Carlo J. Caparas. National Artist. *spits*

(UPDATE: National Artist for Visual Arts Ben Cabrera -- yes, the BenCab -- expresses his displeasure over what he calls "a mockery of the system". BenCab, along with Director General of the Film Academy of the Philippines Leo Martinez intend to boycott the NCCA ceremony honoring the newly appointed National Artists.)

This is what the National Commission on Culture and the Arts says about the title "National Artist".

The Order of National Artists (Orden ng Gawad Pambansang Alagad ng Sining) is the highest national recognition given to Filipino individuals who have made significant contributions to the development of Philippine arts.

Carlo J. Caparas, National Artist.

The Order of National Artists is one of the Honors of the Philippines that embodies the nation’s highest ideals in humanism and aesthetic expression through the distinct achievements of individual citizens.

Carlo J. Caparas, National Artist.

While the Republic bestows due recognition to these singular achievements, it in turn honors its own cultural heritage, whose enrichment these achievements have significantly effected, enhanced, and given direction.

Carlo J. Caparas, National Artist.

These achievements are measured in terms of their vision, unusual insight, creativity and imagination, technical proficiency of the highest order in expressing Filipino culture and traditions, history, way of life, and aspirations.

Carlo J. Caparas, National Artist.

*spits*

***
But let the man speak for himself:

"Kaya lang, ganyan talaga kung may something for grabs. E, iisa lang ang pipiliin. Sana, maghintay na lang sila ng tamang panahon sa gusto nilang manalo. Hindi naman ito palakasan."

More:

"I think na nakapag-cross over ako from komiks to the movies and television. Kaya wag mag-alala ang mga critics ko, may pagkakataon pa sila o ang mga manok nila na manalo in the future. They cannot take the award from me anymore.

"Something for grabs"? "Gusto nilang manalo"?

Goddammit, Mister Caparas, the National Artist is a TITLE, an honor, a distinction for and by and representative of the Republic! IT IS NOT SOME GODDAMNED STUPID FILM AWARD THAT EVERYBODY RECEIVES AFTER SOME FILM FESTIVAL DEDICATED TO CRASS AND COMMERCIALISM!

Baka ang nasa isip nila ay bata pa ako. Pero hindi naman ‘yon ang basehan. Sino naman ang ko-contest sa decision ng Cultural Center, ng NCCA at ng Malacañang tungkol sa award na ito? Mabuti na nga at ngayon pa lang ay ibinibigay na ang ganitong award sa mga taong nandito. Ang akala kasi nila ay sa matatanda o sa beterano o sa mga patay na ibinibigay ang ganitong award."

For you to belittle the honorific that is the National Artist in such a manner, to insult the memory of the likes of Nick Joaquin, of Lino Brocka, of countless others who have uplifted the Filipino people with the spirit of art and humanism... for that, Mister Caparas, I say to you, SHAME BE ON YOU.

If the community that comprises Philippine cinema does not protest this travesty, if the community that comprises Philippine graphic arts does not at least raise a hue and cry, then this I will do as further protest: I will reject Philippine cinema and graphic arts and shake the dust off of my feet, and I will encourage others to do the same.

If those who have been treated with disrespect lay back and enjoy the rape, then I will not defend them nor be a patron to them.

Bleh. What a farce.

Know Your Rights Redux, Part 8: Poisoning the Tree

(UPDATE: Just for light reading -- this is how a cool-headed cop can make us citizens respect the badge.)

(UPDATE 2: On Ted Failon's radio show on the morning of July 30, 2009, apparently presidential spokesperson Cerge Remonde said that the ONLINE protests about Melissa Roxas -- blog posts, forum pages, comments, Tweets, and whatnot -- will not reach US president Barack Obama. "Bloggers lang sila"? Perhaps Remonde has forgotten the NET-SAVVY Obama's election was to a large part due to online advocacy? Heh.)

(UPDATE 3: Added complete series links.)

An underhanded tactic in debate that is employed with much success (it seems to me) is the tactic of "poisoning the well". One way of describing the fallacy of poisoning the well is that it is an attempt to impugn someone's objectivity by claiming that he or she has a vested interest in the view he or she defends. Another is to that it is an attempt to discredit a person or an organization before they have a chance to explain or defend themselves publicly, the purpose is to influence what people will think before they ever hear what is going on... The desired result is that people will prejudge the arguments made or evidence provided because they have developed a negative view of the person offering those arguments or evidence.

These things said, the fallacy of poisoning the well is considered a special case of argumentum ad hominem.

(Yes, you'll find many of those in some comment threads of this blog.)

In our previous post in this civil rights series, we noted that Bantay and ANAD party-list congressmen Jovito Palparan and Pastor Alcover, jr, have been attempting to cast a pall on the testimony of Melissa Roxas, the American writer and poet of Filipino descent allegedly tortured by government agents. They do this by claiming that Roxas was an armed New People's Army rebel, with the Armed Forces of the Philippines supporting the authenticity of the claim, with AFP spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Romeo Brawner, jr's saying that the content of such video "is a good development because we are seeing another side of Melissa Roxas". Heck, they are apparently building a case against Melissa.

Classic poisoning the well strategy. "Don't believe Melissa because she is a lying NPA amazon," is the name of the game.

Not content with that, however, it seems that Palparan, Alcover, and the AFP's attempts to poison the well have gone into high gear. Congressman Alcover has attacked the credibility of Commission on Human Rights chairperson Leila de Lima, and says that he intends to file a case against the commissioner. He is quoted to have said:

Alcover added that because he is now in doubt of de Lima's integrity as CHR chairperson, he only gave the commission a copy of the videotape and not the original one.

"Her bias in favor of the communists is my reason for filing an impeachment charge against de Lima. Imagine, she even questioned why Anad is accredited by the Commission on Elections (Comelec), but she did not question why Bayan Muna and other communist groups are accredited by the Comelec?" Alcover said.

He also said that de Lima's bias also surfaced the other day when, in an interview, she said the issue of whether Roxas is a communist or not is irrelevant.

What an effing idiotic statement, that last one, especially if it comes from a government official. The Philippines is a signatory to so many treaties and conventions that say torture and suchlike are criminal offenses, no matter the victim's political beliefs or affiliations, and then Alcover says that?

Some sorta-kinda champion of democracy you've turned out to be, Pastor. EPIC PHAIL. "Don't believe the Commission on Human Rights because they are biased," is the name of this recent development, is it?

If you have the stomach for it, watch this video and read this story for more of Alcover, Palparan, and the farce that they bring to the proceedings.

Poisoning the well. The classic ad hominem logical fallacy of attacking a person's credibility such that any statement made will be disbelieved.

Bleh.

Today we'll talk about a different kind of poisoning -- it's poisoning the tree, which results in the fruit of the poisonous tree. This legal maxim refers to the inadmissability of evidence acquired via illegal means.

Specifically, we'll be talking about methods of interrogation, and how they may be used to infringe on the rights of the accused... and if you want real legal advice, get a lawyer, won't you?

***
In our previous post in the series we talked about our Miranda rights. Remember them?

May karapatan kang manatiling tahimik.

Kahit ano na iyong sabihin ay maaring gagamitin laban sa inyo sa isang hukuman ng batas.

Ikaw ay may karapatan sa isang abugado sa panahon ng kasalukuyang pagtatanong.

Kung hindi mo kayang isang abogado, ang isa ay itinalaga para sa inyo.

Naiintindihan ba ninyo ang mga karapatan?

Or something to that effect.

Now, quite a number of our local law enforcers tend to believe that crime-fighting is seriously hampered by the Miranda rights, specifically the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination as guaranteed by Consti 3:12, 17. Quite a number of cops still cling to the concepts of solving crimes via a suspect's confession and admission... and quite a number of them are willing to go to some lengths to get these. To the mind of some law enforcers, interrogation still is the principal method of evidence gathering -- to the point where many old-school cop manuals include them.

(Speaking of cop manuals, the law on the Philippine National Police -- RA 6975, as amended by RA 8551 and so on -- provides that the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) has to "promulgate a police manual prescribing rules and regulations for efficient organization, administration, and operation" of the PNP, but it doesn't seem to be available online. I wonder if it's available to the general public in printed form?)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Note, folks, please, that we're not going to talk about that euphemism for torture called "tactical interrogation" -- the questioning made while inflicting physical abuse, committed by unscrupulous state and non-state armed groups alike -- as that in and of itself violates Consti 3:12. We're going to focus on police interrogation methods that skirt the boundaries of the law, if not step over the edge.

What to Expect in an Interrogation

The Basics

Modern-day interrogation techniques are oriented to the psychological instead of the physical. Although it is not unknown for some cops to bully a suspect physically, recent successes in punishing police brutality (whether by operation of law or by popular pressure) have made law enforcers more careful in the interrogation tactics that they employ.

Interrogation is a mind game, and the interrogator is in it to win. He's going to use every means at his disposal to do so.

Interrogators will try to get their jobs done before a lawyer (that of the person under questioning or a court-appointed lawyer) arrives, quite obviously. The only way he can win this mind game is if he has complete control; the interrogator will have a good chance of playing the person for questioning like a fish if this person is alone (or is represented by slow-witted counsel, which is the same thing).

First, he's going to bring the person for questioning in his home turf. As a rule, cops will not question a suspect or a person they intend to charge with a crime in a place where the cops cannot control the environment. Old-school cops are taught that questioning a person in familiar territory -- like a home or office -- emboldens the person, and that answers are difficult to elicit. (See the rationale now behind the invitation for questioning? Homecourt advantage. 'Nuff said.)

Second, the interrogator is going to make sure that the person for questioning is isolated somehow, without breaking the laws against incommunicado confinement. If it's a suspect, he's going to put him in a bare room, unfurnished save for the two chairs for each of them, the table in the middle, and the harsh overhead light above (it's the rare police station that doesn't have rooms for interrogation). If it's someone invited for questioning, the interrogator is going to try to persuade any companion with an "will you excuse us for a minute?" or similar.

Third, the interrogator has made sure of his theater (such as the barely-furnished interrogation room, the spartan furniture, the harsh overhead lighting, the claustrophobic quiet) and his theatrics (you can expect the interrogator to come in with a file folder which may or may not contain anything relevant to the questioning). The idea is to give the person being questioned a sense of helplessness before the full might of the State, a sense that his rights might be no more than empty words and hollow promises, a sense that he is faced with the invincibility of the law.

(Aside: if the interrogator can't bring the person for questioning to an interrogation room, he's going to use a desk fairly concealed from public view. He'll sit behind the desk so that the person for questioning gets the feeling he's back in school and called before the principal's office -- with roughly the same intent to intimidate.)


The Attitude

The interrogator is taught to display an air of confidence, that he is sure of the guilt of the person under questioning; however, he is also cautioned not to be cocky, as this may make prick the ego of the suspect, making him less likely to be cooperative -- he may even be the "sige nga, try mo nga akong hulihin" kind of hostile.

The interrogator will never ask "Did you do it?"; heck no, the interrogator will ask "Why did you do it?" and use that tone consistently throughout the interview. See the difference, folks? The interrogator will be giving off the message that he knows that the person under questioning is guilty, and it's a small procedural matter for the admission to take place.

The interrogator can use the approach of being bored, that he has far better use of his time, that he just has to sign a few forms and slam! the prison doors shut behind the suspect, but this apparently works only for those persons with little or no education.

The bottomline, folks, is this: the interrogator has trained himself to believe the suspect is guilty from the start -- and he is likewise trained to persuade the suspect that he is indeed guilty. Whether or not the suspect will be later shown to be in fact guilty in the eyes of the court is irrelevant; every one whom an interrogator takes into questioning is guilty as sin. That's the attitude that the interrogator will bring to the room -- small wonder many cops hate defense lawyers, eh?

More of the attitude will be shown as we go on.


The Roleplaying

There are several approaches to police interrogation that are considered by-the-book; that is, they've been around for so long but have yet to lose their effectivity and efficiency. Let's take them apart one by one.

El Matador. This interrogator is belligerent, profane, short of temper, and is just barely restraining himself from striking the person under questioning. Heck, he'll probably yell, slam his palm on the table, and swear a lot, and other theatrics that are designed to scare the suspect into admission. Common verbal tactics involve a lot of accusations that the interrogator "can easily prove", a lot of claims that "witnesses saw you do it", or if the bluff cannot be easily called, a lot of claims that "meron kaming ebidensya na ikaw ang gumawa."

Try this on for size:

Bakit mo pa tinatanggi na ikaw ang pumatay? Eh huling-huli ka na namin. Meron kaming mga witness, nakita daw kayong nag-aaway nung biktima. Alam mo ba na nakuha na namin yung baril na ginamit sa pagpatay? Galit na galit ka ano, kaya mo siya pinatay? slam table with fist

I'm told that this line of questioning was used in a homicide, where a man was stabbed.

Yep, that made you look again, didn't it? Apparently it was effective in getting the confession.

Bespren Johnny. This interrogator is sympathetic, feels for the situation of the person under questioning, and understands the suspect so well and feels sorry for him. He's going to make excuses for the person under questioning -- the suspect was forced to do it, it wasn't really the suspect's fault, that he was just driven by pressing need or because the suspect had no choice. The interrogator wants to help the suspect, but he needs to know the whole truth so that he can be the good friend that he is and help the poor suspect out.

Maybe you can picture this:

Aba oo, naiintindihan kita. Eh kung di siya sana malandi, kung di sana siya nagsuot ng halos lumuluwa na ang suso niya, e di hindi ka sana natukso, di ba? Kung di sana mag-isang naglalakad na pakembot-kembot na akala mo eh kung sinong pokpok e di hindi mo sana ginalaw ano?

Yes, folks. Rape case.

Bespren Atorni. This interrogator's role is similar to the preceding, except that the excuses that he uses seem to be legal, giving the person under questioning some hope that there is some legal defense to the act that he's being accused of... which is a sham, of course.

Here's something that can make it clearer.

Kung ako nasa kalagayan mo, kung alam kong di mapagkakatiwalaan ang magiging kausap ko, siyempre magdadala talaga ako ng proteksyon. Kaya mo dinala yung itak, di ba, kasi di mo alam kung baka may mangyari sa iyo pag nagkaharap kayo? Proteksyon lang yan, self-defense yan, di ba? Tapos noong di ka na sigurado, inunahan mo na lang siya, di ba? Mabuti na lang na naunahan mo siya, kundi ikaw ang nadale, di ba?

That one was a murder case.

Here's a note on the preceding two: modifications of the Bespren Johnny and Bespren Atorni roles are often employed in "invitations for questioning," since the cops will be careful not to accuse the person invited for questioning. That said, anything that the person under questioning admits will be used by the cops later on. Try this: "Oo naman, hindi naman talaga bawal yung tumingin ng bold sa internet, di ba? Eh kung ako nga, tumitingin-tingin din ako paminsan-minsan, pag napatagal na malayo si misis. Di naman talaga masama kung magshe-share ka ng mga bold na video sa mga kaibigan mo, di ba? E pare-pareho tayong mga lalake, alam natin yan." (That was conjecture, by the way.)

These preceding roles and other similar roles are apparently designed to get an initial admission, either by scare tactics or trickery. After the admission is secured, the interrogator uses circumstantial evidence or some fairly accurate conjecture to dismantle the excuses or alibis that the suspect agreed to. As such, the interrogator boxes the suspect into a corner -- no excuses nor alibis left as protection -- and without any recourse but to provide a full admission.

But what if the person under questioning doesn't confess? Keep in mind, folks, that the mindset of the interrogator is that the person is guilty as hell -- even if the person under questioning isn't the real perpetrator.

Moving on, then, to other tactics.

Good cop, bad cop. In the current modification of this classic routine, you have two interrogators. The "bad cop" is El Matador himself, just barely restraining himself, almost about to lash at the suspect for being so stupid as to resist the might of the law. He is the fellow in front of the suspect, yelling in his face, banging on the table, scaring the bejesus out of him.

In the background but not unobtrusive, staying quiet but remaining visible is our concerned and sympathetic Bespren Johnny. When tensions are high, he moves from his spot against the wall near the door, and says calmly but firmly, "tama na, pare, kawawa yang bata," and steers El Matador out of the interrogation room. El Matador is probably still swearing, will probably slam the door and curse and yell outside, but Bespren Johnny still doesn't lose his cool. He sits down calmly, and with his very friendly demeanor, with all concern and sympathy, he tells the suspect, "Wag mo na pansinin yan, ha? Utak-pulbura kasi minsan yan... Alam mo, naiintindihan ko yang kalagayan mo; kung sa akin lang, matutulungan kita. Kung ikukuwento mo sa akin yung nangyari talaga, e malulusutan din natin to."

Now, if the suspect still does not confess, Bespren Johnny makes a little more conversation, perhaps even gets the suspect some water, maybe a smoke, then excuses himself as the suspect relaxes. Soon after -- timing is critical -- when the suspect is relaxed and beginning to get his confidence back, El Matador storms in. He sees the water and the smoke, and starts getting angry, "Putang-ina, sinong nagsabing puwede ka magyosi dito?" He rants and again scares the suspect; the suspect is rattled and El Matador continues the questioning, the accusation, loudly and profanely.

If the suspect still doesn't confesses out of fear, then at the height of El Matador's "towering rage", Bespren Johnny comes in. He again restrains El Matador, telling him to take a moment to calm down, whereupon El Matador goes to the far end of the room, cursing quietly. In a low tone, Bespren Johnny apologizes quickly, and then moves back to the door as El Matador takes charge once more, simmering but no longer shouting.

But not for long, and then Bespren Johnny once again shows El Matador the door. Again, Bespren Johnny makes his pitch, pleading with the suspect to cooperate.

If the suspect still doesn't confess, then a couple more times of this treatment, then the interrogators switch tactics.

Judge Bitay. Another method used by interrogators is a straight-up mind game. The suspect is put in a holding cell, preferably with others, but being alone behind bars is still good enough. The suspect is made to stay there for a few hours, then he is taken to an interrogation room, where a serious, quiet man is looking through papers. The man asks the suspect, "Alam mo ba kung bakit ka nandito?" While the suspect professes ignorance or innocence, the interrogator leafs through the sheets of paper in the file before him, as if he was only half-listening. When the suspect is done speaking, or perhaps even cutting him off in the middle of his protestations, the interrogator orders the guards to take him back to his cell.

Some time later, the interrogator calls for him again, asks the same question but slightly differently. The question will be more along the lines of "Bakit mo ginawa yun?" The same theatrics will be employed; a variation is by using different interrogators so that the suspect ends up confusing who it was who asked what.

The idea is to break down the suspect's resolve so that he ends up telling the entire story.

Heck, isn't that the whole point of interrogation, especially since the interrogator's presumption is that the suspect is guilty?

***
What to Do in an Interrogation

1. Ask for a lawyer.

2. Say nothing without your lawyer or a lawyer assigned to you present. Make sure you confirm his identification, if you have to deal with a court-appointed lawyer.

3. If you don't trust the lawyer assigned to you, ask for another. Remember, your rights speak of "counsel of your choice."

It's that simple, folks.

Okay, then. It seems like we've digressed a bit and jumped ahead of the supposed progression of this rights series. We still have to deal with what to do when you've already been arrested and are about to be placed in detention.

Mea culpa, folks. We'll get to that, I promise. For now, remember this: any evidence gathered by illegal means can be challenged in court and be made admissible. Kung ano ang puno, siya ang bunga -- by making it clear to your counsel that the evidence gathered against you was done by some illegal means (such as force, intimidation, duress, illegal searches, and similar dastardly deeds by unscrupulous law enforcers), you can build a strong case against these lawbreaking law enforcers.

You have rights. None cannot assail that.

***
So much for poisoned fruits, poisoned trees, and poisoned wells.

Here's a thought -- unfortunately, many people fall prey to the fallacy of the poisoned well. Many people will have dismissed Melissa's testimony because she has been accused of being an NPA. Check out the comment threads of the news reports, such as this one.

By the way, speaking of poisoned wells, do you know what certain people call those who make an effort to defend the credibility and integrity of those that these people attack? These people who make the effort to defend credibility and integrity are called "liars".

Yup, folks. You are a liar if you defend the credibility and integrity of those attacked with such poisoned-well attacks. Back when Palparan was still an officer in the Philippine Army, he was reported to have said such things about those from whom UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Philip Alston got information and testimony -- heck, Palparan reportedly alluded the same about the Commission on Human Rights.

Perhaps we should expect the haters of the Commission on Human Rights -- or the pals and supporters of ANAD and Bantay -- to come and troll over here, as well as write ad hominem blog posts and cyberstalk us all over the place? I hope that won't inconvenience you too much, ENC Nick; let me know if it does.

Later, folks.

Posts in this civil rights series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

For more exhaustive discussions on civil rights, do read up on the primer made by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). Do visit their site, folks, and spread rights education, too.

Doggy Style (NNSFW*)

Or, because we love playing with puppies.



Hello, world!

I'm Kiko. Thanks for taking the time to look at my pictures, everyone!

I'm a 35-day old mixed-breed puppy. This is my first time, so I'm a little shy.

I like sunsets, quiet evenings, and long walks on the beach.

I'm frisky and I love playing around.

I like to play with things tied up, too.

***
Don't you just love playing with puppies?

*NOT "not safe for work". Susme.

Carlo J. Caparas, National Artist? WTF!

Image from iGMA.tv

There you have it, folks: Magno Jose Carlo Caparas, visual arts and film.

Here is his filmography. Does this body of work reflect that which we look for in a National Artist?

Quality is only equivalent to quantity when we talk about feces.

How do I join the protest against this iniquity? Caparas cannot and will never be spoken of in the same breath as Lino Brocka, Ishmael Bernal, and Eddie Romero.

***

Here is "Komikero" Gerry Alanguilan talking about his visual artwork.

How do I join the protest against this doubly-occurring iniquity? Caparas and his non-artwork honored as National Artist, while Larry Alcala nor Francisco Coching are not?

Bleh.

***

You want the guidelines on honoring the National Artist? Here.

Now, if the criteria used for Caparas was "broad acceptance through critical acclaim and/or reviews of their works" and "respect and esteem from peers", then quite obviously I'm boycotting Philippine cinema until this injustice is corrected.

Caparas as National Artist. Bleh.

On the other hand, it makes sense. This is, after all, a decree by the Queen of the Enchanted Kingdom.

Carlo J. Caparas, National Artist. God, save us.

Dato, Dato, Dato, Di Ka Kasi Nagbabasa, Hijo

I used to think that if I had to name just one Filipino political blogger with street cred, I'd mention MLQ3. After all, he's seen it, he's been there, and he's no slouch with a pen.

Today, I have to say this: Move over, Manolo. You're cool and I like you, but there's a new sheriff in town... and his name's Marocharim.

If you good folks haven't been following his blog, you'd be missing out on pretty powerful stuff. His rebel yell against HB 1109's planned Con-Ass, his unabashed condemnation of the Senate's superfluous investigation on the Hayden Kho-Katrina Halili sex video scandal, his follow-up salvo against charter change, and his recent powerful and personal counter to GMA's SONA are quite rapidly making the rounds in the blogosphere. Marocharim has the words for the things we want to fling at corrupt officials; he spares words for nobody who deserves the lash.

The fellow is barely in his mid-twenties and yet has walked his talk -- something few others can claim to do or have done. Not limited to the war of words is this young man; he's faced rubber hoses and truncheons, he's signed his name to an impeachment complaint's petition-in-intervention, and has both in public and in private demonstrated that no politician nor political group can sully his principles. Marocharim has stared down the Death Star and spit at it, more times that we'll be able to get him to admit.

Read his words, friends. We may not agree with Marocharim all the time, nor can we expect him to agree with our perspectives as well -- but such as he bring hope that the Philippines is worth all the work, that the words of Macario Sakay, Jose Abad Santos, and Ninoy Aquino still ring true to this day.

Or, to make a very simple contrast, for ease of comprehension, Marocharim is the ethical diametric opposite of Dato Arroyo -- he of whom we will speak of today.

See, Congressman Arroyo -- or to be formal about it, Representative Diosdado Ignacio Jose Maria Macapagal Arroyo (yes, I can get full names right, something that only uncivil boors cannot) -- has recently filed House Bill 6538. Titled An Act Amending Article 131 of Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code, As Amended, To Uphold the Right of Residents to Privacy from Mass or Concerted Actions Not Directed to the Public, the end result of the bill is to prohibit activists or protesters "from holding their mass actions in front of the residence of a public official who has been accused of irregularities or misdeeds" -- according to the official Congress press release. GMANews.TV also carried the story.

Arroyo is quoted to have said, "The right of the people to peaceably assemble for redress of their grievances can be prohibited if it infringes on the greater public good". This statement, as well as the attendant existence of this rather effing idiotic bill he filed, demands that the honorable representative from the first district of Camarines Sur be schooled.

***
First of all, can the right of the people to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances be prohibited for any reason? Let's take a look at the Constitution. Consti 3:4 says:

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Did you get that, Dato? You cannot abridge. Heck, what you cannot abridge you cannot prohibit.

Now if we are to argue that the Constitution must be interpreted by an enabling law, well, we have Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. BP 880 says, in part:

Section 2. Declaration of policy - The constitutional right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is essential and vital to the strength and stability of the State. To this end, the State shall ensure the free exercise of such right without prejudice to the rights of others to life, liberty and equal protection of the law.

Did you get that, Dato? Saying that the exercise of the right to peaceble assembly "infringes on the public good" is no prejudice whatsoever to the this right. You have to argue that it infringes on the rights of others to life, liberty, and equal protection of the law... but you didn't, did you?

Now, if we have to go on to the argument that the law is interpreted by jurisprudence, let's now take a look at Bayan vs. Ermita, which says:

In sum, this Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people, especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In several policy addresses, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed to uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their prosperity. He said that "in cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny."

Did you get that, Dato? Your proposed bill, being a law intended to restrict a fundamental and constitutionally-guaranteed right, has a heavy presumption against its validity. Let's put it in simpler terms -- forget it, kid, stick to the existing laws instead.

See, if you went through the laws we already have, you'll find that you and your ilk already have protection.

(Such are rights, folks -- they are universal. The rain falls on the sinner as well as the saint, so says the Good Book, yannoe?)

***
So, what are the rights afforded to politicians when a protest comes a-marching before the gates?

First of all, we have to note where the politician lives. BP 880 says that a public assembly in a public place will be allowed for as long as a permit is issued -- and the definition of public place in Section 3 is clear: Public place" shall include any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street, bridge or other thoroughfare, park, plaza, square, and/or any open space of public ownership where the people are allowed access.

If the politician's residence is within an enclave -- a gated subdivision or village or similar -- then he is better off; under Section 4 of BP 880, public assemblies on private property depend on "only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession"; that is, the consent of the homeowners, as demonstrated by the consent of their legal representatives, which are the officers of their homeowners' association.

So, if the politician's residence is before a public road, well, tough cookies for him.

***
So then, it's fairly clear that the law is on the side of peaceful demonstrations. What then if the demonstrations turn malicious?

What do we mean by that? For instance, if the demonstrators throw stones and other stuff that can cause injury to persons or damage to the property, set fire to the property or things near it, or other such things -- what does the law provide? Quite obviously, the laws on arson, malicious mischief, and other such crimes against property and persons hold true.

But what if the stuff thrown against the property, even if it does not cause damage, poses a nuisance? For instance, what if the protesters throw paint on the house or spray paint the gate or similar? Or, what if they throw eggs or rotten vegetables that cause a mess on the property?

Unfortunately for the politico -- and to my way of thinking something Congress has to remedy -- we have no national law against vandalism. What is found applicable instead are the local ordinances on vandalism, such as Ordinance 41, Series of 2008 of Baguio City. Under that city ordinance, the defacement of privately-owned property using spray paint, marker pens, and whatnot is a punishable offense.

So then, if them protesters throw paint at Congressman Mauricio Domogan's gate, they are in for it. But what if they throw garbage instead? Well, I'm sure that every municipality or city has some form of anti-littering ordinance. That's the remedy that our hypothetical politico can resort to.

So, if the hypothetical politico lives in a place where there is no ordinance against vandalism and has no anti-littering ordinance, his house is screwed.

(Not that I'd have much sympathy, if it was Dato Arroyo.)

***
If there's anybody here who knows people from Ateneo de Naga, please tell them that they might want to review the teaching methods of reading comprehension and logic, okay? Heh heh.

Oh, by the way, that Marocharim fellow will be on ANC tonight -- I think. Make sure you record Patricia Evangelista's show, eh, folks?

Thanks. Later all.

Know Your Rights Redux, Part 7: "Do You Understand These Rights as I Have Read Them to You?"

(UPDATE: Added complete series links.)

(Why is it that I have to begin a post with a cri de coeur that may or may not be related to the meat of my discussion? Heh. I must determine whether or not this is a bad habit. Oh, and yet again, folks: for legal advice, get a lawyer.)

The inability to argue on point might be amusing if one is watching sore loser brats bawling in the sandbox after being proven to be foolish and getting spanked for it, but it is no laughing matter if the person making the argument is a government official and an elected one at that.

In our previous post we observed that to attack the credibility of Melissa Roxas, the American writer and poet of Filipino descent allegedly tortured by government agents, and perhaps to justify her kidnap and abuse, government officials like Bantay party-list representative Jovito Palparan and ANAD party-list representative Pastor Alcover, jr made the claim that Roxas was an armed New People's Army rebel. The AFP has put its imprimatur on their claim, saying that the video of a woman described to be Roxas was authentic.

This claim is designed to sway the minds of the public into thinking, "it's okay, she's NPA, it's okay to have kidnapped and tortured her, it's no problem" as the perpetrators of such brutality often try to persuade that "they do not kidnap and torture good citizens." Vive la disappearance.

Such a manner of thinking is incompatible with respect for human rights.

Whether or not Palparan, Alcover, and the AFP's claims are true -- whether or not Melissa Roxas was or is an NPA "amazon" -- the fact remains that kidnap and torture are illegal under international law and Philippine law by virtue of treaty obligations. Even if Roxas can be considered a prisoner of war via Article 4 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the same convention prohibits torture and abuse under Article 3 -- note that the Philippines signed and accessioned the convention December 8, 1949 and October 6, 1952, respectively, and has since been under obligation to obey its terms. If Melissa were indeed an NPA cadre, she should have been read her rights, brought to a prosecutor, and charged under the law -- without any abuse or torture.

Now, if Commission on Human Rights chairperson Leila de Lima is right and Roxas' testimony is credible, and Melissa is indeed a civilian noncombatant, that makes the act of the military -- if the kidnap and torture was indeed by military agents -- no less illegal. Article 4 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (which the Philippines accessioned in June 18, 1986) makes it clear that the torture is a crime, as are the attempt to commit torture and any act which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

Commissioner De Lima's statement is one that which we should all take note. She said, "I wish to stress that the issue before CHR is the alleged abduction and torture (of Roxas), and not her alleged affiliation... We must remember that freedom from torture is a non-derogable human right. Under no circumstance, not even a state of war or conflict, can torture of anyone be justified."

In pithy barracks language, that would go like this: "Eh tanginanyo, tanga pala kayo eh. Wenongayon kung NPA siya? Bawal ang torture, que amasona siya, que hindi."

Yep. Our human rights, our civil and political rights -- their enjoyment is not increased or reduced by the politics we espouse. It's that simple.

Today, then, we'll talk more about our civil and political rights. Today's post will be about Miranda rights... or as I prefer to call it Consti III.

***
In our previous post in the series we talked what to do if you ever get invited for questioning. In that post, we mentioned that the one of the reasons why some unscrupulous law enforcement agents employ this tactic instead of a straight, by-the-book arrest is so that you don't have to be Mirandized -- that is, the cops don't have to read you your Miranda rights. (For further reading, some insights on PNP procedure and whatnot here, their website here, some bits and pieces of police information here.)

But what does the phrase "Miranda rights" mean?

The phrase Miranda rights was coined from the notorious American rape case Miranda vs. Arizona (online novelization here), where the United States Supreme Court set the hard and fast rule on what rights are available to suspects and how they must be informed of these rights (see this Miranda vs. Arizona full text or this Miranda vs. Arizona syllabus for reference).

I wasn't able to find an official government document to the effect, but I found this snippet Cops getting to know "Miranda", which said:

METRO MANILA, APRIL 7, 2008 (STAR) By Cecille Suerte Felipe - Policemen now carry copies of the Miranda warnings to make them aware of the basic rights of citizens.

Interior Assistant Secretary Danilo Valero said the Miranda warnings will be handed out in English and Filipino to policemen, who will have to certify that they have read and understood the Bill of Rights.

The laminated card-size Miranda warnings, measuring three inches by five inches, will eventually be translated into other Philippine languages, he added.

Based on the 1966 US Supreme Court decision in Miranda vs. Arizona, the following warnings must be recited to a suspect upon his arrest:

• You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?

• Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?

• You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?

• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?

• If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at anytime until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?

I don't know if this is from the official laminated card, but Wikipedia has the Filipino-language version of the Miranda rights to be read (some editing done):

May karapatan kang manatiling tahimik.

Kahit ano na iyong sabihin ay maaring gagamitin laban sa inyo sa isang hukuman ng batas.

Ikaw ay may karapatan sa isang abugado sa panahon ng kasalukuyang pagtatanong.

Kung hindi mo kayang isang abogado, ang isa ay itinalaga para sa inyo.

Naiintindihan ba ninyo ang mga karapatan?

I can't say for sure that this is the official version, but the PNP does not have it on their their website . The Commission on Human Right's website isn't working as well, so I couldn't get a copy, if they have it.

Oh well.

***
Nonetheless, the Miranda rights are not merely required to be part of police procedure in the Philippines -- they are rights enshrined by the constitution. Consti 3:12, 17 says:

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

It's that simple, friends.

***
Now, if you have been placed under arrest, you should expect that your rights be read to you. If you do not have your rights read to you, tell your lawyer of this fact -- this is a grave procedural error.

This does NOT mean, however, that you enjoy this rights only if the cops read them out to you, as they usually do not if you are "merely" invited for questioning. You enjoy this rights all the time. Whether or not you are under arrest, even as you read this post, these rights are yours.

Those who are supposed to be enforcing the law and yet gloss over this truth are in fact breaking the law.

We may demonstrate this in an upcoming post, where I'm thinking of discussing interrogation.

(Sorry, folks, I'm kinda losing steam here. Heh heh. Katam, yannoe?)

***
Okay, we've dealt with Miranda rights. We're pretty much past half the series, I would estimate. Interrogation, detention, and other such stuff -- and the rights to that you have in all of these -- these will (or maybe just "may") be in the coming posts. Once again, friends, you should know that if you need legal advice, you gotta talk to a real lawyer.

Later, friends.

Posts in this civil rights series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

For more exhaustive discussions on civil rights, do read up on the primer made by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). Do visit their site, folks, and spread rights education, too.

Scenes From the Anti-SONA Demonstration Staged by Peaceful Militants Who Do Not Employ Violence

Don't believe anything but this: violence is not something that militant demonstrators employ.

I'm serious. Hell, I've been told on Plurk that it was essentially only in my mind that violence might come from the demonstrators, as these militants do not engage in such barbarism.

All their demonstrations are peaceful. All. No violence at all. None.





These men were not mauled. Nonononono.



They were not mauled. They were not beaten up. They were not detained and harassed with harsh questioning.

Militants do not assault anyone. All their demonstrations are peaceful and nonviolent.

That is the truth.

(Hat tip to Twitterer InquirerDotNet and GMANews.TV.)

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's State of The Nation Address, Monday, July 27, 2009

(For Rom's reading pleasure.)


Photo from ABS-CBNNews.Com

Full text of the SONA, reproduced from Tonyo Cruz, applause marks deleted (teeheeheehee) -- oh, and do visit Cocoy's fair attempt at a comprehensive archive of SONA tweets.

The speech:

Thank you, Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Before I begin my report to the nation, please join me first in a moment of prayer for President Cory Aquino. Senate President Enrile, Speaker Nograles, Senators, Representatives, Vice President de Castro, former President Ramos, Chief Justice Puno, Ambassadors friends:

The past twelve months have been a year for the history books. Financial meltdown in the West spread throughout the world.

Tens of millions lost their jobs; billions across the globe have been hurt—the poor always harder than the rich. No one was spared.

It has affected us already. But the story of the Philippines in 2008 is that the country weathered a succession of global crises in fuel, in food, then in finance and finally, economy in a global recession, never losing focus and with economic fundamentals intact.

A few days ago, Moody’s upgraded our credit rating, citing the resilience of our economy. The state of our nation is a strong economy. Good news for our people, bad news for our critics.

I did not become President to be popular. To work, to lead, to protect and preserve our country, our people, that is why I became President. When my father left the Presidency, we were second to Japan. I want our Republic to be ready for the first world in 20 years.

Towards that vision, we made key reforms. Our economic plan centers on putting people first. Higit sa lahat, ang layunin ng ating patakaran ay tulungan ang masisipag na karaniwang Pilipino. New tax revenues were put in place to help pay for better healthcare, more roads, and a strong education system. Housing policies were designed to lift up our poorer citizens so they can live and raise a family with dignity. Ang ating mga puhunan sa agrikultura ay naglalayong kilalanin ang ating mga magsasaka bilang backbone ng ating bansa, at bigyan sila ng mga modernong kagamitan to feed our nation and feed their own family.

Had we listened to the critics of those policies, had we not braced ourselves for the crisis that came, had we taken the easy road much preferred by politicians eyeing elections, this country would be flat on its back. It would take twice the effort just to get it back again on its feet—to where we are now because we took the responsibility and paid the political price of doing the right thing. For standing with me and doing the right thing, thank you, Congress.

The strong, bitter and unpopular revenue measures of the past few years have spared our country the worst of the global financial shocks. They gave us the resources to stimulate the economy. Nabigyan nila ang pinakamalaking pagtaas ng IRA ng mga LGU na P40 billion itong taon, imparting strength throughout the country at every level of government.

Compared to the past we have built more and better infrastructure, including those started by others but left unfinished. The Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway is a prime example of building better roads. It creates wealth as the flagship of the Subic-Clark corridor.

We have built airports of international standard, upgraded domestic airports, built seaports and the roll on/roll off transport system. I ask Congress for a Philippine Transport Security Authority Law.

Some say that after this SONA, it will be all politics. Sorry, but there’s more work.

Sa telecommunications naman, inatasan ko ang Telecommunications Commission na kumilos na tungkol sa mga sumbong na dropped calls at mga nawawalang load sa cellphone. We need to amend the Commonwealth-era Public Service Law. And we need to do it now.

Kung noong nakaraan, lumakas ang electronics, today we are creating wealth by developing the BPO and tourism sectors as additional engines of growth. Electronics and other manufactured exports rise and fall in accordance with the state of the world economy. But BPO remains resilient. With earnings of $6 billion and employment of 600,000, the BPO phenomenon speaks eloquently of our competitiveness and productivity. Let us have a Department of ICT.

In the last four years tourism almost doubled. It is now a $5 billion industry.

Our reforms gave us the resources to protect our people, our financial system and our economy from the worst of shocks that the best in the west failed to anticipate.

They gave us the resources to extend welfare support and enhance spending power.

For helping me raise government salaries through Joint Resolution 4, thank you, Congress.

Cash handouts give the most immediate relief and produce the widest stimulating effect. Nakikinabang ang 700,000 na pinakamahihirap na pamilya sa programang Pantawid Pamilya.

We prioritize projects with the same stimulus effects plus long-term contributions to progress.

Sa pagpapamahagi ng milyun-milyong ektaryang lupa, 700,000 na katutubo at mahigit isang milyong benepisyaryo ng CARP ay taas-noong may-ari na ng sariling lupa. Hinihiling ko sa Kongreso na ipasa agad ang pagpapalawig ng CARP, at dapat ma-condone ang P42 billion na land reform liabilities dahil 18% lamang ang nabayaran mula 1972. Napapanahon, it’s timely because it will unfreeze the rural property market. Ang mahal kong ama ang nag-emancipate ng mga magsasaka. Ii-mancipate naman natin ngayon ang titulo.

Nakinabang ang pitong milyong entrepreneurs sa P165 billion na microfinance loans.

Nakinabang ang sandaan libo sa emergency employment ng ating economic resiliency plan. Kasama natin ngayon ang isa sa kanila, si Gigi Gabiola. Dating household service worker sa Dubai, ngayon siya ay nagtatrabaho sa DOLE. Good luck, Gigi.

Nakinabang ang isang milyong pamilya sa programang pabahay at palupa, mula Pag-Ibig, NHA, community mortgage program, certificates of lot award, at saka iyong loan condonation.

Our average inflation is the lowest since 1966. Last June, it dropped to 1.5%. Paano?

Proper policies lowered interest rates, which lowered costs to business and consumers.

Dahil sa ating mga reporma, nakaya nating ibenta ang bigas NFA sa P18.25 per kilo kahit tumaas ang presyo sa labas mula P17.50 hanggang P30 dahil sa kakulangan ng supply sa mundo. Habang, sa unang pagkakataon, nagawa nating itaas ang pamimili ng palay sa mga magsasaka, P17 mula sa P11.

Dahil sa ating mga reporma, nakaya nating mamuhunan sa pagkain—anticipating an unexpected global food crisis. Nakagawa tayo ng libu-libong kilometro ng farm-to-market roads at, kasama ng pribadong sector, natubigan ang dalawang milyong ektarya. Mga Badjao gaya ni Tarnati Dannawi ay tinuruan ng modernong mariculture. Umabot na sa P 180,000 ang kinita niya mula noong nakaraang taon. Congratulations, Tarnati. We will help more fisherfolk shift to fish farming with a budget of P1 billion.

Dahil dumarami na naman daw ang pamilyang nagugutom, mamumuhunan tayo ng panibago sa ating hunger mitigation program na sa nakaraan ay napatunayang mabisa. Tulungan ninyo ako dito, Kongreso.

Mula pa noong 2001, nanawagan na tayo ng mas murang gamot. Nagbebenta tayo ng gamot na kalahating presyo sa libu-libong Botika ng Bayan at Botika ng Barangay sa maraming dako ng bansa. Our efforts prodded the pharmaceutical companies to come up with low-cost generics and brands like RiteMed. I supported the tough version of the House of the Cheaper Medicine law. I supported it over the weak version of my critics. The result: the drug companies volunteered to bring down drug prices, slashing by half the prices of 16 drugs. Thank you, Congressmen Cua, Alvarez, Biron, Locsin.

Pursuant to law, we are placing other drugs under a maximum retail price. To those who want to be President, this advice: If you really want something done, just do it. Do it hard, do it well. Don’t pussyfoot. Don't pander. And don’t say bad words in public.

Sa health insurance, sakop na ang 86% ang ating populasyon.

Sa Rent Control Law ng 2005 hanggang 2008, di pwedeng lumampas ng 10% ang pagtaas ng upa taun-taon. Ayon sa kakapirma nating batas may isang taong moratorium, tapos hanggang 7% lamang ang maaaring pagtaas. Salamat, Kongreso.

Noong isang taon, nabiyayaan ng tig-P500 ang mahigit pitong milyong tahanan bilang Pantawid Koryente sa mga small electricity users.

Yung presyo ng koryente, ang EPIRA natin ang pangmatagalang sagot. EPIRA dismantled monopoly. Ngunit minana natin ang power purchase agreements, kaya hindi pa natin makamtan yung buong intended effect. Pero happy na rin tayo, dahil isang taon na lamang iyan. The next generation will benefit from low prices from our EPIRA.

Samantala, umabot na sa halos lahat ng barangay ang elektrisidad. We increased indigenous energy from 48% to 58%. Nakatipid tayo sa dollars tapos na-reduce pa iyong oil consumption. The huge reduction in fossil fuel is the biggest proof of energy independence and environmental responsibility. Further reduction will come with the implementation of the Renewable Energy Act, and the Biofuels Act.

The next generation will also benefit from our lower public debt to GDP ratio. It declined from 78% in 2000 to 55% in 2008. We cut in half the debt of government corporations from 15% to 7%. Likewise foreign debt from 73% to 32%. Kung meron man tayong malaking kaaway na tinalo, walang iba kundi ang utang, iyong foreign debt. Those in the past administrations conjured the demon of foreign debt. We exorcised it.

The market grows economies. A free market, not a free-for-all.

To that end, we improved our banking system to complement its inherent conservatism. The Bangko Sentral has been prudent. Thank you, Governor Tetangco, for being so effective. The BSP will be even more effective if Congress will amend its Charter.

We worked on the Special Purpose Vehicle Act, reducing non-performing loans from 18% to 4% and improving loan-deposit ratios.

Our new Securitization Law did not encourage the recklessness that brought down giant banks and insurance companies elsewhere and laid their economies to waste. In fact, it monitors and regulates the new-fangled financial schemes. Thank you, Congress.

We will work to increase tax effort through improved collections and new sin taxes to further our capacity to reduce poverty and pursue growth. Revenue enhancement must come from the Department of Finance plugging leaks and catching tax and customs cheats. I call on tax paying citizens and tax paying businesses, help the BIR and stop those tax cheats.

Taxes should come from alcohol and tobacco and not from books. Tax hazards to lungs and livers, do not tax minds. Ang kita mula sa buwis sa alak at sigarilyo ay dapat gamitin sa kalusugan at edukasyon. Pondohan ang Philhealth premiums ng pinakamahihirap. Pondohan ang mas maraming classroom at computers.

Pardon my partiality for the teaching profession. I was a teacher.

Kaya namuhunan tayo ng malaki sa edukasyon at skills training.

Ang magandang edukasyon ay susi sa mas magandang buhay, the great equalizer that allows every young Filipino a chance to realize their dreams.

Nagtayo tayo ng 95,000 na silid-aralan, nagdagdag ng 60,000 na guro, naglaan ng P1.5 billion para sa teacher training, especially for 100,000 English teachers.

Isa sa pinakamahirap sa Millennium Development Goals ay iyong Edukasyon para sa Lahat pagdating ng 2015. Ibig sabihin, lahat ng nasa tamang edad ay dapat nasa primary school. Halos walang bansang makakatupad nito. Ngunit nagsisikap pa rin tayo. Nagtayo tayo ng mga paaralan sa higit sanlibong barangay na dati walang eskwelahan upang makatipid ng gastos sa pasahe ang mga bata. Tinanggal natin ang miscellaneous fees para sa primary school. Hindi na kailangan mag-uniporme ang mga estudyante sa public school.

In private high schools, we finance half of the students.

We have provided college and post-graduate education for over 600,000 scholars. One of them, Mylene Amerol-Macumbal, finished Accounting at MSU-IIT, then she went to law school, and placed second in the last bar exams - the first Muslim woman bar topnotcher. Congratulations!

In technical education and skills training, we have invested three times that of three previous administrations combined. Narito si Jennifer Silbor, isa sa sampung milyong trainee. Natuto siya ng medical transcription. Now, as an independent contractor and lecturer for transcriptions in Davao, kumikita siya ng P18,000 bawat buwan. Good job, Jennifer.

The Presidential Task Force on Education headed by Jesuit educator Father Bienvenido Nebres has come out with the Main Education Highway towards a Knowledge-Based Economy. It envisions seamless education from basic to vocational school or college.

It seeks to mainstream early childhood development in basic education. Our children are our most cherished possession. In their early years we must make sure they get a healthy start in life. They must receive the right food for a healthy body, the right education for a bright and inquiring mind—and the equal opportunity for a meaningful job.

For college admission, the Task Force recommends mandatory Scholastic Aptitude Tests. It also recommends that higher private education institutions should be harmonized with state universities and colleges, and that CHED should oversee local universities and colleges. For professions seeking international recognition—engineering, architecture, accountancy, pharmacy and physical therapy—it recommends radical reform: 10 years of basic education, two years of pre-university, before three years of university.

Our educational system should make the Filipino fit not just for whatever jobs happen to be on offer today, but also for whatever economic challenge life will throw in their way.

Sa hirap at ginhawa, pinapatatag ang ating bansa ng ating overseas Filipinos. Iyong padala nilang $16 billion noong isang taon ay record. Itong taon, mas mataas pa.

I know that this is not a sacrifice joyfully borne. This is work where it can be found—in faraway places, among strangers with different cultures. It is lonely work, it is hard work.

Kaya nagsisikap tayong lumikha dito sa atin ng mga trabahong maganda ang sahod, so that overseas work will just be a career choice, not the only option for a hard-working Filipino.

Meanwhile, we should make their sacrifices worthwhile. Dapat gumawa tayo ng mas epektibong proteksyon at pagpapalawak ng halaga ng kanilang pinagsikapang suweldo. That means stronger consumer protection for Overseas Filipino Workers investing in property and products back home. Para sa kanila, pinapakilos natin ang Investors Protection Task Force.

Hindi ako nag-aatubiling bisitahin ang ating taong bayan at kanilang mga host sa buong mundo – mula Hapon...hanggang Brazil, mula Europa at Middle East hanggang sa American Midwest, nakikinig sa kanilang mga problema at pangangailangan, inaalam kung paano sila matutulungan ng ating pamahalaan—-by working out better policies on migrant labor, or by saving lives and restoring liberty.

Pagpunta ko sa Saudi, pinatawad ni Haring Abdullah ang pitong daang OFW na nasa preso. Pinuno nila ang isang buong eroplano at umuwi kasama ko.

Mula sa ating State Visit sa Espanya, it has become our biggest European donor. At si Haring Juan Carlos ay nakikipag-usap sa ibang mga bansa para sa ating mga namomoblemang OFW. Ganoon din si Sheikh Khalifa, ang Prime Minister ng Bahrain.

Pagpunta ko sa Kuwait, Emir Al-Sabah commuted death sentences. We thank all our leaders, our world leaders, for showing compassion to our overseas foreign workers. Salamat.

Our vigorous international engagement has helped bring in foreign investment. Net foreign direct investments multiplied 15 times during our administration. Kasama ng ating mga Together with our OFWs, they more than doubled our foreign exchange reserves. Pinalakas ang ating piso at naiwasan ang lubhang pagtaas ng presyo. They upgraded our credit because while the reserves of our peers have shrunk this past year, ours reserves grew by $3 billion.

Our international engagement has also corrected historical injustice. The day we visited Washington, Senator Daniel Inouye successfully sponsored benefits for our veterans as part of America’s stimulus package.

I have accepted the invitation of President Obama to be the first Southeast Asian leader to meet him at the White House, later this week.

That he sought us out testifies to our strong and deep ties.

High on our agenda will be peace and security issues. Terrorism: how to meet it, how to end it, how to address its roots in injustice or prejudice—and first and always how to protect lives.

We will discuss nuclear non-proliferation. The Philippines will chair the review of the nuclear weapons non-proliferation Treaty in New York in May 2010. The success of the talks will be a major diplomatic achievement for us.

There is a range of other issues we will discuss, including the global challenge of climate change, especially the threat to countries with long coastlines. And there is the global recession, its worse impact on poor people, and the options that can spare them from the worst.

In 2008 up to the first quarter of 2009 we stood among only a few economies in Asia-Pacific that did not shrink. Compare this to 2001, when some of my current critics were driven out by people power. Asia was surging but our country was on the brink of bankruptcy.

Since then, our economy posted uninterrupted growth for 33 quarters; more than doubled its size from $76 billion to $186 billion. The average GDP growth from 2001 to the first quarter of 2009 is the highest in 43 years.

Bumaba ang bilang ng mga nagsasabing mahirap sila sa 47% mula 59%. Maski lumaki ang ating populasyon, nabawasan ng dalawang milyon ang bilang ng mahihirap. GNP per capita rose from a Third World $967 to $2,000. Lumikha tayo ng walong milyong trabaho, an average of a million a year, much, much more than at any other time.

In sum:

1. We have a strong economy and a strong fiscal position to withstand global shocks.

2. We built new modern infrastructure and completed unfinished ones.

3. The economy is more fair to the poor than ever before.

4. We are building a sound base for the next generation.

5. International authorities have taken notice that we are safer from environmental degradation and man-made disasters.

As a country in the path of typhoons and in the Pacific Rim of Fire, we must be prepared as the latest technology permits to anticipate natural calamities when that is possible; to extend immediate and effective relief when it is not. The mapping of flood- and landslide-prone areas is almost complete. Early warning, forecasting and monitoring systems have been improved, with weather tracking facilities in Subic, Tagaytay, Mactan, Mindanao, Pampanga.

We have worked on flood control infrastructure like those for Pinatubo, Agno, Laoag, and Abucay, which will pump the run off waters from Quezon City and Tondo flooding Sampaloc. This will help relieve hundreds of hectares in this old city of its age old woe.

Patuloy naman iyong sa Camanava, dagdag sa Pinatubo, Iloilo, Pasig-Marikina, Bicol River Basin, at mga river basin ng Mindanao.

The victims of typhoon Frank in Panay should receive their long-overdue assistance package. I ask Congress to pass the SNITS Law.

Namana natin ang pinakamatagal na rebelyon ng Komunista sa buong mundo.

Si Leah de la Cruz isa sa labindalawang libong rebel returnee. Sixteen pa lang siya nang sumali sa NPA. Naging kasapi sa regional White Area Committee, napromote sa Leyte Party Committee Secretary. Nahuli noong 2006. She is now involved in an LGU-supported handicraft livelihood training of former rebels. We love you, Leah!

There is now a good prospect for peace talks with both the Communist Party of the Philippines and the MILF, with whom we are now on ceasefire.

We inherited an age-old conflict in Mindanao, exacerbated by a politically popular but near-sighted policy of massive retaliation. This only provoked the other side to continue the war.

In these two internal conflicts, ang tanong ay hindi, “Sino ang mananalo?” kundi, bakit pa ba kailangang mag-laban ang kapwa Pilipino tungkol sa mga isyu na alam naman nating lahat na di malulutas sa dahas, at mareresolba lang sa paraang demokratiko?

There is nothing more that I would wish for than peace in Mindanao. It will be a blessing for all its people, Muslim, Christian and lumads. It will show other religiously divided communities that there can be common ground on which to live together in peace, harmony and cooperation that respects each other’s religious beliefs.

At sa lahat ng dako ng bansa, kailangan nating protektahan ang ating mga mamamayan kontra sa krimen' -- in their homes, in their neighborhoods, in their communities. How shall crime be fought? With the five pillars of justice, including crime fighters. We call on Congress to fund more policemen on the streets.

Real government is about looking beyond the vested to the national interest, setting up the necessary conditions to enable the next, more enabled and more empowered generation to achieve a country as prosperous, a people as content, as ours deserve to be.

The noisiest critics of constitutional reform tirelessly and shamelessly attempted Cha-Cha when they thought they could take advantage of a shift in the form of government. Now that they feel they cannot benefit from it, they oppose it.

As the seeds of fundamental political reform are planted, let us address the highest exercise of democracy, voting!

In 2001, I said we would finance fully automated elections. We got it, thanks to Congress.

At the end of this speech I shall step down from this stage, but not from the Presidency. My term does not end until next year. Until then, I will fight for the ordinary Filipino. The nation comes first. There is much to do as head of state—to the very last day.

A year is a long time. Patuloy ang pamumuhunan sa tinatawag na three E’s ng ekonomiya, environment at edukasyon. There are many perils that we must still guard against.

A man-made calamity is already upon us, global in scale. As I said earlier, so far we have been spared its worst effects but we cannot be complacent. We only know that we have generated more resources on which to draw, and thereby created options we could take. Thank God we did not let our critics stop us.

As the campaign unfolds and the candidates take to the airwaves, I ask them to talk more about how they will build up the nation rather than tear down their opponents. Give the electorate real choices and not just sweet talk.

Meanwhile, I will keep a steady hand on the tiller, keeping the ship of state away from the shallows some prefer, and steering it straight on the course we set in 2001.

Ang ating taong bayan ay masipag at maka-Diyos. These qualities are epitomized in someone like Manny Pacquiao....Manny trained tirelessly, by the book, with iron discipline, with the certain knowledge that he had to fight himself, his weaknesses first, before he could beat his opponent. That was the way to clinch his victories and his ultimate title: ang pinakadakilang boksingero sa kasaysayan. Mabuhay ka, Manny!

However much a President wishes it, a national problem cannot be knocked out with a single punch. She must work with the problem as much as against it, turn it into a solution if she can.

There isn’t a day I do not work at my job or a waking moment when I do not think through a work-related problem. Even my critics cannot begrudge the long hours I put in. Our people deserve-a-government that works just as hard as they do.

A President must be on the job 24/7, ready for any contingency, any crisis, anywhere, anytime.

Everything right can be undone by even a single wrong. Every step forward must be taken in the teeth of political pressures and economic constraints that could push you two steps back-if-you flinch and falter. I have not flinched, I have not faltered. Hindi ako umaatras sa hamon.

And I have never done any of the things that have scared my worst critics so much. They are frightened by their own shadows.

In the face of attempted coups, I issued emergency proclamations just in case. But I was able to resolve these military crises with the ordinary powers of my office. My critics call it dictatorship. I call it determination. We know it as strong government.

But I never declared martial law, though they are running scared as if I did. In truth, what they are really afraid of is their weakness in the face of this self-imagined threat.

I say to them: do not tell us what we all know, that democracy can be threatened. Tell us what you will do when it is attacked.

I know what to do:

As I have shown, I will defend democracy with arms when it is threatened by violence; with firmness when it is weakened by division; with law and order when it is subverted by anarchy; and always, I will try to sustain it by wise policies of economic progress, so that a democracy means not just an empty liberty but a full life for all.

I never expressed the desire to extend myself beyond my term. Many of those who accuse me of it tried to cling like nails to their posts.

I am accused of misgovernance. Many of those who accuse me of it left me the problem of their misgovernance to solve. And we did it.

I am falsely accused, without proof, of using my position for personal profit. Many who accuse me have lifestyles and spending habits that make them walking proofs of that crime.

We can read their frustrations. They had the chance to serve this good country and they blew it by serving themselves.

Those who live in glass houses should cast no stones. Those who should be in jail should not threaten it, especially if they have been there.

Our administration, with the highest average rate of growth, recording multiple increases in investments, with the largest job creation in history, and which gets a credit upgrade at the height of a world recession, must be doing something right, even if some of those cocooned in corporate privilege refuse to recognize it.

Governance, however, is not about looking back and getting even. It is about looking forward and giving more—to the people who gave us the greatest, hardest gift of all: the care of a country.

From Bonifacio at Balintawak to Cory Aquino at EDSA and up to today, we have struggled to bring power to the people, and this country to the eminence it deserves.

Today the Philippines is weathering well the storm that is raging around the world. It is growing stronger with the challenge. When the weather clears, as it will, there is no telling how much farther forward it can go. Believe in it. I believe.

We can and we must march forward with hope, optimism and determination.

We must come together, work together and walk together toward the future.

Bagamat malaking hamon ang nasa ating harapan, nasa kamay natin ang malaking kakayahan. Halina’t pagtulungan nating tiyakin ang karapat-dapat na kinabukasan ng ating Inang Bayan.

And to the people of our good country, for allowing me to serve as your President, maraming salamat.

Mabuhay ang Pilipinas.

We'll parse this later.

The Hierarchy of Disagreement (or, how to separate the humans from the trolls)

Hat tip to Twitter TheGreatest, who introduced me to the website CreateDebate.Com, and this nifty little illustration:

Hierarchy of Disagreement, from the blog post "Writing Strong Arguments"

From top to bottom is from strong to weak argumentation. This guide, I like. It may even help in evolving trolls into human beings (not very likely, but hope springs eternal).

Go visit CreateDebate.Com folks, it looks like a place where only homo sapiens sapiens can hold their own. Tee hee hee.

Know Your Rights Redux, Part 6: "We Would Like To Invite You for Questioning Regarding The Jester-in-Exile..."

(UPDATE: Added complete series links.)

(Teeheehee. This post was written in front of a cop and a prosecutor teeheehee.)

If you folks have been following our latest posts on human rights and civil and political rights, you may have read the previous post containing conjectures gleaned from the affidavit of Melissa Roxas, the American writer and poet of Filipino descent allegedly tortured by government agents.

Attacking Roxas credibility (something that Commission on Human Rights chairperson Leila de Lima says Roxas' testimony has), in today's Philippine Star party-list representatives Rep. Jovito Palparan of Bantay and Rep. Pastor Alcover, jr. of the Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) claim that Roxas was once an armed rebel and that her kidnap and torture was not by soldiers but by her own comrades who were trying to prevent her from severing her ties with the communist movement. The story is likewise on GMANews.TV, in greater detail.

Objectively speaking, it is indeed possible. There have been and are quite a number of documented cases of the NPA going after those who have left their ranks, most notably that of Popoy Lagman, who was shot at the University of the Philippines Bahay ng Alumni, with the shooters claiming responsibility in the open media, saying that the killing was "a victory for the people and the revolution."

However much it seems that Palparan and Alcover have done their homework (immigration records and whatnot), it seems that they didn't read the affidavit enough to present a credible counter-story, nor are they presenting their side persuasively. Palparan and Alcover are making themselves look as if they are aiding in a cover-up, and if their claims of Roxas being an NPA regular are true, they have instead given the terrorist NPA wiggle room to denounce Roxas.

In that previous post I voiced the possibility that Roxas is a pawn in a sinister scheme... well, sinister scheme or not, she's being used as a pawn now. Stupid politicians. Melissa deserves justice, not crumbs left from the spoils from the war for power and prestige.

We'll keep an eye on that, even as we go through our regular stuff. Hey, have you started counting how many procedural violations -- and therefore rights violations -- have been perpetrated against Melissa?

In this post we'll talk about the "invitation for questioning"... this strange legal animal that the cops don't want us ordinary folks to understand.

***
For more exhaustive discussions on civil rights, I'd recommend that you read the primer made by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). Do visit their niche of cyberspace -- and when you can, do spread the information around.

Disclaimer: Again, for legal advice, get a lawyer.

In our previous post in the series we talked what to do when you the cops come arresting you. We have not yet gone through some other details that you might have expected, but that's because we wanted to talk about this "invitation for questioning" thing first.

See, it's in the first few minutes of when the cops accost you to find out whether you're being invited for questioning or being arrested... and it's being clear on this that you will be able to protect your civil rights.

Let's see what the law says about "invitations for questioning."

The case of Babst vs. NIB makes clear that "an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some questions, which the person invited may heed or refuse at his pleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally objectionable." As such, there is no legal barrier for the cops to invite a citizen down to the cop shop for the citizen to answer some questions.

However, the key phrase towards whether or not the cops are making an invitation or are attempting to perform an arrest are these: "the person invited may heed or refuse at his pleasure."

So then, our scenario.

WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE BEING INVITED FOR QUESTIONING

Don't panic. STAY CALM. If you are being invited for questioning, you are not under arrest. Now, we hope you haven't forgotten previous post in the series, because quite a number of the rules and rights apply.

Ask the person or persons making the invitation for their names, their official positions, and the office or unit they belong to. Inquire from the officer where you will be taken. Note these carefully.

The law requires officers to be properly dressed, to behave properly and to respect your rights and your dignity. If the persons making the invitation are in civilian clothes, or refuse to present proper identification, refuse to go with them.

If you are willing to answer questions without a lawyer and are willing to accompany them right away, at least inform your lawyer or a family member or a friend that you're going with the cops and tell them where you and the cops are going.

Better yet, have someone go with you to the station. The cops cannot stop you from making calls, from talking to people -- hell, you can make them wait while you do the laundry -- when they are making an invitation for questioning. Remember, the law says "the person invited may heed or refuse at his pleasure," so if it is your pleasure not to hurry, the cops cannot hurry you up. It is your time that they are asking for, and it is your right to dole out as little as you want and how you want.

If you are willing to answer questions but feel uneasy about the cops, call your lawyer and inform the cops thay you will go to the station only after your lawyer arrives and together with him. The cops cannot refuse your terms; they may suggest that you can wait for your lawyer at the station instead, and if you agree, see above on what to do then. If you do not agree, the cops cannot insist; for them to insist is to turn the invitation into an arrest, and the previous post in the series applies.

If you are completely unwilling to answer questions, refuse to go with the cops. If they insist that you go, the invitation becomes an arrest, and the previous post in the series applies.

In an invitation for questioning, the officer cannot employ force or restraints on you. No handcuffs, no tie wraps, no nothing. You are not under arrest, and therefore cannot be treated as a suspect. The officer is not allowed to hold you by the scruff of the neck, by your arm, by your elbow, by your shoulders, or however else that can give you the feeling that you are being restrained. If they do, ask the cops politely not to. If they continue, ask the cops whether or not you are under arrest. If they say that you are not, then inform them politely that you feel that you are being treated like a suspect and that they should stop. If they do not stop, take note of the officer so you will have greater detail to put on your complaint about him later.

Note that an invitation for questioning can be refused at any time. The law recognizes that you may "may heed or refuse at (your) pleasure."

The law requires officers to to behave properly and to respect your rights and your dignity. They cannot treat you as if you were a suspect; for instance, if they hold you by the head and push you into the car, you have cause to complain... furthermore, if you are annoyed enough to change your mind and refuse to go with them because you felt disrespected, it is your right to get out of the vehicle. If the cops attempt to stop you in any way, the invitation becomes an arrest, and the previous post in the series applies.

Again, note that an invitation for questioning can be refused at any time. The law recognizes that you may "may heed or refuse at (your) pleasure."

Even if the officer strikes you, DO NOT STRIKE BACK. Instead, try to keep a cool head and try to remember who it was who struck you, so that you can complain of him at the first possible opportunity before the prosecutor or the judge.

Remember all violations of your rights, and complain about them at the first opportunity. In case of an invitation for questioning, complain anytime, because at any point the cops refuse to heed your complaint, the invitation turns into an arrest, and the previous post in the series applies.

Presence of mind, folks. Just that, and you'll be fine.

***
The "invitation for questioning" is the possibly the procedure most misused by law enforcement agents... and there's a reason for that.

You see, when someone is arrested, the law requires that the suspect be immediately informed of his rights, and his right to exercise these rights. You know, the classic "you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney..." and so on. In contrast, since in an "invitation for questioning" the citizen is NOT under arrest, the cops are under no procedural obligation to inform the citizen that he does have these rights.

As such, even if the citizen's answers tend to be self-incriminating, there exists that loophole that can be later exploited, that despite that the rights weren't read, the statements can be used.

Something like that. I haven't heard of any challenges on point regarding this issue yet. Let's hope there will be some clarification on this for the cops to be mandated to include in their standard procedure.

We'll talk about these rights -- the "Miranda rights" -- in a succeeding post.

***
So far, we've gone through quite a bit of civil rights ground here, but none of our scenarios have yet to go past the point where the cops read us our rights. Ah well. That'll come up next.

Detention and custody and whatnot and the rights to these will be in the coming posts. Once again, friends, you should know that if you need legal advice, you gotta talk to a real lawyer.

(Hmph. Do I really need to go through with the series? Hell, I'm on Part 6 already... might as well see this whole thing through.)

See ya, folks.

Posts in this civil rights series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10