The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile

Know Your Rights Redux, Part 3: "We have a warrant to search the premises..." Really?

2009-07-22T10:31:00.001+08:00

Caveat: if you folks want legal advice, talk to a lawyer. This is a layman's view of things.

In our previous post in the series we spoke of our civil rights when the cops come knocking at the door but don't have a warrant with them. Do remember, folks, that these rights do not apply if and only if:

- the cops are at your door because they are in hot pursuit of someone who has just committed a crime;

- the cops are at your door because you have committed a crime in their presence; and,

- the cops are at your door because they have personal knowledge that you are committing a crime or about to commit a crime.

Now, being the law-abiding citizens that you are, you shouldn't worry about these things, should you?

Let's now talk about the rights that protect you if the cops indeed have a warrant to search your place. Heck, we'll also talk about the rights of the cops if you're one of them scofflaws who need a spanking.

***
Let's not forget Consti 3:2, which says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The court in its wisdom did make strict requirements on search warrants in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically in Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

The search and seizure warrant is what gives law enforcement officials rights over persons and property, naturally, but even these rights are circumscribed. The reason why it often seems like the rules generally favor suspects is because of the balance of power between a suspect and the state, which obviously leans heavily to the state. It's simple math, really -- "People of the Philippines vs. Juan Pasang-Krus" is 90-odd million against one -- and such is why the laws are designed to even the scales somehow.

Having a sibling in law enforcement, I've learned how difficult it can be for them to get search and seizure warrants. Sections 3 to 5 of the law tells us what they need to go through:

- the warrant must be for one offense only (oh yes, folks, just ONE);

- the warrant must be based on probable cause, to be determined by the judge (the judge has to examine the complainant and any witnesses under oath -- and when the law says examine, the law means it... no wishy-washy "puwede na yan" or the perp just might walk later);

- the place to be searched in connection with the offense must be described particularly in the warrant (any vagueness in the warrant may result in its validity being assailed -- that is, the premises not mentioned in the warrant cannot be searched);

- the things to be seized in connection with the offense must be described particularly in the warrant (yet again, any vagueness in the warrant may result in its validity being assailed -- the things not mentioned in the warrant cannot be seized);

- the judge's examination and the complainant's statements must be put on record (no record, no supporting sworn statements and affidavits submitted, no warrant);

- the judge must be satisfied of the facts or must be persuaded to believe that there is probable cause that they exist before issuing the warrant (believe you me, quite a number of judges are conscientious enough to put law enforcement agents through the wringer before being satisfied).

Yes, folks, the cops gotta go through these -- simply because if they take procedural shortcuts, the suspect goes scot-free, even if the damned suspect's guilty as hell.

***
Now, what happens if the cops are armed with a warrant? Does this empower them to raid the place concerned?

I submit that raids are often unnecessary -- although I've not encountered any news or information that tells us that someone has complained about the cops' excessive force. See, Section 6 of the rules allows the law enforcement agency to break open doors or windows to effect search -- BUT ONLY IF REFUSED ADMITTANCE AFTER THE OFFICER HAS IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AND HIS PURPOSE. I submit that if law enforcement agents broke open doors and windows without being able to show the court before identifying themselves and their purpose, and that there was no reason to believe that the occupants inside will refuse admittance, then the law enforcement agents should be made liable for property damage and excessive force.

Yes, folks, we should demand professionalism from our law enforcement agencies. If they keep on acting as if kicking down doors is the only standard operating procedure, we're not going to expect any improvement in performance, reliability, and trustworthiness.

***
How should an occupant handle a search warrant? Here are the check items:

- the occupant must see that the search warrant is the original (the occupant has the right not to honor a photocopy; this is his property -- hindi po puwede ang "puwede na yan")

- the occupant should see whether or not the premises have been particularly identified (so if the warrant says "Apartment 34C" but the occupant is in Apartment 34A, the occupant has the right to refuse entry)

- the occupant should see that the warrant is not older than ten days (that's ten calendar days, not ten working days; if it's older, the occupant has the right to refuse entry)

- the occupant should see that the warrant specifies whether the time of search is for daytime only, or if the warrant allows the search to be either day or night (and if the officers arrive at night when the time of search allowed is daytime only, the occupant has the right to refuse search or challenge the admissibility of the evidence later)

- the occupant should see that the warrant has indeed been signed and issued by a judge (if it isn't signed, or is signed by a prosecutor instead of a judge, then the occupant has the right to refuse entry)

Special emphasis, folks -- Section 8 of the rules specifies a time when a valid search can be made: "The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night." Thus, if the cops knock on your door at night and the time specified is daytime only (or worse, there is no time specified), challenge the validity of the warrant. Gone are the days of the Gestapo/ NKVD/ KGB/ Marcosian martial law "knock in the night".

Let's hope I can find a valid warrant to show to you as an example, eh, folks? Maybe I can find one that can serve our purposes of explanation well enough.

***
Now, folks, an important note: despite what you see on TV, the cops cannot just force the occupant to stay in one corner under guard while they ransack the place, oh no. The Section 7 of the rules is clear on this point: "No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality." Folks, the way the two-witness rule is worded, the occupant can at that point challenge the search and the admissibility of the evidence found if:

- the occupant can demonstrate that the search was made without his presence;

- the occupant can demonstrate that at the time of the search, he was alone in the house and that the search was made without the presence of a member of the family accompanying each officer;

- the occupant can challenge the residence of the witnesses accompanying the officers performing the search (yes, if the witnesses are not from the locality -- they aren't next-door neighbors and are from another barangay or whatnot -- the search can be found invalid);

- the occupant can challenge the sufficiency of the age and discretion of the witnesses accompanying the officers performing the search (yup, if the witnesses' credibility is in question, the search can be found invalid).

Section 7 of the rules is a guarantee against the planting of evidence, something that Uniffors has railed against PDEA chief Dionisio Santiago, and rightly so.

***
What are the grounds for personal property to be seized? The rules are clear: "(a) Subject of the offense; (b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; and (c) Use or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense." This means that the cops cannot bring with them your home entertainment system if you're being accused of murder... that is, unless the victim's head was bashed in with a flatscreen TV and yours has a dent on it.

Now, when the cops cart off the stuff that they've seized from you, the law requires them to issue you a detailed receipt. The receipt must be identical to the inventory that he will submit to the court under oath; of course, the receipt and the inventory must be reflect completely accurately the property delivered to the court.

In criminalistics terms, this is called "chain of evidence" -- if the documentation is erroneous in any way, or if the integrity is tampered with in any way, the evidence becomes useless for prosecuting suspects.

Yes, folks, we must demand professionalism from our law enforcers; successful capture, prosecution, and conviction is the means to fight crime -- what use are heavy penalties if the law can't impose them on the guilty parties?

"Puwede na yan" doesn't wash in proving someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

***
So, folks, does this mean that all searches and seizures require the presence of a warrant? The answer is YES, EXCEPT if you've just been arrested for a crime, and the search is for dangerous weapons or anything to be used as evidence of the crime committed.

Let's then recap and use the previously reproduced FLAG primer on what to do when faced with a search warrant:

WHAT TO DO IF YOUR HOUSE OR OFFICE IS SEARCHED

Your house or office cannot be searched without a warrant duly issued by a judge. When a valid search warrant is issued, the searching party can only seize those things that are particularly described in the search warrant, unless you consent, or the articles are contraband in plain view. However, if you are arrested, your person and immediate surroundings may be searched for dangerous weapons and evidence that you committed the crime for which you are being arrested; any evidence which may be found on your person or immediate vicinity can be seized.

A search warrant is valid if:
- It is signed by the judge;
- It specifies one offense only;
- It describes with particularity the exact location and/or address of the place to be searched and lists down exactly what things are to be seized;
- It is used within ten days from its issuance.

A search warrant must be served during the daytime unless the affidavit supporting it asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case the warrant must specifically direct that it can be served at any time of the day or night.

If the warrant is invalid, the search and seizure is unlawful, Any evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure cannot be used as evidence in any proceeding. You may peacefully refuse, without liability, an unlawful search and seizure. You may also file criminal, civil or disciplinary action cases against the officer serving an unlawful warrant.

Where there is no search warrant, do not voluntarily submit yourself to a search. Object immediately. Do not agree to be searched but do not physically resist. A warrantless search without your express, prior and voluntary consent is illegal.

During a search:
Before allowing your home or office to be searched, ask for and read the search warrant. Examine it carefully to see if it:
(a) states your address;

(b) describes the items to be seized with particularity;

(c) is signed by a civilian judge;

(d) specifies only one offense; and

(e) is being used within 10 days from its issuance.

Contact your lawyer by the most expedient means (telephone, text message) and inform him/her that your home or office is about to be searched.

The search party has the right to break any outer or inner door or window to effect the search if the search party is refused admittance to the place of the search after giving notice of the purpose and authority for the search.

If it is a valid warrant, only then should you allow the search to be conducted. Upon letting the search party enter your premises, ask for their names, rank, and the office or unit to which they belong. Get the name and rank of the commanding officer.

During the search, accompany the group conducting the search at all times. This lessens the possibility of their planting documents, weapons or other materials in your home or office.

Remember: The search party is allowed to conduct the search only in the presence of the lawful occupant or any member of his/her family, If no occupant or family member is present, the search must be conducted in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion who reside in the locality. This means that every room, compartment, section or portion of the place cannot be searched unless the above witnesses are present.

If anything is taken from your home or office, the officer seizing the property must give you a detailed receipt. Before signing the receipt—
(a) Go over it carefully to ensure its accuracy in designation, description and quantity;

(b) If there are blank spaces that might be used by unscrupulous police officers to "add" items that were not actually found during the search, ask the officer to place a line across the blank space.

(c) Insist that you be given a copy of the receipt; if they agree, make sure that the copy accurately reflects the original.

(d) If there is anything in the receipt that tends or appears to be incriminating, tell the searching party you are invoking your right to a lawyer and to remain silent and that you refuse to sign anything without talking to your lawyer first.

You may be asked in sign an affidavit of orderly search. If the search was not conducted in an orderly manner, do not sign the affidavit. Instead, register your objection. In any case, read it very carefully and tell the police officers you want to consult your lawyer before you sign anything.

Know your rights, people. Not only is knowing them a safeguard, it is likewise a responsibility of good citizenship.

***
We'll talk about questions and arrests and whatnot in later posts. Like I've been saying, if you good folks need legal advice, talk to a real lawyer, eh? Best to have the real experts looking out for your best interests and protecting your civil rights.

Oh, and FS09? The logic and tenor of your non sequitur reply is so very like GMA answering FVR -- so many words and none to the point. Well done, kid, you're the terrorist NPA's own Lorelei Fajardo.

Later, everyone.

Posts in this civil rights series:

Part 1
Part 2

So, Plurker @FreeSince09, Do You Still Maintain That the Terrorist New People's Army Does Not Commit Human Rights Violations?

2009-07-21T22:30:00.001+08:00

What follows are excerpts from the Inquirer.Net story Communist rebels apologize for Negros attack. The terrorists fired upon a civilian vehicle without provocation, and three civilians were killed -- one of them a young teenager. Three others were wounded, one of them also a young teenager.

Priest-turned-rebel Frank Fernandez, NDF-Negros spokesman, in a statement said that an investigation was being conducted to identify those responsible for the attack.

...

Fernandez said the NDF was saddened by what happened and was asking for forgiveness from the victims and their families, and the people of Negros. “We accept the criticisms and are prepared to change,” he said.

A separate statement issued by Ka Cecil Estrella of the NPA Roslyn “Jean” Pelle Command’s Northern Negros Guerrilla Front also asked for forgiveness.

...

Fernandez promised justice for the victims in accordance with the rules of the revolutionary movement, the Comprehensive Agreement on the Respect of Human Rights, the International Humanitarian Law, and the protocols of war.

But he noted that the sustained military operations in the area had hampered the NDF’s investigation.

Let's filter out the bullshit, shall we?

When Fernandez "promised justice for the victims" in keeping with "the rules of the revolutionary movement", the CAHRIHL, and "the protocols of war", he simply meant this:

Fernandez is telling the victims' families, "Well, tough shit. Collateral damage happens in war. Sorry na lang po, and sorry is all you're going to get. The most punishment the fighters involved will get is a reprimand; we need all of them, you see, for the movement."

When Fernandez noted "that sustained military operations in the area had hampered the NDF’s investigation", he was attempting to shift the blame to the military -- "kasalanan po ng Army kaya di namin malaman kung sino ang may kagagawan" (JEM: Lokohin mo lelang mo, gago) -- and not only that, he was also performing a rather unsubtle means to get the involved fighters off the hook by implying they couldn't be found.

In other words, folks, them terrorists aren't really interested in finding those responsible. Justice for the victims, in their view, goes no further than lip service.

Fuckers.

***
To my friends in the service stationed over there, have a productive hunt, okay? Edmar Sultan, dead at 14, deserves justice done, as do the rest of his civilian companions.

To you terrorists whose callow statements try to make us believe that apologies will suffice for the spilled blood, well -- PUTANGINANINYO.

Know Your Rights Redux, Part 2: Mister Pow-lees-man at the Door

2009-07-21T12:22:00.006+08:00

Continuing from our previous post, let's deal next with what rights do we have when the cops come a-calling.

See, quite a lot of people think that once the cops come to your residence or place of business, they can do whatever bloody hell they want. But can they?

Of course not. The laws restrain the law enforcers; not only is the person of each citizen protected, but his home and and place of work are sacrosanct unless the rest of society is in danger from them. So, then, let's talk about what rights do we citizens enjoy when the cops are at your threshold.

Before we do, however, shoutouts to Ganns, Noemi, Chuvaness, Sonnie, Jonas, and Kaboom for writing about their chat with Manny Villar. Thanks for letting us into what you saw and heard when you met the fellow; it's another step in the right direction -- that of voter education, I mean. No, folks, I'm not endorsing Manny Villar -- hell, I'm not yet sure who I'll vote for, but you can rest assured we'll talk about it later.

(Oh, but Ganns, why didn't you ask Camille Villar's cellphone number for me? Teeheehee.)

Oh, and don't forget Cocoy's rather studied smackdown of Chiz Escudero. Intriguing stuff.

So much for that, let's talk rights now.

***
The constitutional basis for these protections is clear and unequivocal. Consti 3:2 says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

That's clear and simple enough, folks. Not even the most twisted logic can defeat it.

So, then, what do we do when the cops are knocking on your door?

(Take note, I said "knocking on" and not "knocking down" -- we'll get to that in a later post.)

***
When the cops knock on the entrance of any private property, the occupant has the right to demand identification. Unless and until the cops show their identifications clearly, the occupant can continue to presume that they are not law enforcers.

Now, I've met some law enforcers who think that the 80's-era television-style badge flip-flash is sufficient to identify onself as a law enforcement official, but that is completely untrue. The officer must show his identification in such a way that the occupant can reasonably satisfy himself that the officer is indeed who he says he is.

If the cop hides his nameplate, does not show his identification, or in any other manner attempts to conceal his identity, you don't have to let him in. He can stay on the other side of the door until doomsday, if you want.

A caution, of course: this doesn't apply if the cop is rushing after a suspect. The law gives him reasonable allowance -- kicking down doors and such, if need be -- if the cop is in hot pursuit of a suspect.

However, if he doesn't identify himself as a cop, the occupants will still have a reason to complain. If they want to complain, there's the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) for Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, there's the Department of Justice (DOJ) for National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) officers, and so on (the general rule is to go to complain to the parent department of the law enforcement agency). Hell, if need be, there's always the Commission on Human Rights to backstop the complaint.

Moving on.

***
When the cops, after duly identifying themselves properly as law enforcement officials, knock on the entrance of any private property, the occupant has no obligation to let them in -- unless, that is, they have a warrant or they are in hot pursuit of a suspect of a crime that has just been committed within the area.

That simply means that they can't force their way into your Quezon City home for a snatching committed yesterday, under the suspicion that the suspect climbed into your property. Similarly, the cops can't force their way into your QC home for a snatching just now committed in Makati. Even further, the cops can't force their way into your QC home for a snatching committed yesterday in Makati -- they'll need a warrant.

So if the cops knock and want to be let in, it is your right to ask whether or not they have a warrant. If they don't have one, then it's your right to make them stay outside the gate if you don't want them inside your home; they cannot enter without permission.

If they do enter without permission, you have the right to contact NAPOLCOM, DOJ, and CHR... and their asses will be yours to deal with as you please.

***
If the occupant agrees to let the cops inside -- remember, we are still talking about the no-warrant visit -- the cops are to proceed to wherever the occupant shows them to. If the occupant guides them to the living room, then that's where the cops will go and nowhere else. If the occupant guides them to the backyard where it stinks of dog poo, then that's where the cops must be and nowhere else. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN COPS WITHOUT A WARRANT WANDER ABOUT YOUR PREMISES WITHOUT EXPRESS PERMISSION.

Does this even mean that if the cops ask to use your bathroom to pee, you have the right to refuse them? YES.

None of the cops you've allowed to enter your premises can gadabout without your supervision or that of a relative or a trusted person. They came in together, and they should stay together. Otherwise, they've begun violating your rights.

After you've allowed the cops sit on your sofa or whatever, the cops should nail their asses on them and stay still. They can't look through your drawers, your coffee table, or even your magazine rack. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN COPS WITHOUT A WARRANT POKE ABOUT YOUR POSSESSIONS WITHOUT EXPRESS PERMISSION.

Can the cops ask you questions? Of course they can, BUT YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO ANSWER THEM. If they insist that you do, show them the door or wait until your lawyer arrives. We'll talk about the rights one has with regard to cops' questioning in a later post.

Finally, no matter how long or short the visit, the cops must leave when you say you want them to leave. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN COPS WITHOUT A WARRANT STAY LONGER IN THE PREMISES THAN ALLOWED TO BY THE OCCUPANT.

(Special note, of course -- when we said "under no circumstances" we didn't include the circumstance of you committing a crime in the presence of the cops... but you won't be that stupid, will you?)

Okay, then. Remember, folks, if the cops violate your rights, you got the NAPOLCOM, the DOJ, and the CHR to run to. Don't take being walked on lying down, you know what I'm saying?

***
We'll deal with what the cops can do when they have a search warrant, but in a later post. Oh, and if you good folks need legal advice, please contact a real lawyer, eh?

Later, all.

Know Your Rights Redux, Part 1: We, the Rebel Alliance, do, therefore, in the name -- and by the authority -- of the free beings of the galaxy...

2009-07-16T10:53:00.015+08:00

A friend on YM says that the harassment and web lynching I've been getting in my defense of one JB Lazarte's rights and analysis/ opinion on his situation is par for the course, and should be expected by any serious civil libertarian. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, is one of the groups most derided by the religious right in the United States.

Well, we've been hit before because of the criticisms we've made. We've weathered the web lynching and the web stalking (waves to they who read surreptitiously), we've survived the hate mails (waves at my anti-RH hate emailers); we couldn't have done it without your support and readership, folks.

Anyway, folks and first-time visitors, let me tell you a little bit about jesters. In the ancient days, when the crime of telling the truth was punished by tyrannical monarchs and warlords -- much like in this country, I guess -- jesters were the only people who could and did tell the truth as they saw it. After all, it is convenient for the arrogant and in power to disbelieve truths spoken by fools... and despite the speaker, the truths remain self-evident.

No surprise there, then? We write what we write and how we write it in keeping with this tradition. Their follies, their stupidities, their demonstration of a lack of functioning neurons -- these become our content. Heh heh.

We are back.

***
Okay. In keeping with the theme that we've been riding on for the past few days, here I am rehashing an old post derived from rebolusyon2006.blogspot.com, cleaning it up for easy reference. This is going to be a series of posts on what rights one has available to him, in whatever situation.

What we're going to do is attempt to provide a primer for you good folks on how to act when the law comes knocking at your door. Remember, in this country of ours it does happen that you don't have to have committed a crime for the law to give you a hard time.

Today we begin with basic concepts: whatever you do, no matter how stupid you become, you do NOT lose your basic rights. These include:

- The right to life;

- The right not to be tortured, nor subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

- The right not to be subjected to forced labor;

- The right not to be imprisoned for non-payment of a debt;

- The right not to be punished for an act which was not yet a crime at the time of its commission;

- The right to be recognized and treated as a person; and

- The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

These rights are absolute. Period. At no time will they ever be suspended.

Keep that in mind. Burn these rights into your retinas. From these rights all others spring.

***
We'll talk more later. Keep these rights in mind, all.

"Mike Chanco" and Some Major Mistakes (or, How Not to Mess Up When the G-Men Do)

2009-07-15T10:00:00.010+08:00

(DISCLAIMER: Before we get on with everything else, let me say that this post and the post before it and any others after related to it are all opinions of a person interested in the theory of law and its enforcement. If you want legal advice, go find a lawyer. If you want my opinions, don't ask me for it 'cause I'll give it to you anyway -- of course, you shouldn't use anything I say before the bench. Heh heh.)

Today, we're going to take a further look at the fiasco that was the "arrest" of one JB Lazarte in connection with the Hayden Kho-Katrina Halili/ Maricar Reyes/ a Brazilian model sex video scandal. While Alex Maximo grapples with the social and critical thinking aspect, and rider-dude OneTamad provides convenient parking space for our friendly neighborhood off-tangent haters and hating stalkers (for what else but "stalker" can you call anyone following me around to attempt to spread venom -- and aid and abet by encouraging it), we're going to add to our previous post some things that I think we can all learn from the experience.

Let's be clear on one thing, people: I'm not going to be defending Lazarte (as many have mistakenly believed -- cripes, reading comprehension must be no longer taught in schools), nor am I going to be deriding the law enforcement agents of the National Bureau of Investigation in their attempt (mind you, attempt) to do their jobs correctly. What you need to know is that I'm writing this because civil rights are being played fast and loose... and a citizen by himself and a country at large are both suffering because of it.

Civil rights, friends, whose observance will pull us through as a people or destroy us in their absence. Civil rights -- whose defense is integral to a democracy and whose destruction will result in nihilist anarchy.

Let's begin.

***
To be able to get a feel for the events of July 4, 2009, we're going to have to piece a few accounts together. Let's start with Mike's new crushie Maan Macapagal's version:

Original website of Kho sex videos raided
abs-cbnNEWS.com | 07/04/2009 12:51 AM

The National Bureau of Investigation on Friday raided the office of a pornographic website in Bacoor, Cavite where Hayden Kho’s sex videos were first uploaded.

Members of the NBI Anti-Fraud and Computer Crime Division tracked down the exact site in Bacoor where the sex videos were first uploaded through the bureau’s technical surveillance.

The NBI said the Hayden Kho sex videos that proliferated in various porn websites originated from the Bacoor office.

Probers said the porn site used to gather an average of 60,000 hits a day, which shot up to 1.2 million hits after the Hayden Kho videos were uploaded.

The bureau invited for questioning office owner Fidel Lazarte and his sons Marvin and Jobert.

Jobert admitted maintaining the site but said they only received a copy of the video through an anonymous email. He added that the copies he uploaded were the two footages of Kho and actors Katrina Halili dancing to the tune of "Careless Whisper."

"Hobby site lang ito...me nag-email sa lahat anonymously," said Jobert.

Agents said they are currently tracking down the person who sent copies of the sex videos to the porn site. They will also probe if the videos were sold for a hefty price.

The NBI are currently preparing pornography charges against the Lazartes.

Here's the version of ABS-CBN's rival:

NBI raids website that first uploaded Hayden sex video
07/03/2009 | 08:26 PM

MANILA, Philippines — The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) raided on Friday afternoon the office of a website in Cavite that was said to have first uploaded the sex videos of cosmetic surgeon Hayden Kho.

A team from the NBI Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division (AFCCD) swooped down on the office of fleshasiadaily.com in Bacoor, Cavite and took in three people for questioning.

Vicente de Guzman III, chief of the NBI-AFCCD, identified the three men who maintain the site as Fidel Lazarte and sons Marvin and Jobert Lazarte.

Fleshasiadaily.com was the first to introduce the sex videos of Kho and actress Katrina Halili dancing to the tune of Careless Whisper, Kho and model Maricar Reyes, and a third video entitled Beautiful Girl, Head Agent Palmer Mallari told reporters.

He said the website registered 1.2 million hits every day, an indication that more than one million people viewed the sex videos daily.

According to the NBI, Jobert Lazarte denied that the website was a porn site and said the family only maintained it as a hobby.

He said they did not upload the sex videos of Kho with different women, but only the two videos showing Halili and Kho dancing to the song Careless Whisper, the NBI said.

Jobert claimed that they received the videos showing Halili and Kho through an e-mail from an unknown sender.

A check of the website shows that it offers "free porn movies" and contains sexually explicit photos and videos.

The raid came after NBI investigators conducted technical surveillance, allowing them to trace the location of the website that first uploaded the sex videos of Kho.

Mallari said the NBI is now trying to trace the source of the videos sent to fleshasiadaily.com as the sender was anonymous.

The sex videos that appeared in YouTube and other websites came from the fleshasiadaily.com website. “From the usual 60,000 hits every day, it rose to over a million hits every day," said Mallari.

He said the suspects could face pornography charges, but they could also become witnesses if they cooperate with the NBI in identifying the people behind the distribution of the sex videos. - GMANews.TV

Here's Lazarte's presumably slightly exaggerated version of the story. I hope Mike doesn't mind excerpts -- I've long been taught that excerpting and issue-spotting is vital in building cases -- in the same way some queens and captains consider to be "twisting the facts" (ROFL, really), and I'm sure that the writer in him will forgive me for cutting out the non-essential details.

(Okay, fine, "Maan Macapagal is cute pala!" is a detail that I now pay attention too. Heh heh.)

Excerpts from Full Disclosure: The Shit Day That Was Last Friday:

Hello, people. My name is JB Lazarte. The past week, news reports named me “Jobart,” “Jobert,” or “Joe Bert.” Last Friday afternoon, some NBI dude with a gun just called me “Sit The Fuck Down.” Cool name, if you ask me. Sounds like an Indian, like Mr Two Dogs Fucking you see on the Error 500 page. But most of you — in fact, all except maybe 18 of you — knew me by my pseudonym of Mike Chanco.

...

One moment you were wondering how to spend the rest of the sleepy afternoon, the next moment there was this huge NBI person with a bad-ass gun screaming at me to sit or else, with all those camera people and ABS-CBN’s Maan Macapagal taking it all in. Nope, we weren’t “manufacturing pornographies,” as some early news reports said. What I was doing in fact, and this everybody and his cousin failed to mention, was that they caught me doing the “unspeakably horrible” act of playing Guitar fucking Hero... The “Sultan of Sleaze,” who’s so evil he allegedly was the first to upload those Hayden Kho videos, who apparently has “connections” with certain criminal elements, who “manufactured pornographies,” was caught negotiating the guitar riffs of Franz Ferdinand’s “Take Me Out.”

...

Later, in the middle of all the chaos, I saw Maan Macapagal in a corner writing her news report. I saw some “outrageous inaccuracies,” and so felt the need to “correct” her on the spot. I told her FAD was not getting “20,000 hits a day,” thank you very much, but “60,000 unique visitors” before the sex video mess came out. But I didn’t correct Maan when she wrote FAD has been getting 1.2 million page views since the scandal emerged. Of course, it was a grossly inaccurate number, but my “morbid pride” outweighed my “devotion” to accuracy this time, so I let it slide.

...

We were under custody of the NBI at their main office from Friday night to Wednesday evening. To be fair, we were treated well. I could even say the NBI agents were very friendly and accommodating and they seemed people I could have been friends with had we met under different circumstances. But still, they charged me... with violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, something about engaging in “obscene publications.”

...

Thanks to the huge, insane publicity the NBI’s “invitation for questioning” has generated for us, I’ve lost most of my clients.

Here's the follow-up story, still on ABS-CBN:

Owners of Hayden sex video website sued
abs-cbnNEWS.com | 07/06/2009 8:01 PM

Authorities on Monday filed obscenity charges against two brothers for uploading the sex videos of celebrity doctor Hayden Kho in their website.

Joebert and Marvin Lazarte, owners of the porn site fleshasiadaily.com, were charged with violating Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. The charges were filed before the Cavite Provincial Prosecutor's Office.

Agents of the National Bureau of Investigation arrested the two last Friday at their home in Zapote 2, Bacoor, Cavite. Also confiscated during the raid were the Lazartes' hard drive and laptop.

The Lazartes earlier said they only uploaded the video showing Kho and actress Katrina Halili practicing a performance of the song "Careless Whisper" for a celebrity singing competition. They also claimed that their website, which has some 1.2 million viewers daily, is not pornographic but supposedly only a "hobby site."

Initial investigation by the NBI Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division showed that the Lazartes received the video via e-mail from a person identified as "dance commander."

Officials said the Lazartes must have known the source of the sex videos since they were the first to get a copy of the material before any other website.

From the computer-generated video I saw of the event (if anyone has it on YouTube, do leave a comment to add to this data package), I gathered that the NBI sent Lazarte an email, to which Lazarte replied and from there the NBI got his computer's IP address, and from there his physical address.

I think this is enough material to start, don't you?

***
Before that -- yes, friends, a short lecture -- let me tell you about my feelings on law enforcement and police procedure.

See, following proper procedure is possibly the be-all-and-end-all of civil rights in law enforcement. By following procedure, the citizen (who is presumed to be innocent before guilt is proven), the law enforcer (whose job is to uphold the law), the officer of the court (who is supposed to serve the ends of justice), and the general public all have their rights protected. By following procedure, it becomes less likely that an innocent man is tossed into the slammer -- and it becomes more likely that them fucking criminals spend their lives behind bars.

This is why I'm going to have to ask you to be patient and follow me closely as we pick at procedure. Rights are at stake here.

***
Let's start with the NBI investigation. According to the stories earlier above, the NBI employed technical surveillance.

Surveillance, ladies and gents, simply means that the NBI agents would be, in one way or another, watching every breath you take, every move you make, every bond you break (see how that Sting song is so freaking eerie?). Technical surveillance is quite possibly a fancy way of saying that they're watching you via a computer -- this is assuming that they have CIA or NSA or North Korean hacker capabilities.

Surveillance is an integral part of law enforcement. Heck, stakeouts are quite possibly the most effective means of catching crooks. However, it might be that the NBI agents made a grave procedural error in their surveillance and investigation.

See, in surveillance the key is not to have as little contact with the subject as possible; heck, if it's at all practical, there should be no contact at all. What the NBI did, however was to initiate contact by sending an email to Lazarte, which was the method to obtain his IP address.

Strike one. Possibly two. Maybe three at that.

It's no different from an undercover cop making contact with a dealer, trying to get his confidence so that the cop can bust his drug-filled ass later. However, things get sticky when the confidence is built.

See, now this data point branches into two streams: was the email to Lazarte an innocuous one, saying "Hi, Mike, your site rocks, dude!", or was it "Hi, Mike, could you give me a copy of the vid where Hayden is tapping Katrina's ass?"

If it was the first, it can be almost unassailably argued that Mike could have not replied and thus not betrayed his location. Tough cookies, it would have been, and the agent can very well give himself a pat on the back for outsmarting Mike.

The second is stickier. See, sending Mike an email requesting for a video that would be later used as evidence against him is an act that if a law enforcer gets caught doing could just end his career: instigation.

Instigation is when an officer of the law induces a person to commit a crime for which the officer will arrest the person. In People vs. Doria, quoting People vs. Galicia, the court made clear what is in instigation: "The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal." Further, the court said in no uncertain terms, "It is instigation that is deemed contrary to public policy and illegal."

See, if the NBI agents wished to catch Lazarte for violating paragraph 3 of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code ("Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals"), by sending an email inducing Lazarte to send back a video believed to be offensive to morals, the NBI agents could very well be guilty of instigation.

Uh-oh. Instigation, ladies and gents, simply means that the NBI performed an illegal act. From there falls down the entire house of cards they'll have built for the Lazarte case.

Flesh Asia Daily's Mike Chanco could very well employ the defense of instigation by the NBI agents.

The NBI would then have to suck his balls and let him walk.

***
Now, let's go past that and assume that the NBI did not bungle that part of the investigation (although it's hard not to believe so, based on the news reports). Let's assume for the moment that the NBI did do a good job of building a case before going to Lazarte's residence.

And so the NBI go and raid the place. But was a raid necessary?

Did the NBI make a determination the likelihood that the Lazarte residence was a place where pornography was produced; that is, was there any indication that scantily-clad women were doing the nasty with Lazarte and his buddies under the glare of spotlights and the glint of camera lenses? Was there any indication that by employing a raid law enforcement agents would catch Lazarte in the act of boinkity-boink-boink-boink with some floozy or other? Was there any indication that without a raid, all the evidence of producing pornographic material would be lost?

It seems to me that the judgment made was faulty -- and this opens the NBI to another charge: excessive force.

Oh yes, ladies and gents, the definition of excessive force is not limited to exceeding the rules of engagement in tactical situation. It also applies to the methods applied in engaging a suspect -- note that I did not say criminal, as an accused is innocent unti proven guilty.

By raiding an ordinary, peaceful home whose occupants were not performing any illegal acts (that is, of course, unless playing Guitar Hero at medium difficulty is illegal), with firearms being waved by intimidating agents -- "this huge NBI person with a bad-ass gun screaming at me" -- the NBI could very well have to plead to a judge to please believe that they did not employ excessive force.

Else, the NBI agents would have to fellate Mike Chanco for a week after letting him walk.

***
Let's go on and assume that a raid was justified (something of a stretch to believe). Let's go through the next motions.

Did the NBI agents identify themselves? Let's assume they did.

Did the NBI agents present the original warrant? Let's assume -- wait, what kind of warrant?

Aha! Yes, folks, there are different kinds of warrants (but they don't include the 90's glam rock band). Two should be mentioned in this case: a search warrant, and an arrest warrant.

Now, did the NBI have a warrant to search the premises? Let's hope so, else the agents would be in hot water for trampling all over Lazarte's house.

Now, did the search warrant include the power to search through Lazarte's hard drive and other storage media?

Some people may consider that semantics, but that is all part of the constitutionally-guaranteed right against unreasonable search and seizure. The law has time and again reminded law enforcers that they can't look through places that their warrants don't cover.

So, did the NBI search through Lazarte's computer without possessing the right to do so?

If they did, uh-oh, anything they'd have found would be inadmissible in court... and the NBI agents would have to rimjob Mike Chanco's ass for a month after they let him go. Worse yet, they can't get out of that jam because they've confiscated the computer -- prima facie evidence, that could be, of illegal search and seizure.

Furthermore, did the search warrant include the power to search through Lazarte's web-based email accounts and his server catalog? If not, the NBI would really get it in the ass for searching beyond what was in their power to search.

(Mike, if you gave your passwords and access to them under duress, they're gonna get it for illegal search and seizure. But you better prove that duress, boy.)

***
Let's go on and assume that the warrant provided for a comprehensive search (of which any prosecutor and defense attorney know all too well is difficult, if not impossible, to word).

We know from the news reports and Mike's account that Lazarte was "invited for questioning" -- a term often mistaken to be a euphemism for arrest, but is so far from arrest than is the truth. For what does invited for questioning mean?

It means, pure and simple, that one is not under arrest. Hell, if one had the cojones, one could tell the cops, Get the fuck out of my house, and if the cops made it an issue they'd be opening themselves to charges of police brutality.

Anyone who is invited for questioning has several rights and choices available, folks.

First, he has the right to refuse the invitation. Babst vs. NIB made it clear that "an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some questions, which the person invited may heed or refuse at his pleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally objectionable" -- but note the key words: the person invited may heed or refuse. If the person is not allowed the right of refusal or is intimidated not to refuse, it then becomes an arrest. (We'll get to that later.)

Second, he has the right, if he has not refused, to attend to the invitation at his convenience and schedule. He has the right to say, "I'm busy playing Guitar Hero right now; why don't you go to your office and wank for a while? I'll be there tomorrow afternoon." If he is not afforded his choice of schedule and convenience or is intimidated to accede immediately to the option offered him, it then becomes an arrest. (Later.)

Third, he has the right to attend to the invitation with his choice of transport; he has the right to choose whether to climb in the NBI AUV, take a jeepney to the office, or call Mar Roxas to padyak his way there. If he has not been afforded his choice of travel method, and is made or intimidated to agree to ride the NBI vehicle, it becomes an arrest. (Later!)

The bottomline is this: since Mike was offered an invitation, there should have been choices afforded to him. If there weren't, either by not offering them or by intimidating Lazarte not to make any, the NBI guys could very well be in trouble. If there were, hell, Mike, you stupid SOB.

Now if it were an arrest, Mike should've been apprised of his rights as an accused immediately. This lack, I believe, is why Lazarte is going to win this case... and why I think Mike could very well sue the NBI's collective pants off for bungling this case to hell and back.

***
Some minor details: did the NBI agents immediately secure and put away their weapons after determining that there was no threat to the life of the agents?

If not... you guessed it right, folks -- excessive force, especially if it can be proven that there were no deadly weapons in the immediate vicinity of the suspect.

Also, if Mike was made to "Sit The Fuck Down" in his own house and it can be later shown that he was not under arrest at the time nor was there probable cause to think he was a suspect, the NBI agents open themselves to charges of arbitrary detention. This would be especially true since there were weapons being waved around; evidence that the NBI agents physically touched Lazarte (not that way you're thinking, you perv) by holding him by the scruff of the neck or arms or similar would add to the charge of arbitrary detention -- I think I saw some of that in the ABS-CBN video. Heck, the fact that Lazarte and his brother were herded into the NBI vehicle under duress and threat of violence (real or imagined; remember, the agents were armed and waving their weapons earlier) by the NBI agents make the charges of arbitrary detention even more possible. Adding to that would be whether or not Lazarte felt that they could leave the NBI office at any time; if they did not feel that way, arbitrary detention can indeed be appreciated by a fair-minded judge, under Babst vs. NIB precedent.

***
Certainly we can infer that there was no warrant of arrest issued, as Lazarte was invited for questioning instead of being arrested.

Let's assume that the invitation for questioning is later found to be valid. Now even before questioning begins, even if Lazarte does not need to be apprised of his Miranda rights (a gray area, you see) because he is not under arrest (but which he can later claim to be, given the circumstances; courts have quite often said that an "invitation for questioning" in some cases was tantamount to an arrest), the NBI still needs to ask Lazarte whether or not he needs a lawyer. If Lazarte wants to waive his right to counsel, he must do so in the presence of a lawyer and do this in writing.

The rationale is simple: invitations for questioning are supposed to be for witnesses, not suspects. Witnesses answer questions leading to the arrest of the suspects; suspects cannot be questioned without the right of counsel because of the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Let's assume that Lazarte was not apprised of his right to counsel. Now, this means that any answer that Lazarte gives to a question the NBI put to him is inadmissible as evidence, because it was illegally acquired. Oh yes, that simple. That means that the NBI cannot use his answers as evidence to charge Lazarte with any crime. If the NBI persist in charging Lazarte with violation of Article 201 based on his answers, the NBI open themselves to charges of malicious prosecution. Charging the NBI with illegal arrest might be possible, but some legal wrangling will be involved.

Furthermore, not only was the evidence illegally acquired, the NBI would have violated Lazarte's right against self-incrimination... and folks, a law enforcement agency violating a basic constitutional right? Oh boy. The NBI's going to have to shove their billysticks up their asses in penance, and Mike would have just cause to spank them bad boys.

Any of those answers that we hear from the media can't be used as evidence (like that it was a "dance commander" who sent the videos), oh no. This, simply because Lazarte was charged for Article 201 after being questioned in an "invitation for questioning" venue and not an arrest. Remember this, folks: self-incrimination is a guaranteed against by the constitution, and that any violation of it makes the evidence inadmissible.

Still assuming that Lazarte was not apprised of his right to counsel, the NBI cannot use any of Lazarte's answers in building a case against anyone else, as the evidence was illegally acquired. Worst case scenario? The investigation is dropped... not unless the NBI wants the possibility of facing an inquiry before the Commission on Human Rights, possibly wearing loincloths and carrying flagella to whip themselves.

Now, if Lazarte waived his right to counsel properly, well, Mike, you gotta start learning how far you can bend down.

***
I guess I'm fairly convinced that there were so many procedural lapses committed by the NBI that I guess a number of agents could be made to pay for it, and dearly too. That's what civil rights are all about. See, if shortcuts are taken and allowed to be taken, if we play fast and loose with civil rights, we run the danger of sending innocent people to jail.

Even if out of a thousand convictions only one of them was of an innocent man, that would still be a grave injustice.

Bottomline, then. Shortcuts, bad. Lapses, bad. By the book, good.

That is the line where rights meet the law, and thus the ends of justice are served.

***
Here's a little beef with Maan and her colleagues: lady, do you not know that there is no such thing as a "pornographic website" in the Philippines, as there remains no legal definition of "pornography" in our jurisdiction? Remember, no law has been passed defining the scope and extent of what pornography is.

You could have said "a website" without any qualifications, like what GMANews.tv did.

Not that reporters don't slip in exaggerations here and there add to ratings and readership, of course *wink*. Yup, sensationalism is one of them ways to catch the attention of the general public, but only tabloids do that, and not the majors.

Susme. You might be cute, Maan, but I'm not sure if I approve of your reportage of the event.

***
Mike, thanks for the hat tip, by the way. I hope you will bear this post out; pardon me if I sounded harsh, won't you? On the other hand, I wonder what you meant by "highly entertaining" about the previous post and the others mentioned? (Heh heh.) By the way, one of them stalkers claims to be pally with you -- full disclosure of course, so that we all know for certain that they are irrelevant. To my opinion on this issue involving you, that is. They are irrelevant.

Oh, and pardon this blog layout, folks. It needs fixing, but I need time. Later, all.

The People of the Philippines vs. Larry Flynt

2009-07-11T12:10:00.002+08:00

(Or, the self-embarassment the NBI has set up for itself by arresting the Flesh Asia Daily authors in relation to the Hayden Kho/ Katrina Halili/ Maricar Reyes boinkfest videos.)

I was busy, but I had to write this post. Looks like the comedy of errors that is the Hayden Kho-Katrina Halili scandal has now lowered itself into farce.

By law enforcement officials, no less. After reading the Inquirer report I found my head shaking. Seriously. Talk about the Peter Principle as applied to law enforcement.

Sheesh. N00bz. Bobits. Idjuts.

Why do I say so?

Let's take a look at a number of the angles surrounding the arrest of one JB Lazarte.

***
Before we get down to the nuts and bolts, let's first visit this case I feel is relevant -- in Soriano vs. Laguardia, citing FCC vs. Pacifica and Katigbak vs. Gonzales, the court took note of how an expression can be permissibly restricted by being considered indecent: by whether or not the medium through which the expression was made is pervasive, by whether or not the expression is aired at a time of day when children have a reasonable risk of being in the audience, and whether or not the expression was made in a "G" rated milieu.

Despite the fact that internet penetration is growing, it is NOT a pervasive medium. Unlike television and radio, which can be accessed anywhere in the country with a working receiver, the internet is -- sadly -- a medium not accessible to the general public (I leave the paralegals to research the latest data on that). Not every person has access to the internet; in contrast, any person riding a jeepney, FX, and bus has listened to the onboard radio or television, if not the receiver he carries himself or passes by in some show window. (It would seem that the NBI are much too optimistic in viewing the pervasiveness of internet use.)

As to whether or not there is a reasonable risk of children accessing FAD, such is why the author's rather crude (no offense meant) attempt at a warning page was made. The reader takes full responsibility for having accessed the site. Furthermore, any computer-savvy parent is aware of parental locks and similar software that prevent young children from accessing such sites. (It would seem that the NBI are not sufficiently computer-savvy to realize this.)

Nailing down the NBI's coffin in this context is this final point: FAD does not purport itself to be a "G" rated site, oh no. In fact, Flesh Asia Daily blatantly and brazenly declares itself to be a site only for adults. (If the NBI did not get that, they must be unable to read.)

How rather disappointing of our law enforcement agents and the prosecutor involved not to have seen these.

***
Further on in the interesting case of Soriano vs. Laguardia comes the "balancing of interests" test when the regulation of expression is concerned, and the court found "the assertion by petitioner of his enjoyment of his freedom of speech is ranged against the duty of the government to protect and promote the development and welfare of the youth."

I would argue that this applies to Flesh Asia Daily as well. If the court accepts it to be the case, then the preceding three guidelines apply, showing that in no way does FAD present a danger to the welfare of the youth, in the same manner that FHM, Red Magazine, Maxim, Playboy, and whatnot have not been considered by the NBI as dangerous to the welfare of the youth (for if the NBI had, these publications' editors would have been arrested long ago).

After all, the magazines are being sold in stores where children can go in and buy stuff (like 7-11, for instance). Not that they're allowed to buy, of course, and if the kids lift the magazines out of the racks and take them out of the stores it's the kids' fault, not the stores'; similarly, if a kid deliberately enters FAD despite internet parental locks, the message warning him off, and the insistence of the internet shop owner, it makes the kid responsible for his actions and not FAD.

***
The Inquirer story reports that the author of Flesh Asia Daily was arrested and charged for violating Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. This is what that law says:

Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:

(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;

(2) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;

(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which
(1) glorify criminals or condone crimes;
(2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography;
(3) offend any race or religion;
(4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and
(5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;

(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals.

The story didn't say which clause was applicable. No matter.

Let's say the NBI decided to apply "(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals."

Were there any doctrines proclaimed that were contrary to public morals? I submit that there were none; else quite a number of local glossy magazines would've been banned, quite a number of billboards would've been torn down, and Willie Revillame's noontime Wowowee would not be aired in the way it is now.

Assuming, however, that there were such doctrines, the court should take note that the expression was not publicly expounded. Unlike television, radio, or public billboards, of which the public cannot avoid being exposed to due to their ubiquity, the access of FAD is a private decision made by a reader on his computer. There is a one-on-one user relationship between FAD and the reader that makes the reading of the site a private rather than a public matter.

Assuming, still, that the proclamation of contrarian doctrines was public, the court should take notice that FAD is not physically based in RP (yes, n00bz, do your homework as to where the site is hosted; the site is not hosted in the author's personal computer -- seriously, how n00b of the NBI to think so), and as such cannot be considered to fall within the ambit of Philippine morals. The Philippines cannot, by operation of law or otherwise impose, on another jurisdiction the morals the Philippines is presumed to subscribe to by law. Since the author of FAD has made his allegedly illegal proclamation in foreign jurisdiction, he cannot be prosecuted for it; why, has the Philippines prosecuted Martin Nievera for violating the Philippine Flag Law in a foreign country?

Assuming, futher, that indeed the author of FAD can be prosecuted for FAD's content because the Philippines will arrogate to itself jurisdiction over the foreign host and even the internet (something no country has yet done, not even the People's Republic of China), this case becomes one of a case of harassment and unevenhanded justice. Why is FAD the only one being charged by the NBI? Why is the NBI not running after Japanese AV sites, Swedish sites, Russian sites, and all those, when the Philippines has arrogated unto itself jurisdiction over foreign hosts and the internet? There is no justification for law enforcement to seek to prosecute one alleged violator and let thousands of other alleged violators run scot-free. So many violations, if they are indeed violations, have been ongoing before FAD -- why was FAD the first to be picked up by the NBI?

Hay, NBI. Did you think it through before you got the warrant to arrest Lazarte?

***
Let's say the NBI decided to apply "(2) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same." The smackdown is simple: define "obscene"?

I'm sure any competent defense lawyer will rip the NBI's definition apart... simply because there is to date no legal definition of what is obscene.

How about "(2) (b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes"? Obviously not.

"(2) (b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which
(2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography"? This, the NBI can perhaps use against FAD, but it should have used this against manufacturers of toy weapons (and maybe even manufacturers of real ones), many glossy magazines, and hundreds of street tabloids long ago and consistently. Else, the NBI should be charged with harassment (and rightly so).

(3) and (4) don't directly apply in this case; the connections are rather tenuous. Any offense to race or religion was not directed specifically to said race or religion, and the abetting of traffic in prohibited drugs, well, let's just say it would make kids curious of what "E" is. (I told you it was tenuous.)

(5) is just a catch-all, and can be dismissed out of hand by any of the preceding arguments.

Susme. Is reading comprehension no longer a requirement to be employed by the NBI?

***
Let's say the NBI decides to claim "(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals" as the basis for the arrest. A simple smackdown: "Morals? Define."

Remember, morals are a personal business. Even if the Philippines has a Catholic majority, Catholic morals cannot be imposed because a) such would be tantamount to prescribing a state religion, something against the Constitution, b) such would be tantamount to marginalizing the millions of non-Catholics who do not subscribe to Catholic morals, and c) such would be tantamount to marginalizing the millions of Catholics who do not completely subscribe to Catholic morals. (Just look at the support for the Reproductive Health Bill by quite a number of Catholics, such as that group Catholics for Choice or something like that.)

Heck, what if I say that the ABS-CBN coverage of the arrest of Lazarte by the NBI offends my morals? Will the NBI go and arrest the ABS-CBN reporter and crew? Or will the NBI acquiesce to the reporter's defense of freedom of the press and freedom of expression, a standard which should likewise be afforded to Lazarte?

Unless, of course, the hypothetical crew and the NBI both or separately acknowledge a double standard, and thus aid, abet, and perpetuate an injustice. Such a thing the courts should not countenance.

On the other hand, if the NBI decides to define morals as "public morals", we've discussed that earlier, showing how the NBI cannot find any legal leg to stand on.

***
Which brings me to this final quote from the story:

The Lazartes can only be charged with Article 201 under the Revised Penal Code for possession of indecent materials, according to (Palmer Mallari, NBI Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division -- AFCCD -- executive director).

He also stated that the law is what applies to nearly all “cyberporn” cases that the AFCCD has handled. He noted this provision's limitation particularly on the coverage of pornographic materials in digital format.

No law in the Philippines covers Internet related crimes, including Internet pornography. Mallari himself said there is a need to include a cybercrime law to help them prosecute criminals using the Internet.

Special notes. Pay attention, everyone.

He noted this provision's limitation particularly on the coverage of pornographic materials in digital format.

This we discussed at length already, showing how the NBI should not have harassed Lazarte by arresting him for a weak case.

No law in the Philippines covers Internet related crimes, including Internet pornography.

Possibly one of the most impressive men of the judiciary I've had the privilege to meet drummed this into the heads of we who were listening to him with rapt attention: Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege. There is no crime if there has been no law enacted. One cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law.

I wonder if the NBI agents (who are supposed to be lawyers, I'm told) have forgotten this basic legal maxim? Hell, has Mallari forgotten it?

(Smaller note -- we took a look at Article 201, we didn't see possession of indecent materials... I wonder if this is a bad quote by the Inquirer reporter or it's a major slip-up of Director Mallari? Uh-oh, eh?)

No wonder the NBI want to turn Lazarte into state witness; it's a clumsy attempt to make a graceful exit without the NBI admitting any error on their part.

I'd like to say that again, and highlight it.

No wonder the NBI want to turn Lazarte into state witness; it's a clumsy attempt to make a graceful exit without the NBI admitting any error on their part.

See the L-sign to the forehead I've just flashed Mallari?

***
I kinda thought that the story would be the Philippines' version of the famous case People vs. Larry Flynt, which ended up being Hollywoodized. As I finish this article, I realize that this case will give clearthinking folks a collective urge to facepalm -- not merely for the farce that it is but for the waste of resources that it is.

Imagine that. The NBI doing all this nonsense, while bombs keep on going off in Mindanao... and nobody's been caught yet.

Bra-VO.

Bleh. Later, all. Still busy. Might take a while.

A Birthday Card from the jester-in-exile, June 12, 2009

2009-06-12T10:29:00.005+08:00

My Dearest Beloved,

Happy 111th, love of my life.

Las Islas Filipinas: First, last and always.

All my love,

the jester-in-exile

The World is Watching

2009-05-31T08:51:00.004+08:00

Other countries are noting the priorities of our Senate and of our mainstream media:

From a Bangkok newspaper.

The Senate rightly points out that Katrina Halili and Hayden Kho's bedroom antics are far more important than the economy and public health.

Media, the gatekeepers of information, are doing a great job of informing us about this issue so vital it trumps national security and public safety concerns or issues that affect Filipino education.

Pwe. What a waste of carbon.

Hat tip to Jen neh.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

POTA NAMAN, TAMA NA. WALANG KWENTANG ISYUNG YAN.

2009-05-28T23:31:00.003+08:00

UPDATE: A rather good quote by plurker eloisa: Sen Ado about nothing.

Very appropriate.

This is the Senate's idea of a judicious use of time and resources. From Inquirer.net:

THIS IS IN AID OF LEGISLATION? Lokohin nyo lelang nyo, gago.

(It's also mainstream media's idea of a story worth public interest -- as opposed to the book blockade, right, folks?)

Pwe. I'm making a list of those of you I will NOT vote for, for wasting time better spent on more pressing issues of public import and taxpayers' money better spent on matters more important than Katrina Halili's ass and Hayden Kho's getting some of it.

And to think the Senate is supposed to be composed of intellectual giants and wise statesmen. Instead, we have shills who are fit for no more than Showbiz Central or some similar shit.

Leche. I'll remember YOU in 2010.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

The Great Philippine Book Blockade of 2009: Keeping an Eye on This Issue (UPDATED!)

2009-05-10T17:06:00.027+08:00

UPDATE (May 15, 2009): Added two interesting blog links, talking about using the visibility of David Archuleta (of American Idol fame) to result in trending on Twitter! Pota naman kasi, sobrang konti pa ang coverage sa broadcast news. Also added a new link from Robin Hemley and a reference by him.

UPDATE (May 14, 2009): Added another media report. This is disturbing -- that there is much more coverage of Manny Pacquaio post-boxing match fluff than this issue. Looks like most of mainstream media editors and producers don't think illiteracy is a problem. Pakshet kayo.

Also, The Bibliophile Stalker tweeted about coming out on MLQ3's show, The Explainer: "BTW just confirmed my participation at The Explainer (TV show) next Mon. (May 18, 6 PM, Channel 27, ANC) to talk about #bookblockade. Tune in to ANC at 6 pm on 5/18."

UPDATE (May 13, 2009): Link to smackdown of Customs' FAQs added. Kudos to Bahay Talinhaga!

UPDATE (Afternoon of May 12, 2009): More links added. Of particular interest is the reaction of the Customs people.

UPDATE (May 12, 2009): More links added. Robin Hemley also says that he will write a follow-up piece on this issue on the Far Eastern Economic Review.

UPDATE (May 11, 2009): New links added -- if you folks have written about The Great Philippine Book Blockade of 2009 and want to help in increasing the visibility of this issue, leave a comment with your post and the post's URL. Let's help breach the blockade with a blogswarm!

No, folks, I've said my piece already. In this post I'm going to present links to those who are -- as I am -- up in arms over the Bureau of Customs' efforts to turn the Filipino population into a mass of ignoramuses. Leche sila.

But before that, let's mosey over to Robin Hemley's blog and check out updates on the author who -- much to our gratitude -- opened our eyes to this travesty.

In Hemley's post Some Heat, Hemley writes a reply to someone who reacted negatively to his piece. His response goes:

When I wrote the piece several months back, the designation had not been removed. This seems a bit of a "not seeing the forest for the trees situation." While on this point, the letter writer might be technically correct, the larger point is that the Philippines is and remains one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and is considered such by the vast majority of its own people, who suffer the greed of government officials. Virtually every week, a new corruption scandal hits the front pages of the newspapers in the Philippines, each example more egregious than the last. The G20 news just happened to be the story of the week when I wrote up my dispatch. What disturbs ME is that the corrupt government can always rely on such nationalistic and defensive sentiments as the letter writer's when faced with any outside criticism. For the record, while I'm a U.S. citizen, I didn't participate in the colonization of the Philippines (which happened well over a century ago) and I didn't vote for Bush. The fact that the U.S. has its own problems does not in any way diminish the points made in my piece. The argument, "Bush was bad, you colonized us, so don't criticize us," doesn't wash. I'm certainly not gloating or condescending either, as I'm accused. I feel sad that a country I love as much as the Philippines has to suffer under its present colonizers, its own government officials, while always able to rely on knee-jerk reactions as those of the letter writer. Happily, many Filipino bloggers and book lovers and some in the mainstream media have reacted positively to my piece and are now creating a stir to rectify this terrible situation.

Here's my attempt to help provide an index of these people who do care about getting this messed fixed. (Oh, and to that letter writer -- una, hindi issue yung G20 blacklist, kundi yung violation ng Florence Agreement. Isa pa, ang mali, que nakita ng kapwa Pilipino o ng taga ibang bansa, mali pa din. Pakyu ka, mag-isip ka naman, nakakahiyang isipin ng iba na di marunong magbasa ang Pilipino.)

Kudos to these people who care about the literacy of the Filipino... now, folks, do note that this is a partial list -- I'm certain many people are as pissed off by the Bureau of Customs as we are.

On blogs and from bloggers:

The Great Book Blockade of 2009: Timeline and Readings by MLQ3 -- a must read! (also on Inquirer Current; see also On the Great Book Blockade of 2009.)

The Great Book Blockade of 2009 by Philippine Genre Stories -- where (aside from MLQ3's reportage) I go to follow this issue

On the Great Book Blockade of 2009 by Bahay Talinhaga -- for power reading

Essay: Clarifying The Great Book Blockade of 2009 by The Bibliophile Stalker -- another brilliant, must-read piece (also visit Robin Hemley responds)

The Great Book Blockade of 2009 by Bookmarked! -- includes an up-close-and-personal experience with Customs

Going Postal Yet Again by Curious Couch -- legal battle to brew? (Also read her personal experience with books and Customs!)

Love books? Then get ready to scream in FURY! by Topaz Horizon

Marcos in Reverse: The Great Book Blockade of '09 by Indolent Indio

No More Newly Imported Books in the Philippines; the Reason Why by The Trojan Bore (also read DOF Usec Sales -- Novels & Reading Books Are "Not Educational" and Proposing an Easy, Not Too Embarassing Way Our for the Dept. of Finance on the Book Import Controversy)

A Taxing Matter on Jessica Rules the Universe

The Great Book Blockade of 2009 by Beerkada -- an angry cartoon

The Philippine Book Blockade of 2009 on Random Thoughts -- short and nasty

The Stupidification of the Filipino on Filipino Voices

Books and Taxes on The Pork Sword Chronicles

The Great Philippine Book Blockade of 2009 on Komikero Comics Journal

Twilight Made Me Do It by Bittergrace

Missing Comma by Bet.cha.by.golly.world.

Bad News for Bookworms by Animetric's World

The Great Book Blockade of 2009 by Bitter Pills & Breathing Spaces

Book Bugged on Original SIM

Mnemosyne Writes by Mnemosyne Writes

Death and Taxes by Street but Sweet

Kinidnap ni Arroyo ang Libro Ko by Just Press Start

A throwback to the Stone Age by Glass half-empty

A low blow on Pinoy bookworms on opinionated thoughts of a cubicle dweller

Our Bureau of Customs milks on imported books like Stephenie Meyer's Twilight by Purpose Driven Paul

The banishment of common sense by The Pelican Spectator

Welcome to the Republic of Absurdity by The Grin Without a Cat

Twilight and Philippine Corruption by Pine for Pine

The Great Book Blockade of 2009 on Refine Me

Philippine Customs To Impose Tariffs on Imported Books? by The Unlawyer

The Book Blockade of 2009 by Hibernating Bear

Things that sell good in the Philippines will be milked on From Donelle's point of view

Corruption Creeps Into Books on everyday reads

Corruption in the Philippines: Book Blockade in the Philippines on Daily Musings

Signal Number Three by To the Tale, and Other Such Concerns

The Assault on Reason on The Misadventures of Wonderboy and His Broken Hearts

In the Name of Reading on Tales of a Backpacker

(Added May 11, 2009)

The Great Philippine Book Blockade of 2009 on Brise La Mer

A letter from Rep. Teodoro L. Locsin Jr. to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to scrap Customs duties on imported books shared on MLQ3's plurk (also on Filipino Voices)

Running the Book Blockade (on Foot!) on The Wolf's Lair

Philippine Customs Now Taxes Imported Books, Twists International Law by Joel Chua

(Added May 12, 2009)

Espele Sales: "Books are non-educational" by A Bugged Life

Books Are Educational! (rant) on The Wolf's Lair

On book blockage and the Filipino brain on Bury Me In This Dress

Quick copy from MLQ3's post:
andrewdrilon, Animetric's World, Bahay Talinhaga, Bet.cha.by.golly.world., Bibliophile Stalker, Bitter Pills & Breathing Spaces, Bookmarked!, Bittergrace, Fish in a bubble, Star in a bowl, castles in the air, Daily Musings, From Donelle's point of view, everyday reads, Glass half-empty, Hibernating Bear, Hmmm... that's interesting, Indolent Indio, Internet451, i hate twilight, The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile, Jessica rules the Universe, Karotitay.com, Komikero Comics Journal, Life is like a game of poker, Love and Choices, mzeid, Mnemosyne Writes, opinionated thoughts of a cubicle dweller, Original SIM, Just Press Start, Purpose Driven Paul, Onedering Tawts, Refine Me, My Thoughts Exactly, Notes of an Anesthesioboist, Pine for Pine, Pop ups of my mind, Philippine Genre Stories, Random bits of life and media, Street but Sweet, Scratching Post, The Trojan Bore, The Grin Without A Cat, The Age of Brillig, The Curious Couch, The Pelican Spectator, The Misadventures of Wonderboy and His Broken Hearts, The Pork Sword Chronicles, The Unlawyer, To the Tale, and Other Such Concerns, Twilight Sucks, Twilight Coven Philippines, Tales of a Backpacker, touyatouya, The Pageman in Kabul, uneditedmara, What lies beyond the furthest reaches of the sky?, Wandering Star, vinzmondi, xairylle

Barefaced Brazeness from Flanerie

(Added May 13, 2009)

GBB: Dissecting the BOC’s FAQ and DOF Guidelines on Bahay Talinhaga

(Added May 15, 2009)

Philippine blogs use Twitter to cross market the Book Blockade Controversy on the Blog Herald

#bookblockade — well, many thanks to David Archuleta’s media clout on A Bugged Life -- perhaps in reaction to the fact that mainstream media has been remiss in reporting this important issue? Pakshet, mga tamad. Grrr.

More on the Great Book Blockade of 2009 by Robin Hemley

Sound and fury over 'book blockade' on Philippine Online Chronicles

Duty Free Books on Discover the Gift -- on an NBDB resolution

Neil Gaiman joins in spreading the word on the book blockade on In Pursuit of Whimsy -- yay for Neil! Boo to most of our local journalists who have not written about this issue yet! Mahiya kayo!

Relevant mainstream media reads:

(Added May 11, 2009)

A conspiracy of officials -- Manolo Quezon's column on Inquirer.net (also on quezon.ph)

Taxes on books, drugs betray our wrong priorities -- letter to the editor at Inquirer.net (original blog post here)

"Book Blockade" Irks Miriam; Senate Probe Sought. - report on ABS-CBNNews.com

Jojo Binay, Makati mayor and United Opposition President, criticizes duties on books -- report on Business Mirror

Pinoy book lovers criticize new Customs policy -- report on Philippine Star

Taxing books an old policy -- Jarius Bondoc's column on Philippine Star

(Added May 12, 2009)

Binay to Customs, Go After Smugglers Not Bookdealers -- report on Philippine Star

What is the street value of being human? -- Jessica Zafra's column on the Philippine Star

Miriam seeks probe on Customs book blockade on Philippine Star -- contains "suprised" reaction by Customs official

(Added May 14, 2009)

More senators question 'book blockade' on Philippine Star

From government:

(Added May 12, 2009)

Official Senate press release of Miriam Defensor-Santiago on senate.gov.ph

From the Bureau of Customs:
FAQ -- my take? Unlike what the FAQ seems to imply, the Florence Agreement does not distinguish between printed book imports for sale or not for sale; it simply says "printed books". Duh.

Section 105 of the Tariff and Customs Code

Department Order 17-09

I intend to add more, it's just rather difficult to do copy-pasting.

***
I hope that the succeeding days' Google searches will find more people wanting action.

Also, check out On The Book Blockade put up by the UP Hobbygamers' Circle and try to find time to join the WE AIN'T TAXIN BOOKS HERE spearheaded by Rock Ed Philippines' Gang Badoy. There's also a Facebook app in support of this cause.

Spread the word, folks. Spread the word. If you'd like, feel free to leave a comment and a link to your post, so I can add to the index above.

Huwag tayo magpapamangmang.

***
Cabin fever alert. Get me outta here. Nyahahahaha.

Later, all.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

Rather Unusual Commitments Seen on the Ako Mismo Campaign "Wall of Commitments"

2009-05-08T15:48:00.005+08:00

Let them speak for themselves. Go and check them out in their originals here (in this post, the names of the people who wrote these commitments are redacted out).

Here we go.

And the winner is:

Later, all.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

Spreading the Word on the Great Book Blockade of 2009: Robert Hemley Responds to The Bibliophile Stalker

2009-05-07T12:03:00.001+08:00

Kudos to Philippine Genre Stories whose efforts to keep us interested folks updated on The Great Book Blockade of 2009 has brought this issue even more to the foreground. Give yourself a pat on the back for this, man; let's hope that something concrete results from this.

(Better than the deaf, dumb, and blind mainstream media, it seems like.)

Also, kudos to The Bibliophile Stalker for his brilliant piece Essay: Clarifying the Great Book Blockade of 2009. This piece has caught the eye of Robert Hemley (the writer of the original controversial piece), and Hemley's comment in reply clearing up a few other cobwebs fleshes out even more the problem.

But let's let Hemley's words do themselves justice. So, here, shamelessly scraping from the brilliant Bibliophile stalker:

Dear Mr. Tan,

I thought I would jump into the fray, as it were, as my article prompted all this discussion. First of all, I want to thank you and others for following up and for your thoughtful discussions of the matter.

You’re absolutely right when you state that my McSweeney’s piece was written some time ago. I wrote it in March, when all this was going on. Of course, I wanted it be published then, but alas, my desire did not make it so. The magazine has its own schedule to maintain, I’m afraid.

As for any factual errors, yes, it’s true, I unfortunately misstated Undersecretary Sales’ affiliation. I’ve made note of that on my website and will also make note in any future versions of the story to appear.

But it IS accurate and no exaggeration when I stated that virtually all AIR shipments of books into the Philippines were stopped between January and March. That doesn’t mean that books were not arriving in the country – ostensibly, books on freighters were still allowed in and you could receive personal books via Amazon during that time. The exact dates were these: air shipments stopped on January 26th and the first shipments were released on March 17th, a day after Undersecretary Sales spoke with importers and book sellers, and storage fees were paid.

I didn’t have simply one source, but a number of sources, all well-placed in the book industry and all quite willing to talk with me as long as I kept them anonymous. It seemed a reasonable request and still seems so.

It’s true that I was not at Undersecretary Sales’ powerpoint presentation, but she made photocopies of the presentation for the booksellers and I was given a copy of this, detailing all of the Department of Finance’s rationalizations. It doesn’t surprise me that she expresses dismay that the booksellers and importers were not in agreement with her. I was told they tried to express their dissatisfaction, saying they would agree, “for now,” but perhaps this point was not made forcefully enough?

Interestingly, the Department of Finance initially told Customs to release the books on January 27th, but their order was ignored by Rene Agulan, and eventually, for reasons I don’t understand, Customs and the Dept. of Finance, found common ground on this issue. But at first, according to a letter (I'm away from home at the moment, so I don't have the letter in front of me, nor the letter's author, only my notes) dated March 5th to Atty Pasion-Flores of the NBDB, the examiner refused to release the books despite the fact that all previous requirements had been met, including a “certificate of membership with NBDB.” Further, it was required that the Dept. of Ed certify the books as educational, but the Dept. of Ed told the book sellers that the NBDB should rightly issue this certification. It was Agulan who apparently decided that these books were not educational, much to the collective dismay of the importers.

It’s Agulan who was the main barrier at first, and a couple of book industry people I spoke with wondered how one examiner would have such power? In any case, as I mentioned the Dept. of Finance soon backed up Agulan.

In my initial piece, I also made mention of Amazon shipments being held up at the post office over the years, and customers made to pay seemingly whimsical amounts for their books to be retrieved. But this part was edited out of the final piece.

Whether or not taxes are imposed consistently or not, it seems to me that any tax or duty, whether 1%, 5%, or 50%, whether imposed by one clerk at the post office or by the Dept. of Finance as a whole, clearly goes against the very straightforward language of the Florence Agreement. Bottom line – duties are not to be levied on imported books. If the Philippines wants to withdraw from this treaty, then that’s its right. I’m not a lawyer, and I couldn’t go into all the details in my short article, but I believe that international law trumps national and municipal law.

As one blogger eloquently puts it:

“A few thoughts on the DOF response. International treaties such as the Florence Agreement have the force of law in the Philippines, and are of co-equal status with the Tariff and Customs Code. Congress could not by law repeal commitments made via treaties, you need to withdraw from the treaty. So I disagree with her claim that Congress needs to pass a law amending the TCC to impose the 0% duty on books, that law already exists and is called the Florence Agreement.”

As far as corruption goes, there's individual corruption and then there's institutionalized corruption.

But I think it’s the red tape as much as anything that has/had book importers so frustrated, the notion that their books might be held up for months while it was judged what was educational and what wasn’t, and by whom.

I also agree that people are focusing too much on TWILIGHT. ☺

When I wrote the piece, I wasn’t sure how much attention, if any, it would receive. I wrote it because it seemed to be an issue of importance that book lovers in the Philippines should be aware of, and it was right there under the radar. I’m glad that people are now discussing it, and I hope that some good will come of this in the long run.

Thanks!

Robin Hemley

Let's keep an eye on this issue, folks. At least visit Philippine Genre Stories' post on the topic regularly, and keep ourselves updated on this.

Let's hope something good comes out of this.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

MILF. Swine.

2009-05-06T18:17:00.002+08:00

Eid Kabalu and his merry men. (Photo from "MILF Leadership")

In the news: MILF owns up to N. Cotabato raid; But won’t sanction attackers. Excerpt:

Rebel spokesman Eid Kabalu said that while the MILF leadership was “disturbed” over the attack, those behind it would not be sanctioned

"[On] what ground?" Kabalu said, when asked if fighters from the 108th and 109th base command, who were behind the attack, would be punished.

An attack that wasn't approved of, and no sanctions on the rogue commanders?

MILF: hypocritical fucking pigs.

Pig-fucking hypocritical MILF "freedom fighters".

Be damned to all of you.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

It's Just So Stupid, You Know? (or, let's hope something bad happens so that we don't have to take this joke seriously)

2009-05-05T15:30:00.005+08:00

Seen made in honor of Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao.

The scary thing is that quite a few people want to take his political career seriously. Heck, failing that, a seat at the government peace panel?

WTF.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

The Stupidification of the Filipino -- This and That and Whatnot

2009-05-05T11:28:00.003+08:00

I've long since learned that if one wants to force intelligence atrophy on someone else, it doesn't take much. All one has to do is control the influx of information (say, by controlling the amount of reading material available), or by denying any information in the first place (by not providing anything to read in the first place).

It turns people into Orwellian sheep, I dare say.

No different is when people to tell you not to write, not to criticize -- under the premise that only those who are perfect have the right to criticize.

Bleh.

If such were truly the case, then we'd still be in the Stone Age; heck, we wouldn't have evolved out of the primordial muck. If we are satisfied with our lot, then there'd be no progress, as progress stems from dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Stifling somebody's ability to criticize is tantamount to attempting to shut his brain off; one can't criticize what one does not perceive and thereafter thought over.

So, this morning, we're going to write how we feel in defiance of efforts to reduce us all to bovine status.

(Apologies to bovines.)

***
A couple of days ago, I read this post The Great Book Blockade of 2009 and ended up being yet again pissed off at the stupidity of government agencies.

But let the post speak for itself. Quoting from the post:

Over coffee one afternoon, a book-industry professional (whom I can't identify) told me that for the past two months virtually no imported books had entered the country, in part because of the success of one book, Twilight by Stephenie Meyer. The book, an international best seller, had apparently attracted the attention of customs officials.

...

The importer of Twilight made a mistake and paid the duty requested. A mistake because such duty flies in the face of the Florence Agreement, a U.N. treaty that was signed by the Philippines in 1952, guaranteeing the free flow of "educational, scientific, and cultural materials" between countries and declaring that imported books should be duty-free. Mr. Agulan told the importer that because the books were not educational (i.e., textbooks) they were subject to duty. Perhaps they aren't educational, I might have argued, but aren't they "cultural"?

No matter. With this one success under their belt, customs curtailed all air shipments of books entering the country. Weeks went by as booksellers tried to get their books out of storage and started intense negotiations with various government officials.

What doubly frustrated booksellers and importers was that the explanations they received from various officials made no sense. It was clear that, for whatever reason—perhaps the 30-billion-peso ($625 million) shortfall in projected customs revenue—customs would go through the motions of having a reasonable argument while in fact having none at all.

Customs Undersecretary Espele Sales explained the government's position to a group of frustrated booksellers and importers in an Orwellian PowerPoint presentation, at which she reinterpreted the Florence Agreement as well as Philippine law RA 8047, providing for "the tax and duty-free importation of books or raw materials to be used in book publishing." For lack of a comma after the word "books," the undersecretary argued that only books "used in book publishing" (her underlining) were tax-exempt.

"What kind of book is that?" one publisher asked me afterward. "A book used in book publishing." And she laughed ruefully.

...

Likewise, with the Florence Agreement, she argued that only educational books could be considered protected by the U.N. treaty. Customs would henceforth be the arbiter of what was and wasn't educational.

"For 50 years, everyone has misinterpreted the treaty and now you alone have interpreted it correctly?" she was asked.

"Yes," she told the stunned booksellers.

Here's the link to the relevant law, RA 8047, and here's the text of the Florence Agreement.

Amazing. Seriously.

If there's anything I hope gets done about this, I hope that a class action suit will be filed on behalf of book importers in particular and people who read books in general, against the Bureau of Customs. Heck, file it against the government at large, for violating a treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory.

If anything, it should be the educators among us spearheading such a protest.

See, it's sad enough that quite a number of people do NOT consider the Philippines having a reading population (a situation that has a catastrophically detrimental effect on our educational system), but it really gives our people the shaft when the government itself gets in the way of our getting stuff to read. It wasn't reading educational material that makes a man complete -- it was reading per se that Sir Francis Bacon says that makes a full man.

I remember one of my former colleagues, a brilliant supervisor who had a pithy comment when our Catbertian human resources people want to restrict the reading of newspapers in the office. She said, "Gusto ba nila tayong maging mangmang?" I agreed fully with her reaction. Getting in the way of folks' acquiring new knowledge does imply that the people making such an imposition do want these folks to not learn anything new.

Maybe the government does want to keep our people benighted? Heh. Shades of the Noli and the Fili.

Check out Manolo's take, too.

(Maybe publishing this section above in Filipino Voices can help raise awareness some.)

***
Speaking of educators, when I saw that Ako Mismo ad on TV during the Pacquaio-Hatton advertising replay extravaganza, I had just one thought: "Wow, Martin, this is so cool!"

I am speaking of Martin Perez, an educator of the Philippine Science High School and fellow FV denizen.

It turns out, however, Martin wasn't involved in this new seemingly viral campaign. He wrote:

Understandably, my first reaction was “Heeeeeyyyy. Wait a minute.”

Nyahaha.

So there I go and try out the website and look for the About page. It's my experience that viral campaigns generally have sufficient relevant information in their About pages. I click on the About button, and this is what I get:

Sorry, you'll need to register or login to access this page.

WTF.

Look, I'm no Orwellian sheep to be persuaded to join the herd because celebrities have apparently signed up and are promoting the campaing -- I want to know who you are and what you stand for BEFORE I make a decision to sign up. For all I know you could be a means to collect information to send about spam... or worse, an elaborate means to perpetrate identity fraud.

No way am I going to be made stupid just because of Angel Locsin or Ely Buendia's endorsements.

***
Tongue-in-cheek, has there been an overdose of Promil in the past couple of decades? Nyahahaha.

Later, all.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

There and Back Again (or, internetting and non-internetting)

2009-05-03T12:16:00.004+08:00

Hello, folks, I'm back. Tee hee hee.

I've been preoccupied for quite a while, with so many things on my plate, that I've been unplugged for this long. Heck, it's been noticed by friends, so much so that I've received messages pointing that fact out to me.

(Way to go, Captain Obvious. Nyahaha.)

It's no peach to have neglected my little niche of cyberspace -- heck, the best metric would by my Plurk account's abysmal karma.

(For my fellow plurkers, please click on this link and spam for karma thanks thanks thanks.)

In an increasingly wired world, it seems a bit strange not to log on to the internet regularly, not to mention a fair stretch of internet exile. That said, I've gone through that stretch... and it doesn't seem to have had much of an impact on me -- except that it seems I've missed out on watching the various discussions online on stuff and sense (and nonsense, too, I guess).

Well, today, we're breaking the dry spell.

(Who knew that an internet-less life could be survivable? Not that it's fun, I tell you.)

***
Speaking of the internet, an online article grabbed my attention: More Pinoys going online. Apparently, about 20 million Filipinos are now surfing regularly.

Good news? I suppose so.

However, it seemed from the GMA report that the top usage for our kababayans remains to be social network sites, chat, and online gaming, and that other forms of information dissemination via the web remains a low priority for the average Pinoy. Likewise, the flavor of the report seemed to emphasize internet cafe usage over home connection, as the interviewee in the cafe seemed to imply.

Such being the case, it makes the idea that internet cost in the Philippines as yet does not encourage ubiquitous internet use. Consider these estimated numbers:

Country	Cost per Mbps (USD) (a)	Gross National Income, Purchasing Power Parity (USD) (b)	Normalized Comparative Cost per Mbps (USD)
Indonesia	2340	3,570	0.655462
Myanmar	935	935	0.266952
Fiji	338	4,240	0.079717
India	84.5	2,740	0.030839
Pakistan	76.7	2,540	0.30197
Philippines	41.6	3,710	0.011213
Sri Lanka	39	4,200	0.009286
Malaysia	84.5	13,230	0.006387
China	22.1	5,420	0.004077
Thailand	28.95	7,880	0.003674
Australia	43.23	33,400	0.001294
Singapore	27.3	47,950	0.000569
South Korea	0.33	24,840	0.000013
Japan	0.27	34,750	0.000008

(a) - data from Europe vs. Asia: Internet price comparison for consumer broadband, converted using USD to EUR exchange rate of 1.3

(b) - from World Bank data

Bottomline is that local internet costs are still high as to be more a luxury than a necessity. Duh.

That said, it seems to me that this situation is no different from that of the cellphone. Comparing cellphone use costs in the 1990's versus that of today, it seems to me that internet use will go down the same route.

Taking the same amount of time, though? I hope not. Else, Las Islas Filipinas will be in deeper crapola, what with the pace of the Red Queen principle even faster in this day and age.

See, low internet penetration has a far-reaching effect on so many aspect of a country's society, whether we look at commerce (imagine being unable to sell one's produce in the same markets that a competitor who is connected can reach, or being unable to buy any products except the choices found nearby), politics (imagine being unable to have any influence beyond one's immediate location), or what have you. In this day and age, a country with a low internet penetration will be no better in the race for progress than a sprinter with anvils strapped to his ankles.

Duh, again.

***
This problem of the slow growth of internet penetration can be laid squarely in the laps of both government and private industry, I think.

If I recall correctly, telecommunications franchises are the responsibility of Congress, and Congress hasn't legislated anything that will encourage the spread of internet connectivity significantly. No sirree Bob, it seems as if our honorable representatives in the House and the Senate have better things to do than enact laws mandating telecommunications firms to expand to high global standards... such as watching the Pacquiao-Hatton fight at taxpayer's expense. Galing, 'no?

Heck, look at the cellphone service provider industry -- we have how many service providers? Three? (Don't count Touch Mobile, which is powered by Globe, nor Talk 'n Text and Red Mobile, which are effectively Smart.) We haven't even considered landline telephone providers yet... and clearly, there's not enough competition going on to drive down prices.

With relatively high prices, we have a vicious cycle in place: high prices make internet use unattractive for the market, and low internet penetration make telecoms maintain the prices high just to maintain their profit margins.

Yay for free markets. Bleh.

(This is why I urge you good folks to support Catanduanes Rep. Joseph Santiago's initiative to give tax credits for telcos to invest in rural areas. Let's hope this goes somewhere -- but at this late stage of the House sessions, well, tough.)

***
Nonetheless, internet growth is something that folks can no longer take for granted -- not that it's exactly new news (bloggers have been talking about the implications for quite a while now, my thoughts on that last year here) -- politicians are now being more aggressive in cyberspace, as the story Politicians taking to social networking Internet sites seems to emphasize. Though the reach is still low, the trends are inescapable, even for the old fogeys among the barong-clad.

So I wonder how the internet will power the 2010 elections?

This will be one of the topics in iBlog 5, and it will be interesting to listen to Comelec director James Jimenez speak of the many ways it will. Register here, validate your registration here.

Find out more in iBlog 5, folks. (I hope I can make it -- I have scheduling problems, sort of. Damnation.)

***
An aside -- the power of the internet: we find out that Pacquiao TKOs Hatton in round 2, long before Solar Sports and GMA show how.

Slow TV. Wahaha. Plurk pwns you badly.

We can also see the numerous government officials enjoying themselves there -- not the least of them Lito Atienza in the hideous shirt.

More sobering this one: OFW in death row seeks help through Facebook.

More help via Facebook than from the embassy? That's sad on so many levels.

***
I'll try to get my blogging groove back -- I've issues on that score that I'll need to bleed off one of these days.

Later, all.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

The Man from Manila, 1964 - 2009

2009-03-07T21:51:00.000+08:00

Francis Magalona, Filipino rap pioneer and one of my childhood heroes, passed away yesterday noon.

Damn. 'Nuff said.

I can't believe it myself
It's a heartbreaking surprise
How can I believe this
It couldn't have been your time
Many times I've said that
You're going to make it through, my friend
Now I know you've paid the price of time

Is there a way for you to turn around
Turn around and tell us, my friend
We're gonna see you again?

Cold summer nights, since you've left to go far
Cold summer nights, since you've left us all cryin'
Cold summer nights, here all on our own
We're gonna miss you man, now you've left us here

It's gonna be cold summer nights, man, we're gonna miss you
You rocked our world, what we gonna do without you
Nobody's fault that you've finally gone on home
It's just a shame we'll never get to talk on the phone

If there was a way to have you here with us again
We'd never want to change anything at all, my friend
Your music, your soul, your life, our inspiration
Francis M., thanks for everything, my man

***
Thanks for the memories, Kiko. Malungkot ang Pilipinas ngayong wala ka na, kababayan ko.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

Disenchantment (still on the UP LSG elections)

2009-02-24T14:01:00.000+08:00

Another quickie, but still related to the previous post.

In any election, what is the term used to describe a situation wherein a significant fraction of the population is put in a position where voting is difficult, if not impossible? What does one call the act or omission that puts additional burden on a fraction of a voting population resulting in the difficulty of or the inability to exercise their right of suffrage?

Disenfranchisement, I believe, is the term. This, folks, is another beef I have with those who have set up the UP Law Student Government elections.

***
Whether or not one chooses to exercise one's right of suffrage, the fact remains that it is a right to have the ability to exercise it. By no means should there be any act or omission that results in the loss of his right.

To put it plainly: it is of no moment that one will or will not vote -- what matters is that one CAN.

That said, having read the heads-up text message of my block president that the UP LSG elections will be closed by 7:00 PM tomorrow, it seems to me that the evening sections of the UP College of Law, said to be comprising about 25% of the college, have been disenfranchised. The students who comprise a full quarter of the population of the UP College of Law have had their ability to vote impaired.

How so?

UP Law classes for those in the evening program by and large start at 6:00 PM. With travel time and other matters eating into the ability of a large number of the students to arrive much earlier (imagine leaving Makati at 5 PM and trying to arrive on time for one's 6 PM class, via commute), it will be difficult, if not impossible, for some (or even many) to be able to vote before class... and the voting will be closed long before class has ended.

Question: have those who convened the elections made sure that there will be means to allow the evening classes to vote? I do not think so.

There should have been, for instance, the development of means such as absentee voting, allowing the students to vote the day before, making arrangements with professors to allow them to vote, or other such solutions that would not take a stretch of the imagination. As RDM said in one candidate's campaign in her class: "We are aware of the issues... what are YOU going to do about it?"

It seems to me that not much, if at all, was done. If we are to take RDM's advice to heart, that we will not vote for candidates who campaigned in our class but failed to work to ensure the exercise of this basic right, then it seems clear to me where our votes will not go.

Question: is it the responsibility of the evening students to have found the solutions for their benefit?

Counter: should OFWs have usurped the COMELEC's responsibility in developing the Overseas Absentee Voting procedures for the expatriates' benefit? Sure there was a lobby for that for the law to be enacted, but was it not the government and its agencies that made sure that OAV became possible and practicable?

Since nothing was done to ensure that the right to suffrage of the evening section students were not impaired, then perhaps we can conclude that there was no interest to ensure the absence of such impairment.

Perhaps evening students can conclude that this is a symptom of a disinterest of those in the LSG to uphold their rights. I, for one, have begun to believe so.

(I hear rumblings about other symptoms of such disinterest -- deblocking, for instance -- but that is not a matter for today.)

***
Because there seems to be such a disenfranchisement that none of those responsible for setting-up the elections made means to combat, perhaps it is time for evening classes to disassociate themselves from such a government.

How can we do this?

(No, I am not calling for the formation of a separate government for evening students. That would, to my mind, be going too far.)

We may not be able to avoid paying LSG dues during enrollment (for some reason, the collection is automatic and the enrollment process will not continue without such payment), but we can express our disenchantment in other ways.

For instance, if the LSG requests evening classes to take up a collection in support of an LSG event (taxation without representation redux), evening classes can choose not to give a single centavo to support it. We can choose not to accept solicitation letters that we invariably carry to the companies we work for or are affiliated with.

Or, if the LSG requests that we exercise our influence and professional connections towards the publicity of some cause or other, we can choose to say that they can do this themselves and not depend on us, as we could not depend on them.

Our hard-earned wages, influence, professional affiliations, and our time should no longer be made available to those who want these when it suits their purposes but will not work to ensure our rights. To point, evening students can empower themselves in response to such impairment of rights by refusing to provide quo for no quid.

TANSTAAFL, ya know.

***
Not that I think this position is going to be read, though. I will, however, let my duly-elected block president (yes, boss, you know who you are -- no, wait, isn't it you? I'm confused) know about my position on this issue.

As usual, let the chips fall where they may.

(Now back to my ride -- I've got much ground to cover today and, as usual, not enough time.)

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

Illegal, Immoral, and Utterly Gross*: Why I Will NOT Vote in the UP LSG Elections (probably Part 1; we'll see)

2009-02-23T18:28:00.002+08:00

* with thanks to Myuzeeshun for the catchphrase.

Let's keep this short -- I've much to do still and not enough time.

If indeed "the idealized community that is UP Diliman is nothing more than a product of society, something so close to it, the best and closest example to a microcosm of Philippine society as we know it" (as Marck says), then it stands to reason that Malcolm Hall is a microcosm of Las Islas Filipinas' practice of law and justice.

That said, it bothers me therefore that in this microcosm the principles of law and justice seem to be violated... gang-raped, even.

***
Recently, the University of the Philippines Law Student Government (LSG) announced that the proposed LSG Constitution was ratified by a plurality of 47%.

There, right there, is something wrong.

A constitution is supposed to be the written contract that binds a population together, and is only supposed to be ratified by 50% plus one of that population. This is only legal, fair, and just, and this is what we learn about constitutions in Consti 1 and in the principles of aequitas in Legal History and Legal Profession.

(Panalo talaga magturo si ATM and PAA. 'Nuff said.)

Instead of meeting what is a clear requirement, it seems to me that out of expediency plurality was followed. But what is unfair about plurality in a referendum?

Relying on plurality makes certain of laziness, instead of making the effort to reach out to the entire population.

Relying on plurality makes certain of inequity, that affirmation is made in accommodation of small fractions, instead of the whole.

Relying in plurality can even be construed as the deliberate refusal to recognize the rest of the population, for if 7 out of 10 students voted yes, despite the fact that these 10 students constitute a small fraction of the seven-hundred-odd population, the plurality would still carry the day.

With that, it is clear that the ratification of this said constitution was illegal (by violating the principles of law that underlie the craft and exercise of a constitution), immoral (by the deliberate flouting of what is fair and equitable, and just), and utterly gross (by deliberately going with what is repugnant to the whole concept of aequitas).

***
Why then will I not vote?

If I vote, that means I recognize the validity of a constitution that I do not consider valid.

If I vote, that means I have tacitly accepted the LSG constitution as legal and binding.

If I vote, that means I acquiesce, and therefore put myself in estoppel, barring me from later on taking the position that the LSG constitution is not legal and binding.

Therefore, I will NOT vote. There, I said it -- this is my position on the matter.

***
Marck also said, "UP mirrors society as much as it aims to change it." Is this the change that we want in the practice of law and justice in our society -- forget doing the right thing because it's difficult, and rely on expediency instead?

No wonder -- as RDM once said vehemently in class -- "our justice system stinks."

***
If I can find time, I will amplify on other reasons. As it is, the fact that I believe the LSG constitution to be invalid is in and of itself reason enough.

'Nuff said.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

A List of Concrete, Effective, Efficient, and Repeatable Actions by UP's University Student Councils and Political Parties on Fraternity Violence

2009-02-16T08:36:00.002+08:00

***
With apologies to the emperor's tailor.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

Reduce, Re(f)use, Recycle (or, The Jester-in-Exile's Strategies on How to Survive V-Day on a Shoestring)

2009-02-11T10:30:00.002+08:00

Years and years ago, I belonged to a group of friends whose idea of a good time was CnC -- not Command and Conquer (although some of us like that game too), but rather coffee and conversation. Unlike kids in this day and age, our idea of CnC involved instant coffee, usually Nescafe, at six bucks per styrofoam cup.

(Okay, prices rose after we started hanging-out at the tambayan -- eight whole pesos -- but that wasn't as expensive as the Ionic Cafe brew, which was pegged at forty bucks at the time. We wuz poor, what can I say.)

(Oh, and yes, we're still friends after all these years. TOSStados once, TOSStados for life.)

At that time, when Valentines Day arrived, despite the fact that we were almost always broke, the men of the Coffee Club always found ways to make V-Day a D-day. Parse that any way you will (heh heh), but I feel that it's time to share our not-so-secret strategies on keeping costs low but keeping our chances flying high.

After all, despite what our wise and beloved Queen of the Enchanted Kingdom says, we're all feeling the crunch of the global financial crisis.

***
Obviously, the easiest way to work with a shoestring budget is not to spend much. Duh.

How did we do that? Easy. Back in Kafagway in those days, there were scads and scads of free or low-cost concerts, shows, events and whatnot, especially after the Baguio Flower Festival was instituted. It was a simple matter to make sure that we had enough pocket change for jeepney fare and a snack, as such was the only moolah necessary for a date to go well.

Here in chaos central, it's not exactly easier -- however, as we like to say, kung gusto, paparaanan, kung ayaw e torpe ka lang nyahaha. Here are some of the low-cost ways to go on a date:

- The UP Fair in University of the Philippines-Diliman's Sunken Garden. Cheap entry, cheap food, rock music, perya sights, and the potential for a hand-in-hand stroll on the tree-lined streets, under the full moon and stars.

(Apparently there are also make-out places on campus -- not that I would say I know where they are. Pity.)

- San Miguel Beer and Valentines 09. Thanks to Unca Juned, I've been told of a relatively cheap party series on February 12 and 13, 2009. Here's what he's let us know about:

San Miguel Beer Barkada Valentine Party

When: Feb 12 and 13, 2009, 6:00 PM onwards
Where: San Miguel Avenue Open Parking Lot across San Miguel Head Office Building
Cost: P250 (JEM: not bad, folks, but make sure you have some safety money, of course)

The P250 entrance fee per person entitles each to 5 beers (1 Pale Pilsen, 1 SML, 1 Premium All Malt Beer, 1 Red Horse, and for the 5th beer, choice of Strong Ice, Super Dry, and Cerveza Negra) and a raffle ticket. The purchase of 2 more bottles gets you another raffle ticket, and the raffle prizes include iPod Nanos, 5K in cash, Eraserheads concert tickets, SMB Summer Babad and SMB Premium Items.

Entertainment:
Live Music: Sugarfree and Silk (Feb 12); Kamikazee and Mocha (Feb 13)

Booth Games (caveat -- some aren't good when with jealous sweethearts teeheehee): Kissing Booth with Brazilian Models for Pale Pilsen, Jail Booth with Brazilian Models for Strong Ice, Massage Booth for Premium All Malt Beer, Tarot Card Reading for Cerveza Negra, Auction Booth for Super Dry

One can get into any of the booth games by buying 2 more beers of the same brand on top of the 5 free beers of the ticket. For example, to get smooched by the Brazilian models of the Kissing Booth, you gotta buy 2 bottles of Pale Pilsen.

(Personally, I'd rather get a kiss from my date that means something to us both rather than a kiss from some model or other that doesn't mean much to either of us, but that's just me.)

- Home Cooking. Think about it -- relatively low cost, free venue (if your sweetie agrees that you cook for her at her apartment), relatively low effort (if you know how to make magic in the kitchen, of course), with maximum returns.

Here's a menu and the recipes that won't take more than an hour of work and with minimal muss and fuss (and cost). Note that we'll have to take shortcuts -- who cares about your cooking skillz, paying attention to your date is much more important!
Appetizer: Peanut-Peach romaki with spicy mustard dip
Soup: Cream of asparagus, mushrooms, and young corn
Entree: Rosemary chicken with steamed buttered vegetables and rice
Dessert: Chocolate cake
Wine: Something red -- I'd recommend a Pinot Noir for this menu (it's not that expensive either, if you go Australian); if you want to splurge, go for a good rose (not my taste of wine, though)

Peanut-Peach Romaki
Small packet of bacon
Can of peach halves, pitted
Small packet of peanuts, unsalted
Dijon mustard
Salt
White pepper, coarse
Tabasco sauce

1. Preheat the oven toaster. Offer your date a glass of wine. Engage her in conversation.

2. Open can of peaches. Drain. Take a peach half and embed two or three peanuts (depending on the size of the peach pit). Wrap the peach half with peanuts completely with a strip of bacon. Secure the wrapping by spearing the romaki with a toothpick.

3. Don't forget to chat with your date -- she can watch you cook, sure, but let her rest easy.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until out of peaches, peanuts, or bacon. Clean up your mess after.

5. Put three pieces of romaki in the oven toaster. Toast for five minutes or until the bacon edges have browned.

6. Mix a dash of salt, a pinch of two of white pepper, and a drop or two of tabasco into two tablespoons of mustard. Keep chatting with your date while making the dip -- five minutes of dead air is an uncomfortable silence -- if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you can do that.

7. Take out the romaki (it's hot, stupid, wear your oven mitts when handling the oven grill, else lose your panache), and with tongs place the romaki on a bowl with drain towels (not ordinary paper towels, as the paper fibers of ordinary tissue paper will stick to the romaki). When the romaki's cooled down a bit, offer them with the dip and refill her glass of wine. Have a laugh together as she offers her take on the taste, and make sure you get the next dip mix right.

8. Repeat steps 5, 6, and 7 until you're out of ingredients and are ready to bring out the next course.

Cream of asparagus, mushrooms, and young corn
Small packet of young corn, sliced
Small can of sliced button mushrooms
Spring onions, minced fine
Packet of instant cream of asparagus
White pepper, fine
Black pepper, coarse

1. Dissolve instant cream of asparagus soup in a pot of cold water. Stir until all the lumps are gone. Put in the young corn and mushrooms.

2. Place the pot on the stove, and set the stove on a low flame. Bring the pot to a simmer. Stir from time to time, don't bring the soup to a boil else lumps will form from the bubbles. (This is the part where you start preparing the chicken.)

3. When you're ready to bring in the soup, garnish with the minced spring onions. Sprinkle with a dash of white pepper and black pepper.

Rosemary chicken with steamed buttered vegetables and rice

Medium sized chicken thighs, 2 pieces, marinated to taste
Rosemary, shredded
Baguio beans, sliced to thirds
Broccoli, sliced to bite-size
Cauliflower, sliced to bite-size
Carrots, sliced to half-inch wedges
Rice
Parsley to garnish
Butter

1. Rub the chicken breasts with rosemary... and we're back to the oven toaster (it should still be hot -- else, you've been careless). Put some more shredded rosemary on the dripping pan.

2. Roast the chicken. Depending on the size of the breasts, it should take between fifteen to twenty minutes. Here's one way to check -- poke a clean toothpick into the flesh; if it sticks or comes out bloody, the chicken isn't done yet. Start cleaning up while waiting.

3. Steam the vegetables about fifteen minutes before dinner time. Keep the veggies warm, but don't overcook; soggy veggies = BAD. (This is the part where you should be setting the table for your date.)

4. Prepare a small mound of cooked rice on each plate (a cup is good enough). When the chicken is done, put a chicken on each plate by the cup of rice and use some of the drippings as gravy (strain the rosemary, of course, jeez). Lay the veggies on another portion of the plate, place a square pat of butter on the veggies and allow to melt. Garnish the butter with a small sprig of parsley; do the same for the chicken.

5. Have dinner and conversation.

Chocolate cake

1 slice of chocolate cake from the Fleur de Lys cake shop along Tomas Morato

1. Have cake and wine for dessert.

2. Getting lucky before, during, or after dinner is, of course, preferred but not certain.

Whew. Writing that took more effort than actually getting any of the above done.

***
Still on today's theme, a far easier way to keep things inexpensive on Valentine's Day is to REFUSE TO SPEND.

Now, how and where can a couple have fun without spending?

I wouldn't know. Teeheehee.

(I did hear a blockmate speak of an anecdote related by a brilliant professor about how to have fun for free -- it involves a dark nook in UP campus. Unfortunately, said dark nook is for the exclusive use of UP Law students. No, I don't know where that is.)

All I know is that not going on a date equals not spending anything. Occam's Razor at work.

Nyahahaha.

(Of course, one runs the risk of not getting lucky. Anymore. Ever. There ya go.)

***
But seriously, how else can we try to make the girl we like special on Valentine's Day?

Recycling. Moohoohahaha.

Back in the day, we made a deal with our girlfriends -- the flowers and stuffed toys and balloons given to them as gifts but which they didn't like (or didn't like the givers) were for us to recycle as we pleased. This meant that we checked them for reusability (meaning we checked for hidden cards within the presents, pentel pen notes on the balloons, and similar stuff), quality (e.g., flower freshness, stuffed toy cuteness, et cetera), and suitability (i.e., would our intended recipient like the presents we intend to give). There were times when our V-day command center looked like a flea market or trading post... and we'd barter and haggle like crazy.

These days, with the price of Holland Tulips, Blue Magic, and other such stuff so exorbitant, it makes perfect sense to recycle presents. Cost = absolutely free. (Even the Dangwa Terminal flower shops don't come anywhere as cheap.)

Caveat: this works if and only if the recycled gift cannot be identified as such by the recipient. You're careless and stupid if you failed to remove the hidden greeting card or recorded greeting; on the other hand, if your recipient helped in purchasing the gift for the previous giver, it's just that the universe has decided to screw you. Haha.

Caveat again: unless your female friend is really one of those really close friends you have, it's difficult to find recyclables these days, as one will find many women hanging on to their V-day presents (apparently it's bragging rights or something).

Caveat final: this doesn't work if your female friends don't get V-day presents at all... not even recycled presents. Boohoohoo.

On another note, I've heard of recycled boyfriends; that is, women getting back together with the men they've previously broken up with just so they can say they had a date on V-day. Heh.

(Well, to be fair, that beats having gone on an imaginary date with the imaginary boyfriend, eh?)

***
No wonder quite a lot of people have taken to calling February 14 as Single Awareness Day -- the day when they are reminded that a) they are single, or b) they can't afford to go out on a V-date and are thus single that night.

Personally, I don't really care much about Valentine's Day -- as a smart Plurker sorta-kinda said, why should we let Hallmark dictate our lives?

'Nuff said.

(Fair disclosure: the above strategies are not guaranteed to work; the chances of these working are even less than zero if the woman in question only finds guwapo them boys with bling... or at least that's how I understood this blog post. If you is poor, fagedaboutit.)

(On the other hand, having friends to share the experience of the craziness of V-day recycling makes the try worthwhile. Dates come, dates go, but true friends are for life.)

(Man, I miss the gang.)

Later, all.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

I'm tired. So I will rant. Kthnxbai.

2009-02-09T22:01:00.001+08:00

If there's anything that my friends have found unshakeable in the past almost-twenty years since I became a functioning citizen of the Republic (meaning that I have begun to vote, I began my stint as an income taxpayer, and I have involved myself in issues involving the public that I have felt an interest for), it's this deep-seated faith that Las Islas Filipinas will finally turn around.

Such is why I have not taken the easy route; that is, I have not left the country to become something other than Filipino (and with my portfolio of skills I'd have quite easily done so), nor have I acquiesced to the plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose attitude that I've found many of my elders and peers subscribe to in relation to life in this country.

It's tough.

With my thirty-first birthday coming up in just a few days (and therefore half of my clan's natural lifespan or thereabouts, as dictated by genetics), I have begun to wonder if this turn-around will happen in my lifetime.

I don't know.

Thus, here I go and pay my personal devil (she who whispers the doubts in my ear every so often) her due -- and slap her once more.

See, if we don't hold on to hope and work at it, we might as well jump off PSE Tower 1.

***
As usual, government's answer to the global financial crisis is to export more labor. Painful, yes, but lest we forget, there are so many things that are getting in the way of local job creation.

(Perhaps this is why the government would rather massage the unemployment statistics than create actual job opportunities? Bleh.)

Off the top of my head, here are some of the things I've heard that get in the way of investment opportunities and progress in the country:

Corruption. The cost of doing business in the Philippines is far too much to be financially viable for so many businesses. I know firsthand of a couple who are having a hard time getting their building permit for their house signed off because the city engineer's office wants 35% of the project cost as "SOP" -- standard operating procedure (imagine that the corruption is so blatant and so brazen in scale!). Had I had my way, I'd make corruption a capital crime -- death penalty starts at the first ten centavos skimmed off the top.

Legal instability. Forget government instability -- I have heard with my own two ears different sorts of people disappointed with the fact that the courts aren't consistent in ruling on different disputes involving business, despite the fact that legal precedents exist. See, I respect the courts, sure, but whatever happened to res judicata?

Terrorism. The New People's Army blowing up cellsites and construction equipment, the Abu Sayyaf kidnapping teachers, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front wreaking havoc and mayhem -- terrorists all. Had I had my way and the means to do it, I'd have them all obliterated with extreme prejudice. Kill them all. Seriously. We should by now have had enough of them... I believe in human rights, sure, but our country's been benighted for far too long because of their existence.

Religious fundamentalists and stupid unscientific idiots. Forget the militant zealots who write me hate mail because I support the Reproductive Health Bill (yup, I spend my Mondays reading my latest batch of hate mail) -- there are among these very same people who don't want nuclear power, geothermal power, mini-hydros, and other such clean power initiatives because of their unscientific biases. Imagine environmental advocates saying that we should oppose geothermal power because of the deforestation, or nuclear energy because of outdated arguments dating back to the seventies and are unsupported by good engineering practice (stupid stupid stupid). Had I had my way, I'd ship them off to Scarborough Shoal with nothing at all, not even clothes -- Survivor Kalayaan, I'd call it.

Incompetent government functionaries. If our official statistics and policy-making data were truly trustworthy, we'd know how to allocate our resources efficiently... but noooooo, the government would rather massage the data than go out and do their jobs because the numbers show that the numbers are really bad. Had I had my way, I'd likewise have such number-fudgers crucified.

Stupid politicians. What do you call senators and congressmen who pass laws that have far too many loopholes for the laws to truly work? Worse still, what of legislators who pass laws that have no basis in common sense? Such stupidity, especially when it's deliberate, ought to be a criminal offense.

Political dynasties. Instead of allowing governance to be run by the best we can find and those we trust, we instead have those who treat government as a family franchise. Perhaps we should have them all obliterated to the fifth degree of affinity and consanguinity so that we can start over? Include those who would rather coddle squatters because of the votes they can depend on, those who would encourage a culture of mendicancy instead of good old hard work (yep, like those of the Church and the Left).

And more.

When will these people finally die out so that ordinary hard-working folks can get on with the business of making things work?

***
This is not to say I've not any beefs with big business. Having been a wage slave for quite a long time, I've seen how labor gets screwed every so often.

(Of course, many of the militant leftist unions do get in the way of a true give-and-take relationship between labor and management, but that's another story for another time. Why else would some companies choose to close shop, if not for the unreasonable demands of these people? Eh kung di ba naman kayo tanga, at di kayo nag-iisip ng kung ano ang patas sa inyo pareho, eh di hindi sana kayo nawalan ng trabaho dahil nagsara ang mga kumpanya ninyo. Mga leche kayo.)

I know that the phrase "moderate the greed" has gained currency when talking about politicos and government functionaries, but if anything the phrase should apply to big business and labor unions as well. In this time of crisis, which if we weather successfully in the next decade or more we will doubtless undergo again, there's no way we can mitigate the impact unless every sector decides to act in consensus. Businesses do have their bottomline to consider, while labor unions do act to protect their members' rights -- but can there not be a point where the interests meet in a reasonable compromise?

This, yet again, is where all three sectors -- business, labor, and government -- have dropped the ball. Welcome to the proverbial seven lean years -- maybe even decades -- because of such lack of foresight and open-mindedness. Gutuman na 'to. Pati pansit canton mahal na din. Pasensyahan na lang, pare-pareho kayong tanga.

***
Elections are incoming in 2010 -- or so the people in power claim. Nonetheless, the possibility is there. Work for it.

Be part of the elections. Join the discussions, think long and hard about those you will support, get yourselves registered, and go out and vote on election day. How else will you start change for the better?

If you won't be part of it, well, PAKYU.

PAKYU TALAGA, GAGO. TANGINAMO, MAMATAY KA NA LANG SANA. WALA KANG KUWENTANG PILIPINO.

'Nuff said.

(Rant done. Now to look around for better stuff to write about. Later, all)

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

Last-Minute and Not-So-Last Minute Announcements, 04.57 2009-02-07

2009-02-07T04:56:00.001+08:00

This post is written with much gratitude to Farsi, a mom-and-pop concern serving Persian food, found on Scout Lozano Street, Quezon City, who have for quite some time now taken care of my chillaxin' and connectivity needs. Thanks, folks.

I've been swamped with so much stuff that I haven't been able to update you good folks about events that are scheduled soon, and that you might find interesting and useful... maybe even fun.

Sorry na, mga bossing. Heh heh.

So much for that, and here we go.

***
Something for Monday next:

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) has sent an invitation to a round-table discussion on the proposed Right of Reply legislation, which the Senate already passed and is now awaiting approval in the Lower House. The discussion, which will be attended by key leaders of the media and information dissemination sector, will be held on February 9, 9:30 am to 12 pm, at 3/F Popular Bookstore, Tomas Morato cor. Timog Avenue, Quezon City.

Legal experts Carlos Medina of the Ateneo Human Rights Center and Theodore Te of the Free Legal Assistance Group have been invited to provide legal advice.

Call (02) 411-7768 for inquiries and confirmation of attendance, or send an email to nujphil@gmail.com.

Yes, bloggers, the proposed Right to Reply bill just might have impact to you.

***
Something for early today that you might find interesting:

There's a talk this morning on "Multilingual Education in the Philippines: Possible Implementation Strategies", with Diane E. Dekker as the speaker.

Admission is free, and the event will be held in Dela Salle, Conference Room 508, Yuchengco Building. For more information, contact Virgie Cello at 526-1402.

Hmmmmmmm.

***
Heads-up, bloggers, something interesting for this morning:

What: Roundtable Talk: Ethics and the Blogger

Where: Meralco Room, Asian Institute of Management, Makati City

When: 10 AM to 12 NN, Feb 7, 2009

This is something we should consider making time for, folks, what with all the things that have been happening. Bring your thinking cap with you -- we're going to have lively discussion, I'm sure.

***
And for the requisite entertainment after all the skull sessions:

Myuzeeshun has told me that a gal pal of hers has announced a music production involving a band or two, playing Pinoy rock music. For those interested in a night of good music, chillin' with friends, and good munchies and booze, the event will be held in the evening of February 7, 2009, at Mogwai, Cubao Expo, Quezon City.

BYOB (bring your own barya), folks, this ain't got no sponsors for our sakes. We gotta pay our own way, but I'm sure it'll be fun.

Who's in on this? It'll be fun, methinks.

***
That's it for now, folks. Now to get a power nap.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

Jim and Bang's Wedding Posts Index

2009-02-07T02:47:00.002+08:00

Calaruega Church

The Spartans at the Calaruega Church

The Wedding

Spartans at the Wedding

Wedding Reception at Splendido Taal

The Spartans at Splendido Taal

Thank you for allowing us to share in your joy.

***
The jester-in-exile wishes all the best to Bang and Jim. You may not know it yet, but your wedding was an event that we have been inspired by and will cherish.

Best wishes, you two.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.

Jim and Bang's Wedding, Part 6: The Spartans at Splendido Taal

2009-02-07T01:21:00.011+08:00

Last February 5, 2009, the Spartans of Malcolm Hall attended the wedding of a good friend and brilliant classmate Bang, with her partner of so many years Jim. Share in the experience!

***
The Spartans at Splendido Taal. Enrollment at Malcolm Hall? No, just finding our places, via Tin and Roi's assistance:

Tin and Roi assisting Christian

"Napag-uusapan naman yan." -- Roi to Christian and Myuzeeshun

"There's my name, you see it?" "Ay, maybe I should have my glasses checked." "Yes, you should." -- Christian, Roi, and Tin

"Do I have potential patients here?" "Right there, doc, that one might need your help." "Behave, this is Bang's wedding!" -- Doc Jan, Ser Rex, and Tin nyahahahaha

"I'm not sure you're on the guest list." "But what about my chances of meeting bridesmaids?" -- Tin and Roi teeheehee

"But it's my time to shine, you see? My watch says so!" -- Roi and Tin teeheehee

The Spartans enjoying the reception:

Sting Lacson, Ser Rex, Christian, Myuzeeshun, Ang Nang-aaway, and Doc Jan

"If you get in my way while I'm trying to meet the pretty girls here, you get this." -- Sting Lacson teeheehee

Discussion in chambers? Teeheehee:

Doc Jan discussing with Myuzeeshun and Christian the legal aspects of married life teeheehee

The future Judicial and Bar Council -- Ang Nang-aaway, Ser Rex, Myuzeeshun, Sting Lacson, and Doc Jan nyahahaha

Pañero y pañera moments teeheehee:

Phe partners in crime -- err, future law partners, that is, maybe: Ang Nang-aaway and Ser Rex.

"Where are you taking me?" -- Christian and Myuzeeshun

"I swear, proposition me one more time and I'm going to jump." -- Christian and Myuzeeshun teeheehee

Future masters of that which they survey -- Sting Lacson and Christian

"Yes, pañero, this cellphone has a telephoto lens. It's cheap, just several hundred thou. " -- Christian and Sting Lacson teeheehee

"Good game, pañero." -- Sting Lacson and Christian nyahahaha

Law chic -- Myuzeeshun and Ang Nang-aaway

Sharing in the couple's joy:

(Clockwise from left) Tin, Roi, Christian, the couple Jim and Bang, the jester-in-exile, Ser Rex, Ang Nang-aaway, Sting Lacson, and Myuzeeshun

Reminding Bang that classes are still ongoing awwwwww teeheehee:

Bang, our beautiful bride

Ending the evening:

Spartans all: Roi, Christian, Ang Nang-aaway, Doc Jan, Ser Rex, Bang, Sting Lacson, Myuzeeshun, Tin, and the jester-in-exile

***
It was a good day. Better than most, and more memorable than many.

Email the jester-in-exile via jester_in_exile@yahoo.com or betajester@mysandbox.com.ph.