Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Contrary to what Senator Lacson claims, my blog post on the stealthy and hasty insertion of the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law has no malice

Here are the 15 questions I wanted to ask Lacson, then and now, about the new Anti-Terrorism Law 

Second of THREE PARTS

By Raïssa Robles

In the first part, I explained why I used the words “stealthily” and “hastily” to describe the manner by which Senate defense committee chair Panfilo Lacson had inserted the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law.

See – My reply to Senator Lacson who claims I was being malicious when I used the word “stealthily” to describe his insertion of Section 25 – one of the most dangerous provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Law

Section 25, according to prominent legal experts, gives President Rodrigo Duterte – through his cabinet officials who comprise the Anti-Terrorism Council – the power to “designate” or tag as “terrorist” anyone and any organization the cabinet officials suspect of being one.

In fact, Duterte went ahead of the new Anti-Terrorism Law and publicly tagged communist rebels “terrorists” because he said so. He said, “They think that they are a different breed, would like to be treated with another set of law, when as a matter of fact they are terrorists. They are terrorists because I finally declared them to be one.”

Senator Lacson had to scramble and say there was “nothing illegal” about Duterte’s statements because the Anti-Terrorism Council had already “designated” them terrorists in 2017.

Lacson insists the tag will not lead to arrests, but only to the freeze of assets.

But legal experts told the Supreme Court last week that is not the case. The tag can result in the arrest of any person and members of organizations that have been so “designated” by the ATC as “terrorist”.

Lacson is laying the predicate for charging me with cyberlibel

Lacson has also claimed in his official Senate press releases on the Senate website, several media forums and press interviews and releases that my blog post was “malicious.” To read the rest, PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK.

My reply to Senator Lacson who claims I was being malicious when I used the word “stealthily” to describe his insertion of Section 25 – one of the most dangerous provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Law

First of THREE PARTS

By Raïssa Robles

Over the past week since Senator Panfilo Lacson said my use of the word “stealthy” to describe his insertion of Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law (ATL) “is malicious and untrue”, the senator has gone on radio, print and the official Senate website to belittle my blog post.

What did I say that upset him so much?  I said that first, Section 25 was inserted at the last moment and second, Section 25 is a dangerous provision. To read it, please click on this link: Senator Panfilo Lacson hastily inserted the new Anti-Terrorism Law’s ‘dangerous’ Section 25 empowering Duterte officials to ‘designate’ anyone a terrorist
Before I go on, let me explain that my reply to Senator Lacson will be divided into three parts:

Part 1, which is this post, will explain why I found Senator Lacson’s insertion of Section 25 “stealthy” and “hasty”;
Part 2 will show proof why my blog post has no malice, because the senator is implying he might file a cyber libel suit against me (he did this by saying he would not sue me for libel,); and
Part 3 will post all the documents I used as basis in Part 1, in other words,   the documentary proofs.

And so, my reply is going to be lengthy. To read the rest, please click on this link.

Senator Panfilo Lacson hastily inserted the new Anti-Terrorism Law’s ‘dangerous’ Section 25 empowering Duterte officials to ‘designate’ anyone a terrorist

MY EXCLUSIVE by Raïssa Robles

The most dangerous section of the Duterte Terror Law, which the President signed today, empowers his cabinet officials to call anybody a “terrorist” and order that person’s arrest without any warrant. That victim can then be detained for up to 14 days. It’s a tool straight out of Ferdinand Marcos’ brutal dictatorship.

That section was inserted stealthily, at the last minute, by Senate defense committee chair Panfilo Lacson. To read the rest, please click on this link.

A genuine cry for help on Twitter from the dad of a new-born child

By Raissa Robles

I thought it was a scam because the Twitter account of Raul Arcaya was made only this April, he only had two followers and no photo uploaded.

I thought he even calculatingly used photos of a baby attached to a respirator to tug at women’s hearts.

And his cry for help seemed overwrought. To read the rest, please click on this link.

If ‘PDRs’ are unconstitutional, why did Duterte sign the law renewing GMA Network’s franchise even though it has ‘PDRs’ patterned after ABS-CBN’s?

By Raissa Robles

Solicitor-General Jose Calida has made it very, very clear that Philippine Depositary Receipts or PDRs are bad for media companies.

PDRs are financial instruments sold to local and foreign investors by ABS-CBN through a separate company called ABS-CBN Holdings Corp. When ABS-CBN gives out dividends, ABS-CBN Holdings obtains part of the dividends, which are then distributed to the PDR holders, minus a management fee.

Calida said ABS-CBN’s use of PDRs violates the Constitution which requires media companies to be 100% Filipino-owned. He warned that “criminal liability is also imposed on those who violate foreign equity restrictions and evade nationalisation laws of the Philippines through various modes of proxy arrangement, making it appear as legal, but the entirety of the arrangement is to accomplish a transaction not allowed under Philippine laws”. To read the rest, please click on this link.

Zombie virus doomsday

Last year, Asian Dragon magazine asked my hubby Alan to write a speculative story answering the question, “could things be possibly worse than they already are under this government?” He decided to have a little fun and write a political sci fi thriller. It involved a virus. Coming from China. Ending up in the Philippines. Does any of this sound familiar?

Last week the editor of the magazine emailed Alan and said “holy shit your story is coming true.” You can be the judge. Keep in mind, this is just FICTION.  Pure fantasy.

[READ MORE}

One midnight in autumn, I met Gina Lopez

Hearing a clatter and voices outside the bedroom where I was staying, I peeked out and saw this wiry woman dragging a suitcase up the second floor landing.

“Hi!” she said with a bright, welcoming smile, the kind of smile that flashes between the best of long-time friends.

In truth, it was the first – and the last time – I met Gina Lopez. [READ MORE…]

Was the sudden closure of more than 20,000 lotto stalls around the country a dry-run for mobilizing police and soldiers nationwide for a coming crackdown?

Just My Opinion

By Raissa Robles

On the night of July 26, a Friday, the presidential palace posted on Facebook a video of President Rodrigo Duterte ordering not only “the closure” of all lotto and other state-run gaming outlets, but also the “arrest” of anyone who defied his order.

He declared all these games “illegal because as of today, all of those permits and concessions or whatever are terminated” on his orders. His reason—to stop “massive corruption”.

What followed next eerily reminded me of Ferdinand Marcos’ imposition of Martial Law, which started also on a Friday night.

[READ MORE…]

Presidential spokesman Sal Panelo spreads fake news about fishing boat rammed by Chinese vessel near Reed Bank

Did no one tell Panelo that the “Reed Bank” has no shoreline since it is completely under water????

By Raïssa Robles

On national TV and radio, presidential spokesman Sal Panelo tried to belittle the story of the 22 Filipino fishermen whose boat was rammed and sunk without warning by a Chinese ship, which then fled the scene.

Panelo told Ted Failon during a live interview over DZMM and Channel 26 that certain “facts” on the ramming incident had to be straightened out. One “fact” that Panelo claimed needed correction was the statement of the fishermen that they were anchored near the Reed Bank. He said this was an argument being used by those who say the ramming was intentional, because the boat was anchored “sa may shoreline” of the Reed Bank.

The lawyer Panelo in effect told Failon that was not true. [READ MORE…]