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.
Ken Lopez says
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.
I’d like to see you do what I do.
Judge me after you do it yourself.
Read my follow up – http://raissarobles.com/2012/10/09/why-did-four-senators-file-nearly-identical-cybercrime-bills/
This is not at all about being irresponsible, Ken Lopez.
Pia Cayetano should have had a closer look at what the Journal records for posterity.
I have TWO IMPORTANT UPDATES on the Cybercrime Law.
Coming very, very soon.
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.
Johnny Lin says
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!
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
andrew lim says
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
Free Bird says
Anyways, congtrats to all of us. Salamat Dios ko… may tunay na pala na Supreme Court ang Pinas. God Bless ……..
…I always prey on ’em….to attend ‘d frigging ceremony!
vander anievas says
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…:)
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. :(
Joe America says
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.
andrew lim says
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.
Johnny Lin says
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?
chit navarro says
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!
…something like “ugly reflections with mirrors” rather than a biog…hahaha.
I wouldn’t call that strange. I think it’s despicable!
Joe America says
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. …
Me too. Very disappointed in in Sen Pia. :(
let’s not vote for her brother sen. allan cayetano this coming election!!!!
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.
What “amendment” do you mean?
Can you please be more precise?
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
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!
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.”
JAY N. RAMOS says
Spot on! “Middle-of-the-road” is the operative term
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!
Gene Simmowns says
Hot off the press!
SC stops cybercrime law, issues TRO
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.
SC stops cybercrime law. issues TRO!
next, repeal, then redraft, without sotto involved.
It will go to amendments like other laws that had been amended.
I believe this law is an exception due to the nature of how screwed up it became…
Phil Cruz says
Know what, X? I would like to see Sotto involved. And let’s watch him do whatever he now wants to do. This would be interesting.
I shudder to think what he’ll do next…
vander anievas says
without him? how about his clout?
Uh, remind me what his clout is…
vander anievas says
remember he is the maj. floor leader..:)
Johnny Lin says
Go back to our exchanges #29.1. Oct 1, “Fr Bernas calls Cybercrime law frigthening”
Told you, SC will issue TRO exactly today.
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!
Johnny Lin says
Repeal, not refill
Good on yah! Johnny L
It was good. THE definite TRO is rare, usually iTRO (as in Indefinite TRO).
Regarding your other forecast on “Libel Provision is not needed because there is a Libel Law already.”
When they scratch off the Libel Provision or Clause from the CcPA (Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012) they may have to create a new Law if not updating the current law on Libel as a Decriminalize Law. The DOJ were complaining that the current law is not suited for online libel complaints for strong prosecution.
It now entirely depends how the Legislation would introduce the necessary amendments around that without creating a new decriminalize Libel Law with the amended CcPA to provide breath and scope encompassing Information and communications technology or information and communication technology (ICT).
See related comment on reply to @vander from Mel says: October 9, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Johnny Lin says
Libel doesn’t need police enforcement. DOJ and police have more real crimes to pursue that is why decriminalizing Libel Law is the right approach.
It should be strictly civil case between opposing parties that must be decided in court.
Why Decriminalizing libel is good and civilized.
The United Nations Human Rights, in an October 2011 declaration, said criminal sanction for libel in the Philippines is “excessive” and in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in which the Philippines is a signatory
Legarda files bills amending cybercrime law, decriminalizing libel
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 ].
Joe America says
Got it, leona. It’s Kickapoo Joy Juice. Looks like tuba, tastes like tuba. Tastes best when the courts act rationally.
…it really kicks, huh? I love to take a kicking from it! & stay rational! Thanks for Kickapoo, will be looking for that.
I’ll have a bottle, thanks. Anything to stay rational…
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!
Ok. Two glassfuls then. But you’ll have to drive me home…
Joe America says
You swill it. You don’t drink it from a glass.
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..
Johnny Lin says
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
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.