisa ang mga yan magpa Admin at magpa Una. Ngayon hugas kamay na lang. Si Sotto tuwa yan dahil napunta na kay PNoy ang puna at hindi na sa kanya.

    • Parekoy says:

      AnakngPU

      Jackie Enrile – Anak ng Arkitekto ( MartialLaw)

      liham galing kay Daddy

      ‘Jack, alam mong hindi ako naging mabuting Daddy habang kayo ay lumalaki kayo ni Katrina. Alam nyo na mahirap at long hours ang trabaho ko, marami akong pinipirmahan na ipakulong, mga rebelde, mga suspected na kontra martial law, mga manunulat na sakit sa aming ulo ni Apo Macoy, mga estudyante na parally rally. Mabuti na lang naikulong agad namin ito si Ninoy, delikado kaki rito, mahal ng Pilipino, balakid sabi ni Apo.

      Matanda na ako, 88, at madali na ring iwanan ang mundo, pero ang ikinakabahala ko ay papaano na ang ating angkan, ang ating mga negosyo, pinaghirapan ko yan simula pa Martial Law. Isa ayo sa pinakamayaman sa buong Pilipinas at ngtaka nga ako at hindi ako nailista sa Forbes, pero okay lang yun, dapat low profile lang. Ikaw ang tagapagmana at papalit sa akin, pero kung hindi ka maging Senador baka hindi tayo maprtektahan ng mga bata ko na nasa ibaibang pwesto sa gobyerno, mga supreme court justices na ka brod ko, at mga nasa militar.

      Pero pag natalo ka, hwag mong kalimutan ang safe na naglalaman ng ma dossiers natin ng iba-ibang mga pulitiko at malalaking negosyante sa bansa, lahat ng dumi nila ay nandoon. Gamitin mo kung kinakailangan, kasi siguradong tayo ang sunod na target at bulatlatin ang yaan natin. Tingnan mo si Gloria hindi na tinatantanan ng Ombudsman, hindi pa sya suspek ng pamilya aquino sa pagkapatay sa Daddy nila.

      Kung sakasakaling kailangan mo ng firepower, andyan si Greg, grabe na ang piagdaanan nyan, ilang Coup na ang in-implement nya.

      Kung sakasakaling manalo ka, dapat alam mong bumalimbing kung saan tayo magsurvive. Kung sino ang nasa Malacanyang doon din tayo para safe. Tingnan mo record ko, kay Ramos, Erap, Gloria, ki Pnoy…laging nakakapit. Alam kong noong kabataan nyo ay hindi kayo magkasundo ni Bongbong pero kalimutan nyo na yon, mas malakas pwersa nyo pag kayo ay magkakampi.

      Advice ko sayo dahil maiinitin ulo mo, ang Pulitika iba kukutyain ka, sasabihan ka nila ng kung anu anong masamang paratang:

      tulad ng pinatay mo daw si Alfie Anido (inayos ko na an sa libro ko sabi ko sa kanila pakana ni Ver yon, wala na si Ver so wala na ring verification so wala naman talagang ebidensya;

      Adik ka raw, sabihin mo pag namumula ang mata mo, napuyat ka lang ng kababasa ng mga bills na nasa senado, pwede ka ring magsuot ng shades;

      Hindi ka raw matalino at utak pulbura- hwag kang pikon, gayahin mo style ni Lito Lapid, no talk no mistake, hwag na hwag kang gagaya kay Sotto, nabuko na palakopya at mayabang pa at nag-insert pa ng Libel provision, yon nagkagulo na ang mga nag-iinternet, nadamay pa kaming lahat sa katarantaduhan at pagkaarogante nya, pati presidente damay, What a mess pati electability mo mukhang delikado sa galit ng mga nag-cu-computer na mga yan.

      Yung pass word ko nga pala bangko kunin sa favorite secretary ko.

      Love
      Daddy

      PS.
      Pag wala na ako sa mundong ito, gwag na wag mong gagalawin si Freddie Aguilar. Ilang beses kong sasabihin to sayo, yung kantang ANAK ay hindi yon ginawa para ka asarin. Pag nilabag mo yan mumultuhin kita…’

      • Johnny Lin says:

        Read Special Report in Manila Bulletin by Andrew Masigan:
        “A Few Deserving Senatorial Bets”
        Maybe @baycas could attach link

        His first candidate is Jun Magsaysay.

        Guess the names he recommends NOT TO BE ELECTED

      • Rene-Ipil says:

        Parekoy@128

        Napakagaling, Parekoy. Halos halos himatayin ang asawa ko sa tuwa habang binabasa at ipinaririnig ko sa kanya nang buong puso at damdamin ang mga sulat sa mga anak ng PU…….

        Seriously, I think that not all the contents of the letters are true but most of them are. My spouse insists vehemently that all of them are true.

        Ako ay naniniwala sa kasabihan ng mga sinaunang matatanda na ang kasalanan ng magulang ay pagbabayaran ng anak. At sa magandang ipinunla ng magulang ang anak din ang aani.

        • Parekoy says:

          @Rene-ipil

          Salamat naman at may sense of humor ang mrs mo!

          Hwag seryosohin, halo-halo ito , may haka-haka, halaw sa mga past blind items, sa mga bubwit na spy, at mismong galing sa kanilang bibig. Bahala na kayong mag decipher kung alin ang totoo. Ang aliw at pagpaalala ng mga pamilyang ang lakas ng hawak sa kapangyarihan sa gobyerno. Know your favorite Dynasty kumbaga!

      • Parekoy says:

        I just finished viewing the interview of Jackie Enrile at “#Talk Thursday” at rappler.

        http://www.rappler.com/

        It was good interview. You can get a glimpse about his personality.

        He was shy in the interview. When the Alfie Anido issue was raised, he obviously got uncomfortable, he was sweating, he kept on wiping his forehead and other gestures not seen when he was answering other issues. When he was talking about his differences with his Dad, he was real and can feel the pain which he had been through. He was a reluctant candidate then for the Cagayan seat. I still believe that he currently is as a Senator. I think he succumbed to his Dad’s pleading and the obvious reality that in order to preserve their wealth and legacy of their name, he needs to put his hat in the ring.

        I’m surprised, I like the guy?!

    • Parekoy says:

      AnakngPU

      JV Ejercito/Estrada – Anak ng Jueteng

      Liham ni Erap

      ‘ JV, anak, wala ka ng maisusumbat sa akin, pinayagan na kitang tumakbo sa pagka senador. Simula ng bata ka lagi ka lang umiiyak na hindi pantay ang pagmamahal ko sainyo ni Jinggoy. Naalala ko, yung Xmas gift ko sainyo pareho Robot at tinapon mo yung sayo at bigla kang nagsumbong sa Mommy mo. Natigil ka lang ng pinalitan ko na Barbie yung gift ko sayo.

      Pag nanalo ka, tulungan mo ang kuya mo saka ipaalala mo sa kanya na hwag syang masyadong mayabang at magpapogi nababaas sa kana ang manonood. Hwag mong kalimutan na bigyan sya ng sandwich na may palaman na margarine para tumangkad pa sya ng konti.

      Ang payo ko sayo hwag kang mag file ng bill tungkol sa same sex marriage, hindi pa tanggap ng mga mamamayan yan. Alam kong malapit sa puso mo ang mga may pilantik pero dapat wais ka dahil baka kalabanin ka ng simbahan. Hayaan mo nang si Koko o si Jamby ang magsulong ng bill na yan.

      Yun nga palang sa RH bill, kontrahin mo yon at hindi ako ayon doon. Magpasalaat ka wala pang RH bill noon kung hindi eh hindi ka amin nabuo ni Mommy mo, pero sa tingin ko pwede pa rin. Saka pag natuloy yang RH bill na yan na maging batas, patay tayo dyan. Kokonti yung base natin na masa lalo na yung mga sobrang mahihirap, kokonti na lang ang bilang nila. Pano na yung Erap para sa Mahirap kung uunlad na ang buhay ng mga Pilipino dahil sa lintek na RH Rh na yan!

      Matuto na kayo ni Jinggoy, hwag kayong tatanggap ng Jueteng money, bwisit yan sa buhay natin. May pork na ang mga Senador na P 200,000,000 bawat taon so tanong ka na lang kay Jinggoy kung paano style…

      Proud ako sa angkan natin, mahal tayo ng masa. Tingnan mo ikaw JV at si kuya Jinggoy mo Senador, Ako Mayor ng Maynila, Mommy mo Mayor ng San Juan, first cousin mo na si Jeorg Ejercito, governor ng Laguna, asawa nyang si Girlie Mayor ng Pagsanghan.

      Hwag na hwag makipag away kila Ping, Atong at Chavit, ang nakaraan ay nakraan na. Mga astig ang mga yan, baka tayo malasin.

      Ngayon sigurong nasa tamang edad ka na, maiintindihan mo kung bakit lagi kong sinasabi na kamukha ko si Jinggoy at ikaw kamukha ni Mommy mo. Sa mga anak ko si Jinggoy ang pinaka guapo at ikaw ang pinaka maganda!

      Daddy

      PS
      Pag naka video ang Senate session, dapat naka make-up ka kasi makintab ang mukha pag walang powder. Manghiram ka ng beauty products kay Loren at hwag na hwag kay Mirriam, sige ka baka magkamukha kayo.

    • leona says:

      One of PNoy’s news interviews makes mention of that “man falsely yelling fire in a crowded theatre.” Someone,like Mr. Harry Kalven, commented that that example is a sterile example.

      The New York Times case put the freedom of speech clause in the US Constitution, right side up for the first time, according to him.

      In ‘Pinas, our lawmakers did throw “down all sides for the first time” our freedom of speech. Ang mga pinoys pag nag wawala, ibang-iba …mag hubad ‘o baliktad ang suot na damit!

      • Parekoy says:

        @ Leona

        isang example:

        Nasa entablado ang mga kandidato ng UNA AT Admin, may sumigaw, “Magnanakaw ka”.

        Wala man lang sumagot na hindi ako magnanakaw sa mga Senatoriables. Nagtanong ang isang reporter sa isang Senatoriable kung bakit hindi lang naman nagalit. Sabi noon isang Senatoriable, akala ko kasi hindi ako at itong mga katabi ko. Ako kasi noong pumasok ako sa Pulitika mayaman na, itong mga kasama ko mga wala ito noon, nagkaron lang ng limpak-limpak na yaman ng makapasok na sa gobyerno. Sabi naman ng isa, hindi ako umimik kasi yung “Magnanakaw” na term ay pang small time lang, pag yung binanggit noong tao na “PLUNDERER” IBA NA YON tinatamaan na ako noon.

    • Parekoy says:

      Anak ng PU
      Nancy Binay –Anak ni Stallone (Rambo)
      —————— Anak ni Janice (Kung maniniwala tayo sa sinulat at pasaring ni Korina tungkol sa mga Maligno)

      Liham ni Daddy

      ‘Anak, alam kong nagdadalawang isip ka sa pagtakbo sa Senado. Kung sa tingin mo hindi ka pa hinog, kami na ang bahala sa pagpahinog sayo, kapartido natin si Enrile. Tingnan mo si Sotto, si Honasan, si Jinggoy, natuto na lang din on the job. Kung si Lapid nga high school gradweyt lang ikaw pa kaya.

      Kapag inenterbyu ka at paratangan na gumagawa tayo ng Dynasty, ngiti ka lang at sabihin na “We are a Dynasty of Service”, pero hwag mung sabihin na kung sino ang beneficiary ng service na yan, dapat Malabo para may out tayo.

      Alam mo na siguro na huwag tayong kokontra kay PNoy, sa 2016 babana sya at tayo na ang nasa Malacanyang. Dami na natin kakampi na nasa Malacanyang, andyan si Ochoa at Samar Group. Sila Balsy at Kris sa atin yan. Grabe ang utang na loob sa akin ni Kris. Natatandaan mo noong nagkatulo si Kris dahil sa lintek na Joey Marquez nay an, ako agad ang tinawagan ni Kris para tumahimik muna itong si Joey. Si Peping atin na rin, kaya nerbyos lang ni Mar.

      Nasa Pulitika tayo, dapat makapal ang balat natin pero kailangan matapang din.
      Minsan itong si Korina ay may mga pasaring na parang pinupuntirya tayo na mga “Maligno at Maiitim”. Hayaan mo lang dahil pagkakamali nila yon. Masosorpresa na lang sila pagdating ng halalan dahil matatalo natin sila sa kanilang balwarte sa Capiz, Iloilo at Antique. Alam mo na rin siguro na may mga aswang dyan at akala nila maligno tayo, so iboboto nila ako kaysa kay Roxas.

      Hwag kang pikon pag sinabing maitim. Uso na yan ngayon. Tingnan mo si Obama, lamang lang ako ng konting paligo dyan. Yung Ilocos vote saka Visaya vote na maraming mga kakulay natin, siempre atin na rin yan. Ayaw ng mga yan sa konyo.

      Yong mga kalaban ko bubulatlatin kung saan natin kinuha ang ating yaman. Dedma ka lang. Habang nasa atin ang control sa pagka mayor at congress ng Makati, dami nating tauhan dyan. Kung si Gloria nga hindi ako mapatalsik ito pa kayang Vice na ako? Yung mga imbestigasyon ng graft dyan sa Makati, magdadalawang isip ngayon ang COA kasi mas malakas tayo ngayon.

      Hindi ako nagsasawa sa pagsariwa ng mga dinaanan ko. Bata pa lang ako namatay na mga magulang ko, kayod ako para lang makapag aral ng abogasya. Lumaki ako na streetwise sa Makati saka sa Pasay, kailangan kong maging matapang at matalino dahil yun lang ang puhunan ko.

      Sa UP nakapasok ako sa frat ng APO (Alpha Phi Omega) at yung mga kalaban naming frat takot yan pag ako ang nangunguna sa rambol, tingin ko kasi para lang silang mga bata kumpara sa mga nakaengkwentro kong mga Batang Makati ant Batang Pasay. Yung pagka Batanggueno ko ay talagang nasa dugo ala eh. Noong Martial Law, napaka idealist ko, ayokong naaapi ang mga kaliitan. Naging Human Rights Lawyer ako at yong mga Political prisoners ay tinutulungan ko. Nong Edsa I. barikada kami, nakasukbit lang an Uzi ko at bahala na kung maputokan ng mga tuta ni Ver at Marcos. Tanggal si Marcos at na appoint ako ni Cory na Mayor ng Makati noong 1986. Doon na nabago ang buhay natin, naging maginhawa na rin.

      Ang politika weder weder lang yan. Noon mortal mong kalaban ngayon kasamahan mo na. Tingnan mo si Enrile, Honasan, at Erap, mga Marcos yan ngayon kakampi na natin at kalaban na natin yong mga kasama ko sa Edsa noon. Pag nananalo ako babalimbing din yung iba dyan, yung Samar Group nga satin na!

      Pagnasa senado ka na, Anti RH ka dapat. Dapat hwag lumiit ang bilang ng mahihirap. Paano na lang ang mga eskwater sa Guadalupe eh baka umunlad ang mga yan at magka-computer di makakabasa ng mga blogs sa internet, patay tayo dyan. Mas marami mahirap sa Makati mas mabuti para sa politika.

      Si Jun-jun na ang bahala sa Makati, ikaw ang mata at tenga ko sa Senado, at si Abigail sa 2nd District of Makati. Wow! I’m really proud of my family. A family of service!

      Isa lang ang hihingin ko sayo, dapat proud ka sa pamilya natin at kulay ng ating balat, huwag kang mag endorse ng Belo Whitening Soap.

      Love,
      Proud Tatay

  65. raissa says:

    Hi guys,

    I’m preparing something but it’s very tedious.

    You’ll be surprised.

    Hopefully by tomorrow.

    • Mel says:

      Don’t be in a hurry.

      Cover your bases. Please, don’t leave holes or question marks.

      Kindly make it clear, simple like a two edged sword cutting to the bone.

      Thanks. Looking forward for that meal, again.

      • raissa says:

        Wow.

        You want it to be “like a knife that slides clean into the astonished flesh beneath the dark root of a scream.” – from Blood Wedding , Federico Garcia Lorca.

        • Mel says:

          Semblance of crafty characters that congregated to pass the Cybercrime Prevention Act circa 2012? Many of them flipped flop, back tracked and admitted lapses.

          At bloody play enraged on enclosing where the mother [ginang] declares -

          “This is the knife”!

          “The scream of death,”

          Will it put the final rites to the Act that once thought ago answers the questions, but alas punishes alike the innocent who dobs and whistles against those who wish to trample on the Bride’s lovers’ rights for freedom of expression and free speech?

          (Or will the mother let the bride to live?)

    • Ella Tovara says:

      Take your time … but gezzz can’t wait ti read it.

  66. Jett Rink says:

    Is Pnoy not blameless here ? Don’t be kind now ….

    • Johnny Lin says:

      Of course, he shares the blame.
      Buck ends in his desk.

      Could he have been blindsided or undercut by his allies in senate in connivance with members of his executive staff? Absolutely, yes! He learned his lessons, realizing piece by piece who are his enemies within own circle.

      Watch his back! Remember what happened to Roxas support.

    • Bayonic says:

      Its ironic that somebody who benefited from social media and the internet signed a law that seeks to curtails the freedom and transparency that can contribute to the common goal of reducing the corruption in this country.
      He became president with no small thanks from social media which exposed and spread the alleged excess of his predecessor. He got rid of what he called a stumbling block to the road of judicial reform by impeaching a CJ , again with lots of help from social media and the internet which helped sway the impeachment court to a conviction.

    • Rene-Ipil says:

      Jett, Johnny, Bayonic@126

      Raissa wrote:

      “I’m not against a libel law covering netizens. Let me explain my personal stand on online libel. I am not against punishing people who make libelous statements online. But the law has to be well-defined on what are considered libelous statements; who gets punished for them; and what the punishment is. I also don’t believe in a jail term.”

      Pnoy said also that online libel should remain in the statute but he is amenable to amendments that reduce the penalty.

      I believe that both Raissa and Pnoy are correct. Online libel should be punishable but the penalty should be reduced to only a fine. And the offender should also be liable for damages when warranted.

      • leona says:

        The short or long of this Cybercrime Law is SELF-CENSOR.

        It is already in the Revised Penal Code! Bring it further into cyberspace! Into the INTERNET! Put and use a net to catch writers, bloggers, wacha all of ‘em, using the INTERNET! If our lawmakers can only “make us drink a liquid for this, they’ll surely do it by law!”

        Self-censor. Chill ‘em! Freeze the temptation to write, write anything all. Suppress the minds. Their ideas! Whatever comes into their heads don’t let it come it!

        Symbolically cut their fingers too with those KEYBOARDS! Block everything it is libelous! Protect the innocent victims of libel you protect all, including the corrupt in government. It is the end of free speech. End of free press.

        Increasing the penalties, many if not thousands, will be afraid to use the INTERNET! Let us give this law a chance to stifle free speech and the press!

        Imprison computer users and INTERNET for long imprisonment sentences! It will help to give a chance to this law.

        Btw, if and when proposed amendments are taken up in this law, both Lower House and Upper House should participate to find if the law is properly protecting free soeech and of the PRESS under SECTION 4, an absolute provision to preserve this RIGHT. The courts must work out the balancing tests and not instead expect free speech is chilled. Free Press is frozen!

        What is actually happening is the reverse. Just chill and freeze all speech and the Press and let courts just send the violators to jail.

        Self Censor.

  67. CBC says:

    Here’s something from Teddy Casino’s blog: Cybercrime law covers text and calls as well

  68. baycas says:

    @raissa,

    I was addressing you in some comments strewn out below but got no replies from you.

    If Sen. Pia Cayetano et al is to be believed (which you chose not to pending the necessary documents you “fished” from them) the Senate Journal of January 24, 2012 bears them out as being truthful.

    Sen. Angara was reading into the Record what was already agreed upon by the Body as INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS then. The recital of these Individual Amendments was enumerated in the Journal of that day as bulleted list with own page numbers and of the font size smaller than specific REMARKS and specific AMENDMENTS by some members of the Senate.

    On Page 876 of the said Journal, Sen. Guingona interrupted Sen. Angara first…

    REMARKS OF SENATOR GUiNGONA

    At this juncture, Senator Guingona expressed concern that the definition of cybersex smacked of prior restraint and he feared that this would violate the Constitution.

    Senator Angara stated that the Committee did not intend to impose any prior restraint. He appealed to the Body to first hear the individual amendments and after which, the Committee could go back to Senator Guingona’s query.

    Note here that Sen. Angara appealed not to be interrupted as he recited the already agreed upon INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS into the Senate Record in Open Session (akin to what they were doing during the impeachment trial: decisions done in caucus were read into the Senate Record in Open Court).

    Sen. Angara then resumed the reading only to be interrupted by another senator. Same Page 876 of the said Journal states in between bulleted items…

    REMARKS OF SENATOR CAYETANO (P)

    Senator Cayetano (P) requested that she be given time to make sure that the bill’s definition of child pronography is aligned with that of RA 9775.

    Senator Angara explained that the particular provision was amended upon the request of Senator Cayetano (P) so that there will be no conflict with the definition of child pornography on the bill and that of RA 9775.

    Cognizant of Sen. Angara’s appeal to let him finish his recitation of the Individual Amendments first before allowing remarks from colleagues, Sen. Pia Cayetano nonetheless interrupted Sen. Angara just to stress what she believes a very important thing. She was given time.

    After which, Sen. Angara resumed his reading into the Record of the Individual Amendments (numbering 44 in all). The end of the recitation was noted at Page 878. It is also where we can read, as promised at the end of the recitation, Sen. Angara’s answer to Sen. Guingona’s query.

    So, @raissa, unless you can prove that Sen. Pia Cayetano indeed introduced the amendments you so clearly attributed to her in the blog post above, Sen. Pia Cayetano is believable and the January 24, 2012 Senate Journal does not lie on her.

    • leona says:

      O.k. O.k. Maybe the “Senate Journal does not lie on her.” But passing the bill for the president’s signature, without the Lower House knowing what the Upper House did put in into that bill, is not lying?

      Is that a good work of a BICAM committee? No. A national bill affecting free speech and of the Press, not being dessiminated anew to the Lower House? Not even many senators of the Upper House knew what happened? Look, even Sen. Santiago said she was not rpesent anymore as she was sick. What was the good reason to HURRY UP PASSING THIS BILL?

      Is our Congress running against time? Who is running after them? Running by the way is now for the coming elections. Is that the reason?

      Wring people’s necks? Wring people’s minds? Wring people’s use of the INTERNET?
      Wring ‘em all?

      When Congress is told to hurry up, it slows down or goes into a stand still. When important bills like this shouldn’t be hurried up, it is hurried up! Ano yon?

      Our Congress, a lawmaking body, should be like this? Doing the opposites? Against free speech and of the Press? To protect the innocents against libel? Is that it? That’s unacceptable! Hurtful! Shameful! Very bad. Don’t re-elect many, especially those of the monarchy-types…POLITICAL DYNASTIES….thumbs down with rest of fingers CLINCHED!

      Believing in the INTERNET that lawmakers can be EJECTED from their seats, is their FEAR! But just the same, LET US DO IT !

      • baycas says:

        That’s beside the point.

        @raissa’s update above (inserted in the body of the blog post) reads…

        UPDATE: As of 8:15 am, Oct 5, 2012

        The “Office of Sen. Pia Cayetano” told me on the social networking site “Twitter” this morning that it wasn’t she who had inserted the two controversial provisions.

        When I asked WHO and “was it Senator Angara?”, the one twitting did not reply. But promised to send me documents to prove it.

        The Senate Journal indicated the amendments under the heading – “Remarks of Sen. Cayetano.”

        The one on Twitter said:

        “Journal says so, as clear as day. If those were hers, the Journal would have bore the heading “Sen @piacayetano amendments.”

        I am awaiting the docs.

        Now, the burden of proof lies on Pia Cayetano’s camp in producing documents when the Senate Journal uploaded on the Net (which @raissa based the THIRD assertion in the blog post) already bears the truth. The amendments were not part of the senator’s remarks.

        It’s kinda weird making the senator appear to have lied and then must prove her innocence simply because @raissa doesn’t believe the senator.

        • baycas says:

          The THIRD assertion in the blog post still stands presently…pending Sen. Pia Cayetano’s camp of exonerating the senator from the THIRD assertion.

          Guilty ka muna unless you prove otherwise!

          • leona says:

            Ye know, people… when they ran out of their minds really, can hang ‘em up before finding ‘em guilty!

            Just what did they do? Want to block internet, chill us to the bones, freeze our fingers & keyboards, FREEZE PRESS, before anyone can shout HEY! WHATCHA MuTTA?

            Whatta mutta? GIVE THE LAW A CHANCE!

            A chance for what? TO CHILL US?

            Yea! chilling yoooh all! One of yooohh might shout FIRE WALL IN THE CROWDED THEATER!

            yooh’RE sterilized! Nooo Mutations allowed!

            then, next is CONFISCATION OF ALL COMPUTERS and keyboards! as tools of the crimes! WHACHA MuTTA?

            bitter-funny episodes ‘Pinas styles!

            • baycas says:

              As I told you, that’s beside the point. The senators made mistakes…big time!

              My comments are about the MISREADING of @raissa of the January 24, 2012 Senate Journal.

              If we’re going to ask the State to stay away from cyberspace and leave us be with our cyber freedom, there must be a form decorum in what, where, when and how we upload our thoughts. Irresponsibility attracts policing outside our cyber community.

              We certainly do not want self-censorship brought about by this uber effing Cyber Libel Law BUT we must self-regulate so the State will not hover above our cyber freedom.

              • leona says:

                Things are out of hand. To self-regulate for the people will embolden the politicians into more causes for us people to continue to self-regulate. They are the causes of all this mess and we have to think of self-regulating for our good? Not for them?

                it’s the other way around…the people trying to teach our political leaders who really have no care. They all want to stick to their posts forever! Unto their children and grandchildren will they hand down the political inheritances of public offices! And we are expected to self-regulate. It will never happen. That is idealism. Reality will reverse us all in it.

                We cannot govern ourselves directly. It is through representatives. But it is not going to happen in the near future. The signs are disturbing. We many sons, daughters, kins of TRAPOS all interested to get into the wagon of politics. We will be the serfs in the end. Look, our lawmakers even will create a new province in Cam Sur! Just to give it to someone that ambitious. No stopping!

                Mind us all…we will see one day all places in this country will be ruled by FAMILIES! And we will self regulate. No. We will be regulated!

                Apply as same measures as unspeakable measures are applied to us. That is the only dose that will be effective and faster as they are faster. It’s a race who gets ahead…the good or the bad.

      • caliphman says:

        Is there no one else but me that is bothered by the deafening silence from this forum in response to baycas in his points above. I see no flaw in his line of reasoning nor do I discern any distortion nor insufficiency in the material on which he premises his conclusions. No one is saying that this lady senator is without guilt as a senate member who enacted this legal monstrosity. For that matter, are we not also all collectively responsible as the electorate who chose her and the others to be responsible for our laws. She is specifically accused of an act that it now appears she is innocent of based on Baycas’ comments. It is up to Raissa to decide how she will
        respond or if at all. But for this entire forum to just ignore one of its own just because it may lead to an awkward or unpopular conclusion is shameful.

        • vander anievas says:

          @caliphman,
          pards, raissa is awaiting for the doc pia’s staff promised to furnish her.
          i’m also waiting…

        • leona says:

          Please do not try to teach us how we want to speak our minds. If you read things here as if “there is silence” are you saying you are noisy? And loud?

          What do you think I and the others are doing here? Reading only?

          Galing ang comment mo. @Caliphman…I hear you!

  69. baycas says:

    @raissa,

    I was addressing you in some comments strewn out below but got no replies from you.

    If Sen. Pia Cayetano et al is to be believed (which you chose not to pending the necessary documents you “fished” from them) the Senate Journal of January 24, 2012 bears them out as being truthful.

    Sen. Angara was reading into the Record what was already agreed upon by the Body as INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS then. The recital of these Individual Amendments was enumerated in the Journal of that day as bulleted list with own page numbers and of the font size smaller than specific REMARKS and specific AMENDMENTS by some members of the Senate.

    On Page 876 of the said Journal, Sen. Guingona interrupted Sen. Angara first…

    REMARKS OF SENATOR GUiNGONA

    At this juncture, Senator Guingona expressed concern that the definition of cybersex smacked of prior restraint and he feared that this would violate the Constitution.

    Senator Angara stated that the Committee did not intend to impose any prior restraint. He appealed to the Body to first hear the individual amendments and after which, the Committee could go back to Senator Guingona’s query.

    Note here that Sen. Angara appealed not to be interrupted as he recited the already agreed upon INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS into the Senate Record in Open Session (akin to what they were doing during the impeachment trial: decisions done in caucus were read into the Senate Record in Open Court).

    Sen. Angara then resumed the reading only to be interrupted by another senator. Same Page 876 of the said Journal states in between bulleted items…

    REMARKS OF SENATOR CAYETANO (P)

    Senator Cayetano (P) requested that she be given time to make sure that the bill’s definition of child pronography is aligned with that of RA 9775.

    Senator Angara explained that the particular provision was amended upon the request of Senator Cayetano (P) so that there will be no conflict with the definition of child pornography on the bill and that of RA 9775.

    Cognizant of Sen. Angara’s appeal to let him finish his recitation of the Individual Amendments first before allowing remarks from colleagues, Sen. Pia Cayetano nonetheless interrupted Sen. Angara just to stress what she believes a very important thing. She was given time.

    After which, Sen. Angara resumed his reading into the Record of the Individual Amendments (numbering 44 in all). The end of the recitation was noted at Page 878. It is also where we can read, as promised at the end of the recitation, Sen. Angara’s answer to Sen. Guingona’s query.

    So, @raissa, unless you can prove that Sen. Pia Cayetano indeed introduced the amendments you so clearly attributed to her in the blog post above, Sen. Pia Cayetano is believable and the January 24, 2012 Senate Journal does not lie on her.

  70. I thought all along that the Upper and Lower Houses of Congress breeds crocodiles. I am wrong, but there is something more sinister and threatening which I thought have gone extinct: DINOSAURS.

    Dinosaurs are those that I term to people who are afraid to touch a cellphone or a computer and I believe now we have a nation of 24 and 211 Tyranosaurus Rexes in the Senate and Congress. What a sad chapter for a country who tries to be an IT heavyweight in SE Asia.

  71. Call for Donation

    Folks, we, the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA), need your help for our Supreme Court TRO petition and to keep our campaign going.

    We need to raise 30,000 pesos (20k filing fee, 10k other expenses, like printing, photocopying, etc.; lawyers are volunteering their time / walang bayad / pro bono) to file the said petition on Monday, Oct 8.

    Kahit maliit na halaga ay napakalaking tulong na po noon sapagkat napakarami nating nagsusulong ng ating adhikain.

    Please visit => http://www.astigtayo.com/Thread-Call-for-Petitioners-Cybercrime-Prevention-Act-of-2012-RA-10175

  72. Parekoy says:

    @Johnny Lin soliciting a way to choose who to vote among the candidates, here is my 2cents:

    Let’s have an analogy that these Politicians are parasites inside a Filipino malnourised child, with ribs protruding, eyes bulging, and its belly disproportionately inflated like a balloon on a tiny frame.

    We need to clarify that there are good parasites a bad ones.

    Say we categorize them into three:

    1. Good Parasite-Lactobacillus, which helps the body to digest and harvest the nutrients from the food.

    2. Bad Parasite – Abdominal Tapeworm (BULATE sa Tiyan ), which sucks and eats most of the nutrients from the food.

    3. Worst Parasite – Brain Tapeworm (BULATE sa Utak), which can cause paralysis and eventual death.

    So I propose to do a triage to save ths Filipino child from these Parasites.

    1. First, Get rid of the worst Parasite, BULATE sa Utak

    2. Retain and add more Good parasites, Lactobacillus.

    3. Choose a bad parasite that can be MUTATED to a benign parasite (BULATE sa Tiyan)

    I will place some names in the category of Parasites as seed, and everybody can hel us populate the categories.

    1. BULATE sa Utak

    -Sotto
    -Enrile
    -Honasan
    -Binay
    -Estrada/Ejercito
    -Mitos Magsaysay

    2. Lactobacillus

    -Poe -Llamanzares
    -Hontiveros
    -Aquino
    -Trillanes
    -Casino
    -Pimentel
    -Ramon Magsaysay

    3. BULATE sa Tiyan

    -Escudero
    -Legarda
    -Angara
    -Maceda (My suspicion is that if elected he will try to leave a good legacy to vindicate his name– I think he will side with the Filipino People. my justification is that he has an appointment to the Lord anytime, so kailangan ng maghugas…)

    -Cayetano?- mukhang dalawang isip ako rito, not a good example of siblings in the Senate. Too much power is dangerous, bumalik na lang ang isa sa kanila sa local, para hwg naman tayong magmukhang tanga na we are voting against our interest. Similar sa kapatid ni Jinggoy.

    Please help to categorize these PARASITES so that this Filipino Malnourished child can have a respite from eating away his body.

    Salamat po…

    • clementejak says:

      Lets this be clear to all readers when using the word “parasites”

      Center for Disease Control (CDC) defines parasite as; A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. Therefore, in a proper context there can never be a good parasite/s.

      When we equate our politicians as parasites none of them will be good.

      • Parekoy says:

        http://blog.energeticnutrition.com/2009/10/probiotics-and-intestinal-parasites/

        http://health.wikinut.com/The-human-body-s-good-parasites/1fr3-s8j/

        These are just some of the links that say there are good parasites in our body.

        So I’m not going to split hairs with this one. It is about Triage and how to save the Filipino Malnourished Child, which is a metaphor on how to save our deteriorating political system.

        Appreciate fact checking that you did though.

        • Johnny Lin says:

          The link author is deceitful.

          Upon glancing, “good parasites” is enclosed with parenthesis and categorized them as mutualists. However, initial description of intestinal mutualists is bacteria.

          Sorry, did not finish reading because the concept is defective. To the uninformed, it might fascinating and believable.

      • vander anievas says:

        parasite will drain its host of all energy and nutrients. so, clementejak is correct.
        if i may add, bacteria have the good and the bad.
        likewise, worms have good and bad also..
        virus are all bad.

        • PARASITES, these authors and signatories of the cybercrime law?
          Is That NOT being too kind and generous or being clueless?
          Look what I said weeks ago:

          “AT THE MOMENT this posting is corny but should not be stupid as life and the law proceeds into the future. Cyber-libel part of the law as it falls in the realm of free speech and reason Will be time tested as an evil versus good struggle where many combatants will get hurt or be demolished. If it does not become a dead law. All the authors of the law and their descendants if they are motivated by evil designs to protect or abet their evil deeds will somehow be the firsts to get the backlash and karmic payback.

          Cyber-libel law will lead to more inventive ways of exposing, castigating and shaming evil-doers WITHOUT NAMING THEM. It will be WORST and BRUTAL for Public officials and politicians under investigations NOT BECAUSE THEY had been named by newspapers and other media. CYBERSPACE, because of the cyber-libel law will become the extra terrestrial space sans borders of never ending FIESTA for nasty or even evil blind items (about people which anyhow everybody knows who anyway).

          They will not be named by the righteous but will be given coded names unfit even to heinous criminals or predator animals. THEY WILL HAVE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES (these parasites?), admit and prove to the court and the interested public that indeed, they are the persons alluded to as octopus, sharks, crocodiles and snakes, for example [parasites]. As lawyers often invoke: The law might be harsh even to the complainant, but it is the law. Even if it is a nuclear stink bomb. “

    • gil G says:

      i like your analogy @parekoy, pero wala bang grupo ng multi-vitamin para naman pagkatapos maneutralize yong mga bulate sa tiyan ay maumpisahan nang malagyan ng lakas at sigla ang malnourished na Filipino child?

      • Parekoy says:

        @gil G

        Tayong mga Netizens ang multi-vitamins!

        Saka pwede ring Combatrin, peron agip lang yung mga BULATE sa Tiyan at hindi kaya yong mga BULATE sa Utak. Kailangan maoperahan.

    • Johnny Lin says:

      Kudos to your effort for coming up with this analogy. On the other hand a med tech student will easily recognize that you do not have much background knowledge of living organisms.

      Lactobacillus is a bacteria, not parasite. Tapeworm is indeed a bad parasite but it could not be mutated to a good parasite, no such thing since parasite by definition is existing thru reliance from others or host. In the brain, the deadliest organism would be a virus as in West Nile virus.

      Beg to disagree with Maceda. He is more of a virus that has mutated to be immuned from any form of vaccine. Kind of virus that does not matter anymore which organ it settles on, it’s very infectious causing sickly feelings immediately.

      Your list has incomplete names from both parties and independents.

      • Parekoy says:

        @johnny please visit the links for justification of Lactovacillus as good parasite. Kahit ako noong una ay hindi naniniwala pero may back-up din sa mga sites sa internet.

        Si Maceda kasi mukhang benign virus na pwedeng bumaligtad at sumuporta sa tuwid na daan. Baka gusto ring sumulat ng Libro ala Enrile. Gusto kong mabasa yong allegations ng pag cross dress nya at kulay ng lipstick with John Osmena. :-)

        I was trying to choose lang sa mga tumatakbo, so si Biay ay siempre yung anak, same with Enrile na si Jackie, si Cayetano yung mukhang totoy, Angara yung anak na british educated, si Pimentel eh yung dating ex ni Zubiri (kalaban)

        Kung pwede nga lang na may ma-adopt tayo na galing sa ibang partido na hindi aling sa Admin saka UNa na balia natin ay para sa Tuwid na Daan ay ok ako. Sayang si Erin Tanada, may prinsipyo kasi pero mukhang nabanas yung mga malapit ki PNoy dahil masyadong independent minded-mana, sa Lolo.

        Figure of speech lang ang parasite, maganda kasing pakinggan pag nakakabit sa politiko. Kaya may clarification sa bawat isa. Meaning may Bulate na ayo panahon pa ni Macoy, dumami pa nga…

        • Johnny Lin says:

          @parekoy
          Dont get me wrong about your opinion on Maceda. I am only offering a different opinion. cant categorized him as benign anymore since he had existed, discovered explored, investigated, exploited, transplanted, reinvented and rejected in longevity. There is no such benign virus, only deadly. He he he.

          In the strict terminology of living organisms, bacteria are never parasites. Under simpe English description of a word, “parasite” might have been used for lack or absence of a synonym. Yet it does not mean that lactobacillus is classified also under parasites in scientific nomenclatures, unless there is a new accepted classification like “homorganism (homosexual)

        • Coco says:

          These politicians are all biological organism mainly living from taxpayers money. Thereforefor me as a layman the word parasite is quite well chosen.

          Some give more back than they take, directly or indirectly, some are more or less neutral, but the bad ones just take billions without returning anything except some meager gifts in election times.

          • Parekoy says:

            @coco

            Tumpak!

            @johnny i agree with you about Maceda, that is why I’m soliciting opinions so we an improve our choices.

            • Johnny Lin says:

              agree with the use in general term of parasites relating to Philippine politicians, thus clarifying with translation notation “bulate” would have cleared the issue. If done that way there would have been no need for Clementejack and I elucidating scientific nomenclatures of parasites to avoid confusion by layreaders.

              I was surprised too, Jamby was not included in your good parasites.

              • Parekoy says:

                I don’t think Madrigal can add value in the senate, but I don’t think she was one then, mayaman pa sya noon. Naubos na ata dahil sa gastos sa eleksyon. I think we need a wild card from the less known candidates para test case kung pwede manalo ang isang kandidato na wala sa Admin o UNa pero dahil sa suppot ng Netizens y maprop-up ang chances.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Appreciate your candor.

                In my other posting below, I noted Jamby as fiscalizer, being unattached to corruption, hates corruption and courage to expose publicly the evildoers is a plus plus in senate especially Blue Ribbon committee. Ala Lacson, but she has the “wealthy name” credential to back up her “expose”

                What she did to GMA and Villar in understanding abuse of positions to gain business advantage is example of her “no holds barred” principle.

        • Johnny Lin says:

          Parekoy
          Do you honestly believe that Maceda will write in his memoir that “lipstick” rumor?

          Enrile wrote in his memoir the women of Ver but not his own romantic interludes.

          You are well informed with that dynasty litany. Wish under Pacquiao it would have been under “social climbing dynasty”

          that Pimentel dynasty clarification of yours “stepsister ni PNoy. I understand “stepsister” part.

          but “ni PNoy” puzzles me. Are you talking like “vice Ganda/BB Ganda” or Jinggoy/JV identity? He he he

          • Parekoy says:

            @johnny

            The stepsister is just to remind the voter that Koko’s Dad was the lone politician, who believed that Cory can bring down Marcos Regime bynunning for president. Aquilino is so close to Cory that there were biro then na ‘oy so close sila’ but it was nothing. @ being a sister, I think PNoy is barako, but Korina can attest to it since meron din silang pinagsamahan. Si Koko ay bina-blind item na ‘sister’, (i don’t have anything against gays, in fact I have a gay brother) and for verification, pwede raw kindatan ni JV at pag may ibang ningning ang mata ay baka maconfirm :-)

            The reader usually needs a breather withnall these technical and legalese, kaya I contributed my opinions ala satyrical.

    • springwoodman says:

      The three proposed categories are all right except for terminology. Just rename them to:

      1. Outs – Should not be voted absolutely.
      2. Ins – Should be voted in absolutely; at least a minimum of 8 should be agreed on.
      3. Possibles – May be voted in but should be ranked according to the least evil; individuals may have their own rankings.

      • springwoodman says:

        Parekoy’s initial 7 recommendations can form the core of the Magic 8. Just add Escudero?

        • Parekoy says:

          @springwoodman

          You can add him. What i wrote is an opinion and we can even change the composition as the development of the issue of whether they repeal the libel provisions. Please feel free to propose your composition of the triage.

          My issue with these three adopted senators is that they should really be principled and take a stand. Hwg mamangka sa dalawang ilog dahil nakatutok ang taumbayan. Under probation sila kumbaga. Chiz doing a mea culpa is a good start, pero status coup pa rin at nandyan ang libel provision, so they have not delivered yet.

          • springwoodman says:

            @Parekoy

            Thanks. Just to clarify, I wasn’t proposing Escudero; I was asking. Reviewing Johnny’s remarks, he seems to prefer Madrigal. So Escudero goes to the Possbiles basket.

            While I’m clarifying, I might as well question whether Trillianes should be within the Magic 8. Perhaps on the basis of helping unseat Enrile?

            I would put Maceda in the Out basket. Your reason was the possibility that he might make amends because of his age. Little chance of that. He would just write a book like Enrile.

  73. springwoodman says:

    Off topic. Here’s an article on the possibility of a male contraceptive pill from Australia. Aussies, like Ian Thorpe, are know for their swimming prowess. Now they may be known for developing a pill that makes sperms incapable of swimming. Go figure.

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/sperm-stunner-could-lead-to-male-pill-20121006-2761r.html

    • vander anievas says:

      hahaha, aantayin ko ang availability niyan. palagay ko ay iyan ang makakalutas ng problema natin sa dynasticism ng bansa…

    • Johnny Lin says:

      In the Philippines the experiment should be on wings, not tails or fins, as in political butterflies.

      He he he

  74. Bayonic says:

    The Rolling Stones sang ” You can’t always get what you want ” ……

    We wanted Freedom Of Information Bill…. What we got is the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

    This piece by Raissa just demonstrates more than ever …. That we really need FOI.

  75. Pedrito says:

    raissa, shouldn’t your title read, …brought to you by 7 senators, 12 congressmen and one president? the one who signed this into law should not be spared of the blame.

    • raissa says:

      Yes, you’re right.

    • baycas says:

      @Pedrito,

      How about the watchdog of the government?

      Will you spare them too?

      • vander anievas says:

        lol…:)

        • baycas says:

          @vander,

          December 2011 and January 2012 are Corona impeachment peak months.

          The media, sotto speak, was left sleeping in the noodle house…

          • baycas says:

            Oops, that was:

            Ang media, gaya nang karaniwang sabi, ay nakatulog sa pansitan.

            • curveball says:

              hindi nakatulog sa pansitan kasi busy ang lahat sa impeachment eh. parang na-salihan ng salisi gang

              • baycas says:

                Pero bawa’t haus, sa ibaba at sa itaas, may nakatutok na taga-media na miembro ng mga media outfit.

                Gising lang sila sa kung saan sigurado ang benta ng balita. Sa ibang balita nakatulugan na…

              • vander anievas says:

                @baycas,
                oo nga, nakatulog sa pansitan…
                the print media, let’s admit, is more inclined in a news that will sell. or a title twisted to be salable.
                this insertion is very salable at talagang naisagawa na almost perfect o perfect na nga kasi naisabatas na.
                in those grueling days, the impeachment was really the apple of all eyes and ears. at sinamantala iyan ng LOLO ng salisi gang…:)

              • baycas says:

                Tumpak kayo ni @curveball, @vander.

                Salisi gang struck while everyone was asleep.

    • Parekoy says:

      It shows na talagang kahit na papaano ay protective ang site na ito kay PNoy dahil binigyan nya tayo ng pagkakataaon na umasa na seryoso sya sa Daan na Matuwid. Pero sabit si PNoy dito at ang slant pa natin sa CPM ay dahil sa mga legal staff ni PNoy ang pumalpak at nakalusot ang libel provision. Pero sa recent official statements ni PNoy na i-retain ang libel, mukhang agrabyado ang mga tumutulong sa Matuwid na Daan. Handicapped tayo masyado kung yung inaasahan natin na kakampi at Tatay ang nagbuwis buhay para sa maibalik ang ating freedom of expression ay sya rin pala ang mag pirma at i-justify ang pagsikil sa ating kalayaan sa pagtatalakay sa Internet.

      Sana ma realized ni PNoy ang tulong ng mga Netizens sa pagsuporta sa kanyang Daang Matuwid. Uunahin nya pa bang maki apid sa mga Villarroyo at itakwil ang mga tunay nyang kakampi sa kanyang programa na walang hinihinging kapalit?

  76. Jan says:

    Both chambers of congress keep a record of their proceedings. The records are more detailed than the journal. In fact, they contain a transcription of everything said on the floor by every lawmaker. If you want to identify which senator or congressman introduced or inserted what provision to the bill, it is the records that you should check. Perhaps a copy of the records of the senate proceedings is what Sen. Cayetano was referring to when she said she’ll send you documents to prove she wasn’t responsible for the insertion of the take down provision.

  77. Mel says:

    Case Study touching on Internet/Online materials (commentaries):

    pull quote –

    “It added that Valino “only made ‘innuendos,’ but failed to provide direct evidence and presented only internet/online materials without any evidence to support or confirm his story.”

    Comelec junks case vs Kris Aquino, Boy Abunda

    By Tina G. Santos
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    October 6, 2012 | 6:27 pm

    MANILA, Philippines–Citing lack of merit, the Commission on Elections has dismissed the election offense case filed against television hosts Kris Aquino and Boy Abunda who were accused of using their programs to promote the candidacy of President Benigno Aquino in 2010.

    “The instant case is bereft of such facts and circumstances that would excite in our minds the belief that herein respondents are guilty of committing an election offense. Wherefore, premises considered, the instant complaint … is hereby dismissed for lack of merit,” the Comelec said in a 20-page resolution.

    Apart from Kris, Mr. Aquino’s youngest sister, and Abunda, also named defendants in the petition filed by Elpidio Valino were ABS-CBN executives Eugenio Lopez, Maria Rosario “Charo” Santos-Concio and Ramon Osorio.

    Valino claimed the five unduly favored the candidacy of Mr. Aquino, in 2010.

    He said the television hosts and the network executives violated Sections 80 (Election Campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period) and 261 (Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device and other forms of coercion) of the Omnibus Election Code Section 6.6 (Equal access to media, time and space) of the Republic Act 9006 of the Fair Election Acts.

    However, the Comelec upheld the recommendation of its law department to dismiss the case after finding “no probable cause” to hold the defendants for trial on such violations.

    It added that Valino “only made ‘innuendos,’ but failed to provide direct evidence and presented only internet/online materials without any evidence to support or confirm his story.

    In his complaint, Valino said that on September 9, 2009, Kris had expressed support to the presidential bid of her brother by initiating fund raising by selling her house and started campaigning for him on her television shows on ABS-CBN.

    On October 27, 2009, Valino alleged that Kris and Abunda had conceptualized Mr. Aquino’s music video, which was aired three days later.

    He added that on February 10, 2010, Kris appeared as a judge in the talent show “Pilipinas Got Talent” and “wittingly used the program as a jumping board for the provincial campaign” of her brother.

    Valino also claimed that Kris had committed an election offense when she announced and thanked the Iglesia ni Cristo for supporting her brother on her Twitter account on May 5, 2010.

    On the other hand, Valino accused the ABS-CBN management of “favoring the candidacy of Mr. Aquino over other candidates as shown by its ‘frequent and numerous coverage’ of him.”

    He also noted that the network did not ask Kris to take a leave or resign during the campaign to prevent her from using the television station.

    But the Comelec, on the issue of Kris’ Twitter messages, ruled that Valino failed to produce any witness or evidence that Kris’ acts “coerced, unduly influenced, threatened, intimidated or defrauded any person into voting for her brother.”

    Valino likewise failed to prove that Kris and Abunda did not resign or take a leave of absence during the campaign period, the poll body said.

    Further, the Comelec ruled that violation of Sec. 80 of OEC is comprised of two elements–the election campaign and the candidates–which, it claimed, are both not present in Valino’s petition.

    The resolution showed that Mr. Aquino filed his certificate of candidacy on November 29, 2009 or after the airing of the music video.

    It also cited the decriminalization of premature campaigning in Supreme Court ruling on Penera vs Comelec case.

    “While we wail and lament its demise, Sec. 80 is dead and remains entombed in the world of lifeless until the day of its resurrection … From Nov. 29, 2009 to February 8, 2010, he was not yet a candidate. President Aquino became a candidate only on February 9 which is the start of the campaign period when election campaign is no longer prohibited,” the Comelec added.

    Source: entertainment inquirer net/61576/comelec-junks-case-vs-kris-aquino-boy-abunda

  78. Johnny Lin says:

    Latest News:

    GMA back in VMMC hospital after warrant of arrest was issued

    Manoling Morato admitted at St Luke’s hospital after being placed in custody of NBI

    Senator Honasan has retracted sport on Cybercrime bill.

    Miriam Defensor claims Cybercrime law is unconstitutional.

    Escudero,Legarda, Bongbong, Pia Cayetano, Congressman Angara amenable to amending Cybercrime law.

    Only in the Philippines.
    On issuance of warrant of arrest, REturn to the hospital or REtire to secluded place and hide.
    When discovered to be looney for voting on a bill without thinking, REtract, REmorse, REtrench, REcoup, REvote.

    RE – word flavor of the season had replaced impeachment.

    Its always RE-fun in the Philippines!
    He he he

    • Mel says:

      ’tis the season to REhash for REvotes.

      Once REturned to Office, REgrets naman ang taong bayan.

    • gayyem says:

      @Johnny Lin, it turns out, they’re just like, an ordinary “mamamayan”: their hindsight is sharper than their foresight.”. Which should not be the case, them being elected by the people with the assumption that they possessed “sharper foresight” for the betterment of things in our poor country.

    • pinay710 says:

      talagang trend ngayon ng mga nako convict na mga naging opisyales ng ating pamahalaan na sa mga hospital ang kanilang “asylum” paghinuhuli na. samantalang ang mga pagkaraniwang tao napaghihinalaan pa lang nasa likod na ng rehas itong mga opisyales nasa ibabaw ng malambot na kama at maginahwa pa ang kalagayan . DIOS NA MAAWAIN AT MAHABAGIN BAKIT NAMAN NAPAKA WALANG KATARUNGAN NAMAN. KAIBA ANG GINAWA MONG PAGTATANGKILIK SA MGA NAGSAMANTALA SA AMING BAYAN AT SA PANGKARANIWANG TAO NA ANG KASALANAN AY ANG PAGIGING MAHIRAP AT WALANG LAKAS NA IPAGLABAN ANG KARAPATAN/?NASAAN ANG KATARUNGAN?nakakasakit talaga ng damdamin ang nangyayari sa ating bayan. kaya tuloy ang iba nating kababayan ay umaayon na lang sa agos ng buhay at ayaw nang makialam dahil sa ang katarungan ay para lang sa mga may inpluensya at may salapi.

      • vander anievas says:

        @pinay710,
        sang-ayon ako sa iyo…
        iyan ay isa lang sa maraming karumaldumal na nangyayari sa bansa natin. kawawa ang mga walang salapi o impluwensya. garapalan ang pagpapakita nila ng kanilang kabulukan. ipinamumukha nila sa ating lahat ang kanilang walang takot na pagyurak sa hustisya ng ating bansa. nangyayari ito dahil pinapayagan itong mangyari ng ating hudikatura, ng ating ehekutibo, ng ating kongreso at ng mga mamamayan na rin.
        ang mga hindi kanais-nais na mga gawaing ganyan ang lalong magbibigay gatong sa init ng ating pagnanasa na walisin ang kanilang kaimbihan.
        kaya’t lalo dapat tayong magkaisa upang masuportahan nating ang mga programa ni Pnoy at ng kanyang mga gabinete. napakarami pang dapat asikasuhin. itutok natin ang ating marubdob na hangaring maipakita sa kasalukuyang pamunuan ang ating pagsuporta sa matuwid na daan…

    • Bayonic says:

      Let’s REmember all their names come election day and next time they run for public office.

      Name REcall works both ways.

  79. Kaeskuela ni CJ says:

    Raissa,

    In the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 26, paragraph 2, it is provided that:

    “ 2. No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.” (Underscoring supplied)

    It seems that in your report of your interviews with some congressmen, there is no mention at all of the required ”printed copies in its final form” having been read by any of them.

    Perhaps we could check if these copies were indeed distributed to them three (3) days before its passage. If otherwise, the law may be challenged (by the concerned congressmen, or senators) as legally infirm, not only formally but in substance – lack of “due process”. Their intervention in the TRO hearing may help convince the justices.

    • Kaeskuela ni CJ says:

      In the “Legislative Process” outlined in the website of the House of Representatives, on the portion re Conference Committee, it says:

      3. The Conference Committee prepares a report to be signed by all the conferees and the Chairman.
      4. The Conference Committee Report is submitted for consideration/approval of both Houses. No amendment is allowed.

      In the last portion of your exposition you quoted Casiño referring to the Bicameral Committee, thus:

      “It can do anything,” Congressman Casiño said. “That’s the Third House. The weakness is that whatever the result of the Bicam, the House members are no longer told. We only know what the Bicam version contained after the President signs it into law.”

      It appears that the cited steps have not been followed in the case of subject law. Perhaps such non-observance of their own legislative procedure may be considered as a “substantial” defect enough to invalidate the Cybercrime law.

  80. Mel says:

    Technical Knock Out, or momentarily a Knock Down

    Miriam predicts SC will strike down Cybercrime Prevention Act as unconstitutional

    By: Karl John C. Reyes
    InterAksyon com
    October 6, 2012 3:15 PM

    The online news portal of TV5

    MANILA, Philippines — Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago predicted on Saturday that the Supreme Court will strike down as unconstitutional the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act, which she said uses language that is over-broad and too vague.

    Santiago, a former trial court judge, said when she attended postdoctoral studies on Internet law at Harvard University, cybercrimes and the temptation for governments to impose online censorship had already been anticipated.

    “Prior censorship violates the over-breadth doctrine and the vagueness doctrine in constitutional law,” she said at the inter-university conference on business and economics at Adamson University, where she was keynote speaker.

    “Under the over-breadth doctrine, since the law is so broadly written that it deters free expression, then the Supreme Court will strike it down on its face, because of its chilling effect,” Santiago said.

    Under the vagueness doctrine, on the other hand, the law provides for punishment but without specifying what conduct is punishable, which violates the constitutional guarantee to due process.

    Besides, Santiago said, on its face, the Constitution, through Section 4 of the Bill of Rights, provides for absolute freedom of speech when it says, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

    “Notice that the constitutional language is absolute,” she stressed even as she acknowledged that, “jurists have tried to balance the absolute language with vital social needs.”

    The Senator said that in constitutional law, freedom of speech occupies a so-called preferred position.

    “The preferred position of free speech in the Constitution means that any law limiting free speech should be presumed to be either neutral or presumed to be unconstitutional. There is no presumption of constitutionality,” she said.

    Santiago identified the provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act she said are too broad or too vague and, thus, unconstitutional, as:

    - Sec. 4 (4) – includes libel in the crimes punishable
    - Sec. 5. – punishes a person who aids or abets the commission of a cybercrime, even if it is only through Facebook or Twitter;
    - Sec. 6. – adopts the entire Penal Code, if the crime is committed by the use of information technology but makes the penalty one degree higher
    - Sec. 7 – makes the same crime punishable, both under the Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act, thus violating the guarantee against double jeopardy
    - Sec. 19 – authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict access to computer data found to be prima facie in violation of the law, the so-called “takedown clause”

    During the period of amendments for the then bill, Santiago said she managed to include the requirement of a court order before data, other than traffic data, can be collected, seized or disclosed; and for search and seizure.

    However, during voting on the measure, she was absent because of hypertension.

    Santiago said a properly crafted anti-cybercrime law would be effective in preventing many cases of fraud, citing the case of the “I love you” virus, which was created by a Filipino and which attacked and destroyed data in an estimated 45 million computers, causing some $10 billion in damage in 2000.

    SOURCE: www interaksyon com/article/44894/miriam-predicts-sc-will-strike-down-cybercrime-prevention-act-as-unconstitutional

    • leona says:

      Walang “counting” dito! When the gavel strikes it down, it is finished!

    • vander anievas says:

      are we gonna believe what she says? insinuation or sort?

      • Mel says:

        No official word if she filed her seat to be vacant soon.
        The COC deadline was last Friday.

        Is she really or is she not leaving for ICC?

        She may not leave at all in spite of her ICC appointment.

        The downside of the netizens’ appeal to ICC against her appointment during her lackluster and erratic performance during the SC CJ R Corona Impeachment.

      • leona says:

        I don’t believe …never will I believe…a fool of me to believe…ano ako GAGO? Let her be!

    • Bayonic says:

      Pardon my Hiligaynon …. But WTF did she not object or correct any of these flaws when she was itting on the Bicam Conference ?

      • Mel says:

        :lol: That’s a good question @Bayonic.

        She was recorded late arriving after the roll call.

      • leona says:

        Sinple! She couldn’t! Why? The others will ask “What are you? Who are you? Are you disturbing our waters? Stop it!”

        So, quiet na lang. Leave and get sick! Tomorrow, I will speak and tell all the idiots I got sick. So, I didn’t know what really happened after I left. That’s my true story.

        Idiots will be elected by idiots also! That’s the fact!

  81. kalakala says:

    motto of those building a political dynasty: WE WANT TO SERVE… yes DaY NASTY of service to the FILIPINO PEOPLE

    • Mel says:

      wrong, mistake.

      Political Dynasty Families’ agenda is simple –

      We want you to serve US, pay US and enrich US.
      To US is your Undying Service till death do you part.

      Oras na, panahon na para mag raissap ang sambayanang Filipino.

      • kalakala says:

        you are right mel (@107.1 mel)

        kaya nga: yes DaY ( short cut for inday)… N-A-S-T-Y of service to/for all of us

        • Mel says:

          @kalakala, hindi maganda aminin pero TUTUO. :shock:

          Marami din ba ang buboto sa kamag-anak incorporated? OO :sad:

          Tama rin ang pasabi ni “andrew lim says: October 6, 2012 at 9:44 am” :mad:

          • kalakala says:

            @ mel & “andrew lim says: October 6, 2012 at 9:44 am” , kamag-anak incorporated – i can relate this to a sales rep; selling company’s product, he/she is representing the company he/she’s working. kaya malakas ang loob ng mga employee (this refers to their family members) ng kamag-anak incorporated. as they are banking on the name of their incorporation and product lines (Day NASTY services, agimat, among anothers). at talagang tama “@ andrew lim says: October 6, 2012 at 9:44 am”

            now, am crossing my fingers na sana mayroon ng result iyong case ng ex-mayor ng makati so the electorate can have a clear picture kung anong ibig sabihin ng anak ni binay..

            • erwin says:

              @ kalakala,,

              Kaya ang mga Binays takot kay Heidi…kaya hanggang ngayon nakabiting pa ang kaniyang confirmation ….di ba? Maraming mga trapos takot na takot kay Heidi at kina Alan at Raissa…

              Sabi nga ni idol Johnny Lin….hehhehehehehe…

      • Johnny Lin says:

        He he he

        • Mel says:

          Once in a blue moon and ganang reply. :smile:

          Its back to the old idiom with political patronage too.
          It’s Them or US.

          ellen tordesillas wrote about it quite sarcastically in her web page –

          “Campaigning is campaigning.”

          Thanks, Secretary Lacierda for this statement: “Campaigning is campaigning. There [These] were words that were exchanged during that time but we move on for the sake of the country.”

          At least now, we know how to take your words, the words of President Aquino and all politicians in the coming campaign for the May 2013 elections.

          Many of us were not wise enough to have taken your and your partymates’ words seriously in the 2010 elections. That’s a valuable lesson learned.

          Lacierda made the above statement when asked about the inclusion of Cynthia Villar, wife of Senator Manny Villar, in the administration 2013 senatorial ticket.

          The inclusion of Cynthia Villar in the admin ticket is a result of the coalition with the Nacionalista Party for the 201s elections. Aside from Villar, the two other NP representatives in the still to be named admin ticket are re-electionists Alan Peter Cayetano and Antonio Trillanes IV.

          It must be recalled that during the 2010 presidential campaign, the most vicious battle was between Aquino and Villar (who ended up third, behind former President Joseph Estrada).

          Aquino’s “Tuwid na Daan” slogan made a dig with the C-5 issue, with a lot of help from Sen. Jamby Madriga.But what really did Villar in was the Villaroyo tag that Aquino’s propagandists effectively pinned on Villar.

          After the election, nothing came out of those issues. Not only was the alleged irregularities of the C-5 project forgotten, it has in fact been pursued by the Aquino administration under its Public-Private Partnership program.

          Villaroyo? Has that ever been raised after the election?

          Lacierda said “Senator Villar has been supportive—correct me if I’m wrong—of some of the admin measures in the Senate…You’re looking at the Nacionalista Party and who will be there. You’re looking at Alan Cayetano who stood for good governance… Party principles transcend individual differences.”

          Ganun naman pala e.

          We share the disappointment of many of the absence of Quezon Rep. Erin Tañada in the admin senatorial slate.

          Sure, Tañada was not doing well in the surveys but is survey to be-all and end-all of politics?

          Anyway, here’s the administration senatorial slate: Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, Sen. Francis Escudero, Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara, Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Risa Hontiveros, Ramon Magsaysay Jr., Jamby Madrigal, Mary Grace Poe Llamanzares, Sen. Loren Legarda, Rep. Cynthia Villar and Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III.

          The United Nationalist Alliance has only eight candidates with the withdrawal of Joey de Venecia, son of former House Speaker Jose de Venecia, who exposed the anomalous NBN/ZTE deal that incloved Gloria and Mike Arroyo.

          The UNA slate includes Cagayan Rep. Jack Enrile, San Juan Rep. JV Ejercito, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Margarita “Ting-ting” Cojuangco, Ernesto Maceda, Richard Gordon, reelectionist Sen. Gregorio Honasan and Zambales Rep. Mitos Magsaysay.

          Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño, who will be filing today his certificate of candidacy, will run for senator as an independent candidate.

          The beautiful thing about democracy is that everybody is free to dream and run for an elective position. I even see it as an occasion for a redistribution of wealth.

          The people are also free to choose who to vote. I just hope that the people vote wisely.

          Source: www ellentordesillas com/2012/10/02/campaign-lies/#more-20574

          PNoy has now started to compromise too on Kamaganak Inc. (read “Bam Aquino wants cousin Kris to help in his Senate campaign” By Kristine Mangunay
          Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2:26 am | Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012, newsinfo inquirer net/281080/bam-aquino-wants-cousin-kris-to-help-in-his-senate-campaign).

          It’s Them Or US.

          Heck, what has Bam Aquino have to run and potentially be a Senator!?

          Apart from his semblance err Look Alike (black & white) logo of Ninoy Aquino to him, what life’s experience (Occupation: Social Entrepreneur) and public service does the boy have worthy of the Office?

          And the boy’s rallying cry to win office?

          “We will need all the help that we can get from relatives, from friends … all those who became my classmates,” Bam said.

          The fourth generation Paolo ‘Bam’ Benigno Aquino IV does not only have the spectacles to appeal more for visually impaired votes, he could have adopted a “y” or eek to sound alike as Barney.

          As the campaign rolls on with Kris A providing the entertainment, patrons would be looking up and hear –

          Barney – I Love You
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ&feature=plcp

          It is a sure winner, it has 65,920,395 views already.

          The Senate would become a play school next time around. Sad but could be true.

          • chit navarro says:

            I am all for Paolo Benigno Aquino in his candidacy for Senator. At 35 years old, he ahs made his mark in the world for his “SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP” with his “Hapinoy Program” – helping the less marginalized members of society moved to a better life. His MicroVentures Foundation provides a greater avenue sor sari-sari stores owner to improves their plight.

            In 2006, he was awarded as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum and was chosen to be part of Asia Society’s pioneer batch of Asia 21 Fellows also in the same year.

            In 2010, he was chosen as one of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Philippines (TOYM).

            In 2011, The Hapinoy Program won the UN’s Project Inspire Award besting over 400 social enterprises from all over the world.

            In 2011, Bam was named as the Asian Social Entrepreneur of the Year by the World Economic Forum’s Schwab Foundation for Social Enterprises.

            Graduated valedictorian and summa cum laude from Ateneo de Manila University, he became the Chairperson of the National Youth Commission in Feb. 2003 making him the youngest person in Philippine history to head a government agency.

            Despite his proximity to power (nephew of a former President and cousin of our current President), has there been any news about his family (Paul Aquino) being abusive or having enriched themselves during these times?

            Hence, his credentials is NBOT ONLY being a memebr of the Aquino family. In fact, this may become his liability in view of the calls agaisnt political dynasty.

            In my book, BAM AQUINO well deserves to be in the Senate and continue his work in SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUSHIP. Check out how many sari-sari stores are there in the Philippines and you can very well see the grassroots reach of his HAPINOY Program.

            • Ella Tovara says:

              Thank you Chit Navarro for this enlightening article about Bam Aquino. I hope many more of the voters will read this.

              The Philippines would rather have him as a senator than most of those that are running for the senate. Most of them have only their names as their credentials.

              Only in the Philippines!

              Go Bam Aquino go! I hope and pray you will be elected. If you are them I am assured that there is one less trapo in the senate.

              • raissa says:

                I’d like 2 interview him

              • emong says:

                Thanks Raissa.. please do.. para malaman naman natin kung totoo siya.. sa ngayon, number 1 sya sa list ko eh.. :)

                Thanks Chit!!

              • leona says:

                From nothing to …? Sus Ma! How lucky to have a name AQUINO nowadays! And try to get into the carnival hall! Waaaa!

                Inter-related candidates will be saying “We are not building a political dynasty!” What are building then? Family Dynasty? Sam thing! May you all lose!

          • vander anievas says:

            @mel,
            “Heck, what has Bam Aquino have to run and potentially be a Senator!?”
            choose from bam aquino and nancy binay…
            bam has the legacies of ninoy and cory and sooner, pnoy.
            and nancy has her family too…and the hardhitting qualification…”nancy is my daughter” binay said.
            let’s enjoy the fun in the philippines…:)

            • Mel says:

              @vander

              For a Senatorial post? I wouldn’t elect nor vouch for a young “Bam” Benigno Aquino IV. That would be my choice decision between another Senator who may have better skills, legislative work experiences and accomplishments suited for a Senatorial position.

              For a Congress Representative seat, if I were one of his constituents, I may consider “Bam”. But that’s my choice, I’d rather vote for a competent and better candidate among the official line ups for that district. IF BY COMPARISON, Bam Aquino stands out in my criteria, then I may vote for him in a Representative Seat.

              There are scores of many competent filipinos, not only qualified, who are well prepared to do an outstanding Senatorial job in the UPPER HOUSE of Legislation.

              A young with limited or no legislative work experience may be too overly dependent on party political agendas. Not necessarily independent and vocal, passive even. Just a number to bolster party machinery and clout. There will definitely be a learning curve, mentoring, settling… and the like. How he stands out in the campaign lineup? Benigno Aquino is a very popular, embedded name in the psyche of filipino voters. That would save millions of campaign funds just to promote a party candidate.

              What about the fourth (IV) generation namesake holder? Read on…

              In an open Political Dynasty election, a Senatorial selection between Lorenzo “Erin” Reyes Tañada III and Bam Benigno Aquino IV, I would choose “Erin”.

              “Due to term limits (he is on his third consecutive and final term), he is considering a bid to be the third Tañada to be elected in the Senate in the 2013 election.” – Source en wikipedia org/wiki/Lorenzo_Ta%C3%B1ada_III

              Unfortunately, Erin was not selected as part of the LP party Senatorial Candidates. He didn’t choose to run as an independent.

              An informed and educated choice between political dynasty candidates from the three (Erin, Bam & nancy) – I’d go for Erin. Since he is not running, its time to check the other official lineups too. There are 84 senatorial bets that filed their COCs. Minus the Comelec’s nuisance senatorial candidates in due time, it will be very interesting what the purged senatorial list would comprise then.

              Thanks. Just my opinion.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Both of you are entitled to your own opinions.

                Consider the election as an examination, there are 12 answers to one question. There are specific 84 names Iisted as answers. Select the most probable correct answers.

                Unfortunately, Erin is not on the list.

              • Mel says:

                Too early for “… 84 names Iisted as answers.”

                The COMELEC has to sniff thru the list for nuisance candidates. To save time, I’d wait for the official COMELEC Senatorial List.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                84 names or less on final count, is correct.

                What is absolutely correct, Erin is not on the list because he did not file.

                So far the contention is whom to select among the announced documented candidates. Until purged, the list so far stands at 84. This is where I, Vander and probably everyone supports as foundation of discussion. Erin is not a candidate.

                Of course one could also insist and speculate that Comelec might change its mind and entertain new applicants or so what if my preference is not on the Comelec list, this one is my preferred choice compared to those on the list. In that case, there is no common basis for discussion, so I would like to REtreat from the
                fray. Lol

                He he he

              • Mel says:

                There’s also the wildcard position of Sen MDS. There’s still time to declare it vacant should she fly-out to The Hague.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Or one incumbent senator suddenly dies. So on and on….

                Argument based on unknowns or lack of common foundation is difficult to rationalize

              • Mel says:

                What you could also avoid are fallacious arguments, simply based on overarching need to be ahead of the pack. Over confident?

                The official campaign periods and next registration dates?

                - October 31, 2012: Last day for local voters to file applications for registration, transfer of records, reactivation and correction of entries; deadline for overseas Filipinos to file applications for registration or certification as overseas voters

                - February 12, 2013 to May 11, 2013: Campaign period for candidates for senator and for party-list groups

                - March 29, 2013 to May 11, 2013: Campaign period for candidates for the House of Representatives and elective regional, provincial, city and municipal officials

                - April 13, 2013 to May 13, 2013: Casting of votes by overseas voters

                - May 13, 2013: Election day

                Source: Fast facts about the 2013 elections, newsinfo inquirer net/279700/fast-facts-about-the-2013-elections

              • vander anievas says:

                “In an open Political Dynasty election, a Senatorial selection between Lorenzo “Erin” Reyes Tañada III and Bam Benigno Aquino IV, I would choose “Erin”.”
                true. so sad that erin was excluded(?). i will definitely choose him vis-a-vis bam.
                my list of 12 isn’t complete yet and still sorting. i’m convinced that cpmers’ wisdom pouring in this blog will finally get me into the best chosen 12 strong senatoriables sieved through the most potent analytical and reasoning exchanges. and passing thru the criteria being set as standard for the new generation of senators chosen by thinking public. i’m one also of those who want not to vote for the lesser evil.
                i appreciated your view. we are one here in selecting the cream of the crops…

      • rejtatel says:

        @Mel
        There you go, you have just coined the word to counteract these shenanigans masquerading as “public servants”… RAISSAp.

        I propose to define RAISSAp as follows:

        1. verb., a peaceful spontaneous uprising by means of the ballot permanently trashing, destroying and obliterating political dynasties actually established, presently being established, and attempted to be established.

        • Mel says:

          @rejtatel.

          I haven’t given it a thought that far as you proposed as a definition.

          Nagamit etong RAISSAp during the SC CJ Corona impeachment.

  82. popla says:

    Ask ko lang, what about dun sa facebook account na may nag post sa wall niya.. super related about sa mga activities ko in facebook.. and then after awhile, ng post din ako pang rebat saknya dahil alam kong ako ung tinutukoy niya.. and nirebat din niya ko at maraming ngcomment na mga friends niya na hindi naman alam ung the whole issue… and the last time sa sobrang inis ko.. dinilete ko siya sa fb and and binlock ko siya.. at minessage ko ung friend ko na friend niya na siya ung tinutukoy ko sa post ko.. pwede ba akong makasuhan ng cybercrime if sabihin ng friend ko na friend niya din na siya nga ung tinutukoy ko? please help me! I need answers!!

    • raissa says:

      Bakit ka naman kakasuhan?

      Sino ang magkakaso sa yo?

    • Rolly says:

      Sleep well popla.

    • leona says:

      @popla…Sa ma iksing salita…wala siyang alam kundi galing lang sa “friend” niya na friend mo?
      WALANG KASO yan! Maski walang Cybercrime, sa Penal Code wala rin kaso yan!

      Itong pang isang “answers”…sa susunod, wag kang mag facebook uli ! Ang book na yan ay para sa “Socializing” hindi para “in-fighting!” Kumuha ka ng book para ART OF WAR, by Tsu Mang Tsu. Lahat labanan doon!

      MATULOG KA NA!

  83. osang says:

    lol to parekoy’s well researched names! It made my day..anyways Raissa thanks for sharing this

  84. eye says:

    The Cybercrime Law should be trashed completely IF we care at all about the BPO businesses that have uplifted the lives of a lot of our citizens. Confidentiality is an absolute must in this business especially in medical and sales with credit card information … we can kiss them all good-bye if RA 10175 is retained however amended.

    • Isabelle says:

      @gmanews: Atty. JJ Disini: BPO industry was the one really pushing for the cybercrime law | via @ShaiPanela – saw this on twitter last week.

    • Johnny Lin says:

      Cybercrime law is necessary for crimes like identity theft, child sex distribution or sexual crimes, or plain harassment or bullying.

      Dont believe BPO would be affected by creating law against identity theft crime. BPO should in fact support it because it values confidentiality.

  85. mark says:

    ang cybercrime law ay crafted sa kongreso,
    ipinasa ng senado,
    at pirmado ng pangulo.
    simple lang,
    ito ang trophy natin kay pangulong aquino.

    ang online libel ba ay
    para sa mga cyber bully?
    o para sa mga media?
    sabi nga nila pag tinira mo si gloria, sa malakanyang ka.
    at kung si aquino naman sa kulungan ka na.

  86. andrew lim says:

    Im compiling a list of excuses and justifications they have given out for political dynasties:

    1. Cayetanos – “reformist” dynasty

    2. Binays – dynasty of service

    Any additions?

    • springwoodman says:

      4. Bataan Garcias – “dynasty of epal”

      http://beta.taopo.org/isyu/02/27/2012/dynasty-epal

    • Parekoy says:

      Marcoses- kleptocratic dynasty (actually the idols of current political dynasties)

      Aquinos – Martyr dynasty

      Enriles – coup plotter dynasty

      Honasans- alalay dynasty

      Estradas – anak-ng-jueteng dynasty

      Villars – basura swimmers dynasty

      Macedas- basahan dynasty

      Sottos- Xerox dynasty

      Angaras – Kalyo dynasty

      Legarda – geriatricphilia dynasty

      Gordon – Amboy dynasty

      Zubiri – Ampatuan dynasty

      Cojuangco – Babalu dynasty

      Pimentel – StepbrotherniPnoy dynasty

      Escudero -batangbasahan dynasty

      Pacquiaos -pugilistic dynasty, herme(s)tic dynasty

      Casinos-Maoist Dynasty

      Madrigal – Heiress Dynasty

      Hontiveros – Beauty-n-Brains dynasty (in the making)

      Revillas – Agimat-at-akin-ang-Public-Works-Commitee dynasty

      Poe – Blacksmith Dynasty

      (Jun)Magsaysays – My real Guy Dynasty

      (Mitos) Magsaysay – My-not-favorite-in-law dynasty

      Macapagal-Arroyos — HelloGarci dynasty, Plunder Dynasty, The-mother-of-all-scam dynasty

      Defensor-Santiagos— Multi-Personality dynasty

      Trillaneses — Brat-ta-tat Dynasty

      Hagedorns – Seven-Wonders-of-the-World Dynasty, ka-brodko-si-Duterte Dynasty

      Tanadas – Mababa-ratings Dynasty

      Binays – Stallone Dynasty

      Pangilinans-Rectos– Asawa-ako-sikat-Artista-para-sikatnarin Dynasty

      Villafuertes – Family-War-has-some-Advantage Dynasty

      Fuentebellas- Gerrymandering Dynasty

      Osmenas – Chairs (Cheers!) Dynasty man dong

      Abads – True-to-its-namesake Control of Finance Dynasty

      Pinedas – katas-ng-jueteng Dynasty

      Guingonas – Cyberhero Dynasty (We can nominate him for President in 2016, but Binay and Roxas will accuse him of being a British Citizen-a twin of Mr. Bean?)

      Roxases- Padyak Dynasty

      Arroyos- Gra(u)mpy Dynasty

      De Venecias – Pork-Barrel Dynasty

      Ampatuans – Massacre Dynasty

      Singsons – fill in the blanks dynasty (Takot akong martilyohin ang aking manoy, bahala na kayo)

      • Joe America says:

        Positively brilliant.

        • Joe America says:

          Especially “the twin of Mr. Bean” comment. ROFLMAO

        • Parekoy says:

          Thanks! You are one of the brave ones to put your reactions in writing! I notice that the effect of the libel provision is felt now. A lot of CPMers are reluctant to even write down their opionions when PNoy announce that he would still like to retain the libel provision.

          PNoy is treating us with disservice by offending and ‘mouth-cuffing’ the very important sector who supports him and help expose the sins and wrongdoings of the dirty politicians. Traditional newspapers are owned by conglomerates in the philippines which has its own agenda and can turn down the volume at theor own choosing so as not to offend their patrons, whereas in cyberspace we are free to expose them because most of us are given a voice.

          Our politicians are scared of this medium, they know what happened in Egypt, in Syria, in Libya, which we can definitely attribute as the ‘Facebook Revolution’.

          Because of our free speech in the cyberspace, We can definitelynsay that the Emperor has no clothes!

      • leona says:

        You really enticed me NOT TO LIKE what your dynastamic efforts did! See U in dynastamingDOM.

      • Parekoy says:

        The libel provisions in the Cybercrime Law is Meteoric at the same time Anti-Meteoric.

        Meteor and meteorite come from space and shower down the earth. Tagaloginn na lang natin: Bato-Bato sa Langit.

        One required trait of a politician shall be having a thick hide, if not get out. You can’t take people’s money and use it to harass them with libel?

        Some politicans might not have known it yet that they already committed cybercrime by ‘Wiring’ money to their accounts. If those are stolen money from the coffers of government or ‘lagay’ money, eventhough how small it is then it can be elevated to plunder because of the ‘one notch higher punishment’ when the crime is committed thru cyberspace. Just a thought….what do you think?

        • leona says:

          Plunder for more than P50M up is reclusion perpetua…1 degree higher is what?
          Death by cyberlaser penalty! But we haven’t restored death penalty yet…kailan?

          Yan ang sinasabi ko…mag ingat sa gawa-gawa ng batas, baka yun gumagawa ma tamaan when & where there’s a “changing of the guards” like in 2016!

      • Johnny Lin says:

        Parekoy

        Pimentel- stepbrother ni PNoy dynasty

        Sino sa kanila? Baka internet libel yan
        He he he

        • Parekoy says:

          That is the beauty of internet, we can write things in a hodgepodge. We can be serious or seriously satyrical. We might not impute malice, but it boils down to the eyes of the beholder!

          I propose a compromise:

          Retain the libel provisions but make it only applicable to private citizens and non-publicly traded corporations.

          Exemptions to the libel provisions are those articles, blogs and discussions about the politicians, public officials from the Baranggay level up to the presidency, Senators, Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices and employees, Board of Directors to Government Corporations. We need to include showbiz people though since they are mooching for our attentions.

          The wisdom of the exemptions is the good outweighs the bad effect to the greater good of the Filipinos!

          Just wondering…Why is it that a Senator or a Congressman/Congresswoman can say anything when he or she is deliveing a previledge speech in aid to strengthen legislation, while an ordinary Netizen can’t make the same thing in aid to strengthen our government institutions?

          • Parekoy says:

            I don’t know who to attribute this saying:

            “Those who have less in life should have more in law.”

            Who do you think who have more in law, the
            Netizens or these Politicians? Note that a Senator said that he is not answerable to anybody and implies that he is above the law?

            Netizens, we have less in power to criticize these politicians, we do not own newspapers, we do not have legal departments to assess our criticisms are libelous, we do not have the money accumulated by amassing it from pork barrels, advantageous policies and other dirty perks that these politicians have, what we have is the freedom to criticize them in a medium we can afford. And these politicians have the audacity and the temerity to terrorize us with this draconian libel provisions?

            Elementary may dear Watson, find out who has the motive, who is going to gain and you can cath the criminal! In this case the aggressor is playing the victim here to mislead us.

          • Mel says:

            @Parekoy,

            You wrote, “Just wondering…Why is it that a Senator or a Congressman/Congresswoman can say anything when he or she is deliveing a previledge speech in aid to strengthen legislation, while an ordinary Netizen can’t make the same thing in aid to strengthen our government institutions?”

            That’s a misnomer. Of course you can. To be safe, in my opinion, refrain from personal level opinions or comments or “attacks”. Strictly on their work or political commentaries about their work performance, re policy stances and political agendas.

            Unless you have an irrefutable evidence of guilt to prove your exposé at a personal level.

            • Parekoy says:

              How can we attack well entrenched dynasties?

              Dynasties are parasites that plagues our political system. Maybe a little bit name calling will give us a brief relief from their blood sucking. The brief relief can give us some respite to produce more blood for these leeches. An intelligent parasite is programmed not to kill the host.

              There are good dynasties and there are bad dynasties. The bad ones outnumbers the good ones though. So the guilty will feel a bit of pang but the good ones feel better that there are Netizens helping their cause.

              • Mel says:

                Political Dynasties (good or bad) in the Philippines, according to the 1987 Philippines Constitution, under the State Policies states that –

                SECTION 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

                There are several studies, research including backgrounds on Philippine Oligarchy and a pending Anti-Dynasty Law in Congress since 1987.

                You asked “How can we attack well entrenched dynasties?” Do not vote for them. Support politicians who are against it as well. Write your representative to work on the Anti-Dynasty Law for immediate passage.

                Join mainstream groups or organisations who have the same stance(s) as yours on Political Dynasties. Field candidate(s) or nominate yourself to run for public office (e.g. Congress) so that numbers for passing the Anti-Dynasty Law would be given utmost attention.

          • erwin says:

            @ Parekoy,

            “Just wondering…Why is it that a Senator or a Congressman/Congresswoman can say anything when he or she is deliveing a previledge speech in aid to strengthen legislation, while an ordinary Netizen can’t make the same thing in aid to strengthen our government institutions?”

            Parekoy, I beg to disagree with your assessment …” in aid to strengthen legislation ” pwede pa siguro in “AID TO STRENGTHEN GRANDSTANDING AND MEDIA EXPOSURE” hhehehehehe …. di ba?

            • Parekoy says:

              Agree!

              • leona says:

                Actually, lawmakers should not be given such privilege as they can “make” laws without speaking. But that is the practice. So, they get that privilege. Ikaw, you are not a lawmaker. So, what you have could be “bilibid speech” good for Bilibid! Ingat!

        • Parekoy says:

          Stepsister pala. Joke lang…

    • kalakala says:

      @ andrew lim …”binays – dynasty of service”….it’s now a reality that they are building a political dynasty. dynasty of what kind of service? service to/for whom?…. naging kapit bahay namin sila sa pio del pilar mkti since the last term of the late mayor nemesio yabut until the last term of j. binay. then his wife, now his son…; na ko po DAY! (short cut for inday) DaY NASTY of service

  87. viewko says:

    gmorning ms. raissa, everyone;

    sa akin, scrap na lang yang cybercrime law. ang dami na nating laws.
    yung internet, advancement lang sa technology. just another hi-way, ekanga. nagdagdag ng hi-way, e di expand na lang ung coverage ng existing na batas, wherever applicable.
    which means, our lawmakers could review each existing law, and amend if necessary, to cover the new hi-way. tedious, but more rational in the end. hindi ung gagawa ng separate na batas na shotgun approach ang resulta.
    mas marami pang ma ke claim na activity mambabatas natin. heh, heh. joke.

  88. baycas says:

    @raissa,

    I viewed the Senate Journal of that fateful day, 24 January 2012. It is a searchable PDF uploaded in the senatedotgovdotph site.

    The Individual Amendments to SB No. 2796 were already approved by the Senate Body and were read into the record (Senate Journal).

    As the already approved amendments were being read Sen. Pia Cayetano was given time for her remark on child pornography. After that the reading of the Individual Amendments to SB No. 2796 resumed.

    The reading of the Individual Amendments to SB No. 2796 was bulleted and the font size is smaller than Sen. Pia’s (same with Sen. Guingona’s on the same page) remarks.

    The Journal did not specify who authored each amendment. The reading of the Individual Amendments is a consolidation of what was already approved by the Body.

    But what was clearly apparent in the 24 January 2012 Journal that was approved on January 30 were the Amendments made by Defensor-Santiago and Sotto.

    • Mel says:

      SECOND TRY TO SUBMIT
      ————

      Having read too the Senate Journal of the day, it boils down to the skeletal outline use of Headings, Sub headings where inconsistent use of Remarks, or as per Amendment to, that ascribe’s a Senator’s suggestions, inputs – aka changes as Inserts.

      see RR’s comment at raissa says: October 6, 2012 at 7:46 am.

      The gist was the Senator’s (e.g. P Cayetano) opportunity to influence or amend the Bill Sponsor’s craft version of his Cybercrime into Law.

      I don’t think the Senate as a body of lawmakers do follow a template or format to document their conference undertakings. The Law product (final version signed into law) proves its vagueness, since the lawmakers concerned are now backtracking or admitting no fault for political convenience because of the ramifications to their chances of winning back their their congressional and/or senatorial seats towards the May 2013 elections.

      Backtracking, how? They (e.g. P Cayetano) NOW refuse to own to their oversight and shortcomings after the fact.

      (see also Honasan backtracks on cybercrime law. ABS-CBNnews com. Posted at 10/06/2012 6:21 PM | Updated as of 10/06/2012 6:21 PM)

      • baycas says:

        Please cut to the chase. Just prove that Sen. Pia Cayetano made the specific amendments @raissa wrote about.

        A senator cried foul on the write-up (this blog post).

        If you find the Journal writing to be wierd then at least ask someone knowledgeable to “translate” it for you.

        • Mel says:

          fyi,

          My comment at #180.1 of “Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute?” is awaiting moderation.

          You wrote, “If you find the Journal writing to be wierd then at least ask someone knowledgeable to “translate” it for you.”

          Definitely, you won’t be at the top of the list.

      • baycas says:

        And @Mel,

        My earlier post is only about the Journal. Why would you refer me to matters which are immaterial to my post.

        The senators erred alright (in crafting the law) but @raissa could have also erred (in attributing particular amendments to a senator who didn’t introduce such amendments).

        • Mel says:

          You wrote, “I viewed the Senate Journal of that fateful day, 24 January 2012.” AND “My earlier post is only about the Journal.” So was I (“Having read too the Senate Journal of the day” – 24 January 2012). Though I didn’t view it only, but read it too.

          “Why would you refer me to matters which are immaterial to my post.” Oops, I didn’t realize you were that zealous about your post. Would you accept a free zone commentary from a bogan?

          “The senators erred alright (in crafting the law) but @raissa could have also erred (in attributing particular amendments to a senator who didn’t introduce such amendments).”

          re comment “The senators erred alright (in crafting the law)” I knew it was Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was due for amendments. See “Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute?” September 18, 2012 at 10:03 pm.

          re your “@raissa could have also erred”. If you could read my comment at #67.1 dated October 5, 2012 at 11:01 pm. Thanks.

          We’ll see by Monday week what docus P Cayetano would supply.

          (its 5.31 am SUN AEDST here, good am)

  89. Kabayan says:

    this might be of interest.. the original cybercrime bill.. i stumbled upon – http://tmblr.co/ZzCFxwCkayks

  90. Lorena says:

    Ingat ka Raissa baka ma-accuse ka ng trademark infringement for using WANBOL :) ha-ha

  91. Mel says:

    OFF Topic:

    Chit Estella Journalism Awards 2012

    SEPTEMBER 6, 2012

    NOMINATIONS to the 1st Chit Estella Journalism Awards are now open, the family of the late VERA Files trustee and journalism professor Lourdes “Chit” Estella-Simbulan and VERA Files announced yesterday.

    The award will honor the best journalistic report in print and online media. The theme for this year’s contest is human rights as enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

    The contest is open to investigative, features, news features and in-depth news articles published between Oct. 1, 2011 and Oct. 1, 2012, the last day for submission of entries.

    Nominees can submit a maximum of three stories, written in either English or Filipino. An accompanying recommendation/nomination letter from the editors or publishers is a requirement.

    The winners will be announced on Dec. 10, 2012, the International Human Rights Day, at the UP College of Mass Communications Auditorium. They will be chosen by a board of judges composed of four representatives from the Estella/Simbulan family, VERA Files, the UP College of Mass Communications and a human rights organization.

    Each awardee will be given a cash prize of P10,000 and a trophy.

    The Chit Estella Journalism Awards are intended to keep alive Simbulan’s ideals of excellent and principled journalism. At the time of her death last year, Simbulan, who was known by her byline “Chit Estella,” was a journalism professor of the University of the Philippines-Diliman.

    Entries must be submitted personally or by mail to:

    Lucia P. Tangi
    Chit Estella Journalism Awards
    Department of Journalism
    College of Mass Communication
    University of the Philippines
    Diliman, Quezon City

    For more information, please call Lucia P. Tangi at 9206852.

    Source: verafiles org/chit-estella-journalism-awards-2012/

  92. -->

Trackbacks

  1. [...] on how RA 10175 came to life and which legislators are responsible for certain provisions: raissa robles | The Cybercrime Law was brought to you by 7 senators & 12 congressmen It provides a good look at the legislation process too for those [...]



Do share your thoughts:

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>