I think I have at last gotten to the bottom of the issue given the facts that are available.
Anyway, here’s the issue: Last week I said that Senator Pia Cayetano had moved for two amendments during the January 24, 2012 Senate plenary on Senate Bill 2796, which became the Cybercrime Law.
I was wrong.
At that time, of course, I thought I was right. At least that’s what it seemed when I went over the following documents: The Science and Technology Committee Report No. 30 consolidating all the cybercrime bills into Senate Bill 2796; the official transcript of the January 24 Senate plenary; and the January 24 Senate Journal which summarized the transcript.
But the protests of Senator Cayetano prompted me to continue digging away at the issue — as a journalist getting the facts and hopefully getting the truth is important to me.
I was also moved by the obvious agitation of @Baycas, one of the active commenters in this site, who prodded me to keep looking.
And so I continued looking at the documents and looking for sources
Today I finally found an eyewitness who could give the details of what happened on January 24, 2012 when the Cybercrime Law was amended and approved on Second Reading.
I wanted to know once and for all who had introduced the amendments to Senate Bill 2796 that were announced that day by Senator Edgardo Angara, the measure’s main sponsor. SB 2796 consolidated all the bills and resolutions filed on cybercrime into one bill.
The eyewitness I located was willing to talk to me, but on condition of anonymity. The source whom I will call “Alpha” told me that on January 24, 2012 Senator Pia Cayetano only made remarks and no amendments.
Senator Cayetano, the source explained to me,
was just remarking. Since she was the author of the Anti-Child Pornography Act (Republic Act 9775), she was just requesting for an alignment of this with this (Cybercrime) bill. (Because) In the previous versions of the (Cybercrime) bill, there was a separate definition for child pornography.
Alpha said that because of this, Angara’s Committee on Science and Technology:
had decided to align the definition plus the penalties
In relation to this, @Baycas e-mailed me something which appears to support what Alpha said.
@Baycas noted that SB 2796 – which was issued in May 2011 – contained a lengthy provision on child pornography:
CHAPTER II – PUNISHABLE ACTS
SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses.C. Content-related Offenses:
Child Pornography – refers to any representation, whether visual, audio, or written combination thereof, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means, of child engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit sexual activities.
For the purpose of this Act, a “child” refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or over, but is unable to fully take care of himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. A child shall also refer to: (a) a person regardless of age who is presented, depicted or portrayed as a child as defined herein; and (b) computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted images or graphics of a person who is represented or who is made to appear to be a child as defined herein.
The unlawful or prohibited acts constituting child pornography shall be defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Law.
@Baycas noted that the January 24, 2012 transcript actually quoted Sen. Angara entering into the records a shortened version of the same section to read as follows:
2. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY – THE UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS DEFINED AND PUNISHABLE BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9775 OR THE ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LAW, ESPECIALLY AS COMMITTED THROUGH A COMPUTER SYSTEM.
@Baycas wrote:
The apparent abridging of the Definition of Child Pornography was already manifested during the Interpellations Stage and Sen. Angara was just reading the amendments into the Record. Sen. Pia Cayetano just made sure this was successfully accomplished in the process that’s why she stood up at that point when it was read.
From unabridged version in May 2011 to the simplified version in January 2012…
If it was any consolation to me, Alpha told me I was not the only one who had read the January 24, 2012 Senate Journal wrong. Alpha said:
Many people were misled by the Senate journal into thinking the list of amendments beneath the phrase REMARKS OF SENATOR CAYETANO (P) were hers.
I also asked Alpha if the crime of “online libel” was already contained in SB 2796 before January 24, 2012. Alpha said:
It was an amendment by another senator that day.
Was it Senator Vicente Sotto III who had introduced “online libel” as an insertion that day, January 24, I asked.
Alpha said “Yes.”
So there it is. What I hope is the last word on the issue. My hubby and editor Alan says that one of the most important things about journalism is the correction factor.
That’s why with this correction, I owe Senator Cayetano an apology, but Senator Sotto none.
Raissa
___________________________
Below are screencaps of portions of pages 12 and 13 of the transcript of the January 24, 2012 Senate plenary when Sen. Angara read out the amendments to SB 2796 and it was passed on Second Reading. I have underlined in red the pertinent portions.
You can also download the entire Jan. 24, 2012 transcript below. [NOTE: It has an interesting portion about former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s plunder case in connection with the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.]
ginebra says
admission of a mistake is one trait all journalists should have. bravo, mam raissa!
LahingPikutin says
This is what we called responsible journalism. Brave, fighting for the truth, but humble when needed. Salute!
rOSARIO says
http://www.rappler.com/nation/14098-cj-sereno-stops-removal-of-aquino-ally-from-mayoral-post-in-cavite
pls. explain.
di ba dapat non-partisan ang sc.
Rene-Ipil says
Rosario@36
On its face the positive side of CJ Sereno’s TRO is that she is not afraid to be criticized by issuing a favorable order for Pnoy’s ally. Let us see first if the TRO is fair regardless of political affiliations of the parties. I hope that she would do the same on Pnoy’s adversaries.
saxnviolins says
That is small potatoes of positivity. She is starting to prove she is a lone cowboy, not a consensus maker.
The en banc meets in less than a week from the time the TRO was issued. The ponente was already assigned – Carpio. Sereno could have waited a week for a more collegial decision.
So what injury is irreparable that it cannot wait five days?
Damage is irreparable if it cannot be undone, or if it cannot be recompensed by monetary damages (in a civil case). If the new mayor starts issuing orders, assuming the unseated later prevails, he can recall al those orders. Besides, what orders really, can be issued on a weekend?
A chief justice, ideally, is a consensus maker. A good example was CJ Earl Warren, who, in Brown v Board of Education, turned an initial 5-4 vote into a unanimous vote.
Another example was CJ Rehnquist who was against the Miranda ruling in principle. But years later, in the case of Dickerson v US, he penned the decision that stated that “We do not think there is such justification for overruling Miranda. Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.”
A lone cowboy alienates his peers. That is what happened to Bush II and Europe. Compare that to Bush I and the first gulf war.
Rene-Ipil says
[email protected]
Knowing the character and temper of the cavitenos and strong leadership of Maliksi in Imus and the whole of Cavite, can the court or anybody else undo the volatile situation that would surely arise and the probable bloody aftermath of an attempted takeover by the Saquilayan? Could the probable injury or death of the protagonists’ followers be repaired?
saxnviolins says
Irreparable injury refers to the injury to the petitioner.
It is the height of arrogance to say that there will be irreparable injury, because we (petitioners/Maliksi) have a temper, and we will engage in a bloodbath.
saxnviolins says
That never comes to the calculus of any court. That is for the police to sort out.
A politician must have the maturity to reign in his followers, whether Saquilayan or Maliksi. Your argument applies to Saquilayan as well. But he seems to abide by court procedures, even when clearly, there has been a partisan decision by Sereno. If he can abide by the court, so should Maliksi abide by the court en banc.
This is too much of a stretch just to defend an otherwise precipitate decision on the part of the a judicial parvenu.
saxnviolins says
the judicial parvenu.
Rene-Ipil says
I think “a” is appropriate.
Rene-Ipil says
“Calculus”. Differential or quantitative?
Victin Luz says
First, I think Sereno was never been a parvenu in the supreme court and comparing them to other CJ both in the Philippines and abroad was not equitable. Justifiable reasons must have been on hand by Sereno . RTC’s prior decision must have been stronger than Comelec’s order and taking into accounts the attitude of those AJ who were not even attending flag ceremonies , how much more if TRO will be decided en banc, such that an earlier irreparable injury on Maliksi will be denied.
Parvenu for Sereno, she’s not new to SC and she’s too old to knew the attitude of her AJ’s. They even clung to save Corona and Lucio Tan on many cases. Let’s wait for their review on the emit of that election case.
Victin Luz says
Furthermore , calculus both the integral or differential are not fit to be used in the Supreme Court. Simple math of addition and subtraction are enough to guide them on their analysis of cases and the fact was during the time of Corona , Davide and etc., they have shown to us, how ignorant they were in simple mathematics.
Victin Luz says
@sanxviolins, I am addressing to you my comments upward sir. Ty
Victin Luz says
Let’s wait their review on the merit of the election case @ sanxviolins ty
Rene-Ipil says
I am speaking on a practical point of view while you wanted to impart the legal meaning of irreparable injury. Thank you for enlightening me on the legal implications of a TRO. But can we not be civil to and respectful of our CJ instead of calling her names, I.e., “the” judicial parvenu (with the accent on the last syllable)?
saxnviolins says
I meant “the”, not “a”, because she is the new one in the office. She, apparently, has not yet been accepted by the others, as the leader. That is actually the definition of parvenu.
By calculus I meant “A particular method or system of calculation or reasoning.” Was just aping the phraseology of a Supreme Court decision. I do not remember if it was Alejo Labrador or JBL Reyes. I was not referring to differential or integral calculus as invented by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz – a subject I barely passed.
Parvenu is uncivil? Name calling? How about the strident phraseology in reference to Enrile, Corona, Sotto, Cuevas, and other people disliked by posters here?
Respect is earned. Let us see if she earns the respect of her colleagues. Mine, she already did as a person. I met her personally many years ago. As a jurist? That is on hold. I will watch the events and her career unfold.
Johnny Lin says
Parvenu is uncivil? It is very much different from “harsh phraseology” thrown at Corona, Cuevas, Sotto and Enrile by many CPMers including myself. These people deserved it for they have lost their respect. They were NO parvenues.
Illogical thinking that parvenu is uncivil. Referring to the strict meaning of the word, Noveau riche or Arriviste, plainly speaking refers to new arrival to the stage of specific social status, Sereno in judiciary is exactly described.
Pacquiao is a parvenu on his own in the wealthy commune.
Parvenu is NOT synonymous with name calling.
Calling the parvenu names, based on performance or action then one might call that uncivil but it depends on the strident names used.
If Pacquiao is called a dumb because he pretends to explain bible phrases beyond their usual meaning, what is so strident about that? Yet he retains his parvenu status among the billionaires but he has not reached parvenu level among theologians.
“Respect is earned” is true. So is “To each it’s own”.
Pointing fingers unnecessarily is in itself uncivil.
Look who is talking !
He he he
Johnny Lin says
Continuing with Pacquiao as Parvenu:
If the Ayalas, Zobels, Aboitizes, Lopezes looked at Pacquiao with derision their action is a form of classism.
Those beneath the wealth of Pacquiao and deride him, their action is plain jealousy.
A famous Broadway play made into a movie about Parvenu is “The Unsinkable Molly Brown”
Johnny Lin says
Baycas
In poker – cal- c-u- lus
He he he
Rene-Ipil says
Snv@
I cannot respond to you intelligently as of now because I am still looking for any literature which contains the word parvenu that refers to the acceptance of a person as a leader. I have to conduct further research on the subject because all the while I thought that parvenu concerns economic status with negative connotation.
As to your re-use of the word calculus, I am also looking for any literature which contains the word calculus outside the ambit of mathematics and pathology.
Will get in touch with you soonest if time permitted me.
saxnviolins says
It is true that parvenu is used in terms of economic status. That is why I qualified it – “judicial parvenu”. Call it poetic license.
As to the term calculus for non-mathematical statements, call that the Supreme Court’s poetic license. Here are three:
Per curiam (By the court – walang gustong pumirma)
lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_144340_2002.html (three w’s in front)
“The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by the calculus.”
CJ Puno
lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/may2002/gr_133265_2002.html
“We cannot be made to believe that our policemen catch drug syndicates by using the calculus of chance.”
Romero
lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/apr1998/gr_120915_1998.html
It ought to be emphasized that in determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of our rules of evidence of which his knowledge is technically nil. Rather, he relies on the calculus of common sense which all reasonable men have in abundance.
Victin Luz says
Calculus of chance as used in the sentence for a policemen on the probability of catching drug syndicates so as Caculus of common sense which a reasonable men have in abundance in determining probable cause were utilized by the ponente’s because of the word probability and probable ( calculus – is a mathematical method by deriving or integrating series of time or rate of time ) directly referring to the policemen and reasonable men.
But in your quoted example ” that never comes to the calculus of any court ” the court can not derive or integrate CHANCE’s and COMMON SENSE’s any longer , the Court was now to WEIGH things ( calculus of chance by the policemen and calculus of common sense by the reasonable men ) and in WEIGHING the court will only use simple MATHEMATICS .
Calculus of reasoning based on facts by the accused,prosecutor or defense lawyer are just natural , but calculus of the court in arriving on a decision can not be allowed . Court will weigh evidences using simple math but no to calculus because in calculus you derive and integrate and here it is either you add or subtract FACT’s given to tthe court.
Victin Luz says
” Calculus of the court ” is very much different than that of ” calculus of chance and calculus of common sense ” as stated/quoted in you cmments sir.
Johnny Lin says
@ victin & Rene
Snv trying to impress with his Ll B degree and legal references. Citing parvenu as uncivil tangentially attacking CPM ers who might have resorted to name calling with a readon before is below the belt using a word he thought Rene did not understand. He could have stopped there when he tried to explain judicial parvenu to @ rene ipil and I would not have butted in. But snv tried to extend his condescension on @ rene by making examples of previous cpmers comments which was out of context to the word ” parvenu”, specicifically the phrase “judicial parvenu”.
He did not answer my posting for he had always stayed away to debate me on his postings.
Victin Luz says
@sir Johnny he he tama ka nga , He did not even answer your comments. Maybe he wanted to RE-ENGINEER our COURT’s.
Integral calculus if used by the court …..the court will be talking of INFINITE CHANGES of TIME ( REASONINGs ) . Walang hanggan na argumento.
Differential calculus if used by the court…….the court will be talking of PARTIAL DERIVATIVES on the CHANGES of TIMES ( REASONINGs ) against another CHANGES of TIME ( REASONINGs or SUBJECT MATTER ). Hati hatiin ng korte ang isang argumento ( base on facts ) at ihahambing ng korte ang nahati sa isang bagong argumento ( base on facts ) . Ay dito mas Malabo pa sa kumunuy Ito , he he the court can’t do calculus.
Simple Math Lang sir @saxnviolin….
Rene-Ipil says
Johnny, Victin @ 36.1
We are lucky that Victin is around. Obviously, he is knowleagiable on the meaning and application of calculus. Only an engineer or mathematician can argue with Victin on the concept and application of calculus. Lawyers are generally lousy mathematician. Of course there are exceptions because some engineers become lawyers. But I have yet to see a lawyer who becomes an engineer.
Victin Luz says
He he @Rene, Johnny …… Civil Engineer ako kaya Lang retired na ako 2001 pa and I graduated from MAPUA on the year 1976 and passed the board exam on the following year .
I went into farming and some business in Palawan afterward but now i am on vacation .
We are not hearing from our friend MEL, … For quite some time now….. Wala na ba tayong contact sa kanya? @ Sir MEL…… Magparamdam ka naman dyan sir he he……
baycas says
Calculus, guys, in…
Mathematics – method of calculation
Law – method of reasoning
Medicine – a stone
Driving – employed so one would avoid danger
Johnny Lin says
Baycas
In poker – Cal-c-u-lus
Rene-Ipil says
[email protected]
If I may extrapolate on your calculus of driving. I think it is a combined application of the calculus of chance and calculus of common sense. The driver has to calculate the chance or probability of hitting another vehicle or an immovable object. He must have sufficient amount of common sense to detect or calculate the probable behavior of other drivers along his lane or the opposite in order to avoid accident. Using calculus of mathematics would be inapplicable because it would be too late before he could derive or integrate the right answer in his mind.
You did not answer Johnny on his request for the calculus of poker. I want to learn also if calculus could be applied to calculate the chance of having a hand with four aces or a royal straight flush in a five card stud game.
Victin Luz says
It can be done @ Rene…in poker you don’t use calculus , they used advanced algebra….. Permutation, combination and probability …..mayroong foormula Ito in finding how many times are you going to shuffle the cards in relation to the number of players kaya lang, It will no longer work pag matalino o magaling ang player na mag CUT ng BARAHA.
Even in jai alai, karera ng kabayo , hueting…..ginagawa nila using the formula of permutation , combination and probability. Minsan natama ka after many years of betting in karera ng kabayo he he.
Victin Luz says
@Rene google and find …..permutation, combination and probability formula.
Tapos punta ka sa cards shuffling ..click mo he he hati tayo ng panalo mo sir @ Rene
vander anievas says
i’m gonna watch the outcome of this TRO. i believe in sereno. i know she finds her action prudent…
rOSARIO says
See, sa mga taong mapagkumbaba kahit pa matatalino, marunong humingi ng paunawa o apology pag natanto na sila ay nagkamali. Yan si Ma’m Raissa!
HIndi pareho ng iba dyan, mga arogante! (sotto) o kaya naman ay paawa epek (gma).
anyway, can somebody please tell what this news would this mean:
http://www.rappler.com/nation/14098-cj-sereno-stops-removal-of-aquino-ally-from-mayoral-post-in-cavite
545
TRO FOR MALIKSI. Sereno allows Maliksi to stay as mayor of Imus, Cavite.
MANILA, Philippines – Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on October 12, Friday, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) stopping the Commission on Elections (Comelec) from removing Imus Mayor Emmanuel “Manny” Maliksi from his post.
Sereno used her sole power to issue a TRO against the enforcement of an August 15 decision of the Comelec first division that declared Maliksi’s rival, Homer Saquilayan, the winner of the 2010 polls in Imus, Cavite.
Maliksi is an ally of President Benigno Aquino III in the Liberal Party.
“The Court finds it necessary and proper to issue a temporary restraining order to maintain status quo prevailing before the issuance of the assailed Comelec Resolution,” Sereno said in her resolution.
Under Rule 58, Section 5 of the rules of Court, “if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order.”
This is the first time that Sereno exercised this authority.
Aquino appointed Sereno as associate justice in 2010 and named her chief justice last August 24.
Comelec decision
The August 15 Comelec decision nullified a Cavite regional trial court ruling that installed Maliksi to the post after he filed an election protest.
In the said decision, the Comelec first division, chaired by Comelec Commissioner Rene Sarmiento, said Saquilayan was the rightful winner after a recount that showed he defeated Maliksi by 8,429 votes.
“After counting and appreciation of the appealed clustered precincts by this Commission, protestant appellee Maliksi got 40,092 votes while protestee-appellant Saquilayan got 48,521 or a difference of 8,429 votes,” the Comelec said. – Rappler.com
rOSARIO says
sa pagkakaintindi ko, nanalo si saquilayan ng mahigit 8,429 votes laban kay maliksi. at ang comelec ay nagbaba ng decision na si saquilayan ang panalo. kung ganoon, bakit nagbaba ng tro ang sc para hindi makaupo si saquilayan? anong grave injustice at irreperable injury?
ano yon? adding insult to injury?
7 more months mag eelection na. yon na lang ang natitirang panahon kay saquilayan para umupo pagka mayor na kung bilangan ang pagbabasehan ay panalo si saqulayan.
hindi rin pala marunong magbilang ang PCOS machine? hindi pa pala perfect ang bilangan?
at tsaka, bakit nanghihimasok ang sc sa comelec decision? meron bang isinampang tro si maliksi?
paki explain pls.
Victin Luz says
Ang RTC decision ano ba ang nangyari ? Dapat malaman muna natin kung papaano pinaboran ng RTC si Maliksi at napunta sa COMELEC ang kaso.
Was the election protest filed by Maliksi at RTC valid so that the latter proclaimed him the winer as mayor , then when it goes up at COMELEC it was reversed and installing Saquilayan winer by 8000votes also valid.
Let’s wait for the decision of the case by CJ Sereno first on who was telling the truth between RTC and the COMELEC.
Rene-Ipil says
[email protected]
Agree. I believe the case is undergoing the normal judicial process. CJ Sereno knew that favoring an ally of Pnoy would be criticized by many, but she “took the bull by the horns” and did what she had to do. Only the final result of the case could tell if CJ Sereno were right or wrong.
Victin Luz says
Winner as mayor , correction please my mistake.
rOSARIO says
thank you @ rene-ipil, victin Luz, vander anievas at sanxviolin
siguro nga, wait and see na lang. what is 7 months anyway.
http://www.mb.com.ph/node/341664/malik
pinaburan ng korte si maliksi raw ay nanalo ng 655 votes laban kay saquilayan.
Maliksi is Imus mayor — Court
By ANTHONY GIRON
November 17, 2011, 4:08pm
IMUS, Cavite, Philippines — A court has declared Emmanuel L. Maliksi, not Homer T. Saquilayan, as the duly-elected mayor of Imus town after a recounting of the ballots in the disputed results of the May 10, 2010 automated elections.
In a 269-page decision, Imus Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 22 Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang “annulled and set aside” the election and proclamation of Saquilayan as municipal mayor and “commanded (the town chief executive) to immediately cease and desist from performing office duties and functions.”
The judge said that Maliksi has a winning margin of 665 votes against Saquilayan.
Lawyer Romeo A. Francisco, legal consultant of the Office of the Mayor, said that Saquilayan will appeal the court decision. “The mayor’s office has filed a notice of appeal following the decision,” he told the Manila Bulletin and Tempo.
The court decision was released to both party counsels after it was signed by Mangrobang last Tuesday (November 15).
It was the first time that a court rendered a decision in favor of a losing candidate following the country’s first automated national and local elections in 2010, it was observed.
This developed as the Catholic Church and the police have appealed for calm and sobriety with the development on the electoral protest filed by Maliksi after the elections.
Tension gripped the historical town after the court released its decision on the election protest. Saquilayan, last month said that he would not step down from office with the ouster movement.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/118765/maliksi-takes-oath-as-imus-mayor-rival-camp-masses-up
ito dec kung saan si maliksi took his oath as mayor.
leona says
I find this election case, from a court of law then to the COMELEC under the Election Code. A question mark ?
In our Constitution, `ART. VIII SEC. 1 and second paragraph says that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights, etc. Why should a law, is it the Revised Election Code, “review or change”, etc. a decision of a court? From judicial to semi-judicial (COMELEC)? Is this not unconstitutional under ART. VIII? And then from COMELEC back to judicial, before the Supreme Court?
It engraves or allows judicial decisions to be mixed with politics which should not be the case.
This eating too much of the cake!
chris says
Bravo Raissa for admitting your mistakes and actually offered your apology to Senator Pia Cayetano. You have just demonstrated that you are a classy journalist. For doing so, its shows to all of us here in the CPMers and other readers that your integrity can never be question and I admire you for that Raissa.
More power to you Raissa and to your husband Allan. Keep up the good work.
Victin Luz says
Yes , we salute you mam RAISSA . a first class journalist indeed.
Please how about writing RECTO’s Tobacco sin tax bill. Thanks
Johnny Lin says
Latest News:
Senate Bill # 33000
“Empowering Netizens incrafting PH Bills” by Sen T. Guingona
Good or bad? Depending on provisions? Details unknown.
Another stage for United Netizens, the CPMers party list. @ baycas file copyright bago masotto.
He he he
baycas says
Edict No. 3
I therefore decree
That netizens be free
But that netizens must be
With utmost care and responsibility
Joe America says
Nice poem and superior wisdom, but I think it is not so simple. I have always held that the meaning of an expression is best determined by the person doing the expressing. But the libel law permits the person doing the hearing to determine the meaning. So one person’s responsibility (someone screaming “Sotto is a jerk” to put constructive pressure on him to be a little more deep in his interpretation of free speech) is perhaps Senator Sotto’s irresponsibility (“you are besmirching my honor!!!”).
As long as laws favor the person doing the hearing, which for some strange reason always seems to be the people in charge, then the laws will promote totalitarian thuggery and something other than free expression.
vander anievas says
all it take is an intellectual and composed person to admit mistake. much more, an apology for the error. mabuhay ka ms. raissa!
Johnny Lin says
Latest News:
Senator Recto watered down Sin Tax Bill
Mr Vilma Santos may not be a legitimate movie personality, yet he is identified in that group aside from being the grandson of a nationalist, Claro Recto.
Recto claims the reason he is offering a lower tax for tobacco is to help the poor because with a higher tax, the tobacco manufacturers will just pass the higher costs to the consumers so the poor will be most affected.
Everyday, Lito Lapid appears to be an Einstein rather than high shool graduate the way his colleagues reveal their true wisdom. Recto’s reasoning could be summed up as pure garbage by declaring he is for equality, that is equal access of the rich and poor to consumer products.
Raising taxes on cigarettes is to promote health, discourage smoking and increase revenue if number of smokers do not decline significantly or retain current revenues if the smokers reduce in numbers due to high cost of the products. The bill was never intended to be about equal rights. It was a preventive measure to protect the poor who could least afford medical care from the cancerous and respiratory illness of cigarette smoking. It is a government fiscal responsibility to reduce government spending by reducing health care cost, an environmental program reducing air pollution.
Another moron is coming up from the movie sector. Lapid looks like the genius in the cinematic senatorial group.
Oh well, Mr Sharon Cuneta too! He he he
andrew lim says
It should be noted that the manufacturing facility of Philip Morris is in Tanauan Batangas, the home province of who?
isellnuts says
ng mga recto.
DannyG says
…. as everybody knows, he is the only Recto that is not Claro. Shall we call him, RaPhilips Moribund s ! Remember Vi, remember Vat !!!!
Cha says
Sold down the river
Get Real
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
8:15 pm | Friday, October 12th, 2012
Last month—Sept. 6 at 7:01 p.m., to be precise—I received the following text message: “Recto called a secret meeting today with the tobacco companies. He’s rallying them to support the Philip Morris reco (recommendation-SCM) of 3-tiers or something close. And they were sworn to secrecy.”
The “Recto” in the text message refers, of course, to Sen. Ralph Recto, who chairs the Senate ways and means committee, and who at that time had conducted at least three hearings on the sin tax bills and had scheduled a fourth. The sin tax bills before him were the so-called “Amended Abaya” version that had been approved by the House of Representatives, another that had been proposed by Sen. Panfilo Lacson, and two that had been authored by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago (one dealing with tobacco, and the other with both tobacco and liquor).
I immediately texted back (it was not an anonymous text message; the texter is a friend whom I hold in high esteem): “What or who is your source? Where was the secret meeting? Can I have more details?”
And the answer was: “They wer at the meeting but sworn to secrecy. I couldn’t more info. But even Drilon didn’t know abt the meeting and he’s sposed to be vice chair.”
Because I could not talk to the source, my hands were tied. I had to give Senator Recto the benefit of the doubt, but I decided that I would definitely attend the next (last) Senate hearing and, as the saying goes, see what I could see.
The last hearing was held on Sept. 20, to a packed audience, and with government big guns in attendance (Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima, Health Secretary Enrique Ona, Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares), as well as representatives of the tobacco companies, the so-called Philippine Tobacco Institute or PTI (the mouthpiece of the industry, “the authoritative source of information,” having “commercial and technical expertise”), civil society organizations who are prohealth/antismoking, including a representative of the Bangkok-based South East Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (Seatca).
It was clear that the tobacco lobby was under the gun. The evidence presented by the health/finance lobby was overwhelming, from studies based on surveys here and abroad, by both economists and medical experts. For example, an updated (2011) estimate of the economic burden from smoking, was valued at P188.8 billion a year. Antonio L. Dans, MD (professor, University of the Philippines College of Medicine; president, Philippine Society of General Internal Medicine; president, Asia-Pacific Center for Evidence-Based Medicine), gave 10 reasons why this was an underestimate.
Moreover, evidence-based estimates were provided to the Recto committee on the impact of the Santiago bill, summarized thus: increases in excise tax revenues ranging from P25 billion to P54 billion (depending on specified assumptions); a drop in smoking prevalence (the percentage of Filipinos who smoke) by 8 percentage points; 4.3 million smokers quit; 130,000 deaths prevented.
Not only that, the data presented by the tobacco lobby to prove its claims were cut to bits, both orally and in writing. One particularly egregious error: The claim is that tobacco farming employment (later amended as tobacco farmers and dependents) is 840,146, as presented by the PTI. An earlier estimate, presented by Philip Morris Fortune Tobacco Corp. (PMFTC) and supposedly derived from the corporate planning department of the National Tobacco Administration in December 2009, gave that figure as 1,842,337. That’s a difference of 1 million, in case the Reader missed it.
But let us use the lower estimate, and see what liberties the tobacco lobby takes with the truth. The number of hectares in the Philippines devoted to tobacco farming is estimated at 32,235 by the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. Now divide the number of tobacco farmers/dependents by the area planted to tobacco, and you get 26—meaning, there are 26 tobacco farmers/dependents per hectare of tobacco. Can you imagine if we used the PMFTC figure of 1.8 million people in tobacco farming? That would mean 57 people per hectare. Ridiculous, right? But the tobacco lobby continues to use the “data.”
Another blatant inaccuracy that the tobacco lobby tried to sell during the hearing was that the Thai experience in tobacco control was a failure. The Bangkok-based Seatca set the record straight in a letter to Senator Recto: In Thailand, the increase in tobacco excises resulted in an almost threefold increase in government revenues, as well as a decrease in smoking prevalence.
Before the end of the hearing, Recto asked for all parties concerned to submit their presentations and their studies to his committee. And since the (hard) evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of the Santiago proposal, I thought that the health/finance lobby would win hands down.
I thought wrong. The report that Recto just released totally ignores the Santiago proposal (Senator Santiago was “gobsmacked”—i.e., dumbfounded, shocked), and is, as my texter warned, strikingly similar to the PMFTC recommendation, complete with the 3-tiered excise tax schedule (the Amended Abaya has two tiers, the Santiago proposal has a unitary tax). In fact, it is actually a watered-down version of the PMFTC proposal.
Recto claims his version is “reasonable, realistic, responsible.” Ridiculous. His claim will be true only if his constituency was the tobacco lobby. But he was elected by the Filipino people, whom he has just sold down the river. For shame!
vander anievas says
recto strikes again…
Rene-Ipil says
[email protected]
It is really a shame. The sin tax bill should be renamed “nirvana” tax bill. Recto wants to tax the people at a rate so low that as many of them as possible can afford to smoke cigarettes all they want to feel good as if they were in heaven.
Consider that the Philippines has the lowest cost of cigarettes in South East Asia. But the government spend 144B pesos for health services due to the effects of smoking especially for poor people who became sick due to smoking cigarrettes. While smokers reach heaven, the rest of us are destined to hell by spending for their cure. And by imposing high rate of tax on cigarrettes only the rich can afford to smoke it all they want. Anyway the rich has the resources to seek treatment for related illness and does not have to rely on the government.
Cha says
@Rene-ipil,
That the Philippines has the lowest cost of cigarettes in South East Asia….
I understand a pack of Marlboro in the Philippines costs around P40 right? Well, here in Australia It’s $16 or a little over P 670 !
Senator Recto must love the poor so much. he wants to give them cancer at such low prices.
leona says
It would be a wonderful world here is Congress enacts a law under police powers to absolutely prohibit tobacco plainting and manufacturing cigarettes for good! Use the lands for fruit bearing trees instead. Farmers and employees and cigarette smokers/users will stay healthier and productive with brainds or minds free of smoke. It pollutes the brains actually. CA disease will be reduced!
No More CIGARETTES!
pelang says
here in europe,cigarettes had increased their prices in the last 20 years 100 % times. that doesn’t stop the smokers from smoking and doesn’t deprive the govt. to earn their sales tax . and when they increased their prices, only the cigarette smokers protested but not any member of the government.not even the tobacco concerns protested, they didn’t lose anything because they simply passed this on to the consumers. Dito pala sa atin, iyon pang agent ng govt. ang nag-sa-suggest na huwag taasan ang presyo ng sigarilyo at ang reason, konti na lang ang bibili at kikitain ng mga tobacco company. in europe, cigarette price differ for every country. in germany for example, a pack of cigarette cost 5 Euros and more, in England probably €8 while in Norway, in Switzerland probably 8€ and in Norway 12 € or more. same with alcohol, by far in Germany is the cheapest. in other countries, more especially in the scandanavian countries like Denmark, Sweden and Norway because of tax and see how progressive their countries are and there are less of like them in their countries. There is even a limit for them to buy alcohol in the shops only a certain amount of liter is allowed and they are very expensive. . i also heard that they go to the borders (germany and even england) just to get drunk.
vander anievas says
it goes to say that doing sin business in the phl is being protected by the gov’t…:)
Victin Luz says
Parang 2nd cropping or sometimes 3rd cropping nila ang tobacco sa northern Luzon @ mam Leona , especially those unirrigated agricultural lands . Before , 1980’s they introduced cotton as 2nd cropping but prices were manipulated per kilo so farmers in our place went back planting tobacco.
it will be like stopping marijuana but continous smoothly in the Cordillera mountains if the government will slow down the production/ plantation of tobacco.
The best solution is really to increase the TAXES of tobacco , beginning from the planter up to the producer he he and up to the untouchables like LUCIO TAN and CHAVIT SINGSON. Kaya Lang mahirap siguro itong mangyari kasi kakampi ni ENRILE at ESTILITO MENDOZA ang mga taong Ito. Pero if we Filipinos unite together ” kaya natin sila ”
pag mataas na ang prices ng sigarilyo mababawasan ang gagamit na mga bata lalo na mga walang trabaho at natural kakaunti na ang magtatanim ng tobacco at nagkakaroon sila ng alternative na product na kagaya ng sinabi mo @ mam Leona …. Prutas o gulay kaya na nahingi ng kaunting tubig para tumubo at mabuhay.
leona says
Gov’t can put even prohibitive prices for cigarettes but smokers will still go for it at the expense of all other good items to buy. As long as it is there to be bought, users of cigarettes will be there. Remember…it is nice to do things prohibited!
The American Indians I think were one who planted tobacco. Now, they may only smoke it for “peace negotiations”? After that, no more smoking.
Johnny Lin says
Kapag mura ang pagkain binili, marami bibilhin at madalas kumain kaya madaling tumaba, mataas ang cholesterol at madaling maatake. Kapag mahal, kaunti binibili, kaunti kain, pipilitin bawasan ang gamit at pagbili, kaunti ang epekto sa katawan,matagal bago tumaba.
Prinsipyo sa panukala sa sigarilyo halos kapareho ng pagtaba galing sa pagkain.
Kabaligtaran kapag naghahanda sa fiesta:
Huwag maghapag ng ma-ang-hang o luto sa sili dahil sili nakakagana, mapapalakas kain ang bisita at uminom, dadagdagan pa ng balot sa handa.
Magluto ng matabang, halos walang lasa para hindi malakas kumain at hindi magba-lot.
Kaya pag dumayo sa pistahan, hanapin ang bahay na mas marami ang papalabas kaysa sa papasok para masulit ang gastos sa pasahe.
He he he