Exclusive
By Raïssa Robles
Four senators filed Cybercrime Bills that were almost totally identical to each other and to the final bill that was signed into law late September by President Benigno Aquino III.
The four were Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Edgardo Angara, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.
The highly technical bills they filed were nearly all the same in wording, sentence construction, paragraph order and even punctuation marks.
There are two questions here:
1.Why were they identical?
2.Was there a common source?
Let me answer the second question first. This morning, Department of Justice (DOJ) Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy held a press conference to explain and defend to the media how the Cybercrime Law would work. Sy could play a key role in the DOJ’s anti-Cybercrime Unit.
But there was one thing Sy neglected to tell the media: He was the one who had given the drafts of the Cybercrime Bill to the four senators.
“The proposal came from Assec Sy,” Tala Maralit, the chief legislative staff of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile told me this afternoon when I asked her who had drafted Senate President Enrile’s Senate Bill No. 134 (SBN 134 filed July 5, 2010) and why it was almost identical with the Cybercrime bills of three other senators, namely:
SBN 52 of Senator Edgardo Angara (filed on July 10, 2009)
SBN 2534 of Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (filed on September 22, 2010)
SBN 2721 of Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla (filed February 28, 2011)
Think about it: the government agency that would implement the Cybercrime Law, the agency that would wind up with huge and vague (critics say “repressive”) police powers was the very same one that had written the draft law and pushed it in Congress to begin with.
Furthermore, the very same person — Assec Sy — who physically gave copies of the draft bill to the four senators could end up occupying a key post in the Commission on Information and Communications Technology – the anti-Cybercrime Unit that this law will create.
But I’m getting ahead of my story. I will explain later the other implications of having Assec Sy – the very man who had pushed for this legislation – probably sit as head of this powerful unit that will have a say on blocking websites and filing criminal lawsuits against violators of the Cybercrime Law. I interviewed Assec Sy on the matter.
Anyway, let me start from the beginning.
I stumbled on this story by accident, when I was working to verify something else, which was the assertion by Senator Pia Cayetano that she had nothing to do with two of the Cybercrime Law’s particularly offensive provisions — the ones authorizing government to perform “real-time collection of traffic data” (what critics call in effect, illegal surveillance of all digital devices) and to “take down” (more accurately, block) websites that government deemed violated the Cybercrime Law.
Because of the vague way the Senate records were structured and written, I had published an article saying that Cayetano had moved for those provisions, whereas it turned out she had not. I corrected my story and issued an apology.
To view it, please read – To the staff of Senator Pia Cayetano,
But in the process of verifying this, I went through a lot of documents I downloaded from the Senate website.
That was when — to my surprise — I discovered that four of the filed bills on Cybercrime were practically copies of each other.
You can download these bills yourself on the Senate website by going to this link and typing “cybercrime” on the title/subject space.
Here’s a screencap of what you will see:
For those who prefer not to or can’t, I copied and pasted the four bills section-by-section for easier comparison. You can view them by clicking on the post entitled:
The quadruplet bills on cybercrime
Let me point out one thing first. As far as I can tell, NONE of the 16 Senate bills and three Senate resolutions filed on cybercrime dealt with or mentioned “online libel” or “cyberdefamation”.
Cyberdefamation was initially contained in the House cybercrime bill version. But in the Senate version, this was officially inserted by Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III during the January 24, 2012 plenary session.
We can reasonably conclude, therefore, that online libel was never tackled at the Senate committee level. Nor was it ever the subject of a public hearing. Nor were netizens and news media organizations with websites ever given a chance to react to this insertion before the passage of the Cybercrime Law.
Moving on to other points:The controversial provision giving authorities the power to conduct “Real Time Collection of Traffic Data” was contained in the four Senate bills that came from Assec Sy.
Recall that I had asked Maralit who heads Senate President Enrile’s staff on legislation for the identity of the person who had drafted Enrile’s SBN 134 on cybercrime. She said:
The proposal came from Assec Sy. He (Sy) might have had other lawyers from the DOJ come up with the draft. It’s just that it was him who presented the bill to us. Last Congress pa. During GMA time. [He presented it as early as the last Congress during the time of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.]
Maralit explained to me that after Enrile was reelected in 2010, he had refiled the same bill as SBN 134 in the current 15th Congress. I asked Maralit if Enrile had changed anything in the draft that Assec Sy had handed to him, before Enrile officially filed it as SBN 134.
Maralit replied:
As is. No, na po. [No, not anymore, Maam.]
I asked Maralit why Enrile’s SBN 134 was almost an exact copy of the cybercrime bills filed separately by Senators Bongbong Marcos, Bong Revilla and the law’s main sponsor Edgardo Angara.
Maralit explained:
In the process of legislation, if there is a priority legislation coming from the executive (department), they usually ask other senators to author or file a similar version. That must have been why our version is almost exactly the same as other bills filed by other senators.
I also tried reaching Senators Angara, Revilla and Marcos by phone but could not get through. I therefore e-mailed them but have not received any reply up to now.
To counter-check what Maralit told me, I phoned Assec Geronimo Sy and told him what the Office of the Senate President said.
Assec Sy confirmed what Maralit said. He also confirmed it was he who handed the three other senators a draft that they then filed under their own names.
Assec Sy added:
You should have seen in the last (14th) Congress, there were more than four (senators filing the same draft as their bills.) The Senate version almost passed but did not make it for lack of time. That was how close it was in the last Congress.
When I asked Assec Sy whether it was he who had personally handed over the drafts to the four senators and whether he himself had prepared the drafts, he replied:
It’s not correct to say I handed it over. In the process of things, it’s a filing by a legislator. I don’t want to claim credit or discredit for a particular bill. It (the cybercrime bill) has always been a product of a Technical Working Group since the year 2000, since the “I love you” virus. (Note: Sy was referring to the famous “I love You” virus that affected computers and websites worldwide in the year 2000. Alan wrote about it in his site, here’s an old copy of his report http://www.hotmanila.ph/leantech/lovepower.htm)
Assec Sy added:
I can’t claim credit. No one person is responsible for a bill or a law.
He told me that a Technical Working Group had been churning out drafts through the years. So I asked him to name the members of the TWG, but he said he could not recall because the members changed through the years and the group had been meeting since 2001 and even before the passage of the E-Commerce Act.
Assec Sy said:
It’s always been a composite group. No one institution can draft a law of that nature that blends policy, law and technology in one document….How to make it work, put safeguards, and make sure we protect cyberspace – those are the priorities.
I told him my misgivings about having a DOJ official propose “huge and vague powers” for its department without safeguards. Assec Sy replied:
I think it’s not fair to phrase the question that way, that I gave it huge and vague powers. As I said earlier, it’s a technical working group (TWG) output.
I therefore qualified my statement by pointing to the section that gave law enforcement authorities the power to obtain “Real Time Collection of Traffic Data”. I told Assec Sy that Section 11 in Enrile’s SBN 134 and Senator Bongbong Marcos’ SBN 2534 were exact copies. And both saw no need to find “due cause” and obtain a “court warrant” before exercising this power.
Here is Senate President Enrile’s Section 11:
SEC. 11. Real-time Collection of Traffic Data. – Law enforcement authorities shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means, and/or to require cooperation from a service provider in the collection or recording of, traffic data, in real-time, associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system by issuing a collection order.
And here is Senator Bongbong Marcos’:
SECTION 11. Real-time collection of traffic data. – Law enforcement authorities shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means, and/or to require cooperation from a service provider in the collection or recording of, traffic data, in real-time, associated’ with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system by issuing a collection order.
Assec Sy conceded they were the same in both versions but he claimed the powers weren’t “huge and vague.”
However, I pointed out to him that these two versions contrasted with those of Section 9 in the cybercrime bills of Senator Angara and Senator Bong Revilla. Both required authorities to first establish “due cause” and obtain “a court warrant” before doing any “Real-time Collection of Computer Data”.
Here is Senator Angara’s Section 9:
SEC. 9. Real-time Collection of Computer Data. — Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, and upon securing a court warrant, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means, and service providers are required to collect or record by technical or electronic means, and/or to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of, traffic data, in real-time, associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.
Here is Senator Bong Revilla’s Section 9 which is exactly the same:
SECTION 9. Real-time Collection of Computer Data. Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, and upon securing a court warrant, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means, and service providers are required to collect or record by technical or electronic means, and/or to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of, traffic data, in real-time, associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.
Assec Sy said I should check the version of the cybercrime bill that was approved in the last Congress. He said that reflected best what powers the TWG wanted authorities to have.
When, last week, I had told my hubby and editor Alan about my discovery of the four identical bills, he told me to answer the following questions:
- Why are the bills nearly identical?
- Were the senators reading each others’ minds? Were they sharing bills? (But if that was the case, they did not need to file any but merely had to tell the main sponsor, Senator Edgardo Angara, they wanted to become co-authors.)
- Did one person or organization write all these bills and merely went around the Senate looking for sponsors? If yes, who might that person or group be?
- What was the real objective?
- Why did senators have no compunction about filing nearly identical bills?
Assec Sy and Enrile’s office had answered all of Alan’s questions except one- “What is the real objective of the cybercrime law?”
And — for that matter — why did the four senators have no compunction about filing nearly identical bills? Those will be answered in my next story.
Meanwhile, you can examine for yourself the four cybercrime bills filed by Senators Enrile, Marcos, Angara and Revilla by clicking on the link below:
leona says
Ms. Ellen Tordesilla’s blog gives Pres. Aquino’s mantra on Cybercrime law and libel.
See link http://www.ellentordesillas.com/2012/10/18/making-sure-we-got-the-president-correctly-on-internet-libel/
But Pres. Aquno’s refers back into “time past” when he was in grade school re criminal libel. I like to refer back to the 1950s too it was the same but the free of speech was so better free to use, as no internet yet was on hand. With more corruptions in gov’t and with the internet being a good tool to use to reveal corruptions, why suppress use of internet on libel like free speech will be only good for about 10% and not with the other 90% use? Time has change. Yet, the gov’t is move is drawing backwards on free speech and FREE PRESS? Repeal or totally revise Cybercrime Law!
leona says
How many crimes on libel worlwide?
dhttp://technology.inquirer.net/19074/over-1-5m-are-cybercrime-victims-daily-worldwide-studywide?
Nothing is reported by Norton Symantec study. Click link above.
Watch your pc. Use privacy safety and anti-virus too. Avast anti-virus home edition is free.
Mike says
Dear Raissa,
Thank you for focusing on Section 12 of the Cybercrime bill. I still believe that not enough people realize how dangerous that sections is.
Mike
raissa says
You can help, Mike.
Will be tackling cybercrime law in future posts.
Thanks.
Mike says
Gladly! :)
Mike says
Btw, here’s a video on “How the Internet will (one day) transform government”
http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government.html?utm_source=facebook&source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ios-share
Mike says
“The bigger problem, of course, is power. The people experimenting with participation don’t have legislative power, and the people who have legislative power are not experimenting with participation.
– “Clay Shirky: How the Internet will (one day) transform government”
andrew lim says
RALPH RECTO’s PRO-BIG TOBACCO STANCE
Ralph “Philip Morris” Recto’s version of the sin tax bill is ludicrous. He is anti-RH but he is pro-cancer! LOL
mark says
probably cancer cell is also life wahahahah o prolife pro cancer
vander anievas says
smells something. there’s a smoke. probably fire will follow suit…
andrew lim says
ATENEO WINS FIFTH UAAP CROWN
Ateneo beat UST tonight 65-62 for its fifth straight championship. Congrats to the lemons and cowards, I think many from La Salle and UP rooted for them tonight, thanks to that idiotic Varsitarian (UST paper) editorial.
Pro-RH wins! LOL
Ancient Mariner says
Just an off topic thought. We have continuously lambasted Brenda over the past months. Is it not now time to show our true colors and support her in her attempts to have her original version Sin Tax Bill passed?
andrew lim says
I concede Brenda has been taking popular positions lately – RH, Cybercrime, sin tax, etc. after that Corona insanity. But I’d rather support the issues, not her.
I really cant trust the personal integrity of that woman.
Ancient Mariner says
Formidable enemies can equally become formidable friends.
Den says
Our good old parish priest said, “hate the sin, not the sinner.” But in the case of Brenda, I must disagree. I can support some of her positions, but I do not think I can support her. A case of love the sin, hate the sinner? Now, I think I am going nuts!
vander anievas says
@ancient mariner,
you’re correct in your observation. i am glad she is siding the people’s pulse this time…
we’ll see what’s next in her stock…
caliphman says
By the way, I did some quick checking and would like to add the following comments. First, the Senate site says SB52 was filed by Angara on July 1, 2010 and July 10, 2009 as now stated in the piece above. It was preceded by Trillanes who filed his shortened version a week earlier and followed by a whole flurry similar or identical bills in July including Enrile, Villar, Lapid, and if I recall right, Revilla. So the timeline from Rappler is off as well it seems. Which leaves the question what happened in July 2010 that prompted so many senators to file their own version of a cybercrime bill? The Trillanes and Lapid versions were very short and were obviously not TWG nor Budapest inspired. Incidentally the Budapest accord had no libel nor takedown provisions so it would be very curious if TWG decided not to do likewise. My wild guess to all this until RR’s next post? GMA orchestrated it to quell bloggers from exposing her shenanigans by hauling them to a Corona led SC for cyberdefamation.
caliphman says
The second sentence should have read.”july 1, 2010 and not July 10, 2009″.
raissa says
July 1, 2010 is the first day of office of he new Congress. Senators try to beat each other filing the bills first plus the most number of bills.
caliphman says
That explains the flurry in July 2010 but not why there is no Angara cybercrime bill in 2009 per the Senate site. It only lists filings by Enrile in April and Trillanes in May which were consolidated in the committee report in December when the 14th Congress ended. The committee report differed from Enriles filing in there was a court order requirement for the data search and collection provisions. Otherwise the versions were very close and hints at who TWG and the ultimate proponent were working through if there was a sinister agenda to push.
damnedWizard says
No room for FOI bill in House, literally October 9, 2012 2:29pm
No room for FOI bill in House, literally
BY ANDREO CALONZO, GMA NEWS October 9, 2012 2:29pm
here is literally no room for the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill at the House of Representatives.
Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone, chairperson of the House public information committee handling the FOI bill, said deliberations on the measure will have to be postponed again because his panel cannot find a room where it can conduct a hearing next week.
“Wala ngang room. Pinahanap ko na ‘yung committee secretary pero puno na raw lahat. Wala na raw slot,” Evardone said in a phone interview.
There are over 20 rooms at the Batasan Pambansa building in Quezon City which lawmakers can use for committee hearings.
======================
miss raissa. pwede po magsulat naman po kayo ng article para sa FOI bill naman. mukha kasing nagkakalokohan na sa kongreso eh. delay ang deliberation dahil lang sa walang kuwarto. anong klaseng dahilan yan? nakakabanas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
raissa says
OK.
damnedWizard says
thank you po..
leona says
Parehas sa atin my eskwelahan…WALA DIN ROOMS…class rooms! Do we believe that? Meowwwwwwww!
curveball says
Sabi nga:
Kung gusto (ang isang bagay) palaging may paraan, o di mauubusan ng paraan
Kung ayaw (ang isang bagay) palaging may dahilan o di mauubusan ng idadahilan.
Isang mahalagang bill na paguusapan, walang room?
Akala ko eskwelahan lang (elem at h.s.) ang nawawalan ng room para pagturuan.
Pati pala sa Batasan nauubusan din….
Hanap uli ng ibang date at time.
Kung yung iba bill na gusto pagusapan pwede kahit magovertime.
Teka bakit kaya biglang naging busy ang lahat?
Dahil sa napuna sila sa quadruplets (copy paste) na bill?
Dahil sa FOI ang agenda na paguusapan?
Mga lawmakers, pakisagot nga po ito.
caliphman says
Sometimes when one is not sure of what one is seeing or even looking for, one might focus on the forest and not just the trees. Senators Singson, Villar, and Trillanes filed their own versions of the cybercrime bill way before Angaras 2009 filing. I would not be at all surprised if the provisions turned out to be very similar including the inclusion of takedown and libel/defamation provisions. The impetus for this law was the Love Bug virus scandal and due to its technical nature required significant external advice and input to write the first bills. That the language is similar if not identical probably points less to an evil conspiracy and more to the lack of intellectual agility among our senators and their staffs. The following timeline from rappler might be helpful:
http://www.rappler.com/rich-media/13901-the-road-to-the-cybercrime-prevention-act-of-2012
raissa says
Sorry, I disagree.
My research shows something else.
I will post soon.
leona says
Raissa, there must have been a “head” of the TWG at the time who reported the drafts to Assec. Sy. And who is that person? Assec. Sy surely cannot forget the name or othe data about that person meeting him a couple, if not so many times for the passage of the drafted bill.
Assec. Sy answered you that it reflected “best” what powers the TWG wanted authorities to have. He must have “deeply studied” the project to come out to say “the best” what the TWG wanted.
If Assec Sy does not believe that the versions did not contain powers “huge and vague” why then were not one of the versions passed into law? What stopped it? If he knows since he says the versions reflected only “the best” of powers? He must really know the reasons what stopped the passage of the the bill in many versions.
My two cents. Thanks Raissa and Allan.
Jim Ayson says
For the working group on the Cybercrime Bill, check out the guys from PH-CERT (google their site) they were part of this in the beginning. That was back when participating in drafting the bill was a noble endeavor before the politicians corrupted it.
Jim Ayson says
Just reminded of a Watergate reference, rephrased for the current issue: “What does Geronimo Sy know and when did he know it.? ” If its about who had the insertions put in, Sy is the key.
raissa says
Hi Jim,
I have an update you might be interested in.
Just talked to the NBI.
Alan says
the Love Bug issue was already addressed by the E-Commerce Law passed by the Estrada Administration way back in 2000
springwoodman says
The “infinite monkey theorem” states that given an eternity a monkey typing at random will almost surely replicate the works of Shakespeare.
It is improbable that 6 monk… – er, senators – in the senate of the 14th and 15th congresses (2007 – 2013) can independently produce the same bill almost word-for-word, punctuation mark for punctuation mark.
caliphman says
Are you saying only Sotto can cut and paste? No, dont answer that.
caliphman says
Mmmm. So you’re on to something :) Someone pass the popcorn please.
leona says
Love Bug is the impulse for the Cybercrime law? I doubt too. Politicians before, now and in the future, hates ridicules and attacks by their critics, true or false! They just got a lucky break with breaking thousands and millions of users in internet via cyberspace!
This modern techno narrows their spaces for silent corruption actions. News traveling so fast in cyberspace puts them at risks of revelations re corruptions and public incompetence to the PEOPLE
Internet in Cyberspace is the new modern battleground for Citizens vs corrupt politicians!
This is the impetuous or impulse that came into the minds of politicians to enact the Cybercrime Law.
Miguel says
This morning on Talk TV, Geronimo Sy was explaining the cybercrime bill to Jing Magsaysay, and did it in such an even-keeled, clear manner that I was quite impressed. The guy clearly knew whereof he speaks, and talked a lot more sense than a dozen of our senators combined. If only we could have the same level of discourse INSIDE our legislative halls.
Now re my previous question on whether Sy was instrumental in deceptively arm-twisting the four senators to file the same bill almost verbatim; my view now is that he submitted the materials to a bunch of ’em to encourage consideration of the proposed legislation, and each of the four, not thinking the others had the same lazy plan, submitted it to fulfill a quota of bills filed for re-election campaign or just to fluff up their resume (as what a couple of posters here have pointed out).
If it’s pure laziness, a major embarrassment is what it is. If there’s something else to it, then it certainly deserves looking into (Let’s face it, a simple mere association with GMA is reason enough to be suspicious).
Whichever, we are very pleased and proud that the community led by Ms. Raissa has, yet again! discovered something beyond the press releases.
raissa says
Basta we are all in this together.
We can do something to improve the country.
Thanks, Miguel.
leona says
One question I have is: If this bill started sometime Year 2000, lingered unpassed by Congress, if the bill contained “the best” acc to Assec. Sy, the powers the TWG wanted to give to the authorities, taking long until Year 2012, Sept. 12…the bill passed this time. What caused it to be passed without much hitch? Many say it is 12 years old on this bill.
Now, it is just about a month old as a law.
What caused the bill into a law to hurdle the Congress this time, Sept. 2012?
My 5 cents lang. Thanks Raissa and Allan.
Rene-Ipil says
[email protected]
You asked: “What caused the bill into a law to hurdle the Congress this time, Sept. 2012?”
I think it was the inserted online libel provision which hastened the approval of the cybercrime (CC) bill. The quadruplets filed the bill in 2010 which hybernated until the online libel clause was inserted in January 2012. Thereafter, both houses were in a hurry to to tackle and approve the CC bills despite tight schedules caused by the impeachment trial of Corona. It seemed that unseen hands or “maligno” were pushing the approval of the CC bills.
The question is who would benefit most for the early approval of the CC bills, including the online libel and the take down provisions?
vander anievas says
@leona,
“The question is who would benefit most for the early approval of the CC bills, including the online libel and the take down provisions?”
isn’t it obvious that the ambitious politicos would benefit the most? especially those who are hiding skeletons in their closets. given the proximity of time to the coming elections, mudslinging will be the name of the game and the bill will become very effective in silencing the voices of people in the know of the blackened past.
and also, as i have recently posted as a question if zte has anything to do in this one…
leona says
Is it a fact then that this present Administration did endorse the immediate approval of the Cybercrime law as a bill like endorsing an emergency bill, etc.?
If yes, who is the person? BCA III?
Alan says
there are at least three major stakeholders involved in any cyber law: civil society (citizens and consumers), government, business (usually giant multinationals). In analyzing this cybercrime law, try to determine whose interests it largely serves
Alizarin Viridia says
I know it is incorrect but some people might consider laziness
as an excuse or justification for lack of integrity.
leona says
@Allan…LARGELY, it will best serve this interest of government! The chilling effects and the threats of being hauled into courts is there for remarks alleged to be libelous against public officials. And LARGELY against citizens and consumers, reason given above.
Next, MEDIUM size, business, not much. As long as business continues, business operators would not care much unless, something is itching, pulling down income of the business due to citizens and consumers’ being chilled and threatened by this law. Then business will be LARGELY affected and the law will not serve its interests.
Next, the clash of LARGELY and SMALL sizes between government and citizens, consumers and business, under this law will unavoidably take place for reasons given above. When rights under the Bill of Rights are one way or another subjected to curtail and threats, all movements or actions in the ordinary day-to-day life will slow down, all with cautions, hesitancies, fear and chilled to the extent that progress goals are not accordingly moving forward but at very slow pace if not at a stand still. Foreign investors are or will be so careful investigating the reasons why.
We are into a different field now, e-Martial Law! Unless our Supreme Court brings down this law, the Bill of Rights is finished, in due time, it will be, piece by piece. If one so sacred as Free Speech and Free PRESS is cut down, nothing will stop the other rights to be treated the same!
My ten cents lang. Thanks Raissa and Allan.
madflip says
OK so this Sy guy is a tech expert. Still, I don’t think he can sell the bill he’s peddling just like that to 4 senators. And the quickness by which PNoy signed the bill into law? Feels like the MOA-AD deal during the halfling’s tenure. Like someone is trying to ram something down our throats. I smell a rat…of the American variety.
Jim Ayson says
Sy was working on the bill draft for years, it was no flash in the pan. He consulted with a lot of private sector tech bodies like PH-CERT and PICS. Of course he’s an expert.
Somewhere along the way he must had to make deals with politicos to get the long in the tooth bill turned into an actual law. So the crux of the matter is what those deals were and with whom. It’s possible that this became a mission of getting the Cybercrime bill passed at all costs. So what did he have to do to the original draft to get it passed is the question….
leona says
What’s your guess then? Let’s hear it.
Parekoy says
Segway muna tayo sa Political Dynasty…
May nabanggit ang aking bubwit na malaking tenga na nandon sa ilalim ng lamesa habang may emergency meeting ang mga Kingpins ng mga Political Dynasties sa Pilipinas.
Nag meeting daw ang mga Kingpins na may anak na candidato ngayong halalan, dahil naalarma sila sa pagiging malakas ng boses nga mga NEtizens. Lalo na ngayong may TRO na ang CYBER CRIME, mas lalo pa raw hindi mabubusalan ang mga puna ng mga mamayan sa internet.
Ang grave threat daw sa mga kamag-anak at ANAK NG PU (litiko) ay mga kamag-anak at mga anak ng mga OFWs at Migrante.
Karamihan ng OFWs ay may FB at mahilig mag punta sa websites at active sa usaping pampulitika. Dahil pawang nakapag aral at well-informed itong mga OFWs at Migrante, lalong-lalu na na-exposed sila sa mga transparency saka accountability sa mga bansang mauunlad, bale kritikal sila sa mga Political Dynasty at ang masamang epekto sa bayan.
Itong mga OFWs at Migrante ay malaki ang impluensya sa kanyang mga anak, kamag-anak at mga kaibigan. Grabe ang respeto sa mga OFW ng pamilya nila kaya sila rin ay namumulat sa mga masamang pangyayari sa bansa.
Alam ng mga ANAK NG PU na malakas sila dahil sa name recall at kanilang yaman sa paggastos at pagbili ng boto, lalong lalo na sa pagligaw at pagbili sa mga boto ng mga mangmang at mahihirap, pero alam din nila ang malaking impluensya ng mga ANAK NG OFW at mga ANAK NG MIGRANTE dahil mga matatalino, nakapagaral, marunong sa FB, at tinitingala ng kanilang mga kakilala dahil sa masisipag at umaasenso sa tamang paraan at hindi angkan ng mga magnanakaw.
Kaya balisa ang mga ANAK NG PU dahil mas matindi ang participasyon ng mga ANAK NG PU o sa mga ANAK NG OFW sa darating na halalan.
Sa tingin nyo saan kayo kampi sa mga ANAK NG PU o sa mga ANAK NG OFW at mga ANAK NG MIGRANTE?
Parekoy says
Erratum
‘Kaya balisa ang mga ANAK NG PU dahil mas matindi ang participasyon ng mga ANAK NG PU o sa mga ANAK NG OFW sa darating na halalan’
should read:
Kaya balisa ang mga ANAK NG PU dahil mas matindi ang participasyon ng mga ANAK ANAK NG OFW at mga ANAK NG MIGRANTEsa darating na halalan.
vander anievas says
put…ik, kung sa ngayon gaganapin ang halalan, malamang sa hindi ay lampaso ang mga anak anak at kamag-anak. masarap sigurong pakinggan ang kanilang pagputak!!
leona says
SAMAHAN = Anak OFW at Migrante! [ alisin mo ang salitang “kampi” kay GMA yan! Nakakalito @parekoy. ]
Mga anak ng PU…maski matalino, maganda, guapo, maputi, blonde & golden hair, malinis ‘di pa korupt, kilala sa TV ‘o cine or Radio, madaldal, mahilig sa “Amen,” mabango, masipag, at kung anu-anu pa,
WAG SAMAHAN, WAG SUPPORTAHAN! Para WALANG POLITICAL FAMILY DYNASTIES!
Sinko sentimos ko ito. Salamat @Parekoy. [“senko” or “sinko?”]
Cha says
@parekoy, Lol, I like how you call them, Mga Anak ng Pu…
Here’s an amusing poem I found in the Anti-Political Dynasty page on Facebook:
Kami ay isang Dynastiya, Walang Kokontra
Sabay-sabay o Pasa-pasa tuwing eleksyon,
Tatakbo tayo sa iba’t-ibang posisyon.
Ako muna ang governador, ikaw anak ang mayor
Kapatid mo at mga pinsan ay pwedeng councilor
Pag naka-third term na ako ay magpalitan tayo
huwag hahayaang maagawan ng taga kabilang ibayo
Nariyan din ang ina mo na pwedeng pumalit sa akin,
Kaunting buladas lang mga botante ay kayang bolahin
Para ang bayang ito ay mapasaatin,
Para ang kanyang tanging yaman ay ating maangkin.
Lalagyan na natin ng ating initials at pangalan,
Bawat poste, pader at waiting shed ay may mukha ng ating angkan.
Walang maghahangad na sa atin ay lumaban,
kung ayaw nilang pulutin sa kangkungan.
Subukan lang nila, Ganyan na tayo kalakas,
sino ba diyan ang may tapang at angas?
Apelyido natin ay nakatatak na sa semento,
nakapagpatayo pa nga tayo ng ating rebulto
Lahat yan ay ginastusan galing sa buwis ng aming kanayon, malaking porsyento ng proyekto naman ay ibinulsa at ipinangpagawa ng mansyon
Hoy, hoy, hoy kami ay isa ngang dynastiya
Sa amin pabor ang batas at ang hustisya
Kaya naman kasi naming bayaran kahit sino pang herodes,
Para pigilang maipasa ang ano mang batas, intiendes?
Parekoy says
@cha
Really gooood!
leona says
Maganda @Cha….magaling ang sumulat nito!
Tandaan ang Ampatuan…massacre…yan ang mangyayari sa kabukulan ng ating Bansa –
Family Political Dynasty can massacre the people! Wakas!
Cha says
I agree Leona. Sayang lang hindi nakalagay yung pangalan noong nag-post sa FB, sana mabigyan man lang ng credit.
JMarcs says
Do you think Ms Raissa that Sotto and his staff can come up with the libel provision on his or their own? Did Sotto do a sotto (nangopya)? Or is somebody behind his libel provision? Study his words during that fateful january session, and maybe you might find something hmmmm, interesting.
raissa says
Clue. Clue.
saxnviolins says
Interesting theory.
This is where I think further investigation needs to be done. The agreement of the other senators may indicate an earlier agreement. I do not buy the line that they did not notice. The bill is too short not to notice some major insertion.
The cyber crime provisions themselves, seem to have been done to enable the Philippines to accede to the Budapest Convention. That much is indicated in the powerpoint presentation below.
.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/cybercrime/cy-activity-interface-2010/presentations/Ws%203/cyber_octopus_WS_3_alexander_CCC_global_frame.pdf
Please supply the three w’s.
The presentation says that Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and the Philippines were invited to accede to the treaty.
So somebody clearly mangled it with that libel insertion; it is not essential to accession to the treaty.
I suspect that the legislators were motivated by self-interest, since they have skeletons in their closets. They have seen the power of the internet in the Corona impeachment, current at the time the legislation was approved. The executive may also have agreed with the intention, considering the youtube videos about autism, the internet chismis about the Executive Secretary and some hot number, etc.
Will the Supreme Court be moved by the same fear? After all, they have their own secrets – the psychological test of the Chief Justice; the talk that will not die about the Firm and its founding member’s previous closeness to Gloria and the fat one; and the plagiarism of another member of the court.
So who really inserted the libel provision? Sotto was the gunman. But was he a solitary assailant like Lee Harvey Oswald ? (There was a man in the grassy knoll.) Or was there a conspiracy in the “assassination of freedom of expression” to borrow the words of Teddy Locsin?
The JFK case had the Zapruder film as evidence. Here, we have the Senate transcripts. And maybe, some linguistic sleuthing, as suggested in this sub-thread, will reveal the man in the grassy knoll.
leona says
Who “induced” the insertion of the libel provision?
The brains?
The principal culprit?
The person behind the motive…?
Some “grilling” is necessary…?
Rene-Ipil says
JMarcs, Raissa, [email protected]
I believe that the insertion of the online libel provision in the cybercrime law was orchestrated by Binay, Enrile and Sotto.
FACTS:
1. Binay wanted Corona acquitted.
2. Binay, Enrile, and Sotto belong to the same political faction of UNA.
3. As early as July 2010, Enrile filed the cyber bill providing the real time traffic data collection and takedown clause without any court order. Enrile did not include in his bill the online libel provision.
4. The insertion of the online libel provision was made by Sotto on January 24, 2012, during the course of the impeachment trial (IT) when Corona was being intensely vilified by netizens.
MY THEORY:
1. Binay, Enrile and Sotto wanted Corona acquitted at the onset of the IT in preparation for the 2013 and 2016 elections to boost Binay’s image and erode Pnoy’s popularity.
2. The Enrile bill was filed in 2010 when the impeachment of Corona was far fetched. The cyber libel clause was not necessary then but the takedown clause on other cyber crimes was Enrile’s own idea consistent with his character and principles.
3. Considering that the take down provision was already in place in January 2012, Binay, Enrile and Sotto saw the need to insert the online libel clause and gag the netizens to tone down the current criticisms against Corona and pre-empt his impending acquittal.
5. Enrile and Sotto were steering the IT to last after the cybercrime law is approved.
4. That the IT was terminated early and that Enrile and his group voted to convict Corona in the last minute was the consequence of Corona’s folly/testimony and the concerted efforts of the netizens with the CPMers at the forefront. This was proved by the arguments of Congressman Farinas who demolished the “palusot” defense of Corona by using the facts, figures and comments of CPMers in Raissa’s blog.
raissa says
Interesting take. Hmmm.
kalakala says
i agree. sana makapost si ma’am raissa ang kanyang research findings tungkol dito….salamat at ingat…
Ancient Mariner says
In short. The libel provision was inserted to silence Raissa’s blog and the CPMers?
polpot says
My question now is why did PNoy immediately sign it into law? Please tell the behind the scene stories.
leona says
PNoy said, acc to the news reports, he believes libel should be in the Cybercrime law. In short, it is saying, chill all users of internet in cyberspace, in effect, to risk touching the “nerve” of the right to free speech and of the Press! Disregard [or he forgot maintaining the Bill of Rights in that.]
*** : Free Speech and of the Press and all other Bill of Rights in Article III are absolute. No law removing them or disregarding them can be done.
Johnny Lin says
Latest News:
“Sotto mulls Resigning as Majority Floor Leader”
“but if you ask me the percentage, it’s 80-20. 80 towards resignation by July.
Another stupid self propaganda statement.
If he is really serious on contemplating to resign, it should be the next few weeks. By saying 80% by July, he is taunting the public again. July is transition of new senators. Whether he likes it or not re-alignment of leadership will ensue.
He talks as usual addressing his audience in a game show. And he feels offended upon denigration when he caused it to himself.
He is currently receiving flak from his own partymates for being responsible on the attacks of their senatorial bets. He is positioning himself as the martyr and victim at the same time. He talks of displeasing his colleagues putting pressure on his capacity but in reality his incessant public statements against netizens is the real issue his partymates discussed their disappointment on him.
leona says
Tagal naman mag resign! Bakit ‘di BUKAS Hueves bukas di ba? Is his seat in the Senate is getting hotter, he might burn his as….! Better leave while he has it still.
vander anievas says
does he knows what is he talking about? gma had a good training of him. resigning is an alien word. callousness is next to holiness.
anyway, i’ll just wait until the realignment of senate leadership.
i am junking all of his partymates this coming 2013. and that is in him, of him and by him.
courtesy of his stability in his own pedestal…
Parekoy says
Halaw sa rumor mill:
Mungkahi raw kasi ni Vic na mag resign na si Tito as Majority Floor Leader, para lumamig muna ang Netizens.
Sabi naman daw ni Joey, pwede na raw mag resign si Tito pagkatapos na imbestigahan muna si Willie Revillame :-)
Cha says
Bakit ba itong si Sotto, parang gustong gustong araw-araw siyang nasa diyaryo?Hilig magpa-interview para magpahayag ng mga walang katuturang bagay. Tapos magrereklamo ng cyberbullying kapag nag-react ang mga tao.
Ano ba sa tingin niya ang ginagawa ng isang tao kapag may langaw na aali-aligid sa paligid niya?
Kaya Senator Sotto, huwag kang parang langaw kasi. Stop being a cyberpest.
raissa says
He’s not used to people laughing AT him.
Cha says
Hi Raissa,
Just read your FB post re: FOI Bill. Maybe if you write about it, it will get more urgent attention. Nabubulabog lang yata ang mga nasa kongreso at gobyerno kapag ikaw na ang sumusulat eh.
Parekoy says
@Raissa
Zingeeeeeer! :-)
Martial Bonifacio says
I disagree, Isnt he a comedian? :)
The sad part is that when he became a senator, he forgot to leave the part being a comedian at eat bulaga. Sabagay parang nasa broadway centrum ka lang pag nasa senate hall. Am i right ma’am raissa?
1. Maraming camera nasa paligid
2. Maraming contestant sa Mr. Pogi (example na lang ang mga committee report or mga expose ng mga senador na walang pinapatunguhan.)
3. May sumisigaw, may tumatawa, may umiiyak at siyempre may nagmumura
4. Sila sila nagtitirahan at naglolokohan (Enrile and Trillanes)
springwoodman says
@Cha
There is now a need to identify and classify cyberpests. Here’s a starting list:
Cyberfly
Cyberquito (abbreviation of cybermosquito)
Cyberant
Cyberroach
Cybersnake
The list may be expanded to include suborders. For ants, there are black, white, etc.
I suggest we look at the characteristics of a cyberquito. They buzz and make a lot of noise, they “insert” their proboscis, and – most of all – they suck. Remind you of anyone?
raissa says
Ay, superlike.
Joe America says
Cyberdungbeetle
leona says
Cyberbull! hahaha…salamat @Cha!
leona says
Kay @springwoodman pala…sorry eh.
Cha says
Ahaha, love it! @springwoodman!
I envision a cartoon like character in the horizon – – Tito, the Cyberquito!
Bzzzzzzzzzzzz
leona says
@Cha.”.who hates Cyberbulls!”….
pinay710 says
@springwoodman: puede pakidagdag CYBERMITE(termite) and CYBERTWA(tapeworm)kasi mga pangsira sila sa ating bansa.
vander anievas says
dagdagan pa natin…cybermite, cyberbee, cybermantis, cyberbug, cybermoth, cyberborer, cyberlice, cyberbettle, cyberpillar, cyberaphid…
baycas says
Off topic…just an insertion…
@raissa,
I sent you something via email.
Thanks everyone…
Atin says
Hi, Baycas, for the greater good, do not deprive us of your analyses. You be our “Ombudsman.”
vander anievas says
@baycas,
your post is always being awaited. your sound inputs raise the level of my awareness.
yours is missed in the past exchanges…
be back, pls…
Cha says
BAYCAS
B ow kami sa iyong paninindigan
A yaw ninuman na ikaw ay lumisan
Y aman ang iyong kaisipan
C haracter ay di rin mpipintasan
A ming kahilingan iyo nang pakinggan
S ama-sama pa rin para sa ating bayan!
yu says
welcome back sir baycas. nice to have you back