• Home
  • About me
  • My Privacy Policy

Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Gloria Arroyo told Supreme Court we have an extradition treaty with Spain

November 17, 2011

Share:
Twitter0
Facebook0
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

 

My exclusive

By Raïssa Robles

TRO - Lady justiceWe dont.

I counter-checked three times this statement she had made in her recently-filed urgent petition.

And three times I got the same answer – the Philippines has no extradition treaty with Spain.

Why is this so important, you might ask. That is a very valid question.

Because this is one of the core arguments that Justice Secretary de Lima used to turn down ex-President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo’s request to travel. De Lima said it would be highly negligent on her part to allow Arroyo to travel “where extradition cannot be effected.” She said all five countries where the Arroyo couple wanted to go had no extradition treaty with the Philippines. She named the following countries: Singapore, Germany, Italy, Austria and Spain.

Arroyo’s 44-page supplemental petition, which ABS-CBN’s Ina Reformina so ably discussed – in effect said De Lima was lying:

“The Philippines has a signed Extradition Treaty, a signed Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty and a Transfer of Sentenced Persons Agreement with Spain, which is one of the countries listed by petitioner GMA for her medical treatment abroad,” Arroyo’s petition pointed out.

Reformina counter-checked this and appended what she found to her report:

Foreign Affairs spokesman Raul Hernandez, meantime, told ABS-CBN News that the Philippines’ extradition treaty with Spain has yet to be concurred by the Senate.

“Extradition signed but still with Senate for concurrence, hence has not entered into force,” Hernandez said in a text message.

Hernandez confirmed Spain and the Philippines have inked a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) which is an agreement that “helps locate persons, secure information and evidence, serve documents” in legal matters involving one or both countries.

You can read Ina Reformina’s entire report on Arroyo’s supplemental petition by clicking here.

Checking out the treaty with Spain

TRO - SPAINSurely, I asked myself, a former Philippine President – who holds a minor degree in international affairs and who prides herself in dealing with international issues –  surely, she would know what treaties are in effect.

Still, I decided to check this out because of Ina Reformina’s report. And what better place to check this than in the Bills and Index Section of the Senate. This is the repository of all the bills and other measures ever filed, killed and approved.

Having covered the Senate gave me familiarity with its ins and outs. One of the constitutional functions reserved for the Senate alone is the ratification of all international treaties by two-thirds vote.

UPDATE:

Some commenters on Facebook told me that we do have an extradition treaty with Spain which was used to bring Francisco Juan “Paco” Larrañaga, convicted of double rape-slay, to Spain in 2009. This is not an extradition treaty but a Philippines-Spain Transfer of Sentenced Persons Agreement ratified by the Senate in 2009.

We also have a treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance on Criminal Matters with Spain ratified by the Senate in 2008.

Neither, however, can be used to extradite  Philippine nationals from Spain to Manila.

I learned from the Bills and Index Section that the Treaty on Extradition between the Republic of the Philippines and the Kingdom of Spain was transmitted to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September 18, 2007. And there it lies to this day awaiting Senate ratification.

Upon further digging, I found out that the Treaty was signed on March 2, 2004 by Acting Justice Secretary Merceditas Gutierrez and by Spain’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ramon Gil-Casares Satrustegui.

TRO - LAMBINOI asked Arroyo’s lawyer Raul Lambino about Arroyo’s supplemental motion which stated that the Philippines has a treaty with Spain.

He said he concurred with what the motion said – which pointed out that contrary to what De Lima said – we have an extradition treaty with Spain.

Lambino said:

It is false. They have been deceiving the people. I don’t know if that is just mere black propaganda and they say it with a straight face (that) we have no extradition treaty with Spain.

I told Lambino what I found out at the Senate. That there really is no extradition treaty with Spain, which means all five countries she wants to visit have no extradition treaties with the Philippines.

Lambino replied:

That is a non-issue. Don’t forget the issue here is the right to travel. The existence or non existence of any treaty will not affect the principles involved here.

There are many countries in the world where we have no extradition treaty. That does not mean the Philippines cannot serve the ends of justice when they travel to the particular area. All the country has to do is cancel their passport.

And this is extradition treaty has been a mechanism that has been adopted in the pre-ICT times. The modern times. Now we are very modern. The world has become very small. There are many alternatives – without such instruments – whereby justice can be served.

PNoy  is making a big issue out of that, which is a non-issue at all.

The issue is the individual’s rights to travel.

Is the Philippine government really making a big deal over the non-existence of an extradition treaty with Spain?

Am I making a big deal over the fact that Arroyo’s petition clearly state we have one when in fact we don’t?

I’m glad that tomorrow, the Supreme Court will deliberate on Arroyo’s travel request.

Supreme Court’s silent majority keeps mum on why it granted the Arroyos’ travel request

What I find highly intriguing is the stunning silence of all eight Supreme Court Associate Justices who moved to allow the Arroyo couple to travel together, even if it’s only one of them saying she needed the medical treatment.

Not one of the eight justices has explained to the Filipino people why the Arroyos should be allowed. They know that this is of an extremely high public issue. Of course nothing in the law requires them to speak out and explain themselves.

Even the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) they issued did not give any inkling of the very “thorough” deliberation that Court spokesman and administrator Midas Marquez said the justices undertook in arriving at their decision.

However, one associate justice who dissented – Maria Lourdes Sereno – gave us a tiny glimpse of what had gone on. She also left us with a lot to ponder about. I was particularly struck with the following that she said:

The Rules of Court and jurisprudence prescribe very stringent requirements before a TRO can be issued. Among these is the requirement that the TRO “may be granted only when: (a) the application or proceeding is verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded…” (Rule 58, Section 4)

A petition that contains a false verification can have many consequences among which are: (a) the Petition can be dismissed or denied, (b) the person making the false verification can be punished for contempt of court, and (c) the person making the false verification can be punished for perjury.

So strong is the requirement of truthful allegations in pleadings filed before the Court that many adverse inferences and disciplinary measures can be imposed against a person lying before the Court. This requirement of truthfullness is especially important when a provisional remedy, and more so when the remedy is sought to be granted ex-parte, is under consideration by the Court. When on its face, the material averments of a pleading contain self-contradictions, the least that the Court should do, is consider the other side of the claim.

This is the situation with the Petition of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It appears that she has given inconsistent, and probably untruthful statements before this Court.

Sereno also touched on the fact that it was Arroyo’s own justice secretary who had issued Department Circular 41 – which De Lima had used as the basis for the Arroyos being placed on the Watchlist Order. Not Hold Departure Order, which is only issued by the courts.

I ask Arroyo’s lawyer Lambino about Yogie Martirizar

Earlier, I had written about a certain Yogie Martirizar, who had had been prevented from traveling abroad by virtue of DC 41.

See my story – Gloria Arroyo stopped a woman, with an illness and a case just like hers, from leaving the country for four years

I asked Lambino about Martirizar’s case and all the Watchlist Orders issued by Arroyo’s justice secretaries. I asked him why Arroyo should get a different treatment compared to Martirizar, who had almost the same calcium deficiency disorder as that of Arroyo.

Lambino told me:

Well, I really don’t know about her. They should have questioned it (DC 41).

Mahina ang abugado niya.

That’s the problem with other lawyers. Maybe the lawyer of Martirizar – she doesn’t know her law. Why blame us for her non- action . For not fighting for her clients. That’s not our fault. That’s the fault of her lawyer if the lawyer does not know her.

The problem with some of their lawyers is they really don’t know their law.

TRO - Sereno picInterestingly, Associate Justice Sereno had a mouthful to to say about Arroyo’s action of trying to strike down as unconstitutional a circular issued by her own justice secretary:

B. Petitioner Former President Arroyo Must Explain
Why She Is Claiming
That Her Constitutional Right Is
Being Violated, When The Claimed
Violation Is Being Caused By Her
Own Administrative Issuance

To a certain degree, the doctrine on equitable estoppel should guide the hand of this Court. In its simplest sense, estoppel prevents a person from disclaiming his previous act, to the prejudice of another who relied on the representations created by such previous act. The logic behind the doctrine comes from the common societal value that a person must not be allowed to profit from his own wrong.

While this Court will not hesitate to protect former President Arroyo from the adverse effect of her own act – whose validity she now denounces – in order to protect her constitutional right, the minimum requirement of fairness demands that the government must be heard on the matter for two important reasons.

First, by adopting Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41, the Arroyo Government must be presumed to have believed in and implicitly represented that it is valid and constitutional. An explanation from her must be heard on oral argument on why this no longer seems to be the case. Such disclosure will reveal whether she is dealing in truth and good faith with this Court in respect of her allegations in her Petition, a fundamental requirement for her Petition to be given credence.

Second, it will reveal whether in fact her administration then believed that there was statutory basis for such issuance, which is important to resolving the question of the existence of a basis, including policy or operational imperatives, for the administrative issuance that is DOJ Circular No. 41.

Petitioner Arroyo comes before this Court assailing the constitutionality of the said Circular, which was issued by Alberto Agra, the Justice Secretary appointed by petitioner during her incumbency as president. This Circular thus bears the stamp of petitioner as President ordering the consolidation of the rules governing Watchlist Orders. Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, the acts and issuances of Agra are acts of the President and herein petitioner herself. As the Court recently ruled:

The President’s act of delegating authority to the Secretary of Justice by virtue of said Memorandum Circular is well within the purview of the doctrine of qualified political agency, long been established in our jurisdiction.

Under this doctrine, which primarily recognizes the establishment of a single executive, “all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department; the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive; and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.”7

Thus, the acts which petitioner claims to have violated her constitutional rights are the acts of her alter ego, and consequently, her own.

Why I’m eager to hear the arguments tomorrow

These are only two of the reasons why I’m looking forward to the arguments that will be made tomorrow.

The Supreme Court will be making history when it rules whether Arroyo – who appointed most of them to their office – should be allowed to go beyond the nation’s borders.

You can read Justice Sereno’s full dissenting opinion below. If anyone accuses me of bias, I would say – give me copies of the majority opinions and I will post them at once. Meanwhile, there isn’t any.

But you can click on this link to read the TRO.

Meanwhile, here is Sereno’s dissenting opinion:

PAGE ONE 

TRO-web---Sereno-1

 

PAGE TWO

PAGE THREE

TRO--web--Sereno-3

PAGE FOUR

TRO--web---Sereno-4

PAGE FIVE 

TRO--web--Sereno-5PAGE SIX 

TRO--web--Sereno-6

PAGE SEVEN

TRO-web--Sereno---page-7PAGE EIGHT 

TRO--web--Sereno---8

 PAGE NINE 

TRO--web-Sereno---9PAGE TEN

PAGE ELEVEN

TRO--web--Sereno-11

 

TRO - page 1

 

TRO - page 2

TRO - page 3

OTRO - page 4

Related Stories

Gloria Arroyo stopped a woman, with an illness and a case just like hers, from leaving the country for four years

 

 

Read Supreme Court’s TRO allowing Gloria Arroyo to travel

How GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo got caught in her own mousetrap – halo vest and all

The only cure for ex-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

Filipino endocrinologist calls GMA spokeswoman “funny”

GMA photo wearing “halo vest” released by lawyer of last resort

Tagged With: Associate ustice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Ex-President Arroyo and travel abroad, Raul Lambino

Comments

  1. jerry says

    November 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM

    That’s why Topacio bet his balls because he knew beforehand that Gloria cant just slip away from the country.

  2. Rudy Jamora says

    November 24, 2011 at 8:01 PM

    Thank you for your great investigative articles. They are very well researched and complete with supporting materials that it is not difficult to come up with informed conclusion. Hoping that you continue coming up with articles like these.

  3. JESS FERRER says

    November 23, 2011 at 10:53 PM

    whats happening to ARROYO is just the start of POETIC JUSTICE.
    THEIR ENTIRE FAMILY IS ROTTEN!!!!!IMAGINE, POCKETING OUR TAXES.
    THATS WHAT THEY ARE SPENDING NOW!!! THEY SHOULD ALL GO TO JAIL INCLUDING HER HUSBAND, SON MIKEY, DATO, LULI, I IGGY AND THE REST OF THEIR CLAN, AND THEIR CRONIES LIKE CORONA, DEFENSOR, LAGMAN ETC.

    THIS SHOULD SERVE AS A LESSON TO ALL THEIR CLAN AND CRONIES. DIVINE JUSTICE COMES IN THE LEAST EXPECTED TIME, RIGHT?

    IN LIFE, TIMING IS EVERYTHING!!!!ARROYOS ARE SO MAYABANG WHEN THEY WERE IN POWER.WHAT NOW!!!!!!!

    WHAT A SHAME ON THEM!!!!!
    LEAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, THANKS RAISSA FOR ALL THE ENLIGHTENMENT. MORE POWER TO YOU AND THE REST OF THE FILIPINOS NOT SIDING ON THE ARROYOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • raissa says

      November 24, 2011 at 9:23 AM

      Dear Jess,

      I’m willing to hear out the Arroyos – but in court.

  4. JBkronos says

    November 23, 2011 at 5:01 AM

    Just a question Raissa . . .
    It is provided, “A petition that contains a false verification can have many consequences among which are: (a) the Petition can be dismissed or denied, (b) the person making the false verification can be punished for contempt of court, and (c) the person making the false verification can be punished for perjury.”
    Does that mean that the Petitioners may even be held liable of perjury in this case?

    • raissa says

      November 23, 2011 at 8:49 AM

      Ah. let’s wait for the Supreme Court.

      But you got the drift. :)

      • budoktagok says

        December 26, 2011 at 4:04 PM

        cannot we invoke the fury of lightning and let the ARROYOs struck with it!!!!!

  5. keanleogo says

    November 22, 2011 at 3:27 AM

    Hello everybody,

    Do not lose hope in our President Aquino, he can take out CJ corona and the 7 GMA justices if Supreme Court is playing ” partisan ” again as what they did on November 15th.

    Please read the following Manila Times Editorial today.

    http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/opinion/110-editorials/11788-fair-trial-will-boost-presidents-credibility

    Again, don’t lose hope in our President Aquino.

  6. noel88 says

    November 21, 2011 at 6:49 PM

    Thanks a lot raissa, we know the truth will prevail, hoping and praying that Sec de Lima will continue to bring justice for us. Good job!!!

  7. Neil TG says

    November 21, 2011 at 1:38 PM

    I always see your clear cut style of writing that makes us (people) understand the most technical of all issues plaguing the Philippine society… It is like taking one’s early morning freshly brewed coffee. Refreshes the mind, and yet gives off the kick needed for the day…. =D

    With the supplements (mostly public documents) as attachments, I think the readers are fed with well-balanced views. In as much as enough room to ponder, and form one’s opinion based on facts…

    Cheers…

    • raissa says

      November 21, 2011 at 6:09 PM

      Thanks.
      I believe we, citizens, have the right to be informed and participate in decisions affecting the nation.

  8. The EQ Post says

    November 20, 2011 at 12:37 PM

    Ate Glo: “I assure my countrymen that the law will always be enforced without fear or favor. No one but no one can set conditions for the dispensation of justice, be he a political figure or an ordinary criminal”- Press Conference, Malacanang, April 10, 2001

  9. nona says

    November 20, 2011 at 12:04 PM

    Wow. Arroyo must be a junior doctors dream. So many things to study in one patient.
    The list so far
    Hypoparathyroidism
    Anorexia
    Blood pressure/hypertension
    Kidney infection
    Depression
    Diarrheoa
    Dwarfism
    Narcissism
    Kleptomania
    Meglomania

    Its a good job she didnt embark on her world travels being so sick!

    And deteriorating every day according to the fat guy!
    The medical list will get longer, and this is still what they see as their ‘get out of the country’ card

    P.s st lukes is also losing credibility. Bad business move. So much for medical tourism uptake

  10. baycas2 says

    November 20, 2011 at 6:16 AM

    Let’s wait and see how the arroyo camp (as well as the SCORP) will interpret this…

    RA 9369 (Amending RA 8436)
    January 23, 2007

    Section 43 amended Section 265 of BP 881:

    “SEC. 265. Prosecution. – The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and prosecute the same”

    Black’s Law Dictionary defines “concurrent” as:
    “Having the same authority; acting in conjunction; agreeing in the same act; contributing to the same event; contemporaneous.”

    • baycas says

      November 20, 2011 at 8:12 AM

      Mga karagdagan sa maliwanag na pagtuturo ni SnV…

      POSITIVE

      1. Sec. 268 of BP 881 tells us that the RTC has jurisdiction to try and decide any election offense.

      2. Election offenses are enumerated in Sec. 261 and Sec. 262 of BP 881.

      3. Additional election offenses will be found in RA 6646 which amended sections 261 and 262 above.

      4. Electoral Sabotage (as a very special election offense to prevent a repeat of the “2004 electoral cheating”) will be found in Sec. 42 of RA 9369.

      5. RA 9369 is widely known as the poll automation law.

      6. Sec. 4 of Article XI, Accountability of Public Officers, of the 1987 Constitution states:

      ”Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan SHALL CONTINUE to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.”

      7. Sec. 5 of Article XIII, Accountability of Public Officers, of the 1973 Constitution states:

      ”Section 5. The National Assembly shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, IN RELATION to their office as may be determined by law.”

      (Emphasis mine.)

      NEGATIVE

      1. PD 1486 (creating the Sandiganbayan) refers to RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and RA 1379. Violations enumerated in both Republic Acts do not cover election-related offenses.

      2. PD 1606, a revision to PD 1486, did not say that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to election offenses.

      3. RA 8249 further defined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Act did not cover election-related offenses.

      • baycas says

        November 20, 2011 at 8:14 AM

        (note: i originally posted the above at Elenville.)

      • raissa says

        November 20, 2011 at 9:55 AM

        Wow! You researched this.

        Thank you for this.

        • baycas2 says

          November 20, 2011 at 11:02 AM

          search lang po. it’s the art of googling and “control + F” function.

          saves a lot of time and effort…

        • baycas2 says

          November 21, 2011 at 9:34 AM

          ito ang malungkot na prediction:

          this week malalaman nating unconstitutional pala ang SECTION 43 AMENDMENT ng RA 9369

    • raissa says

      November 20, 2011 at 9:56 AM

      Thank you for this.

  11. Dublinia says

    November 19, 2011 at 6:13 PM

    Oh! Jezz..supreme court na naman..questioning the legality if the arrest warrant..is this another 8-5?

    • Johnny Lin says

      November 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM

      The petition is not only about legality of arrest warrant but also the rush to prosecution and issuance of arrest warrant. This petition placed the 8 justices in deadly position. Many legal experts accused these justices of rushing their issuance of TRO prior to hearing oral arguments. If they vote Yes they are equally guilty on the rush to issue TRO while if they vote NO they could be accused of just protecting themselves on the TRO. GMA and lawyers are hanging their SC justice lapdogs publicly.

      • Johnny Lin says

        November 19, 2011 at 10:08 PM

        Also, if the justices vote YES that the lower court rushed the prosecution and arrest, they will contradict the standing SC order on lower courts “act on their cases swiftly”. Atty Topacio being an intelligent lawyer should know this Order unless:
        Kaya pala pinapaputol ni Topacio ang itlog niya, nasa itlog ang utak niya.

  12. Ancient Mariner says

    November 19, 2011 at 12:04 PM

    Hi Raissa,

    I’m sure the thing that most residents of the Philippines want to understand is what can NoyNoy do about the situation in the Supreme Court. By this I mean the majority of the members being Gloria Arroyo appointees who for whatever reason appear to have remained loyal to their benefactor.
    If the answer is nothing then the President is in for a very frustrating term in office.
    The Philippines does not deserve such an obviously partisan SC.

    Kind regards

    AM

  13. Gil H. A. Santos says

    November 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM

    Nov. 19, 2011

    Hi everyone, let’s all be realistic. Whether there is a valid extradition treaty with Spain or not does not really matter. If the Arroyo’s really want to dodge the consequences of the election fraud charges, all they have to do is on arrival in Madrid, they motor up to Andorra (between Spain and France) where the Philippines has no extradition treaty. In Andorra there are hundreds of offshore banks that protect hot money depositors. And they can thumb their noses to our justice system.

    Going to the their doctors in the U.S. (if she really has to consult doctors abroad so badly) via a round-about route through Europe is irrational–if we grant that she truly needs to see her doctors abroad and she is telling the truth. Why not go on short hops via Guam, Okinawa, Japan, Wake, Midway, Honolulu and San Francisco (or Los Angeles) then take an ambulance cross-country in the U.S. for their medical trip? That is more logical and speedier.

    The Arroyo’s problem is they’re perceived to be prevaricating through their teeth, with a stiff upper lip. Besides law enforcement, per se, must presume the worst crime suspects can do to the people or the State. This is necessary and must be done by law enforcers.to see that justice is served equally TO ALL. Cheers Gil

    • Johnny Two III says

      December 26, 2011 at 4:15 PM

      It’s an issue because GMA included that premise in her petition.

  14. Maiette Ilongga says

    November 19, 2011 at 8:20 AM

    For a week or so now we have witnessed a classic case of grasping for straws from GMA and her minions. Why can’t just GMA tell the truth, once and for all. Surely, the truth shall set her free. It will lessen all her burdens, why carry on with all these lies? It doesn’t help her how she overplays her medical condition, she’s just malingering, obviously.

    Btw, nice job Raissa. I’ve been reading your works for a few days now. I never hesitate sharing it with my group. Very informative, well-researched and thorough. Keep it up. :D

  15. keanleogo says

    November 19, 2011 at 3:22 AM

    Hello everyone,

    I proposed to nominate Supreme Court Justice Sereno as the Chief Justice of Supreme Court to replace CJ Corona which obviously proven himself a “loyal lapdog of GMA”.
    WHY?
    Please read the following link

    http://www.gmanews.tv/story/238993/nation/justice-warns-sc-spokesman-dont-interpret-our-orders

    Apparently, SC spokeman is questionable too.
    Thumbs up for Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and President Aquino.

    • keanleogo says

      November 19, 2011 at 3:26 AM

      Typo:

      “Which” should be” Who”

« Older Comments
Newer Comments »
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist Then they came fof the Trade Unionists, and I did not out speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me— And there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Subscribe to raissarobles.com

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from raissarobles.com:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

This blog uses MailChimp as a mass mailing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp but only for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.

Christopher “Bong” Go is a billionaire – Duterte

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NmX1Px57cI

Find more of my articles by typing here:

My Stories (2009 – Present)

Cyber-Tambayan on Twitter:

Tweets by raissawriter

Copyright © 2022 · News Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Decline Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT