THE FIL-AM PERSPECTIVE

Probing the Rule of Law in Corona’s Guilty Verdict

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

Despite four months of trial and 44 days of hearing, many kababayans are still groping for answers as to why Chief Justice Renato Corona had to be impeached.

Were errors, omissions, nondisclosure of information in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SALN)  enough reason to remove him from office?

 

Allow me to present the rule of law let the stipulations speak for themselves.

 

Eight articles of impeachment were filed by the prosecution against Corona, and by law, they only need to prove just one article to convict the Chief Justice. If you followed the news, that one charge was Article 2.

 

With a vote of 20-3 among Senator-Judges, Corona was found  guilty of “Betrayal of public trust and/or culpable violation of the constitution, having “failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required under the constitution.”

 

Constitutional basis of Article  2 of the Impeachment Charges:

 

Article XI, Section 2 states: "The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust." 

 

Article XI, Section 17: “ A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”

 

“AS REQUIRED BY LAW” was a phrase I read and hear a lot from those arguing in the defense of Corona. What does the law say?

 

We then need to review Republic Act 6713 , known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees." This law clearly states what needs to be declared, when, how, whether such declarations should be made public, if comingingled funds should be reported, etc. This has been the subject of debate for so long.

 

RA 6713 Section 8. on Statements and Disclosure mandates: 

“ Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. - All public officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. 

 

The two documents shall contain information on the following: 

 

(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value; 

 

(b) personal property and acquisition cost; 

 

(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like; 

 

(d) liabilities, and; 

 

(e) all business interests and financial connections.

 

The documents must be filed: 

 

(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office; 

 

(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and 

 

(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.

 

All public officials and employees required under this section to file the aforestated documents shall also execute, within thirty (30) days from the date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and financial connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they first assumed any office in the Government. 

 

Husband and wife who are both public officials or employees may file the required statements jointly or separately. 

 

The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:

 

(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman; 

 

(2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with the Office of the President. 

 

(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; 

 

(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and 

 

(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission

(B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. - It shall be the duty of every public official or employee to identify and disclose, to the best of his knowledge and information, his relatives in the Government in the form, manner and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission. 

 

(C) Accessibility of documents. - (1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, shall be made available for inspection at reasonable hours.

(2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or reproduction after ten (10) working days from the time they are filed as required by law. 

 

(3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to pay a reasonable fee to cover the cost of reproduction and mailing of such statement, as well as the cost of certification. (4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement. After such period, the statement may be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing investigation. 

(D) Prohibited acts. - It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use any statement filed under this Act for:

(a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or 

 (b) any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public.

 

Having read these, answer the question regardless of any culpability of other people in government--Did Corona violate the Constitution and the law that gives teeth to its provisions? Was the guilty verdict in accordance with the rule of law?

And how about the rest of the public officials--when will their day of accountability come?

 

Corona Convicted by Impeachment Court: The Spirit of the Law Lives On

 By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

It was a historic moment in the Philippines. Chief Justice Renato Corona was convicted for failing to fully disclose his multi-million peso accounts in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs). 

 

The impeachment process has been provided for by the Philippine Constitution as the remedy to remove from office, those who fail to deliver the required accountability of public officers of the government.

Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution stipulates: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” 

 

Those public officers who are given much trust and much power are held to higher standards.

 

“The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.” (Art. XI, Sec. 2 of the Philippine Constitution)

 

After grueling four months and 44 trial hearings, the Senator Judges -- mandated by the Constitution “to have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment” -- voted 20-3 for Corona’s conviction.

 

The impeachment trial has further polarized the already politically fragmented Filipino people. Senator-judges perceived to be leaning one way or another have been demonized, depending on the perspective and political color of the person speculating on  their personal motives and political agenda.

 

This is why it was very enlightening and informative to watch and hear each Senator-judge speak out, to explain his/her rationale for voting for either a conviction or acquittal of the CJ. In a way, I, personally, was reassured they really went through the sacred process of discernment before casting their vote.

 

Analysts and even some Senator-judges say the CJ’s testifying in court sealed his fate, in terms of the inconsistencies of his testimony and his demeanor in the supposed august chamber of the Senate Impeachment Court.

 

The Senator Judges' Guilty Verdict

“Given his broad experience and practice in investment, these willful omission amounts to culpable violation,” Sen. Edgardo Angaro said as he explained the first verdict to convict the CJ.

 

The same rationale was presented by Sen. Ping Lacson: “Corona was in Sycip Gorres and Velayo (SGV is an accounting firm) [and] taught commercial law. I find it hard to believe testimony that he does not understand.”

 

Sen. Allan Peter Cayetano stated his rationale for his guilty verdict: “Gusto ko magbago ang aking bansa. May kanser ang ating lipunan -- na ang batas, pamantayan ay iba para sa mayaman..It is CJ's moral, human constitutional duty to protect constitution, not himself.”

 

Senator Pia Cayetano pointed out that  RA 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines) is not an exemption to the SALN law. To allow a contrary view would set a deadly precedent. “I have difficulty accepting defense of commingled funds. Huge amounts involved leaves much doubt in my mind.” Senator Pia argued.

 

“Logic dictates we accept slight inaccuracies.In case of CJ, assets SO HUGE, 50 times more than what he declared in cash,” stressed Sen. Ralph Recto. 

 

Sen. Pimentel likewise said there's no law exempting commingled funds from SALN disclosure:"FCDA can't be interpreted for graft and corruption.Earlier law can't be interpreted to nullify purposes of later law."

 

“How can CJ claim good faith in twisted interpretation of law?,” Sen. Frank Drilon said as he debunked CJ’s defense.

 

Sen. Francis Escudero argued the Constitutional requirement of SALN and RA 6426 do not contradict each other as defense and their supporters claim. “Di ko masasang-ayunan ang posisyon ng CJ. Ang binabawal ng FCDU law ay bangko, hindi depositor..Kung ayaw niyong ideklara, huwag kayong tumanggap ng puwesto sa gobyerno.”

 

Sen. Serge Osmena echoed Sen Escudero’s point, and reminded the Court about the CJ and SC's decision to remove court interpreter Delsa Flores of Davao RTC from service for failing to disclose market stall. 

 

Senator Lito Lapid presented a very “masa” perspective: “Di po ako magsasalita ng Republic Act. Ang ginagamit ko konsensya, representante ng masa, di marunong mag-Ingles.”

 

Sen. Gringo Honasan explained that the impeachment trial is not about personalities, emotion, partisan politics but whether highest magistrate is fit for the job: “Ang maliwanag po ngayon ay may duda na sa kakayahan ng ating punong hukom. Doubt is the opposite of faith.” 

 

This was the position of Sen. Guingona as well: “Batay sa ebidensya at pag-amin ng nasasakdal, ang nasasakdal ay di na karapat-dapat sa pagtitiwala ng sambayanan.”

 

“Public trust is not administrative entitlement. I am disappointed concessions of disclosure of SALN belatedly done,” stated Sen. Loren Legarda. “My chief concern is credibility, trust of our people in most important institution whose mandate to interpret law,” Legarda added.

 

Sen. Francis Pangilinan argued that the CJ showed blatant disregard of law and quoted Corona as saying that dishonest members of judiciary should be disbarred. “Unless we punish more, lawlessness & disregard of laws will not be defeated. To convict him is to uphold rule of law.”

 

Casting the 16th vote that convicted the CJ, Sen. Bong Revilla explained that Corona failed to disclose all his assets in his SALN. “As much as CJ expects of all respect due to his office, he in return has responsibility to be the epitome of public servant” , Revilla said. 

 

Senators Sotto, Trillanes and Villar likewise voted for the CJ’s conviction.

 

Senator Judges Vote for Acquittal-- Arroyo, Santiago, Marcos

In explaining for his vote for acquittal, Senator Joker Arroyo said: “What was started in House is NOT an impeachment. Impeachment requires formalities, solemnities, liberties...I can't imagine removing a CJ on account of SALN. This is not justice, certainly not law. It is only naked power.”

 

Sen. Bongbong Marcos questioned the prosecution’s process of making its case, arguing that the Bill of Rights stands supreme over powers of government and yet [the Aquino administration] mustered all powers at its disposal in this case.

 

“CJ must be presumed to have acted in good faith. What's needed is willful violation of Constitution,“ Marcos added in defense of Corona. “It is known to us that public officials hold same view that FCDU law stands.”

 

“Walang foreign investor n darating kung malaman nila na may batas dito na lahat ng dollar account mo idedeklara!,” Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago passionately argued. “It is for Congress to balance need for accountability, with the desperate need for foreign investments.”

 

Defending Corona, Santiago argued: “Kung nais niya itago 'yun, [bakit] nilagay niya sa pangalan niya?...Kung marami sa ating honest, why is PH often ranked one of the most corrupt countries? Nagpapakalinis kayo?”

 

The Constitutional Requirement for All Public Officials

 

Senate President and Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile summed up the spirit behind the guilty verdict: “If we agree w/CJ that he's correct in not disclosing, can we expect SALNs to be more accurate and true? I don't think so.”

 

Senator Trillanes’ statement echoed the sentiments of so many kababayans clamoring for truth, fairness and the accountability of public officers: “From now on, no one is untouchable. We have considerably raised the standards for Chief Justice of our SC.”

 

But of course, the people’s expectations do not end here, Senator Trillanes. The rule of law that has convicted CJ Corona does not apply only to him. It applies to all in government positions.

 

Pursuant to the requirement of the Constitution, it is about time we keep only real public SERVANTS in public office. Transparency. Accountability. Service. The spirit of the law lives on.

READ SUCCEEDING ARTICLE : PROBING THE RULE OF LAW

 (Asian Journal Article, May 30, 2012) 

Lady Gaga in Manila Issue: Artistic Freedom or Censorship Based on Religious Beliefs?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

She may be at number four on Billboard's list of top moneymakers of 2011, five Grammy Awards and 13 MTV Video Awards as testaments to her talent, but Lady Gaga was met with protests when she came to Manila for performances last Monday and Tuesday.

 

Lady Gaga’s outrageous costumes and provocative lyrics have previously caused her problems in other Asian countries. Conservative Muslims in Indonesia have called for the cancellation of her June 3 concert. “She had better not dare spread her satanic faith in this country”, said  the leader of a hard-line Islamist group.

 

In the Philippines, Reuben Abante--the bishop of Lighthouse Bible Baptist Church and secretary-general of Biblemode Youth was quoted by CNN saying, "This protest is not against Lady Gaga as a person but on her music and on how she declares distorted views about the Lord Jesus Christ”.

 

"We are Christian Filipinos. She comes to our land. For us, this is something that should not be shown to the youth we have," added Abante.

 

Protesters were particularly offended by the lyrics of "Judas," which has lines that say, "Whoa whoa I'm in love with Juda-as, Jud-as...Jesus is my virtue and Judas is the demon I cling to I cli..ng to." 

 

As we reported on Balitang America, Lady Gaga defied these protests and threats against her and still sang her allegedly blasphemous song “Judas” and gay anthem “Born this Way”. 

 

Catholic Archbishop Ramon Arguelles warned that Lady Gaga’s fans are in danger of “falling into the clutches of Satan”.

 

Manila Rep. Amado Bagatsing reportedly referred Lady Gaga as “the epitome of everything that a decent society declares as wrong” and as a “dangerous source of corruption to the youth”. He called on Congress to formulate a national policy against “vulgar and shocking shows”, that will make sure this kind of shows  will not be permitted in the Philippines.

 

Despite protests, Pasay City Mayor Antonino Calixto allowed the Tuesday night show to proceed because Lady Gaga did not exhibit nudity or abuse religion in the first night of performance.

 

Meanwhile, supporters of Lady Gaga explained that the controversial lyrics in “Judas” was a metaphor to refer to her ex-boyfriend. Likewise, “Judas”  in the song also refer to vices and sins that separate man from God.

 

Gays and lesbians appreciate Lady Gaga's song "Born This Way" which sends the message to people to embrace and accept who they really are.

 

Human Rights Commission Chairwoman Etta Rosales emailed CNN stating, "The Philippines is proud of the fact that we do indeed have one of the best Bill of Rights in our Constitution that has the widest latitude as all other Constitutional democracies in protecting freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of religion."

 

What do you think?

 

Do you agree with the protesters that the Lady Gaga concert should have been banned in Manila to protect the moral values of the Filipino youth? And as we asked in our daily opinion poll on “Balitang America”,  should Lady Gaga be given artistic freedom, or must she be censored based on religious and moral beliefs of the predominantly Christian people of the Philippines?

 

(Photo credit: Washington Post)

Pacquiao: Christian Conservative Values on the Defense

By Gel Santos Relos

 

Let us leave out the debate on whether same sex marriage should be legalized or not for now, and focus on what probably started as a candid and sincere response from Manny Pacquiao that has now turned into a public relations challenge for our Pambansang Kamao. 

 

He was asked by a reporter what his opinion was about President Obama’s statement favoring the legalization of marriage. 

 

Since Pacquiao is now a a bible ambassador in the Philippines, over and above his role as a boxer and Congressman of Saranggani, his reponse came as no surprise. He said he believes  God only expects a man and a woman to be together and be legally married.

 

Unfortunately, his statemement was embellished by the reporter, and he was attributed words he said he never uttered. “I want to clarify that I did not say I wanted all gays be put to death”, Pacquiao said when he apologized to the gay and lesbian community on both American and Philippine television.

 

In a phone interview with ABS-CBN, Pacquiao said he is not homophobic, stating that he has a gay cousin and can do nothing if gay people are born that way. He stressed he was just did not want to go against the laws of God. 

 

Despite the apology, however, Pacquiao maintained his opposition to same sex marriage.

 

The Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender community and their advocates, as well as some  progressive and liberal minded people in the United States and in the Philippines took offense in his expressed position against gay marriage.

 

As we reported on Balitang America, the Gay Asian Pacific Alliance, for example, said they have lost their respect for Pacquiao, accusing him of perpetuating hate and violence [against the gay community]. Some called for boycott against Pacquiao and petitioned for Nike to drop him as endorser.

 

While a big majority of our Balitang America viewers voted in support of Pacquiao’s stand on gay marriage, and believed he should not be dropped by Nike and other companies as their endorser, most of them said he should stay out of US politics. They argue that he is here in the US as an athlete, and not as a public official.

 

In fairness to Pacquiao, he did not call for a news conference to impose his views on America.  He was just asked a question, and he gave an honest but probably not the most politically correct answer. 

 

But that is the price of being a celebrity, hailed as one of the most influential athletes in the world. Every statement he gives publicly is subjected to scrutiny and judgement. 

 

This episode is but one of the many hurdles Pacquaio will yet be facing as a bible ambassador and a “changed man”. 

 

While I believe he should respect  gays and lesbians for who they are, for the choices they have made and the cause they have been fighting for, I hope neither politics nor the glitter of gold in pay per view or endorsements will make him flip flop on his position.

 

If indeed his conscience dictates that he is against gay marriage, then he should be firm in his conviction, no matter what the cost. Conversely, he should resist the temptation of demonizing those who believe otherwise, even if that would be the most politically expedient thing to do.

 

 

 

Kababayans’ Comments On Sotto’s Threat to Pull Out Funding for CNN Ads Because of “Pagpag”

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

In my previous article, I asked our kababayans if they agree with Senator Sotto that CNN shouldn't have aired "Pagpag" because the Philippines is an advertiser.

 

Senator Tito Sotto threatened to pull out the reported $63 Million Dollars worth of advertising spots on the international news channel Cable News Network (CNN),  after it aired  the documentary "Eye on the Philippines" illustrating poverty and hunger in the country through "pagpag"  or left-over chicken scavenged from the garbage by the poor, washed, recooked, and sold to poor Filipinos. 

 

However, in a separate "Eye on the Philippines" story, CNN also featured the good side of the Philippines and the Filipinos despite hardship and budget limitations, focusing on the country's collective effort to boost tourism in the country. (Click to Watch video here)

 

The Department of Tourism invested in ads spots featuring “It’s More Fun in the Philippines” 15- or 30-seconder ads to be shown during CNN programming’s commercial breaks. DoT hoped to reach CNN’s wide global market.  

 

Sotto said the Philippines was stabbed in the back, considering the Philippine government has poured a lot of money on CNN's commercial spots. CNN, he argued, should have just shown good and success stories in and about the Philippines instead.

 

 Tourism Secretary Ramon Jimenez responded, saying “All we bought were spots, WE DID NO BUY CNN, and therefore, we can't tell CNN what to do...The Philippines is not without its problems, what did they find out [through the CNN ads] in the end? They [the prospective tourists] found out that we are one of the most progressive countries in our part of the world. If they want to cut the tourism budget for CNN, they have to think twice."

 

 

 

Kababayans weighed in on this issue and here are some of the comments:

 

I agree with Sen. Sotto. Kung may producto ka at gusto mo i-advertise sa TV o kaya sa Radio, courtesy ng broadcast entity na yun na alagaan ang mga nagpagkukunan nila ng income. The Philippines paid $63 Million tapos masisira lang because of that news item. They can air that news item if the advertising contract with the Philippines has already expired. -- Macky

 

Journalism and advertising are two very distinct issues although admittedly, from a business perspective, it is common knowledge that news organizations (print, online, broadcast, web) rely on advertising to survive or be profitable. However, the journalism code or ethics ARE NOT TO BE compromised for the sake of advertising.  Politicians or people who think they have bought a news organizations' favor simply because they placed an ad are those who, in the long run, would also be the ones to complain why wrongdoings of their political opponents or rivals are not being reported...would they accept an explanation that: "Well, sir, they also placed an ad." So in the process, are we to kill what journalism is really all about on the basis of a few hundred or even millions of dollars worth of ads? And news organizations who end up reporting only about the good side of an advertiser should stop masquerading as journalists or being in the journalism profession... -- Albert Alba

 

Hindi nagbayad ang DoT para gumawa ng documentaryo ang CNN.  Nag bayad ang DoT para magpa labas ng mga "its more fun in the Philippines" ads. Porket nag bayad ba tayo ng $63M so CNN, mawawala ba ang problema sa kahirapan at gutom sa Pilipinas? Yan ang problema sa Pinoy (which unfortunately includes me) Pag di natin nakikita, di rin natin iniisip. Out of sigh, out of mind. Di natin nakikita ang mga problemang yan sa atin, kaya di natin na iisip na nangyayari na nga yang problemang yan. Kaya nga andyan yang mga diaryo at mga programa sa TV para ipa alam at remind sa atin na may mga ganon nga na problema ang mga kapatid natin sa ibang lugar. Kaya nga dapat natin pasalamatan ang mga news agencies for reminding us, na may ibang mga Pinoy na naghihirap at kailangan tulungan. -- Mike Ybanez

 

IT'S NOT ABOUT HIDING THE TRUTH regarding the poverty stricken sector of our country,, I'm sure all Filipinos are already aware of this biting reality, and I'm also sure that we are finding ways to resolve it. Hindi mo kailangang ipaglandakan sa mga banyagang bansa dahil ito ay nagdadagdag sa maling impresyon sa ating mga Pilipino at diskriminasyon sa ating kakayahan bilang isang bansa.  CNN should have practiced ethics in treating their advertisers(cash cow) COURTEOUSLY in relation to the shows they will air--the ad campaign should not be in the same timeline with those programs that question its integrity. IT DEFEATS ALL PURPOSES AND EFFORTS TO MAKE THE SAID CAMPAIGN EFFECTIVE --GinebraSanMiguel_AngInuminNgTunayNaLalake

 

Tama si Sotto... Di niyo kasi naransan maliitin sa ibang bansa,,, Ako kahit lumaki akong meron din kaya sa buhay , sinasabihan ako ng amo ko kung nakahiga na ba raw ako sa kama o mayron ba raw ref s pinas etc..masakit din kaya yun...Na ang alam nila talagang walang wala tayo at para s kanila,  gold daw ang bansa nila..Kaya kahit anong gawin nila pagmamaltrato ok lang kapalit ng pera...pero di tama yun..  -- Lynn Li

 

May kalayaang ihayag ng sinuman kung ano ang tunay na mukha ng isang bansa.. ang mga ganitong klase ng palabas katulad ng idinokumentaryo ng CNN or BBC ay isang panawagan para sa gobyerno ng ating bansa at buksan ang isipan ng bawat isa sa atin.. hindi ito isang klase ng paninira kundi isang panawagan para sa mga lider ng ating bansa, kung gaanong naghihirap ang maraming pilipino habang sila ay nagpapakasasa at naliligo sa pera ng taong bayan.. -- Joshua Espiritu

 

Problema dito eh yng mentalidad ni Sen. Tito Sotto.. ang pag-isip nya ay katulad ng karamihan (halos lahat) ng mnga Filipino."UTANG NA LOOB".. ang inisip ni tito sotto porque binayaran ang CNN, ibig sabihin, meron cla utang na loob sa Pilipinas
kaya yun nasaktan at feeling betrayed cya.. sino ang mali --CNN or ang pag-isip ng mnga Filipino na pinakita ni Sen. Tito Sotto in full view? -- Esmeraldo C

 

Paying a certain amount for an advertisement spot doesn't mean you have the right for censorship, specially if the issue at hand is a reality. There is nothing wrong with the documentary that was shown by CNN. In fact, they even did us a favor, they showed the world that like any other countries out there, the Philippines is not perfect, it has it's flaws. And yet, despite all these imperfections, still, IT IS MORE FUN IN THE PHILIPPINES. I am a Filipino, and by showing the whole world the negative side of the Philippines when it comes to hunger and poverty doesn't make me a lesser person, or us for that matter. On the contrary, what Sotto should be ashamed of is corruption.-- Floyd Derick Guico

 

In the first place, hindi po dapat nagbabayad ng ganun halaga ang gobyerno para mag advertise... $63million??? ilan pamilya na ang mapapakain nyan... ilang kabataan na ang mapapaaral at ilang komunidad ang mabibigyan ng hanap-buhay. kung gusto po nila ng good publicity, gumawa sila ng tama dahil ang mismong mga international organization naman ang makakarecognize kung merong nangyayaring mabuti sa Pilipinas. -- Janice Bancud

 

Huwag tayong short-sighted. Kung magiging successful ang advertisement.. mas malaki pa sa $63M ang mage-generate nito.. mas maraming pamilya ang mapapakain.. mas maraming kabataan ang mapapag-aral at higit pa dyan, maraming trabaho ang maibibigay sa mga Pilipino.. dapat may foresight tayo.. -- Luz V

 

Halos lahat ng SEA nations my ads sa CNN about tourism. papahuli ba naman tayo? come to think of it guys. -- Niko Mina

 

I believe the advertisement was to promote the good side of the Philippines. Ang mga nakikita ninyong pinapakita ang bad side ng pinas ay sariling research at topic ng CNN at BBC. We can't blame them kasi that's their job. Ang punahin lahat bad or good.Kaya mas dapat nga na mag advertise tayo ng good side to neutralize it and di kailangan i-witdraw and Ad Spot na yun as what Sotto is suggesting.With or without that Ad Spot, Philippines has been topic of its bad side. So having this Ad Spot promoting the Philippines good side will me more beneficial. So the world will know there are good thing in the Philippines. -- PinoyAko

 (Asian Journal Column Article, May 19, 2012 )

 

 

 

 

Do you Agree With Sotto That CNN Shouldn’t Have Aired “Pagpag” Because the PHL is an Advertiser?

 

By Gel Santos Relos

 

Philippine Senate Majority Leader Tito Sotto is demanding the pull-out of a reported $63 Million Dollars worth of advertising spots on the international news channel Cable News Network (CNN),  after it aired  the documentary “Eye on the Philippines”. 

 

The special feature seen worldwide illustrated poverty and hunger in the country through “pagpag” or left-over chicken scavenged from the garbage by the poor, washed, recooked, and sold to poor Filipinos. 

 

Sotto likewise demands an explanation from the Department of Tourism Secretary Ramon Jimenez,  and has even threatened to block the approval of the agency’s budget for next year, if the agency fails to justify the funding for the television commercial that has already premiered on CNN last April 30. (Watch samples of these commercials that aired on CNN below)

 

As we reported on Balitang America,  Tourism Secretary Jimenez,  while meeting with Fil-Ams in Los Angeles to promote the "It's More Fun in the Philippines campaign -- responded to Sotto's threat saying:

Obviously we have to remind the Senator that all we bought were spots, WE DID NOT BUY CNN, and therefore, we can't tell CNN what to do...

 

The Philippines is not without its problems, what did they find out [through the CNN ads] in the end? They [the prospective tourists] found out that we are one of the most progressive countries in our part of the world. 

 

If they want to cut the tourism budget for CNN, they have to think twice."

 

Like all other advertisers that sell products, services, or a cause like cars, universities, support for a candidate etc., the Philippine Department of Tourism bought 30 second advertising spots to air its "It's More Fun in the Philippines" ad, during the newscast/special event coverage commercial breaks. The goal was to attract more tourists to come to the Philippines, who will then buy Philippine made products, patronize services of Filipinos, thereby creating more jobs and possible  investments in the country.

 

Sotto said the Philippines was stabbed in the back, considering the Philippine government has poured a lot of money on CNN's commercial spots  to promote tourism in the country.

 

“What they featured was about pagpag. There are 90 million Filipinos. Why didn’t CNN feature Sen. Manuel “Manny” Villar who came from the poor but rose to become a billionaire? He was so poor then but then became an entrepreneur who became a billionaire. Why feature something like those scrounging for leftovers? ” Sotto asked.

 

The Senator accused CNN of having a hidden agenda in airing documentaries like  the one on “Pagpag”, and another feature titled “Manila’s Baby Factory”. He alleged that CNN purposely chose to focus on the hunger and poverty in the Philippines to link these issues to the contentious Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

 

To be fair, CNN's "Eye on the Philippines" also presented the good side of the Philippines.  I wonder if Senator Sotto has seen this:

 

 :

 

Does Sotto expect CNN to air only good news in their documentaries and disregard the ugly and painful realities the CNN reporters found in Manila, just because the Philippines bought commercial spots?

 

It is unfortunate that Senator Sotto would think CNN, with its $28.974 Billion revenues in 2011, would throw its journalistic integrity in the garbage, censor stories that document the reality of hunger and poverty in the Philippines, just because the Philippines has brought the network some  $63 Million dollars in advertising revenues. 

 

Let us set this clear: CNN produces newscasts and documentaries. Advertisers who want to reach CNN's audience to sell their products buy commercial spots-- usually 30 seconder ads aired during commercial breaks.CNN newscasts and documentaries are separate from and are not in anyway connected to advertising spots in terms of content. The Philippine government did NOT pay CNN to make a documentary. The $63 Million is just for airtime to air DoT commercials "It's More Fun in the Philippines".

 

Doesn’t Sotto understand that CNN is a news channel, which capitalizes on its independence in editorial judgement and delivery of news and information to stay competitive in the global broadcast media market? 

 

Does Sotto really think throwing some $63 Million dollars in ads makes CNN beholden to the Philippines and act as its Public Relations (PR) machinery to produce reports that will gloss over, if not hide, what their editorial board see as serious problems the Philippines is facing? 

 

Does Sotto really believe that buying advertising spots on CNN is buying the news channel’s journalistic  integrity? “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” business proposition? Is this  the mindset and culture in the world Sotto operates in that he is imposing on other organizations like CNN?

 

Unfortunately for Sotto, CNN is not the only news channel illustrating this problem of hunger, poverty and overpopulation in the Philippines, especially in Metro Manila.  Another respected news organization-- the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) also aired a similar story, “Toughest Place to be a Driver..Manila”. 

 

From the BBC website describing the documentary:

 

 “Josh West is in Manila for two weeks, spending time with local people and experiencing the life of a Jeepney driver. 

Manila is a mega city and one of the most crowded places on earth. With no safety net poor people struggle to eke out a living with very little.

Scavenging rubbish and selling plastic or metal that’s found in it is one option but Josh is shocked to see that now even waste food is being recycled and sold to people with their full knowledge. It’s cheap and tastes good and for some poor people “Pagpag”, as it’s called, is their only source of regular protein and may be their only meal of the day.”

 

These documentaries show the impoverished life of real Filipino people in the Philippines. While they may not represent the kind of life of all Filipinos live, especially not the lavish life that Sotto enjoys--- these programs show the reality of a growing number of Filipinos living in poverty.

 

The job of CNN, BBC, and other news organizations is to report the news and dig deeper and investigate issues. Most of the time, in uncovering the truth, a bad picture of the country is exposed. 

 

These news organizations do that not only to the Philippines, but to other countries like America, United Kingdom, other European and Asian countries. No one is exempt---even if a country is an advertiser. The facts and pictures do not lie.

 

These other countries and other advertisers for that matter do not and should not dictate what these news organization should and should not air when they advertise. That's tantamount to bribing, don't you think so?

 

From a marketing point of view, it makes it even more crucial for the Philippines to buy more ad spots, sponsor segments in travel and entertainment programs to show and sell “Why it is more fun in the Philippines” to show tourists around the world the beautiful aspects of the country.

 

DoT bought commercial spots on CNN to reach the tourist market around the world. After all, CNN leads audience reach across Europe, Middle East and Africa, in addition to its strong America and Asia viewership. 

 

But more importantly, what Senator Sotto and his allies should instead do is to acknowledge these problems exposed by international news organizations like CNN do, in fact, exist. It is their job as people in government to address these issues head on, determine the root cause of the problem, and then develop and execute a plan of action to solve these problems. 

 

 That is what the taxpayers are paying them to do, right? 

 

Watch the CNN, BBC documentaries as well as some commercials of the DoT that aired on CNN during commercial breaks:

  

 

The British Broadcasting Company Documentary:

  

ADVERTISING SPOTS OF DoT ON CNN:

 

  

Tulfo vs Raymart and Claudine: The Issues Behind the Brawl

 

By Gel Santos Relos

 

The Corona impeachment trial has resumed; Fil-Ams have called on Filipinos to join rallies and demonstrations in Chinese embassies and consulates on around the world on MAY 11 at 12NN, to protest against China’s bullying of the Philippines on the Scarborough Shoal dispute; many Pinoys remain jobless and are living in poverty-- but the  buzz among Pinoys worldwide this week has shifted  to another distraction.

 

Making headlines this week is the infamous brawl between Tulfo vs Raymart and Claudine in the airport. 

 

Perhaps, this issue gained traction not only because it was a chismis about the artistas like Claudine Barretto and husband Raymart Santiago vs hard hitting newspaper columnist and broadcaster Ramon Tulfo, in a showcase that excites many Pinoys-- boxing. It has been much talked about because it touches several issues that offend our Pinoy sensibilities.

 

 Cebu Pacific Staff Claimed Claudine Verbally Abused Them

 

Arriving from a delayed flight from Boracay to Manila, Claudine Baretto reportedly verbally abused two ground personnels of Cebu Pacific when she found out that their luggage had been left behind.

 

One of them told airport authorities she explained to Barretto that due to weight limitations and for safety reason, their luggages had to be flown to Kalibo Airport, Aklan and that these would soon be brought to Manila. They reportedly tried to explain to Claudine the situation but the actress,  they alleged, continued her rant in front of the other arriving passengers.

 

But Claudine explained she was merely complaining because their bags were left in Caticlan Airport and she needed the medicines of her asthmatic son which were in the luggages.

 

“Pagbaba ho namin ng airport, naghintay po kami ng matagal sa carousel ng luggage. Walang dumating na luggage namin so lumapit kami sa ground stewardess tapos nalaman namin na naiwan pala 'yung luggage at ipapadala na lang daw,” she said in an interview on DZMM radio.

 

Cebu Pacific’s Inefficiency Started This?

 

Many of us who travel can understand the high stress levels in airports, especially when flights are delayed and baggages are lost. But what added insult to injury in Claudine’s case was perhaps the communication glitch in the part of Cebu Pacific. 

 

Instead of making passengers wait forever for their luggage, the airline should have been proactive in informing them about the changes in baggage transport upon arrival, if doing so before the flight took off would not be possible.

 

Airlines who rank high in customer satisfaction go out of their way to make up for any inconvenience such changes might have caused their passengers through refreshments upon arrival while waiting in the lounge, travel vouchers, etc. Apparently, Cebu Pacific has a lot to learn about being client-centered to make their customers happy.

 

I have seen a lot of angry travelers channeling their frustration in the airline’s inefficiency onto poor airport personnel. This, however, does not make the behavior of these travelers like Claudine right.

 

Many also question  Claudine's excuse behind her rant-- they say she should and could have brought her child's asthma medications with her in the cabin so she could have easy access to them during emergency.

 

Ramon Tulfo Was Just doing His Job?

 

As ABS-CBN reported, Veteran journalist Ramon Tulfo who had also arrived at NAIA Terminal 3 from Davao, witnessed the alleged tongue-lashing of Claudine, and instinctively began to document the incident with his mobile phone.

 

This irked the group of Raymart and demanded that Tulfo  surrenders his cellphone.

 

Tulfo refused and this reportedly made Claudine mad. She then allegedly shouted at Tulfo. Raymart’s group, along with Claudine herself, then mauled Tulfo.

 

Tuflo reportedly sustained injuries in his left and right eye. His lips were also swollen from the mauling. Airport investigators learned despite the presence of airport security who tried to pacify both parties, Raymart's group was still able to attack and strangle Tulfo.

 

Supporters of Tulfo defended him and said that he was doing his job as a journalist, and that the public has the right to know about how a public personality like Claudine Barretto  berated ordinary people like Cebu pacific employees. 

  

Claudine and Raymart Invoke Right to Privacy?

 

Claudine and Raymart were invoking their right to privacy. Raymart said he was just protecting his wife and his family.

 

But as many kababayans have said, Claudine and Raymart could not invoke right to privacy as the incident happened in a public place. If Tulfo thought this was newsworthy then he had the right to report on it. If other bystanders took videos of this brawl that happened in public and posted them on youtube, would they be accused of invading Claudine’s privacy?

 

It was just unfortunate that Raymart’s camp would explain that they did not know it was journalist Ramon Tulfo who was taking pictures of Claudine’s rant, otherwise the brawl shouldn’t have happened. Would they treat Tulfo and an ordinary citizen differently?

 

NAIA Security “Inutile and Useless”?

 

It has now been a case of the word of Tulfo vs the word of Raymart and Claudine as to how the brawl started, and who provoked and started the fight. ABS-CBN News reported that unfortunately, Ninoy Aquino International Airport management said there was no closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage of how the fight started Sunday.

 

NAIA General Manager Angel Honrado explained that the brawl on Sunday afternoon occurred at the baggage conveyor area, which is not covered by airport CCTV cameras.

 

Tulfo said the NAIA airport security was “inutile and useless”, and stressed that if only the airport police and security guards did their job, he would not have been mauled.

 

Kababayans then ask, “If this could happen to known personalities, how can airport security protect ordinary citizens like us?”

 

The Tulfo Brothers Threatened Raymart and Claudine on TV

  

"Ipagdasal mo lang sana, ipapayo ko sa iyo at sa asawa mo, huwag ka munang lumabas ng bansa dahil kapag nagpangabot tayo sa NAIA Terminal 1, Terminal 2, Terminal 3, tatamaan at tatamaan ka, wala akong pakialam, pati asawa mo tatamaan sa amin. Ipagdasal mo na lamang huwag tayong magkrus ng landas," said Erwin Tulfo on their show “T3” on Channel 5.

 

Raffy Tulfo said, "Idasal mo, hijo de P.I. ka. Huwag lang tayong magkita sa mall, ipagdasal mo iyan. Tumirik ka ng kandila mula ngayon, huwag mag-krus ang landas natin, P.I. ka." 

 

"Sa akin, isa lang ang gagawin ko, Raymart pakinggan mo ang sasabihin ko sa iyo. Binabangga ko ang mga kriminal, mga mamamatay tao, pero kung gusto mo, malaking warehouse na sarado, maga-antay ang mga ambulansiya, last man standing, walang lalabas sa loob, magsasara tayo ng pinto, titignan ko ang galing mo. Tandaan mo ito,” challenged another Tulfo brother, Ben Tulfo.

 

Ramon Tulfo defended his bothers’ on-air threat saying, “Hindi mo masisisi iyan dahil kadugo ko iyan eh. Isang pusod lang kami, isa lang ang pinanggalingan namin. Pero sinabi ko nga sa kanila dahan-dahan na magsalita dahil tapos na ang pangyayari. Mas malakas ang public opinion kaysa gumanti tayo” .

 

Tulfo supporters argue that T3’s threats were justified, and that in Filipino culture, one would not hesitate to fight back if a member of his family has been aggrieved. They emphasize that this is especially true for Raymart and Claudines’s group bullying and hurting the 68-year old Tulfo.

 

But concerns and questions still remain: Was it right for the Tulfo brothers to use their own public service program to air grave threat against Raymart and Claudine-- no matter how much they thought their Kuya had been aggrieved? 

 

Yes, they do have as much right as Claudine and Raymart to express their sentiments and explain the side of their Kuya, but such threats that suggest violence should not have been dished out on television.

 

Perhaps they could have strengthened their Kuya’s case if they made a public statement about Ramon’s side and  perhaps urge the public to be vigilant in the investigation and trial of the case.

 

But suggesting that they can put justice in their own hands sends the wrong message. As broadcast journalists, we have to remember that the use of the airwaves in not a right-- it is only a privilege, and we, therefore, should use it responsibly.

 

Now did I hear some people blame this brawl on the Super moon? Hmmmm...

 

 

Catch the Glorious SUPER MOON on May 5, 2012!

  By Gel Santos Relos

 

Catch the glorious spectacle of the  "Super moon"  this coming Saturday, May 5, 2012, as it rises from the east horizon at 8:34 PM Pacific time, or 11:34 PM Eastern time. [Pilipinas, please check your calendar  to know the exact time of the full moon there :-) ]

During this time, the full moon will reach perigee  --  the closest point to Earth in its elliptical pattern -- and "only one minute later, the moon will line up with the Earth and the sun to become gloriously full."

The moon will appear 14% larger than other full moons of 2012, and 30% brighter than the moon is when it is at "apogee" -- the farthest point in its elliptical orbit around the Earth.

The best time to watch? Just as it is rising from the east! It will appear largest when viewed behind trees or buildings!

Will people go crazy or howl like wolves? Hahaha!

Enjoy...and share pictures of this amazing show from heaven!

 WATCH THIS VIDEO:

  

 

Will You Support the Global Protest vs China on May 11?

 

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

Amidst rising tension between China and the Philippines, National Chair of the US Pinoys for Good Governance(USP4GG) Loida Nicolas Lewis called on Filipinos to organize rallies and demonstrations in front of China’s embassies and consulates throughout the world on May 11 to protest China’s recent aggressive encroachments on the Philippines’ Scarborough Shoal.

 

Lewis especially reached out to the Global Filipino Diaspora Council representing 12 million Filipinos in 220 countries throughout the world. The planned protest actions will take place in major cities like Washington DC, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Vancouver, Sydney, Singapore, Rome and Hongkong.

 

“The most important thing is that they see that the global community led by Filipinos is going to stand up to their bullying. They should be shamed for bullying a tiny country like the Philippines,” Lewis said on The Filipino Channel’s daily newscast “Balitang America” last week.

 

Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario affirms the Philippine government’s position that it has sovereign rights over Scarborough Shoal and its surrounding waters. He cites that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), a country’s exclusive economic zone extends from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles from the baseline.

 

Scarborough Shoal, or “Panatag Shoal” as referred to by Filipinos, is located 137 nautical miles from Zambales province in the Philippines. But China asserts that this island which they refer to as “Huangyan island”, is their “inherent territory”, despite its 500 nautical mile distance from the nearest China port of Hainan.

 

This recent development is still part of the ongoing territorial disputes between China and other claimant countries in Asia-- Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malayasia and Taiwan over the Spartly Islands.  These countries are all in search of gas and oil that are believed to be deposited in these areas.

 

As the impasse continues, China orders the Philippine vessel to leave.

 

But President Aquino remained firm in maintaining its presence in Scarborough Shoal as a way to assert its sovereignty. “The President’s position is – what is ours is ours and we should stand up for what is ours,” Del Rosario said.

Del Rosario said,  “They are saying they have a historical claim over it. A historical claim does not translate into a title. That’s number 1. They said they named it. Naming something does not mean you are entitled to it. Thirdly, they took the position that they have used that area, their fishermen used it. Use of an area does not mean you are entitled. If I say I have been traditionally fishing in the Pacific Ocean, that does not mean I am entitled to claim the ocean as mine.”

 

 The Philippine government filed a diplomatic protest against China.

China opposes Philippines’ “internationalizing” the problem and warns that this approach would complicate and aggravate the problem even further.

 

China’s People Liberation Army Major General Lou Yuan has called for a more decisive action against the Philippines. According to reports from China Daily, Yuan wants the Chinese government to send naval patrols, and marks its sovereignty with the national flag. 

 

He also says Beijing should encourage more Chinese  fishermen, as well as the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, and the China National Petroleum Corporation to move to the area.

 

Yuan also said China has not abandoned the idea of war at all cost in order to protect China’s sovereignty and interests. 

 

Ignoring China’s warning, Foreign Affairs Sec. Del Rosario said the Philippines is relying on the United States in order to achieve “a credible defense system”. 

 

Del Rosario added that the the Philippine government would like to reap the maximum benefits of its Mutual Defense Treaty with the most powerful country in the world.

 

Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin met with  U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta  last Monday and joined the news conference on the U.S.-Philippine Strategic Dialogue at the U.S. State Department.

 

With the complexity of the US-China relations, and with the interest of the American people of paramount concern, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to do a balancing act as the US walks this delicate line.

  

While reaffirming its obligations under the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, Clinton said, "In this context, the US has been clear and consistent: while we do not take sides on the competing sovereignty claims to land features in the South China Sea, as a Pacific power, we have a national interest in freedom of navigation, the maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law and the unimpeded lawful commerce across our sea lanes.”

 

Clinton likewise clarified that the US government opposes the use of force or threats by any party in settling territorial disputes in the South China Sea. 

 

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta pledged -- in standard language -- that the US will come to the aid of its weaker ally if it faces military aggression.

 

Moving forward, Del Rosario said the Philippines is pursuing a 3-track approach on the Scarborough Shoal dispute:

 

-- a political track, using the ASEAN as a framework via the code of conduct that is being put together;

-- a legal track, which means the use of dispute settlement mechanisms. He said the Philippines is hoping to pursue 2 out of 5 mechanisms under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea;

-- a diplomatic track, which includes consultations with China to defuse the tension.

 

Gazmin said the US vowed to support the Philippines when it brings its case to international legal bodies. He reiterated that the US wants a "rules-based approach" used in resolving issues in the West Philippine Sea.

 

Another group of Fil-Am community leaders based in the nation’s capital-- the Migrant Heritage Commission-- said it is best for the Philippines to ask the United Nations to initiate a convention of Southeast Asian countries for a multilateral talks to peacefully and diplomatically resolve the political impasse on the shoal which is part of the disputed Spratlys group of islands.

 

But US Pinoys for Good Governance President Rodel Rodis emphasized that a strong showing of support and solidarity by Filipinos will impress on China “that it is not just confronting a small country that it can easily bully, but one that has influential citizens scattered throughout the world who can mobilize and galvanize public opinion against China”. 

 

Ted Laguatan, USP4GG spokesman added, “We are calling on all Filipinos and all those who believe in freedom and the right of every country to control its own destiny to join us in a global demonstration at Chinese embassies and consulates in the United States and around the world at 12 noon on Friday, May 11.”

 

Will you heed this call?