Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Janet Lim Napoles stopped the Senate twice from investigating her

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

By Raïssa Robles

Janet Lim Napoles is indeed a very powerful and well-connected woman. So powerful, she was able to stop the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee from investigating her not just once but twice.

The first time was in 2006 and is well documented by various media outlets.

The second time – in late 2008 to early 2009 – is not so well known.

The Napoles pork scandal may have lifted the veil on why in a sea of poverty, a few Filipinos are super-wealthy.

If true, today’s testimony of Ruby Tuason is a shocking tale of greed.  It calls to mind what Mario Puzo in The Godfather wrote paraphrasing Honoré de Balzac  – that “behind every great fortune there is a crime.”

Tuason sheds a bit more light on why then Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Chairman Richard Gordon simply stopped investigating Janet Lim Napoles on the fertilizer fund scam from 2008 to 2009.

The pork suspect-turned-whistleblower narrated today under oath how Napoles tried to persuade her to use her connections to stop Gordon’s 2008-2009 investigation:

“I was in the States at that time. She (Janet Lim Napoles) kept on bugging me to come back to help her. I said I can’t.”

But apparently, Napoles found a way without Tuason’s help. It turned out, she no longer needed Tuason.

And Napoles continued to corner  senators’ pork in bigger and bigger amounts, until she made the mistake of quarreling with her assistant Benhur Luy and forcing him to go on a “spiritual retreat” – which Luy claimed was another word for kidnapping.

Just to put my narration in context, let me go back to 2006 when the Senate Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee conducted a joint investigation of the fertilizer fund scam of Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-Joc” Bolante.

According to Senate Agriculture Committee chair Ramon “Jun” Magsaysay, Janet Lim Napoles was about to testify on her part in the scam when her appearance was overtaken by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s order barring all government officials under the executive department from attending congressional probes without Arroyo’s consent. Magsaysay was quoted by radio station DZMM as saying that

“She (Janet Lim Napoles) was not summoned to the first five hearings but on the 6th one, which was supposed to be on February 25, (2006), na kasama siya, walang dumating because of Executive Order 464 from Malacañang.”

It would take another two years before the Senate would investigate the fertilizer scam once more. Shortly before Christmas of 2008, Senator Richard Gordon gave Janet Lim Napoles a nasty Christmas gift. Gordon issued the following press release saying he had issued a subpoena against Janet Lim Napoles, the government’s second largest supplier of fertilizer on record.

The original press release can be viewed by clicking on this link.

In January, Senator Gordon who is a brilliant legislator and outstanding manager, issued another press release saying, “foundations were used to launder money” in the fertilizer fund scam. Gordon was right on the money.  

The original press release can be viewed by clicking on this link.

The next month, however, Gordon suddenly dropped his investigation of Janet Lim Napoles. Here is his press release to that effect:

The original press release can be viewed by clicking on this link.

After the Napoles scandal broke out last year, former Senator Gordon (now the chairman of the Philippine Red Cross) told GMA News in a text message that his committee’s “principal focus (was) Bolante and other big fish.”

“At the time, we had a good lead against all conspirators specifically Bolante and the others, which was our mandate. If you look at our report, we said the Ombudsman can continue with the rest of the investigation. That is what they are supposed to do,” the former senator said.

I couldn’t buy that explanation and I thought there was something deeper because from what I personally know talking to him all these years, Gordon is a very smart man. Obviously, everybody knows by now that Napoles is a far bigger fish than Bolante. Did Gordon know it at that time? 

 I tried phoning Gordon several times to find out but his two mobile phones just kept on ringing.

* * *

Today’s Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing under Senator TG Guingona breaks one of those unwritten rules in Congress. And this is – you do not rat on your own colleagues.

It is also an example of life’s irony – that the woman who could do serious political damage to allies of ex-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is a distant relative of her husband.

* * *

In the year 2008, Juan Ponce Enrile was the Senate President and Senator Jinggoy Estrada the Senate President Pro Tempore.

Today’s whistleblower, Ruby Tuason, said she delivered commissions to both Enrile and Estrada at that time through their aides. Both senators have denied this saying Ruby is lying to save her own skin.

Can the Senate really be THIS CORRUPT? I don’t want to prejudge the Napoles case. But two things have been established by the unfolding scandal:

First, it’s fun to be a Senator and a senator’s aide. You are in the highest circles of power and wealth. It can make you giddy.

And second, it’s financially rewarding to be well-connected to senators and other top government officials.

The two videos below say it all. You might have seen both in the past but watch it again in the context of what the nation now knows about the Napoles pork scam. Please note though that the music is gone in both videos because YouTube said these were copyright material. Er, wasn’t it the Senate that helped pass the copyright law?

If Napoles did steal tax money, then we helped finance her daughter’s lavish 21st birthday party.

If Napoles did steal tax money with some senators’ knowledge, then we now know why the senators in the video below were very happy celebrating the birthday of Gigi Reyes, Enrile’s aide-lover (according to Senator Miriam Santiago).

Of course, because you as a taxpayer allegedly paid for both celebrations, you probably won’t be as happy.

Comments

  1. The Supreme Court declares that Section 4(c)4 – online libel – of the Cybercrime Law (CCL) is constitutional. Meaning that online libel is an offense penalized by the CCL – NOT by the Revised Penal Code because the penal code does not include online libel. Indeed, Section 4(c)4 defines the elements of the crime of online libel. But the CCL does not impose any penalty for the offense of online libel.

    Section 8 of the CCL provides penalties for ALL the punishable acts defined in Sections 4 and 5 of the CCL, EXCEPT online libel. Section 8 of the CCL provides:

    “CHAPTER III
    PENALTIES

    “SEC. 8. Penalties. — Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both.

    “Any person found guilty of the punishable act under Section 4(a)(5) shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) or both.

    “If punishable acts in Section 4(a) are committed against critical infrastructure, the penalty of reclusion temporal or a fine of at least Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) up to maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both, shall be imposed.

    “Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding One million pesos (PhP1,000,000.00) or both.

    “Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(2) of this Act shall be punished with the penalties as enumerated in Republic Act No. 9775 or the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009″: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a computer system.

    “Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(3) shall be punished with imprisonment of arresto mayor or a fine of at least Fifty thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) but not exceeding Two hundred fifty thousand pesos (PhP250,000.00) or both.

    “Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 5 shall be punished with imprisonment one (1) degree lower than that of the prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine of at least One hundred thousand pesos (PhP100,000.00) but not exceeding Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) or both.”

    It appears that online libel is an offense that does not carry any penalty. But I stand corrected.

    Can anybody specify any penalty for the crime of online libel?

        • According to Jojo Malig of ABS-CBNNews – one court case says – saying putang-ina – is not libelous –
          Jojo Pasion Malig @JojoMalig
          Reyes v. People [137 Phil. 112, 120 (1969)], expression “putang ina mo” is common utterance not to slander but express anger or displeasure.

        • can we use the del format?

          example; “putang-ina”

          kung sa video (tv) or radio, may beep sound to voice over a derogatory word, eh anu naman ang sa online?

          refering to politicos and public personas, baka namang puwede ang INITIALS sa CPM, en then ang full definition sa isang scribd doc.

        • …right on that! But interchange that phrase like ‘ang ina mo ay puta’ is much different…no jurisprudence on that…so we shouldn’t try it…even for a joke …not expressive of anger anymore but a definite false statement…libelous at that.

          My opn…

    • How will all this affect Raissa’s blog and the contributors ?
      Hope Raissa can enlightenen us

    • @Rene…it would be very beautiful if there is a crime but without any penalty!

      hahaha

      …same goes for if there is a penalty but there is no crime!

      hehehe

    • Sec. 4 RA 10175 provides: “SEC. (c) 4. Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through A COMPUTER SYSTEM or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” [Caps mine]

      ‘as defined in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code,as amended” …no need to explain

      SEC. 6 of RA 10175 provides: “ALL CRIMES defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, xxx IF COMMITTED BY, THROUGH AND WITH THE USE OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES SHALL BE COVERED BY THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, Provided, THAT THE PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED SHALL BE ONE (1) DEGREE HIGHER than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended xxx”…
      this [to my opn] coveres LIBEL, and the Rev. Penal Code, provides a penalty of “prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine from P200 to P6,000 pesos, or both xxx [Art. 355 Rev. Penal Code, as amended] –

      …one degree higher will be prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum [under penalties of the Rev. Penal Code, as amended – Article 71 of the Code]

      In my opn, there is no need to provide specifically for the penalty of the crime of LIBEL in Chapter II on PENALTIES of RA 10175 [Cybercrime law] because of the specific provision of imposing such PENALTY already in SECTION 6 of RA 10175 [above stated]. Thus, it was done away with in ALL under SEC. 8 on PENALTIES of RA 10175.

      Na una…on SEC. 6 provision…

      In short, one does not find ‘penalty’ under SEC. 8 on PENALTIES RA 10175 on CRIME FOR LIBEL anymore.

      …as it is on SEC. 6 RA 10175 as correlated to SEC.(c) 4 RA 10175.

      Now, the penalty for LIBEL under Cybercrime Law ‘as defined by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is higher – to prison correccional medium to prision mayor minimum – 2 Years 4 Months 1 Day to 8 Years, or the FINE P12,000 pesos.

      I can stand corrected on this too. Anybody? Thanks @Rene…

      • …correction on the penalty …prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum – 4 Year 2 Months 1 Day to 8 Years – the courts can “divide’ this into 3 for durational imposition depending on circumstances:

        Minimum period – 4 yrs 2 mo. 1 day to 5 yrs. 5 mo. 10 d.
        Medium period – 5 yrs. 5 mo. 11 d. to 6 yrs. 8 mo. 20 d.;
        Maximum period – 6 yrs. 8 mo. 21 d. to 8 yrs.

    • [email protected]

      The Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional Section 7, or the liability under OTHER laws, “as far as it authorizes the prosecution of an offender under both section 4-c-4 (online libel) and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code.” Meaning that online libel offenders can be prosecuted only under the CCL because the RPC does not include online libel.

      Section 6 of the CCL would not apply because it refers only to “crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended…” The keywords are “DEFINED and PENALIZED.” Meaning that crime is defined to establish its elements because all elements of the crime must be satisfied before an offender could be indicted. That corresponding penalty must be specified to punish the offender upon conviction.

      In Section 4(c)4, elements of the crime of online libel consist of the elements of the crime of (ordinary) libel as defined in Article 355 of the RPC plus the use of computer. Please take note that computer use is not an element of the crime of (ordinary) libel. In other words, Section 4(c)4 adopted the definition but NOT the penalty corresponding to Article 355 of the RPC.

      Online libel is NOT “defined and penalized” in the RPC. And only RPC crimes like theft, swindling, plunder, malversation, etc. are penalized one degree higher under Section 6 of CCL when computer is used in the commission of the offense. Meaning that Section 6 does not apply to online libel. Meaning also that when TITO SEN inserted the definition of online libel into the CCL, he did not bother to insert a specific penalty. Instead a vague provision in Section 7 of the CCL was included, which provision says that “A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.”

      TITO SEN ensured that online libel could be prosecuted under Section 7 of the CCL. Unfortunately for TITO SEN, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 7 is unconstitutional “as far as it authorizes the prosecution of an offender under both section 4-c-4 (online libel) and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code.”

      • @Rene…’@Rene…it would be very beautiful if there is a crime but without any penalty!

        hahaha

        …same goes for if there is a penalty but there is no crime!’ No. 45. 4

        You say like this …”Meaning that online libel offenders can be prosecuted only under the CCL because the RPC does not include online libel.”

        Are you saying prosecuting can be done but there is no penalty provided in case of being found guilty? What is the penalty…if none you maintain this?] then we should be
        happy and joyful!

        I do not want to say anything…words to that effect…on the ponente [writer of the decision] – and the concurring justices…how the rationale and reasoning came out like this…WITHOUT A PENALTY on Libel…!

        Your impression may not be according to the Court’s understanding…my simply answer would be “If the Court, as you said, find/found that there is no legal penalty provided for Libel on Cybercrime Law, then there is no crime since there is no PENALTY or vice versa…No penalty NO CRIME!

        A “Partial Motion For Reconsideration” then on this point?

        • @Rene…you first made this remark on No. 45 “But the CCL does not impose any penalty for the offense of online libel.”

          What is ‘a crime’ for if there is ‘no penalty’? We go back to our original discussions that the Congress…the Senate in it’s insertions etc. made a blunderous mistake, and now the high Court carries this mistake…no penalty for the crime of Libel in CCL?

          Let us wish/hope you are exactly right and the Court realizes it and declares Libel in CCL is gravely defective…resulting in in this specific provision as unconstitutional ‘for being an incomplete law that tantamount to no law at all..

  2. Update: Diversionary Tactics
    Please read the 2 news links 1st before my comment below.

    Scuffles break out as protesters hurl slurs, abuse at mainland Chinese tourists
    http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1429205/hong-kong-protesters-tell-mainland-chinese-tourists-go-home

    2 day ago: China military port ‘gets key Hong Kong go-ahead’
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jA4Xah7BWpvbqxQrn4MesaYt1q1A?docId=b1e314e8-02b0-418d-bd28-f9f0f1030c90&hl=en

    Since the hate, dispute and slurs are growing evidently (even in the comment section of news & social media/weibo) between HKers and mainland Chinese. I kinda felt that one of these days someone (either Beijing or HK) government will raise the specter of the “Manila bus hostage tragedy.” to divert the attention of the publlic.

    lo and behold, today’s news:

    Show ‘sincerity’ over Manila hostage row or face further sanctions, Leung tells Philippines
    http://www.scmp.com/article/1430184/show-sincerity-manila-hostage-row-sanctions-leung-tells-philippines-aquino

    • My unsolicited advice to our government officials and DFA is to don’t bother respond or engage HK officials in their theatrics, like CY Leung threats.

      In my opinion they are desperately trying to look for a perceived common enemy (CH & HK) so that the current issues and disputes that they are facing will be forgotten for awhile.

      As i have posted before in Raissa comment section, from Beijing’s failed national education plan for HK, to the upcoming “fake” universal suffrage vote in 2017 where in Beijing still hand picks the candidates for HK Chief Executive, to mainlanders buying properties/flats and products (like powder milk) in HK -> driving the cost up for HKers, from Cantonese being not a official language according to HK Education Bureau which aggravated a lot of people.

      As we say in tagalog “Pabayaan na lang natin silang magisa sa sariling mantika.”

      • hongkong’s chief executive, cy leung, would just have to wait for 2016 to get his apology. PNoy is never goint to apologize while in office, maybe the next president will. if bongbong marcos wins the presidency, he will surely apologize. already, he’s pushing for PNoy to apologize. bong might even appoint his mother as ambassador to both hongkong and china where she can shop until she drops. if binay becomes president, he will surely apologize, luluhod pa yan, hahalik sa paa ni cy leung. if jinggoy becomes president, he’ll not only apologize but may even transfer his stolen money to hongkong and invest there, out of the bounds of the filipino people. if bong revilla becomes president, nah, he wont become president. he is going to be undone by the toy truck.

  3. …advanced first [detention] day Junggoy…malapit na!

    Sen. Jiggoy said ““If you or anybody has any goods against me, I think the proper forum is the committee on ethics. It think it’s unfair for me and Senator [Juan Ponce] Enrile that the outcome has already been prejudged…” Ruby T. delivered the good! Right is the senator…don’t prejudged…since the goods were delivered…judged !

    He is right that there should be no ‘Guingona’s conclusion’ yet.

    …and Sen. P. Cayetano said “Just] let history judge and allow Senator Jinggoy to have a happy birthday despite all the challenges,” Indeed after that hearing, history came in…and judgment it concluded !

  4. ““I wish they’d appear as private prosecutors,” Enrile said referring to Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Antonio Trillanes IV, two senators he had tangled with on the floor in the past, and whose line of questioning in last week’s Blue Ribbon hearing was seen as noticeably veering toward trying to get Tuason to pin down Enrile.” say Tanda [Phil news link]

    Indeed! But once the case is filed in court, isn’t he in jail or in the hospital? So, how can he put up a challenge to the two senators-prosecs?

    But it will be a heyday indeed because all three have no extensive years in litigation-prosecuting criminal cases; and the Sandiganbayan court will not allow it due to their delays committed atbpa.

    Meanwhile Erap said ” “Let us always presume that people are innocent, unless proven guilty; and yet these people seem to be the prosecutor, they always insinuate that people are always guilty, even if they haven’t been tried yet, that was they did to me when they impeached me,” …

    …and he [Erap] was indeed convicted! Lucky you getting that absolute pardon me!

    http://www.philnews.com/headlines/2014/headline_news_0217ab.htm

    • “MANILA — Actor Mat Ranillo III has expressed willingness to return to the Philippines after his name was dragged into the multibillion-peso pork barrel scam, according to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

      An ABS-CBN News source said the NBI has already located Ranillo and has talked to him.

      Ranillo is now consulting with his lawyers for the affidavit that he will submit to the NBI, the source said.”

      link http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/13/14/mat-ranillo-willing-surface-source-says

      ..a SUPER DUNK[ing donut] indeed…not a slam dunk!

      ..Matt, when are you coming to delivered that ‘good’ SUPER DUNK? We, the people want you to lay it up, jump shot it, toss it, free throw it, JUST DELIVER IT !

    • @drill…when [if] this happens, a BLACK HOLE in Cyberspace indeed!

      …Libel is one crime of Spanish origin…about time this law should be abolished/repealed!

      …we’d rather approve someone lambasting a public official to heavens without going to jail rather than being muzzled not to because of this law. The remedy is civil liability…to keep the Free Speech Market Free!

      …in the US practice, candidates for justices in their SC is scrutinized by not only the president but the Senate…checking what the person holds in his/her mind – everything is checked! Now, in our case, JBC only ‘chicks’ superficially…PADRINO palakasan ‘o palusotan system!

      …be prepared going into black holes in our justice system…abangan!

    • “THE Supreme Court is poised to declare as illegal several provisions of Republic Act (RA) 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, whose constitutionality was challenged by several groups after President Benigno Aquino 3rd signed the measure into law in 2012.
      A well-placed source said the Court’s justices had started voting on the contentious provisions but they were not able to finish because each of them needs to vote for each challenged provision.

      The magistrates are expected to finish voting on Tuesday.

      The source said the justices have agreed in principle to clip the powers of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which under the law was granted the authority to shut down websites.
      The source said an overwhelming majority, if not all, of the justices may declare Section 19 of the Cybercrime law unconstitutional.
      Section 19 or the takedown clause allows the DOJ to close websites it considers to contain harmful content based merely on prima facie evidence and even without a court order.
      During the oral arguments, Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza had admitted that the clause is unconstitutional.”

      link http://www.philnews.com/headlines/2014/headline_news_0217ac.htm

      Children ‘s interests vs porno will be saved.

      But the news says “They also want to protect journalists against online libel since the penalty and the provisions of Libel in the Revised Penal Code (Article 353,354, 355, 361 and 362) are not applicable with the online libel provision in the Cybercrime law.”

      Right Messrs. Justices…Libel provisons in the RPC code are not applicable on ‘online’ in the Cybercrime law. [Let’s hope indeed]

  6. To make the story short..Si
    Ina(Loi) at Anak(Jinggoy) at isama na natin pati si Ama(Erap) ay iisa ang mga dugo. Kung Ano ang puno siya ang bunga! Sosyal ang pamilyang ito, dapat sosyalidad at milyonarya ang taga dala ng miryenda para kay Anak. Gising at imulat ang mga mata mga kabayan!
    Eto pa: Wish ni JPE sa 51st Birthday ni Jinggoy-unggoy na makitang kalahok siya sa 2016 presidential election…Aray ko!

      • Tama ka Leona! Ang kakapal ng mga mukha ng mga politikong ito! Panahon na para pagtatagpasin ang mga masasamang UGAT ng ating gubyerno..Itaga mo sa bato, hanggat nakapaligid ang mga pamilya at kaalyado ng mga Marcoses, Arroyos, Estradas, Enrile at Revillas walang pagbabago ang ating pamahalaan. Ito ang mga LUBAK sa daang matuwid ng ating bansa at ng ating mga buhay! Gising na!

  7. Senate Doesn’t Need 100 Days To Check Senate CCTV .Can Possibly Be Done In Mere Hours Or Minutes !!
    —————————————————————————–

    Rappler has an interesting story about how the Senate will need 100 days to check the video footage at the lobby and six floors to determine if Ruby Tuazon had indeed been at the Senate to deliver Jinggoy the kickbacks.

    http://www.rappler.com/nation/50786-senate-security-cctv

    Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Major Gen Jose Balajadia Jr said his office needs 100 days, with his staff working 24/7, to finish going over the videos.

    That is pure madness.Facial recognition software is so advanced that its now possible for specialized facial recognition software to able to capture a face and search up to 36 million faces in one second !!

    Check this out regarding Hitachi facial recognition software :

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/goodbye-anonymity-latest-surveillance-tech-can-search-up-to-36-million-faces-per-second/

    Hitach is not the only vendor.There are many others.

    The Senate is just wasting public funds in deploying staff for 100 days to check the video footages.

    Maybe Raissa could contact Hitachi and or others and some of them will probably be only too happy to demo their software and do the job of tracking Tuazon at the Senate for free ..and all done in minutes !! It will be great publicity for these vendors !!

    Furthermore , the vendors may also have the algorithm in some of these software to determine if the video footages have been tampered.

  9. I don’t understand how can EO 464 affect Napoles’ presence in the hearing when she is not, was not a government employee in the first place.

    • @ Notty,

      Tama ka Notty, Walang bisa ang EO ni Gloria pero ang tingin ko diyan ay maaaring NAGKABAYARAN, NAGKASUHOLAN, NAGKASABWATAN mga MANDARAMBONG na mga miyembro nang senate blue ribbon committee para makalusot ang REYNA nang MANDARAMBONG na si janet lim napoles….

      • @ Kahit nga ang korte suprema noon ay walang ginawang hakbang kahit alam nang mga TUTAng justices na ito na sinasaklaw nang EO 464 ang karapatan nang lahat nang Mamamamayan na malaman ang katutuhanan tungkol sa KATIWALIAN nang mga MAGNANAKAW sa kaban nang Bayan…

        Samakatuwid ang EO 464 ay ginawa ni GMA para maitago ang katiwalian sa kanyang Pamahalaan at ang Pagnanakaw nang limpak limpak na SALAPI sa Kaban nang Bayan…

  10. post his here…Skyway 3…today until 2 years or more…some roads at the SExpress Way will be closed…AVOID these routes…from Manila North going SOUTH…use Roxas Blvd to Coastal for SOUTH destination…

    passed this yesterday to Muntinlupa City…lucky me…no traffic yet BUT TODAY MMDA has closed the roads in the area of construction…from Buendia Ave. Makati City. see link of news

    • Can just imagine the traffic! Good that didn’t book plane tickets yet, will certainly avoid Manila and just use Clark instead.

    • InterAksyon.com
      The online news portal of TV5

      MANILA – Residents of the Metro Manila got the first taste Monday of a traffic nightmare that will likely worsen and drag on for four years, city officials warned.

      Several lanes of the capital’s main highways will be closed starting Monday night as part of a series of road construction and upgrading projects for the city of about 12 million, the officials said.

      “We are informing the general public to brace for the traffic situation which we will be encountering for the next four years,” said Francisco Manalo, executive director of the MMDA traffic office, as angry commuters took to social media to vent their frustrations.

      Manalo warned that once construction began, vehicles on the city’s main roads would literally be reduced to crawling speed of one to nine kilometers an hour, compared to the already slow normal 20 kilometers per hour.

      Motorists and commuters fearful of getting stuck on the roads left home earlier than usual Monday.” Interaction news.

      Why go into ‘congestion’ construction of such skyway 3 project?

      Why not put that skyway to start along the coastal half a Km from Manila Hotel all the way to Navotas, Bulacan and Zambales…then turn right to Nlex for a complete ride all the way up North?

      If the originators of the present idea at the congested areas are afraid of Tsunami etc., heck!, the waves will reach just the same the SSHighway Skyway 1 & 2 at Makati!

      …only probably Cubao at Q.C. will be saved from a Tsunami event being much higher than the lowland area of Manila etc.

      I think Skyway 3 is wrong into already a very congested central area of Metro Manila etc.

  11. “Trillanes called attention to where Tuason would source the P40-million commission she had promised to return, in an effort to convince the government to accept her as a state witness.
    The senator said he would produce “documents” showing the connection between Tuason’s lawyer, Dennis Manalo, and Enrile.
    Manalo was earlier quoted as saying that he was no longer connected with the Siguion Reyna Montecillo & Ongsiako law firm, in which Enrile was a partner.
    “So that’s it? It means he no longer has any connection? No. The connection is clear,” Trillanes said in Filipino. “And then the money, that P40-million (commission Tuason promised to return). I tell you. Check where that money will come from.”
    “Who is she trying to protect? Isn’t it clear? You will now know … who provided her with a lawyer and the money. That’s my speculation,” he added.”

    Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/578350/trillanes-suspects-sabotage-in-testimony-of-tuason-on-pork-barrel-scam#ixzz2tXmQ71dH

    Did the senator have these documents before the hearing? He did not ask questions on these points from RT. ‘Confrontation not in the proper legal setting’…says one lawyer…

  12. Quoted from fb from Abs-Cbn news 2/16/2014 5 p.m. –

    ‘My personal desire to help you notwithstanding the adverse publicity that you have been receiving is precisely to educate the public on the need to temper their emotions in light of your Constitutional rights to due process, to counsel of your choice, to present a valid and lawful defense, and to confront your accusers in the proper legal setting.

    The past several days had made me realize that this country is NOT YET READY to accept these legal concepts, to which I squarely lay the blame on inaccurate reportage and the unprofessional actions of certain law enforcement agencies. That being the case and for the earlier reason mentioned, and in light of my inability to perform the functions for which I was hired, I regret that I must resign as your spokesman effective immediately.’

    from a lawyer of that quotation…’this country is NOT YET READY to accept these legal concepts’…xxx present a valid and lawful defense xxx confrontation in the proper legal setting xxx…’

    hehehe

    • he, he, the public does not want fortun’s kind of education imposed on them, he’s working for cedric lee and dont know how to adapt, not up to the challenge, kaya nagresign.

      the country is not ready daw. I think, fortun is the one not ready, he does not know how to adjust, suss the filipino people and relate to the present situation. he’s not adaptable and not flexible enough, and does not know how to the game is to be played. he should have thought hard and long before accepting the job.

      • @moonie,
        his clients can’t be taught to be as smart as him.
        he sees a sure loss in the two…hehehe
        and he’s not ready for more pinoys’ bashings as pinoys are fed up/pissed off, to the max, of him…

    • He couldn’t take the online bashing either – didn’t he call Calvento paid hack? Hehehe…I think he gave up after Deniece gave the confirmation that there were, indeed, some kisses from Cedric Lee. In that latest lift CCTV video from NBI. His clients were not supposed to give interviews or statements to public. “Poor him,” however hard he tried to make his client and his gangsta companions to be seen in better picture, somebody in the group just can’t shut her mouth!

  13. Kailangan sigurong panahon na para kalampagin ang Ombudsman tungkol sa mala-suso na pag-usad ng kaso sa PDAF. Sa susunod na taon papasok na tayo sa mainit na simoy ng hanging “election”, baka “malipad” na lang ang PDAF SCAM at mawala na lang sa “conciousness” ng mga umaasang mamamayan.

  14. In separate statements, Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. and House Deputy Majority Leader Sherwin Tugna said the NBI’s premature statement on the scam is harming the reputation of the House.

    “I really cannot comprehend why my colleague, Rep. Haresco, was included in the criminal complaint,” Barzaga said.

    “SAROs are official issuances of the DBM (Department of Budget and Management) and I cannot see how Rep. Haresco could participate and influence the issuance of fake SAROs,” he added.

    He said the NBI should reveal the witnesses and their testimonies that prompted the filing of the complaint to be fair to Haresco and the House as an institution. PhilStar news.

    Why is it that colleagues in the Lower House are so quick to feel that the House as an institution is the one damaged when only a ‘one’ member is involved for investigation?

    Why? So onion skinned? Guilty altogether?

    • The NBI has already furnished the accused of the complete dossiers of the case as part of due process. Cong. Barzaga is “barking up the wrong tree”

    • I just wanted to finish…

      Why some congressmen takes claim that when one of their members is investigated for wrong doing the attitude is that the ‘institution’ – congress – is like being pilloried. An egoistic false reaction.

      Who created Congress? Not they but the people, sovereign people. Any investigation of one or more is the right of the people through their other duly authorized government agencies like the dept. of Justice.

      This egoistical false reaction is misplaced. Reps. Barzaga and Tugna are not ‘owners’ but just public servants; they owe their positions from the people. When Rep. Haresco is implicated the former two reps have no right to question and declared that Congress as an institution is being investigated as falsely believed.

      Members of Congress should stop this reaction. A misplaced attitude. They should be ashamed. About time to learn where they came from.

      Gross deliberate Ignorance at that! Gosh!

      • maybe, elpidio barzaga and sherwin tugna might as well be included in the complaint, give them something to worry about. barzaga is talking like the house is peopled by weaklings that cannot stand up to scrutiny. let the truth come out, barzaga, hwag mong haranging yan, baka ikaw pa ang maharang. sympathizing too much will not do haresco good. let haresco stand up and prove himself a man, not a ninny leaning on friends to speak for him. offer moral support if you have to, but let haresco fight his own battle. just be there ready to pick him up if he falls down.

        barzaga and tugna should encourage haresco to clear his name, help haresco prepare rebuttals, not treat haresco like he’s a mindless child and do the rebutting for him.

        • Umi Epal na naman itong si Barzaga at Tugna, ang dapat ay taongbayan ang ipagtanggol ninyo dahil dito galing sinasahod ninyo at huwag kayong humaharang sa tamang proceso nang NBI at DOJ?

      • @leona,
        may natatandaan akong isang tao na nagsabi nang halos kapareho niyan.
        iyon ang original…
        kinopya po niya si TJ nang sabihin nitong ang atake sa kanya ay atake sa SC.
        o di ba?
        ang kakapal ng apog nila?

        • Oo nga at sinabi pa nitong si convicted c.j. nato corona na dahil sa hasiyenda luisita kaya siya iniimpeach at ngayon unti unti nang naipamahagi ang lupa sa mga magsasaka ay parang nilunok nito ang ibinintang na salita kay Pnoy. At mali ang sabi nito noon na atake sa corte suprema ang impeachment dahil napatunayan naman na marami itong ninakaw na PERA sa Bayan…

        • Yes, also Corona was speaking like he was ‘born’ into that position by succession! …a judicial dynasty.

  15. A report by ABS-CBN News said Enrile was given a surprise party by his colleagues in the opposition led by former President and now Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada and son Sen. Jinggoy Estrada.

    Enrile turned 90 on Valentine’s Day.

    What when/if he goes ‘beyond’ mental, will the case(s) vs him push through? Can one be tried in court for a crime allegedly committed if one does not ‘iknow’ about it?

    Something of a surprise possibility. How about ‘mid-way’ into the trial? Or almost about terminating the trial? Before case is submitted for decision? Finally, when the decision is out, can it be enforced?

    Are are specific ‘rules or procedures’ on these scenarios? Jurisprudence? Time to study by SC really.

    • If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased. (Section 4, Rule 111, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

      • @kalahari…right you are! But has the OSG or gov’t done to file the civil case ‘against the “Estate” for recovery…like in the Gen. Angelo Reyes incident? I’ve not hear yet on it.

        let us hope the gov’t do it…dying may get the accused free from imprisonment but not the DEEP POCKET issue…the money side plunder of the wealth…Kaban Ng Bayan!