Inside Philippine politics & beyond

To the staff of Senator Pia Cayetano,

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

Thank you for clarifying the matter about the “Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data” and the “Take-Down” clause.

I have corrected my story to reflect your inputs: As you make clear, it was not Senator Cayetano who inserted these amendments in the Cybercrime Law.

In the end, though, your quarrel is not with me, but with the Senate Journal and whoever is in charge of overseeing its preparation.  When the Senate was my beat years back, I could rely on the Journal to give a faithful, accurate and true account. Apparently this is no longer the case.

The way it is written in the Journal gives the impression that the amendments regarding “Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data” and the “Take-Down” clause in the Cybercrime Law were inserted by Senator Cayetano. And if you don’t correct this, history will give this reflection that it is she who did it.

Please take a look at a screen cap of the Senate Journal on Senator Cayetano’s remarks:

The first paragraph talks about Senator Cayetano’s verbal request to Senator Edgardo Angara to be given time to make sure the Cybercrime Law is aligned with the Anti-Child Pornography Law.

The second paragraph quotes Senator Angara, the law’s main sponsor, assuring her that he had amended the Cybercrime Law section on child pornography, based on Sen. Cayetano’s request.

What you have neglected to mention – and I will point to it now – is that  the next portion pertained to the two amendments made by Senator Pia Cayetano herself. Let’s zoom in on that section: 

How do I know that?

Because before I wrote the story, I counter-checked if my reading of the Senate Journal was correct by comparing this with Senate Committee Report No. 30 prepared by Senator Angara. This contained the working draft of the Cybercrime Law, Senate version, before the amendments on the floor were incorporated.

Page 7, Line 22 – which the Senate Journal pointed to – referred to that portion in the Senate Committee Report on child pornography. This [please refer to the screencap below] is where Sen. Angara inserted Senator Pia Cayetano’s amendments:

Since the No. 16 and the No. 17 amendments were those of Senator Cayetano herself, I assumed that everything else mentioned below under her name were her amendments as well.

You specifically said on Twitter that the heading in the Journal – “REMARKS OF SENATOR CAYETANO” – mean only remarks and not amendments. However, Sen. Angara did refer to Sen. Cayetano’s own amendments under the heading “REMARKS OF SENATOR CAYETANO (P)”

The Senate Journal should have introduced the rest of the amendments with a phrase saying –“Senator Angara continued listing other amendments of other senators to the bill.”

That would have been a clear signal that it was no longer Sen. Cayetano’s amendments.

I asked for a copy of the actual transcript of the exchange between Sen. Angara and Sen. Cayetano. You uploaded the pertinent portion on Twitter. Here it is:

Your statement today – that “After Sen @piacayetano concluded her comments on child porn, Sen. Angara continued w/his amendments” – is not quite correct.  Because the first two amendments cited by Sen. Angara were Sen. Cayetano’s own amendments. I will just note here that in your posted objections on Twitter and Facebook, you never gave an inkling that the first two amendments Sen. Angara cited were those of Sen. Cayetano. You merely said “Sen Angara continued w/his amendments.”

You said I was wrong about the   “Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data” and the “Take-Down” clause. I owe Sen. Cayetano an apology for not contacting her on those aspects. I thought it was enough for me to have  contacted or tried to reach six lawmakers separately, including Sen. Angara and House Speaker Belmonte.

I would also like to thank you for leading me to a fresh avenue of investigation. If not for your pointing out my mistake I would not have stumbled on something else.  :)

By the way, I asked you on Twitter how Sen. Cayetano voted in the Cybercrime Law, post-bicam version. I have yet to receive a reply.  And what does she think of the newly-signed law? I’m curious to know that, too.

Comments

  1. IMHO, what transpired is an example of irresponsible journalism. LESSON LEARNED: always, and I MEAN ALWAYS validate your data.

    Now, you allege that P. Cayetano made amendments just because of the word “we”. Did you try to validate your data this time? Did you ask what was meant by “we”?

    I honestly love your work, please don’t pick on P. Cayetano just ’cause you made a mistake.

  3. latest news> Now TRO is here -Sotto to keep mouth shut in cyber law
    debates until final SC ruling…
    Duh!too late to play safe.

    • The spy truth:

      Enrile, Estrada and Binay to shut his mouth. He has jeopardized the senatorial candidacy of their children and entire UNA team.

      Rumor now is Gordon thinking to switch to Independent like Hagedorn. Good for him!

  4. i was amuse with this-i got it from twiter from:
    WAWAM @wawam 50m
    to SC – please issue a 120 year
    TRO on Tito Sotto from being a
    senator or any other govt
    position.

    • Ah, this is one idea i will support wholeheartedly.

      Another one is for the Library of Congress to classify Enrile’s memoir as Literary Fiction. LOL

    • LOL

      Anyways, congtrats to all of us. Salamat Dios ko… may tunay na pala na Supreme Court ang Pinas. God Bless ……..

    • i’ll offer him reprieve. reduce 120 to 50 years only.
      and for the memoir, i’ll satisfy myself glancing on the posts in this blog. saves me time and money…:)

  5. hi raissa , i was surprised of sen pia call u ‘ unprofessional and unethical ‘ on twitter just this afternn despite the fact you already publish this article. :(

    • This is called a sottotwitch, a hypersensitive, defensive reaction, totally involuntary. It may be a medical condition, and we should not come down too hard on those lacking grace under fire.

      • I second the motion. No point wasting energy on this; save it for RH where both Raissa, CPMers and Sen Pia are on the same side.

        As for Sotto, well, he is a different creature altogether; let him fry.

      • Joe, in your old neighborhood, thick of the woods, they call this picayune tempest while drinking Kickapoo Joy.

        In the world of Kris and Belo, time to rub rub methathione to onion skin.

        In the world of Pia, playing “rubber band game” stretching her 15 minutes of fame in cyberworld.

        He he he

    • Don’t you find it strange that a member of the senate that passed the Cybercrime law can call Raissa unprofessional?

      And, further, don’t you find it strange that a member of the senate – whose brother is the chair of the Committee on Ethics that refuses to discipline Sotto – can call Raissa unethical?

      • There’s nothing “strange” in the way the “honorable senators” are acting and reacting to Raissa & her blogs & her commenters – theCPM’ers.

        If the honorable Sentaors would have been acting “honorable” from the time WE elected them to the honorable body called Senate, do you think Raissa would have any reason to write this blog? Do you think we would all converge in cyberspace and concur with Raissa’s investigation and aid in furtherance of her investigative journalism?

        At least for now, there is a TRO from the Supreme Court, validating what Raissa has been investigating (although there are other groups too that paved the way for the SC to issue this).

        So, truth is stranger than fiction – if a biography mayble classified as FICTION, what name should we classify the “honorable senators” who are too arrogant in their posturings?

        It’s election time…. our chance to get even!

      • It is incredible when you think about it, how absolutely out of touch with the finer points of integrity and high ethical bearing so many leaders appear to be. They lack a grasp of the very simple notion that the tension between media and political leaders is what assures good government. Rather, these sottocopy leaders have cast the media as some kind of enemy, to be disparaged and . . . dare I say it . . . libeled.

      • it is not strange at all. to them, people in “power” are excused to say anything. call anybody anything they wanted. and they are not “answerable” to anyone, sottospeak. hahhahha. well guess what? 7 more months, its ‘s election time. …

    • Raissa did correct her allegation that Sen. Pia inserted those two amendments, but in the same blog, attributed another amendment (to Pia that she did not even file. Frankly, that is unprofessional.

      It’s not investigative journalism if facts aren’t verified. It’s like Raissa was so eager to have an “exclusive scoop” that she published without validating her data. That’s irresponsible journalism. She could have simply issued an erratum without adding yet another unverified claim.

  6. off topic:

    sana isabay na din latest development ng kaso ni ex mayor elenita binay….
    Citizens eye lawsuit vs JPE for releasing Brady notes
    By Ira Pedrasa, ABS-CBNnews.com

  7. to err is human and to forgive is divine. ma’am raissa’s ultimate goal is to give us the best she could as journalist; and readers of her articles treat her with high respect…cpmers are here to express one’s opinion, one’s feelings/foresight… God bless and more wisdom to you ma’ama raissa and alan!

  8. @CPMers

    The TRO issued by the SC is a sign of relief but only to stopping the enforcement of the Cybercrime Prevention Act until the SC have gone through the petitions numbering 15.

    In my mind any of the following scenario may come up:

    1. SC lifting the TRO soon and declaring the Cybercrime Prevention Act constitutional (which I doubt)

    2. Declaring the law unconstitutional (which I also doubt)

    3. Declaring certain provisions of the law “ultra vires” but the other provisions not affected shall remain in force and effect (most likely to happen).

    Section 29 of the law, the Separability Clause, states that “If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the other provisions not affected shall remain in full force and effect.”

    • Yea, the SEC. 29 of that law, known as [not Separability] bu “Mangling” Clause may have a chance [ but I surely doubt ]. Would you like a “dress” at first glance you got hooked on and your hubby & kins shook their heads, then went to the designer who finally came out with it in mangled form? Putol dito, fold dito! habain dito! Lipat kwelyo! Iksi biwang! Dugtong dito [ nag kulan ang tela ] That dress is good for garbage history!

      Change it! Get a new one!

  10. Hi Raissa,
    Just understand that the Senate is conducting the review of the “Grandmother of all Scams”
    Would be nice to have this as one of your topics here.
    Thanks

    • SC issues TRO vs cyber law

      By Tetch Torres
      INQUIRER.net
      12:14 pm | Tuesday, October 9th, 2012

      MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court on Tuesday stopped the implementation of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

      During Tuesday’s full court deliberation, the high court justices unanimously issued a temporary restraining order after it was flooded by petitions assailing the constitutionality of several provisions of the said law.

      A total of 15 petitions from various organizations told the high court that several provisions of violates the 1987 Constitution specifically the provisions on freedom of speech, equal protection of the law, right to privacy, illegal searches and seizures, double jeopardy.

      • Mel

        Go back to our exchanges #29.1. Oct 1, “Fr Bernas calls Cybercrime law frigthening”

        Told you, SC will issue TRO exactly today.

        Next question?
        What will our legislators do with the law, amend or completely refill?

        My two cents:
        The law per se is good and necessary for crimes like identity theft, cybersex crime, hacking

        Libel provision is not needed because there is a Libel Law already. The govt is not needed to police those who commit libel. Person feeling he/she is libelled thru internet, could file charges on their own, the same way it is happening in print media now. This is where Pres Aquino is mistaken by insisting that libel must be retained in the law. Proof, his legal advisers are third rate according to many lawyers and columnists.

        Takedown provision, excessive DOJ power without court warrant, excessive punishment must be amended or repealed.

        Lastly, Legislators must work at the same time with Cybercrime law to decriminalize Libel Law(sponsored by Escudero ), which should be legally classified as civil case by nature, and pass Freedom of Information bill.

        Calling those current legislators running for senators or reelection. Now is your time to work for the people, put inaction where your mouth was. Electorates are watching you!

    • PLAY BALL! as the Umpire calls it.

      SC justices…Unanimous! 15 Petitions to ask the law be declared unconstitutional!

      14 Justices saw it. 211 congressmen did not! 14 senators did not! 1 did not! …and, here it comes….MILLIONS OF FILIPINOS SAW IT in the law!

      coming soon…TRO…totally revoked by ORDER! …sana.

      …back to the drawing board then!

      THANKS TO YOU RAISSA and CPMers! Joe America, open you kolaaps…what’s that…tuba-like juice? Kampai…[ not KAMPI ].

        • …it really kicks, huh? I love to take a kicking from it! & stay rational! Thanks for Kickapoo, will be looking for that.

        • sorry, you don’t get it “in bottles” it’s always in GALLON or JARS…big JARS!…tuba! A tall GLASSFULL to the brim!…politicos will be toasting this with the voters in the small towns by campaign time…!

          and you got to stay rational all the wayyyyyyyy…hiCK HiCk hICK …sorry, one too many already!

        • Hey Joe, am a newby..what’s Kickapoo Joy Juice? what’s it taste like? I thought when you “fucked up” it’s cactus up your arse..

        • Joe
          Do not reveal the generic name, why they call it Kickapoo Joy in Colorado mountains.

          Thin air there really bloats the body. Obama must not have taken Kickapoo and his brain kept constipated

          He he he

  12. There are important lessons to be learned here.

    1. Raissa was not incorrect in her reading of the primary document.

    2. The structure of the text in the primary document led to an obvious misinterpretation.

    3. I read the primary document myself and, on the surface, I arrived at the same conclusions as Raissa’s.

    4. Raissa asked the Senator’s staff to back up their claim of her error. She was right not to correct the blog until secondary evidence arrived. Lesson 1: You do not back out of your interpretation just on the say-so of authority.

    5. Baycas gave the primary document a deeper reading and he arrived at another interpretation opposite to Raissa’s. He was correct to raise his doubts of Raissa’s interpretation. Lesson 2: You do not rely on anybody’s interpretation if there are conflicting interpretations. You attempt to understand and come to your own conclusions.

    6. Baycas pressured Raissa to retract and Raissa did not while she waited for the secondary evidence. Lesson 3: You must voice your opposition by the light of your reasoning. Lesson 4: You must resist surrender of your position by the light of your reasoning.

    7. When the secondary evidence arrived and proved Raissa’s original interpretation was not the whole truth, Raissa immediately issued her correction. Lesson 5: You must admit the extent of your error in the face of evidence.

    8. Important: Raissa was not totally wrong in her original interpretation. Nor was Baycas totally right in his opposing interpretation. Lesson 6: Respect the opinion of others and allow for the possibility that your opinion may be wrong. It may not be totally wrong/right but only partially wrong/right.

    One of the primary reasons we congregate at this site is because we know that Raissa is fair and she documents her findings based on documents. As CPMer’s we contribute to her findings from different perspectives. As thinking individuals, we offer opinions that may not agree with hers or with our colleagues; that is our right and that is the attraction and excitement of this community.

    I congratulate Raissa for her thorough professionalism. I congratulate Baycas for his deep insight. I congratulate both for their integrity and standing on their ground.

    • Well written @springwoodman.

      If the Middle East have their Arab Spring, I thought your lessons at this post is of good timing.

      I too fell short of applying The Break to treat Page 8, number 18 and following as no longer connected with Sen P Cayetano’s. (see related comment, Mel says: October 5, 2012 at 11:01 pm of The Cybercrime Law was brought to you by 7 senators & 12 congressmen).

      I also apologized to RR (see also related comment, Mel says: October 7, 2012 at 3:03 pm of Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute?).

      In this article, RR humbly took part of the blame for an error, not of her own making, nor the cause of the raucus. The necessary break was not noted after the Sen P Cayetano’s Remark INJECTIONS (Nos. 16 & 17 – “… the two amendments made by Senator Pia Cayetano herself.”)

      Whose fault for a no road sign of Full Stop? Or someone to utter, Let’s Resume… with THE OTHER’s individual amendments.

      Senate Secretariat’s shortcoming? Or whoever was the session notes or minutes taker (Transcript). Wrong Diction perhaps too? (Remark against Amendment)

      Yet recent clarifications between Sen P Cayetano’s staff and RR, the staff concerned gave a half hearted or half baked admission and compliance, not owning to nos. 16 & 17, leaping to number 18 to save the Sen’s hide.

      —

      The Journal is a perfect example how the Body performed, how accurate their pointers were in paper. As they say, the devil is in the detail.

      My other observations to Senate Journal Session no. 46 Tuesday Jan 24 2012.

      – Page numbering is a question mark. The header page number jumped to 870 from the 3rd page from the Journal Cover page.

      – – Date Time stamp of Body meeting.

      page 871. suspension 9:26 pm and resumption was 9:26 pm

      page 875. suspension was 9:48 and resumption was 10:04 am

      Between these pages in the Journal, they didn’t have a break. Were they up all night?
      Or a break of 3 seconds too long…

      • @Mel, you just got ahead of me on “good writing” points, among the other things you presented here. Just a little addition I like to make: when making “official writings, keep on mind to “use the same term or words as you write along.” “Don’t change one word for another word “with same meaning” as it would be misunderstood.”

        That’s what happened. “remarks” and “amendments” are definitely even two (2) different words. In context analysis, the “thought” being followed will be cut-off or misdirected to an error.

        Write involved should mark this in the future writings of the Senate Journal! Very basic RULE in writing! Me, I sometimes make this mistake too but I won’t do that at Senate writing the Journal! It’s like an IED [improvised explosive device] like in Afga or Iraq…can cause a lot of injuries too.

Trackbacks