Aquino-Roxas 2010. Roxas-Padaca 2016.
What do you folks think about Noynoy, Mar, and Grace, and 2010 and 2016?
Hmf.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Liberal Party Juggernaut... ?
Just something to think about.
Aquino-Roxas 2010. Roxas-Padaca 2016.
What do you folks think about Noynoy, Mar, and Grace, and 2010 and 2016?
Hmf.
Aquino-Roxas 2010. Roxas-Padaca 2016.
What do you folks think about Noynoy, Mar, and Grace, and 2010 and 2016?
Hmf.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Mga Mangmang Daw Kayo Tungkol sa Pagtatalik, Mga Kapatid kong Pilipina. Kawawa Naman Kayo.
I felt the need to add a new category to this blog, reproductive health, after reading this little piece of news: ONLINE SURVEY: Pinays don’t know their body and how it works.
The findings of the Kotex BodyLife IQ Study, which covered 1,800 women aged 12-24 from six Asian countries found highlighted this: "Of all the nationalities surveyed, Filipinas were the most misinformed, with the biggest body-knowledge gap... Eighty-three percent of young [Filipino] women surveyed believed myths about their body to be true."
How sad is that? Although the phenomenon isn't limited to Filipinas, clearly the excerpt applies as well and highlights even more the need for the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill and sex education in public schools:
That said, I also think that certain values being perpetuated in our society contributes to this. Check out this gem:
Guess which sector of Philippine society tries its damnedest to perpetuate the crock of crap that "good girls are innocent", by which they mean ignorant? Or that rather stupid mindset that "only sluts know a lot about sex?"
Bleh.
So then, if the RH bill doesn't get passed in this session of Congress -- there's little in the way of time left, then we'll have to keep an eye on the platforms of those planning to get elected or reelected in 2010. I'm going to do my part and campaign against anyone who will not actively promote reproductive health; heck, I'll campaign doubly hard against anyone who actively opposes reproductive health.
I hope that this can be dispensed with by the bill becoming law, though. No point wasting time and allowing the perpetuation of ignorance to continue... especially if such ignorance results in the population pressures, the continuing increase in cases of AIDS and STDs, infant and mother mortality, and other such things that are without doubt bad for women generally and for the entire country in the long run.
Nakamamatay ang kamangmangan, lalo na kung magpapakatanga kayo at wala kayong gagawin para di kayo maiiwang mangmang. Tandaan ninyo yan, mga kapatid.
(Paging Representative Lagman and other congressmen, concerned senators of the Republic, and others smart enough to support and work for the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill. Hurry up, will you? Grow balls, just like what Quezon City Councilor Joseph Juico has.)
The findings of the Kotex BodyLife IQ Study, which covered 1,800 women aged 12-24 from six Asian countries found highlighted this: "Of all the nationalities surveyed, Filipinas were the most misinformed, with the biggest body-knowledge gap... Eighty-three percent of young [Filipino] women surveyed believed myths about their body to be true."
How sad is that? Although the phenomenon isn't limited to Filipinas, clearly the excerpt applies as well and highlights even more the need for the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill and sex education in public schools:
"Many young women are ignorant of even the most basic facts when it comes to the essentials of womanhood," the study said.
"No matter how sophisticated they appear or how contemporary their lifestyles, or what country or city they live in, there are shocking gaps in the basic knowledge of their own bodies in 97 percent of all young women surveyed," it added.
That said, I also think that certain values being perpetuated in our society contributes to this. Check out this gem:
Over half of the respondents also said that they were afraid to ask questions during their sex education classes out of fear of being labeled "promiscuous."
Guess which sector of Philippine society tries its damnedest to perpetuate the crock of crap that "good girls are innocent", by which they mean ignorant? Or that rather stupid mindset that "only sluts know a lot about sex?"
Bleh.
So then, if the RH bill doesn't get passed in this session of Congress -- there's little in the way of time left, then we'll have to keep an eye on the platforms of those planning to get elected or reelected in 2010. I'm going to do my part and campaign against anyone who will not actively promote reproductive health; heck, I'll campaign doubly hard against anyone who actively opposes reproductive health.
I hope that this can be dispensed with by the bill becoming law, though. No point wasting time and allowing the perpetuation of ignorance to continue... especially if such ignorance results in the population pressures, the continuing increase in cases of AIDS and STDs, infant and mother mortality, and other such things that are without doubt bad for women generally and for the entire country in the long run.
Nakamamatay ang kamangmangan, lalo na kung magpapakatanga kayo at wala kayong gagawin para di kayo maiiwang mangmang. Tandaan ninyo yan, mga kapatid.
(Paging Representative Lagman and other congressmen, concerned senators of the Republic, and others smart enough to support and work for the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill. Hurry up, will you? Grow balls, just like what Quezon City Councilor Joseph Juico has.)
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Know Your Rights Redux: The Index
We're done with the civil and political rights series, folks. Here's the index of our posts:
Know your rights, folks. I hope this series helps some.
(Whew. Finally got that itch out of my system.)
Part 1 - civil and political rights basics
Part 2 - when the cops come knocking at the door
Part 3 - when the cops bring a search warrant to your door
Part 4 - what to do during a raid by the police
Part 5 - when being arrested
Part 6 - on being "invited for questioning"
Part 7 - a discussion on practical Miranda rights
Part 8 - some interrogation techniques used by police
Part 9 - when brought to the police station after being arrested
Part 10 - in detention and awaiting trial
Know your rights, folks. I hope this series helps some.
(Whew. Finally got that itch out of my system.)
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Know Your Rights Redux, Part 10: Before the Bench
Call it serendipity, call it alignment of the planets, call it blind luck, whatever -- but the Philippine National Police apparently has begun serious moves towards civil rights education of its officers. This is great news -- one of the observations that I've heard blogger Fritz make on Plurk is that better-trained cops will result in more effective crime fighting (or something like that).
However, as I've also heard MLQ3 observe ruefully, it has happened that some law enforcement officials operate under the modus operandi of "golpe de gulat" -- that is, some cops will surprise a hapless citizen with some law or other and take him to task over it. The citizen, of course, cannot plead ignorance -- the legal maxim of ignoratia legis neminem excusat is often used against the citizen in such cases.
(Quite a number of people I know have had such wonderful experiences with MMDA traffic enforcers and MAPSA cops, but those are stories for another time.)
It seems to me, then, that there is what I'd like to think of as an intellectual arms race between the public at large and a police force who has yet to reach standards of professionalism that will result in officers being accorded respect automatically by virtue of the shield worn by the cops. The weapons being stockpiled in this arms race is knowledge of one's civil and political rights, how they apply in a given situation, and how to respond when these rights are transgressed.
Sounds as if there's a war on civil rights between cops and civilians, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it's really hard not to think so, especially since the police operation manual mandated by RA 6975 and RA 8551 for the National Police Commission to make has not been sufficiently disseminated to the public, if at all made. I've heard plurker NerveEnding mention a symptom of this "golpe de gulat" mindset, when he said essentially that cops don't mess with lawyers (presumably because lawyers are familiar with civil and political rights), but do not accord the same deference to ordinary citizens.
I guess I should consider my posts on civil rights to be my contribution to the general public's stockpile, in this intellectual arms race. Knowledge of our civil and political rights and our human rights will go a long way in preventing them being trampled upon, which we might let happen had we not known about them.
That said, let me say for the record that I don't believe that I have had anything to do with the cops having to get rights training.
Nyahahahaha.
Okay, then. Today we'll be talking about what to do if you've been charged with a crime and if you're in detention awaiting trial.
***
For more discussions on civil rights, do read up on the primer made by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). Don't forget -- for real legal advice, ask a real lawyer.
In our previous post in the series we talked about being in the police station. Now, we're talking about civil rights and such if you've been charged with a crime and are in detention awaiting trial.
We'll make it short and sweet and quote directly from the FLAG primer.
Take special note, folks: a suspect in detention and awaiting trial must be differentiated from those already convicted by final judgment. Remember, despite appearances to the contrary made deliberately or inadvertently by law enforcement officials or media (yup, all those "presented to media" news stories), the Constitution provides for the presumption of innocence.
Consti 3:14, paragraph 2, friends.
***
Let me emphasize again, folks -- get a lawyer, even before you get to this point.
Now, once again, quoting directly from and adapting from the FLAG primer:
Once again, if you've gotten to this point, you should not cheat yourself of your rights. Get a lawyer.
There's a legal adage that goes "Anyone who attempts to defend himself in a court of law has a fool for a client."
Don't be one.
***
I feel I have to reiterate these hypothetical scenarios mentioned in the the primer, which I included in the previous post. Take special note of items (c) and (d)
Take the time to get to know your rights. In our country in this day and age, such knowledge might be one day crucial to our personal survival.
***
So then, the civil rights series is finished. My next post will be the index of this post series.
Some of the contents of the very useful FLAG primer will be treated separately, such as what to do at a police checkpoint, what to do when one is stopped at a "stop-and-frisk" operation, and what to do if one believes one is under threat of being summarily executed -- "salvaged" -- may appear in future civil and political rights and human rights posts.
By the way, another thought on the civil rights education of PNP officers? Not only should the PNP be made to undergo such training; officers and agents of other law enforcement agencies -- the National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group, the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, the Philippine Coast Guard, et cetera, et cetera -- must likewise be made to undergo such training. The NBI, PDEA, PASG, PAOCTF, PCG, and other law enforcement agencies are no less required to follow proper procedure than is the PNP.
(And, no, I really don't think I had anything to do with this. Heh heh.)
Later, all.
Posts in this civil rights series:
However, as I've also heard MLQ3 observe ruefully, it has happened that some law enforcement officials operate under the modus operandi of "golpe de gulat" -- that is, some cops will surprise a hapless citizen with some law or other and take him to task over it. The citizen, of course, cannot plead ignorance -- the legal maxim of ignoratia legis neminem excusat is often used against the citizen in such cases.
(Quite a number of people I know have had such wonderful experiences with MMDA traffic enforcers and MAPSA cops, but those are stories for another time.)
It seems to me, then, that there is what I'd like to think of as an intellectual arms race between the public at large and a police force who has yet to reach standards of professionalism that will result in officers being accorded respect automatically by virtue of the shield worn by the cops. The weapons being stockpiled in this arms race is knowledge of one's civil and political rights, how they apply in a given situation, and how to respond when these rights are transgressed.
Sounds as if there's a war on civil rights between cops and civilians, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it's really hard not to think so, especially since the police operation manual mandated by RA 6975 and RA 8551 for the National Police Commission to make has not been sufficiently disseminated to the public, if at all made. I've heard plurker NerveEnding mention a symptom of this "golpe de gulat" mindset, when he said essentially that cops don't mess with lawyers (presumably because lawyers are familiar with civil and political rights), but do not accord the same deference to ordinary citizens.
I guess I should consider my posts on civil rights to be my contribution to the general public's stockpile, in this intellectual arms race. Knowledge of our civil and political rights and our human rights will go a long way in preventing them being trampled upon, which we might let happen had we not known about them.
That said, let me say for the record that I don't believe that I have had anything to do with the cops having to get rights training.
Nyahahahaha.
Okay, then. Today we'll be talking about what to do if you've been charged with a crime and if you're in detention awaiting trial.
For more discussions on civil rights, do read up on the primer made by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). Don't forget -- for real legal advice, ask a real lawyer.
In our previous post in the series we talked about being in the police station. Now, we're talking about civil rights and such if you've been charged with a crime and are in detention awaiting trial.
We'll make it short and sweet and quote directly from the FLAG primer.
YOUR RIGHTS IF YOU ALREADY ARE UNDER DETENTION
Your rights are:- To be treated as a human being.
- To due process, which comprises the rights:- To be informed of the written regulations governing the detention center;
- Not to be punished for any act except in accordance with those regulations;
- To be subjected to only such punishment for breaches of discipline as are the least restrictive means to maintain order and security in the detention center;
- Not to be subjected to corporal punishment, confinement in a dark cell or total isolation (bartolina).
- To receive visits from your family, friends and lawyers.
- To practice your religion.
- To adequate food and, if you desire, to procure food from outside, through the administration of the detention center or through family and friends.
- To wear your own clothing unless you have none, in which case the detention administration shall supply it, but such clothing must be different from that supplied to convicts.
- To healthful accommodations, with sufficient light and ventilation, and adequate sanitary and bathing facilities.
- To a separate bed with sufficient bedding.
- To at least one hour's daily outdoor exercise.
- To competent medical and dental service, and to be treated by your own doctor or dentist if there is reasonable need for it and you or your family or friends will pay for it.
- To be furnished with or to procure reading and writing materials.
- To be kept separate from convicts serving sentence.
- To a speedy, impartial and public trial.
Take special note, folks: a suspect in detention and awaiting trial must be differentiated from those already convicted by final judgment. Remember, despite appearances to the contrary made deliberately or inadvertently by law enforcement officials or media (yup, all those "presented to media" news stories), the Constitution provides for the presumption of innocence.
Consti 3:14, paragraph 2, friends.
Let me emphasize again, folks -- get a lawyer, even before you get to this point.
Now, once again, quoting directly from and adapting from the FLAG primer:
In all criminal prosecutions, you have the following rights:- Not to be compelled to testify against yourself;
- To remain silent and to counsel;
- To be informed of the nature and causes of the accusation against you;
- To have a speedy, public and impartial trial;
- To appeal any conviction;
- To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;
- To be present and heard by yourself and counsel;
- To avail of court processes to secure the compulsory attendance of witnesses and the presentation of evidence in your defense; and
- To meet the witnesses face-to-face and to cross-examine them.
- When you are brought before the Judge, to make a formal complaint if you have been denied counsel, forced to confess, or manhandled, tortured or intimidated.
- To be released on reasonable bail, unless you are charged with a crime punishable by death and the evidence of your guilt is strong.
Release on bail does not bar you from challenging the validity of your arrest nor the legality of the warrant of arrest, provided you raise these challenges before being arraigned.
Once again, if you've gotten to this point, you should not cheat yourself of your rights. Get a lawyer.
There's a legal adage that goes "Anyone who attempts to defend himself in a court of law has a fool for a client."
Don't be one.
I feel I have to reiterate these hypothetical scenarios mentioned in the the primer, which I included in the previous post. Take special note of items (c) and (d)
(a) A common practice of investigating officers is to present a person arrested with a confession already drawn up and ready for signature, then to intimidate the suspect into signing the statement without reading it. And since uncounselled confessions have been disallowed under the Constitution, the investigating officers now have lawyers who are ready to assist you during the confession, to make everything legal and valid. Remain firm, but respectful. Insist that you would like to get your own lawyer, and ask for the opportunity to get in touch with your lawyer. Since they now know that you know your rights, the chances that you will be manhandled are reduced.
(b) If you have not been informed of your rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel of your choice, the arresting officer or employee or the investigating officer who fails to inform you of your rights is liable to suffer a fine or a penalty of imprisonment, or both. If the arresting officer or employee or investigating officer has been previously convicted for a similar offense, s/he shall suffer the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification.
(c) If the arresting officer or employee or the investigating officer or anyone acting upon their orders or in their place, fails to provide you with competent and independent counsel if you cannot afford the services of your own counsel, s/he is liable to suffer a fine or a penalty of imprisonment, or both. If the arresting officer or employee or investigating officer has been previously convicted for a similar offense, s/he shall suffer the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification.
(d) Whoever obstructs, prevents or prohibits your lawyer, any member of your family, any medical doctor or religious minister, from visiting and conferring privately with you, or from examining and treating you, or from ministering to your spiritual needs, at any hour of the day, or, in urgent cases, of the night, is liable to suffer the penalty of imprisonment and a fine.
Take the time to get to know your rights. In our country in this day and age, such knowledge might be one day crucial to our personal survival.
So then, the civil rights series is finished. My next post will be the index of this post series.
Some of the contents of the very useful FLAG primer will be treated separately, such as what to do at a police checkpoint, what to do when one is stopped at a "stop-and-frisk" operation, and what to do if one believes one is under threat of being summarily executed -- "salvaged" -- may appear in future civil and political rights and human rights posts.
By the way, another thought on the civil rights education of PNP officers? Not only should the PNP be made to undergo such training; officers and agents of other law enforcement agencies -- the National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group, the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, the Philippine Coast Guard, et cetera, et cetera -- must likewise be made to undergo such training. The NBI, PDEA, PASG, PAOCTF, PCG, and other law enforcement agencies are no less required to follow proper procedure than is the PNP.
(And, no, I really don't think I had anything to do with this. Heh heh.)
Later, all.
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
Friday, August 21, 2009
Libra. Themis.
Because of my posts on civil rights, someone sent me a me a message asking me to write a post condemning the beating up of the kids on Mendiola by the Presidential Security Group and the cops of Manila Police District. Here's Noemi's coverage of the August 19, 2009 incident at Mendiola, near Malacanang and its condemned Gate 7.
It was while law enforcement pals and I were discussing the news that 120 PNP cops were to get training in civil rights -- I was pointing out to them that I believe absolutely that I'd had nothing to do with that (teeheehee), and that I hoped that all law enforcers (such as the NBI, PDEA, PAOCTF, PASG, TF Kalikasan, et cetera et cetera) be likewise trained -- that I received the message. One of them said that it was obvious that I was going to write about it, and that this time the cops who don't want to look bad will have little to answer my criticisms with.
However, as I told my pals, it's not exactly prudent to write criticisms on such stories based on a single data point. I had quite a number of questions that I felt needed to be answered before I wrote about the issue; sure enough, my pals in law enforcement were surprised -- perhaps even pleased? -- that I was willing to wait for more data before putting up a post on the issue.
As it turns out, a knee-jerk condemnation of the cops and the PSG without condemning the excesses of the rallyists themselves will not only skew our knowledge of our civil rights but could also give the impression that willfully and knowingly breaking the law will be excused if one is beaten up by the cops. I let my friends know that I wasn't going to gloss over laws broken by the rallyists, and was planning to write from that perspective.
However, someone who may have learned about my planned angle later asked me to write a post saying that the rallyists deserved what they got. Apparently, the fellow thinks that because I plan to criticize the rallyists themselves that he can convince me to gloss over the excessive force so obviously employed by the cops and the PSG. Apparently, he thinks that I can do a Cerge Remonde, Lorelei Fajardo, or Anthony Golez for their sakes.
With all due respect, sir, SCREW YOU.
So, while this post is dedicated to rally leaders who think the "pakaawa effect" excuses breaking the law, this post will take especial pleasure in PWNing those in law enforcement who think that rights are optional.
***
Blogger Tonyo said on Noemi's plurk that "BP 880 and the SC's interpretations of it should be the guide. Brutal response to BP 880 'violators' is illegal", and was completely correct to point this out. The applicable law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 880) and the controlling doctrine set forth in the Supreme Court's decision (Bayan vs. Ermita) set the standard against which all actions in this case will be measured.
We begin with the rallyists' actions.
Bayan vs. Ermita upheld the constitutionality of BP 880, the law which requires public demonstrations to secure permits for rallies. Section 4 of the law says:
Clear, yes?
Did the rallyists secure a permit? Apparently not, as all reports describe the event as a "lightning rally."
Is Mendiola one of the freedom parks of the City of Manila, and thus no permit is required? Nope, it's a street, a public place.
Is Mendiola private property, and thus no permit is required? Nope, it's a street, a public place.
Is Mendiola a government campus, and thus no permit is required? Nope, it's a street, a public place.
Clearly, a permit was required. The rallyists did not secure one.
Did they violate the law? Yes. They face a maximum of six months for that violation.
Further, by willfully, knowingly, and illegally causing disturbance and scandal in a public place, by willfully, knowingly, and illegally storming the Palace gates and willfully, knowingly, and illegally violating a restricted area and entering without authorization (well, they didn't have authorization, did they), they could face further charges. (Speaking of violating the restricted area of Malacanang, it's apparently easier than I thought. Heh heh heh.)
Aside from violating BP 880, then, it's fair to say that the rallyists can face charges of violating Articles 155 par. 4 and Article 151, possibly even Article 281, and whatever else is provided for by ordinances and Executive Orders covering security and peace and order in the Malacanang area.
Six months? Heck, multiple sets of a maximum of six months each, if we are to measure the rallyists' actions against BP 880, Bayan vs. Ermita, and the laws of the Republic, as Tonyo has correctly pointed out we should.
***
Continuing with measuring the incident against BP 880 and Bayan vs. Ermita, we next go to whether or not the authorities should have dispersed the rally. Section 11 of BP 880 says:
What constitutes peaceful dispersal? Unfortunately, while RA 6975 and RA 8551 mandate the National Police Commission to provide a manual for police operations, this manual (if it indeed exists) has not been officially made public nor has it been disseminated to the public at large -- thus, we cannot know for certain what constitutes peaceful dispersal as defined by law enforcement officials. However, we can be sure that these scenes do NOT constitute peaceful dispersal (video from GMANews.TV):
A lot of photos on Noemi's post, as well.
With such clear acts of violence by the cops and the Presidential Security group, I support completely the moves by the Commission on Human Rights to to investigate the incident. Aside from the obvious violations shown on the video (such as physical assaults on rallyists already on the ground and a security officer about to draw his sidearm), quite a number of procedural violations are indicated in the footage and the stills from the event, such as:
Unfortunately, because of the fact that the PSG has jurisdiction over Palace security, there is a rather high likelihood that the second item mentioned above will not be held against them, but there is very little chance that the first item can be excused.
The MPD cops are in for it... and I doubt rather highly that the PSG will be taken to task -- except that the PSG commander and his men will be given a rather stern reprimand for dereliction of duty.
(Perhaps in another post we can explore the concept of a civilian law enforcement agency being in charge of presidential security instead of a military unit being so, as plurker has SJSanJuan opined. Why not? After all, the US Secret Service is a unit under their Treasury Department.)
So, then, what can we say about the cops' intending to file cases against the protesters and the countersuits by the rallyists?
Well, let them file against each other. Neither side should be let off the hook for their violations of the law.
***
What of the report that Kabataan party-list representative Raymond Palatino's intention to have a congressional probe on the incident? I'm all for it, if the goal is to amend RA 8551 and RA 6975 and finally provide a police operation manual that everyone can be made aware of and as such guarantee the rights of both citizens and law enforcement officials. If the goal, however, is to simply give the cops a hard time without giving due weight and penalty to the violations made by the rallyists, then I'd probably tell the congressmen to go screw themselves for encouraging the uneven application of law and justice.
Anyone who violates the law must be made to answer for it, whether or not he belongs to the political affiliation you agree with. Heck, the defense of civil rights must be even-handed; the civil and political rights you shield yourself with must likewise shield those whom you hate. Cop or rallyist, the same rights protection accorded by our laws apply; corollary to this, there must be no special treatment in dealing out the penalties provided for by law.
Today is the 26th anniversary of Ninoy Aquino's martyrdom, which sparked the return of the Philippines to democracy via the EDSA revolution, his widow Cory's presidency and the establishment of the 1987 Constitution. I believe that anyone who demands special and therefore unequal application of civil rights and protection under the law spits on them.
Civil rights and the rule of law must apply to all, or we might as well choose a totalitarian regime -- and it wouldn't matter a whit whether it was of the Left or the Right.
'Nuff said.
It was while law enforcement pals and I were discussing the news that 120 PNP cops were to get training in civil rights -- I was pointing out to them that I believe absolutely that I'd had nothing to do with that (teeheehee), and that I hoped that all law enforcers (such as the NBI, PDEA, PAOCTF, PASG, TF Kalikasan, et cetera et cetera) be likewise trained -- that I received the message. One of them said that it was obvious that I was going to write about it, and that this time the cops who don't want to look bad will have little to answer my criticisms with.
However, as I told my pals, it's not exactly prudent to write criticisms on such stories based on a single data point. I had quite a number of questions that I felt needed to be answered before I wrote about the issue; sure enough, my pals in law enforcement were surprised -- perhaps even pleased? -- that I was willing to wait for more data before putting up a post on the issue.
As it turns out, a knee-jerk condemnation of the cops and the PSG without condemning the excesses of the rallyists themselves will not only skew our knowledge of our civil rights but could also give the impression that willfully and knowingly breaking the law will be excused if one is beaten up by the cops. I let my friends know that I wasn't going to gloss over laws broken by the rallyists, and was planning to write from that perspective.
However, someone who may have learned about my planned angle later asked me to write a post saying that the rallyists deserved what they got. Apparently, the fellow thinks that because I plan to criticize the rallyists themselves that he can convince me to gloss over the excessive force so obviously employed by the cops and the PSG. Apparently, he thinks that I can do a Cerge Remonde, Lorelei Fajardo, or Anthony Golez for their sakes.
With all due respect, sir, SCREW YOU.
So, while this post is dedicated to rally leaders who think the "pakaawa effect" excuses breaking the law, this post will take especial pleasure in PWNing those in law enforcement who think that rights are optional.
Blogger Tonyo said on Noemi's plurk that "BP 880 and the SC's interpretations of it should be the guide. Brutal response to BP 880 'violators' is illegal", and was completely correct to point this out. The applicable law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 880) and the controlling doctrine set forth in the Supreme Court's decision (Bayan vs. Ermita) set the standard against which all actions in this case will be measured.
We begin with the rallyists' actions.
Bayan vs. Ermita upheld the constitutionality of BP 880, the law which requires public demonstrations to secure permits for rallies. Section 4 of the law says:
Permit when required and when not required. A written permit shall be required for any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a public place. However, no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinance or in private property, in which case only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required, or in the campus of a government-owned and operated educational institution which shall be subject to the rules and regulations of said educational institution.
Clear, yes?
Did the rallyists secure a permit? Apparently not, as all reports describe the event as a "lightning rally."
Is Mendiola one of the freedom parks of the City of Manila, and thus no permit is required? Nope, it's a street, a public place.
Is Mendiola private property, and thus no permit is required? Nope, it's a street, a public place.
Is Mendiola a government campus, and thus no permit is required? Nope, it's a street, a public place.
Clearly, a permit was required. The rallyists did not secure one.
Did they violate the law? Yes. They face a maximum of six months for that violation.
Further, by willfully, knowingly, and illegally causing disturbance and scandal in a public place, by willfully, knowingly, and illegally storming the Palace gates and willfully, knowingly, and illegally violating a restricted area and entering without authorization (well, they didn't have authorization, did they), they could face further charges. (Speaking of violating the restricted area of Malacanang, it's apparently easier than I thought. Heh heh heh.)
Aside from violating BP 880, then, it's fair to say that the rallyists can face charges of violating Articles 155 par. 4 and Article 151, possibly even Article 281, and whatever else is provided for by ordinances and Executive Orders covering security and peace and order in the Malacanang area.
Six months? Heck, multiple sets of a maximum of six months each, if we are to measure the rallyists' actions against BP 880, Bayan vs. Ermita, and the laws of the Republic, as Tonyo has correctly pointed out we should.
Continuing with measuring the incident against BP 880 and Bayan vs. Ermita, we next go to whether or not the authorities should have dispersed the rally. Section 11 of BP 880 says:
Dispersal of public assembly without permit. When the public assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public assembly may be peacefully dispersed.
What constitutes peaceful dispersal? Unfortunately, while RA 6975 and RA 8551 mandate the National Police Commission to provide a manual for police operations, this manual (if it indeed exists) has not been officially made public nor has it been disseminated to the public at large -- thus, we cannot know for certain what constitutes peaceful dispersal as defined by law enforcement officials. However, we can be sure that these scenes do NOT constitute peaceful dispersal (video from GMANews.TV):
A lot of photos on Noemi's post, as well.
With such clear acts of violence by the cops and the Presidential Security group, I support completely the moves by the Commission on Human Rights to to investigate the incident. Aside from the obvious violations shown on the video (such as physical assaults on rallyists already on the ground and a security officer about to draw his sidearm), quite a number of procedural violations are indicated in the footage and the stills from the event, such as:
- civilian involvement in the dispersal of the rallyists
- involvement of soldiers and security officers in plain clothes (rally dispersal must be made by properly-uniformed policemen)
Unfortunately, because of the fact that the PSG has jurisdiction over Palace security, there is a rather high likelihood that the second item mentioned above will not be held against them, but there is very little chance that the first item can be excused.
The MPD cops are in for it... and I doubt rather highly that the PSG will be taken to task -- except that the PSG commander and his men will be given a rather stern reprimand for dereliction of duty.
(Perhaps in another post we can explore the concept of a civilian law enforcement agency being in charge of presidential security instead of a military unit being so, as plurker has SJSanJuan opined. Why not? After all, the US Secret Service is a unit under their Treasury Department.)
So, then, what can we say about the cops' intending to file cases against the protesters and the countersuits by the rallyists?
Well, let them file against each other. Neither side should be let off the hook for their violations of the law.
What of the report that Kabataan party-list representative Raymond Palatino's intention to have a congressional probe on the incident? I'm all for it, if the goal is to amend RA 8551 and RA 6975 and finally provide a police operation manual that everyone can be made aware of and as such guarantee the rights of both citizens and law enforcement officials. If the goal, however, is to simply give the cops a hard time without giving due weight and penalty to the violations made by the rallyists, then I'd probably tell the congressmen to go screw themselves for encouraging the uneven application of law and justice.
Anyone who violates the law must be made to answer for it, whether or not he belongs to the political affiliation you agree with. Heck, the defense of civil rights must be even-handed; the civil and political rights you shield yourself with must likewise shield those whom you hate. Cop or rallyist, the same rights protection accorded by our laws apply; corollary to this, there must be no special treatment in dealing out the penalties provided for by law.
Today is the 26th anniversary of Ninoy Aquino's martyrdom, which sparked the return of the Philippines to democracy via the EDSA revolution, his widow Cory's presidency and the establishment of the 1987 Constitution. I believe that anyone who demands special and therefore unequal application of civil rights and protection under the law spits on them.
Civil rights and the rule of law must apply to all, or we might as well choose a totalitarian regime -- and it wouldn't matter a whit whether it was of the Left or the Right.
'Nuff said.
Monday, August 17, 2009
PLAGIARIZED! (UPDATED)
(UPDATE August 26, 2008: Webmaster of blog has sent apology and has credited the blog post appropriately. It seems to be an honest mistake on his part, and quite likely won't do it again, with this blog or those of others. All's well that ends well. Tee hee hee.)
(UPDATE: Added screen captures, added a new tag. Left a comment on the blog, still under moderation at the time of this writing -- see last screen capture -- because I couldn't find an email address yet. I won't be sending any messages to the California Bar yet because it's still Sunday in California at the time of this writing. I gotta admit, I'm a bit ticked off by this.)
Link to the post above here. Link to plagiarized post here.
Ms. Benninghoff, is the California bar unclear on what constitutes ethical behavior?
More screen captures:
Hoo boy. Things like this contribute to giving law practitioners a bad name. Now to contact Ms. Benninghoff to see what she intends to do about it.
UPDATE: Well, her webmaster did something about it. The fellow credited the post just as Creative Commons would've guided.
All's well that ends well.
(UPDATE: Added screen captures, added a new tag. Left a comment on the blog, still under moderation at the time of this writing -- see last screen capture -- because I couldn't find an email address yet. I won't be sending any messages to the California Bar yet because it's still Sunday in California at the time of this writing. I gotta admit, I'm a bit ticked off by this.)
Link to the post above here. Link to plagiarized post here.
Ms. Benninghoff, is the California bar unclear on what constitutes ethical behavior?
More screen captures:
Hoo boy. Things like this contribute to giving law practitioners a bad name. Now to contact Ms. Benninghoff to see what she intends to do about it.
UPDATE: Well, her webmaster did something about it. The fellow credited the post just as Creative Commons would've guided.
All's well that ends well.
Know Your Rights Redux, Part 9: At the Cop Shop
UPDATE: Added complete series links.
I know, I know, I've gone for quite a while without any serious posts that you good folks apparently follow this little niche of cyberspace for. (MJdC, I honestly don't know how to reply to you.)
It's been crazy, hasn't it, these past few days?
Just recently, we lost a democratic icon and we said goodbye the best we could.
Just recently, we joined protests (albeit online) against the debasement of national institutions -- we hope that the protests do not end until the situation is rectified.
Just recently, we've been reminded yet again of terrorists and criminals, cowards who would attack civilian property and civilian persons and civilian lives, giving the lie to the "army" that they have the audacity to claim that they are, being even more audacious in lying by calling themselves a "people's army". What army of a people would attack its own? What army of a people would commit assault, arson, and extortion against its own? The NPA have yet again shown their true colors -- armed bandits and thieves, they are, and if Themis smiles on us the lot of them will one day face the bar of justice.
Just recently, we've learned of the deaths and desecration of gallant men, needless sacrifices because of betrayals by those who break their promises -- a matter that the powers-that-be have chosen to ignore. If there was any honor left in those in command, they would not allow such travesties -- which have happened before -- to happen again.
Just recently, we've learned -- yet again -- how officials have been living it up, doing lots and lots of spending of taxpayers's money, while those working hard and serving the nation are surviving on scotch tape and piano wire. Maybe it's because of Cory's death that public opinion counts for something again.
With our responsibilities as citizens brought to the forefront of our consciousness by our mourning for Tita Cory's passing, it is going to be a damn shame if we keep our dissent to ourselves. It is going to be a damn shame if we do not hold our officials accountable for their misdeeds because we consider ourselves powerless. It is going to be a damn pitiful shame if we yet again allow ourselves to forget that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
In a another past post, we dedicated this post series to Melissa Roxas. I think I'm going to take that one step further and dedicate it to all of us Filipinos.
We regained the free exercise of our civil and political rights in 1986; hell, the 1987 Constitution was crafted with human rights being one of its primary foundations. We owe it to ourselves to learn our rights by heart, learn to protect our rights, and learn to exercise our rights.
Thus, we continue the series. Today, we'll return to the rhythm of the series and speak of what to do when arrested and brought to the police station.
***
For more discussions on civil rights, do read up on the primer made by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). Oh, and lest you forget -- for real legal advice, get a real lawyer, won't you?
In our previous post in the series we talked about some police interrogation techniques. I hope that it's informative enough a read for you good folks.
(I've learned that that post -- heck, the whole series -- is pissing off quite a number of law enforcement officials. Some of them don't like us ordinary people learning of this stuff. Don't know why that is.)
(Now I won't be able to sic these cops on people who piss me off. Okay, I'm kidding. Heh heh.)
That post, however, glossed over what to expect when one is already put under arrest and is now being brought to the nearest police station. Again, folks, don't forget your Miranda rights; these should have been read to you, and the cops MUST not have mistreated you in any way nor have handled you badly in any manner.
Let's walk the next steps through, shall we.
As soon as you have been arrested, the clock has begun to count down AGAINST the law enforcement officials. Why? You have to be brought to a prosecutor or judge for inquest proceedings within a set time limit. The time limits are:
What constitutes light offense, less grave offense, and grave offense are guided by Article 9 of the Revised Penal Code (cross-reference with Article 25). So, to clarify further, you have to be brought to a prosecutor or judge for inquest proceedings within these time limits:
To put it in perspective, let's say this: you have to have inquest proceedings within 12 hours if you have been arrested for alarm and scandal (violation of Art. 155); it's 18 hours if you have been arrested for libel by writing (violation of Art. 355); it's 36 hours if you have been arrested for homicide (violation of Art. 249).
Note that the cops cannot detain you without charging you with anything; keeping you in detention, even for a short period of time, without having initiating inquest proceedings, will be violating Article 124, which is the law punishing arbitrary detention. Also, if they detain you for, say, 18 hours then charge you with alarm and scandal also makes the cops violate Article 124.
That's a pretty heavy deal, by the way, arbitrary detention. Therefore, make sure you are aware of the exact time you have been placed under arrest. The law is strict on this -- a minute's delay for inquest proceedings is a minute that will earn the cops six months in jail.
(I wonder if it is because I'm telling you good folks these that I'm pissing some cops off? Hmmm.)
***
Okay, so now you've been brought to inquest proceedings before a civilian prosecutor. Let's not lose our head, eh? Your lawyer should have arrived by now, if you had already called him. The prosecutor can do either of two things: order your release or affirm the legality of your arrest.
If the prosecutor orders your release, this doesn't necessarily mean the end of an investigation on you (assuming there was one started in the first place). It often means that the cops don't have much in the way of evidence (or, more likely, they've fumbled it; yes, my friends in law enforcement admit that it's happened more times than they're willing to admit publicly).
If the prosecutor affirms the legality of your arrest, he is required to file a complaint before the trial court. Here is where it gets sticky, though, the part after the prosecutor affirms the legality of your arrest. See, usually, if the prosecutor affirms the legality of your arrest, he will ask you if you want a preliminary investigation. If you say that you want one, the prosecutor is quite likely going to slide a waiver over to you for you to sign.
DO NOT SIGN THE WAIVER UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTS OF THE WAIVER. Better yet, consult with your lawyer, whether or not to sign.
See, usually, the signing of the waiver means that you are going to stay in jail until the preliminary investigation. A lot of law enforcement people don't admit this publicly, but this waiting in jail until the preliminary investigation often takes quite a lot of time... and the suspect hasn't even faced the court yet.
If the suspect doesn't sign, well, the prosecutor is forced to file a complaint before the court with what little evidence he has... and good luck to him. If he doesn't file a complaint but he and the cops don't let the suspect go -- that's an Article 124 violation right there.
Also, the signing of the waiver often means that you are waiving your right to file cases against those who arrested you. So, if the cops have violated your rights or you've been subject to police brutality but you sign the waiver knowing full well that you're waiving your right to file cases against the cops... good luck to you, man.
Bottomline -- and I'm quoting this directly from the FLAG post -- is that you should take note of these:
These required procedures were made clear by the Supreme Court in People v. Mahinay (G.R. No. 122485, February 1999); the cops know this -- and so should you.
Keep your cool, folks. What a lot of people don't realize is that being under arrest is not the big deal that the media often puts it forward to be.
In fact, the arrest is where most law enforcement officials fail -- and why a lot of criminal cases are bungled.
***
Speaking of bungling, the FLAG post (really, I keep asking myself why I haven't seen the primer being circulated much), speaks of a few other scenarios where the cops pretty much make a mess of things. I'll let these speak for themselves:
Take note of those, friends. Know your rights.
***
Alrighty, folks, that's that. Our next post will deal with what to do when you're behind bars and are awaiting trial.
Yes, friends, despite all the movie and TV misinformation that we grew up with -- you know, bad movies and the like -- we have to be aware that the enjoyment of our rights can only be curtailed after due process has been served. Consti 3:1 -- keep that in mind. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Later, friends... I have to find out how much more I've pissed off my pals in law enforcement. Or their bosses.
Tee hee hee.
Posts in this civil rights series:
(P.S. Miss Mary Grace M., do send me the survey form so I'll be able to decide yes or know, if that's okay? Thanks.)
I know, I know, I've gone for quite a while without any serious posts that you good folks apparently follow this little niche of cyberspace for. (MJdC, I honestly don't know how to reply to you.)
It's been crazy, hasn't it, these past few days?
Just recently, we lost a democratic icon and we said goodbye the best we could.
Just recently, we joined protests (albeit online) against the debasement of national institutions -- we hope that the protests do not end until the situation is rectified.
Just recently, we've been reminded yet again of terrorists and criminals, cowards who would attack civilian property and civilian persons and civilian lives, giving the lie to the "army" that they have the audacity to claim that they are, being even more audacious in lying by calling themselves a "people's army". What army of a people would attack its own? What army of a people would commit assault, arson, and extortion against its own? The NPA have yet again shown their true colors -- armed bandits and thieves, they are, and if Themis smiles on us the lot of them will one day face the bar of justice.
Just recently, we've learned of the deaths and desecration of gallant men, needless sacrifices because of betrayals by those who break their promises -- a matter that the powers-that-be have chosen to ignore. If there was any honor left in those in command, they would not allow such travesties -- which have happened before -- to happen again.
Just recently, we've learned -- yet again -- how officials have been living it up, doing lots and lots of spending of taxpayers's money, while those working hard and serving the nation are surviving on scotch tape and piano wire. Maybe it's because of Cory's death that public opinion counts for something again.
With our responsibilities as citizens brought to the forefront of our consciousness by our mourning for Tita Cory's passing, it is going to be a damn shame if we keep our dissent to ourselves. It is going to be a damn shame if we do not hold our officials accountable for their misdeeds because we consider ourselves powerless. It is going to be a damn pitiful shame if we yet again allow ourselves to forget that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
In a another past post, we dedicated this post series to Melissa Roxas. I think I'm going to take that one step further and dedicate it to all of us Filipinos.
We regained the free exercise of our civil and political rights in 1986; hell, the 1987 Constitution was crafted with human rights being one of its primary foundations. We owe it to ourselves to learn our rights by heart, learn to protect our rights, and learn to exercise our rights.
Thus, we continue the series. Today, we'll return to the rhythm of the series and speak of what to do when arrested and brought to the police station.
For more discussions on civil rights, do read up on the primer made by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). Oh, and lest you forget -- for real legal advice, get a real lawyer, won't you?
In our previous post in the series we talked about some police interrogation techniques. I hope that it's informative enough a read for you good folks.
(I've learned that that post -- heck, the whole series -- is pissing off quite a number of law enforcement officials. Some of them don't like us ordinary people learning of this stuff. Don't know why that is.)
(Now I won't be able to sic these cops on people who piss me off. Okay, I'm kidding. Heh heh.)
That post, however, glossed over what to expect when one is already put under arrest and is now being brought to the nearest police station. Again, folks, don't forget your Miranda rights; these should have been read to you, and the cops MUST not have mistreated you in any way nor have handled you badly in any manner.
Let's walk the next steps through, shall we.
As soon as you have been arrested, the clock has begun to count down AGAINST the law enforcement officials. Why? You have to be brought to a prosecutor or judge for inquest proceedings within a set time limit. The time limits are:
- 12 hours after arrest for a light offense.
- 18 hours after arrest for a less grave offense.
- 36 hours after arrest for a grave offense.
What constitutes light offense, less grave offense, and grave offense are guided by Article 9 of the Revised Penal Code (cross-reference with Article 25). So, to clarify further, you have to be brought to a prosecutor or judge for inquest proceedings within these time limits:
- 12 hours after arrest for an offense whose maximum punishment is 30 days imprisonment.
- 18 hours after arrest for an offense whose maximum punishment is within six months and one day to six years imprisonment.
- 36 hours after arrest for an offense whose maximum punishment is six years and one day imprisonment or more.
To put it in perspective, let's say this: you have to have inquest proceedings within 12 hours if you have been arrested for alarm and scandal (violation of Art. 155); it's 18 hours if you have been arrested for libel by writing (violation of Art. 355); it's 36 hours if you have been arrested for homicide (violation of Art. 249).
Note that the cops cannot detain you without charging you with anything; keeping you in detention, even for a short period of time, without having initiating inquest proceedings, will be violating Article 124, which is the law punishing arbitrary detention. Also, if they detain you for, say, 18 hours then charge you with alarm and scandal also makes the cops violate Article 124.
That's a pretty heavy deal, by the way, arbitrary detention. Therefore, make sure you are aware of the exact time you have been placed under arrest. The law is strict on this -- a minute's delay for inquest proceedings is a minute that will earn the cops six months in jail.
(I wonder if it is because I'm telling you good folks these that I'm pissing some cops off? Hmmm.)
Okay, so now you've been brought to inquest proceedings before a civilian prosecutor. Let's not lose our head, eh? Your lawyer should have arrived by now, if you had already called him. The prosecutor can do either of two things: order your release or affirm the legality of your arrest.
If the prosecutor orders your release, this doesn't necessarily mean the end of an investigation on you (assuming there was one started in the first place). It often means that the cops don't have much in the way of evidence (or, more likely, they've fumbled it; yes, my friends in law enforcement admit that it's happened more times than they're willing to admit publicly).
If the prosecutor affirms the legality of your arrest, he is required to file a complaint before the trial court. Here is where it gets sticky, though, the part after the prosecutor affirms the legality of your arrest. See, usually, if the prosecutor affirms the legality of your arrest, he will ask you if you want a preliminary investigation. If you say that you want one, the prosecutor is quite likely going to slide a waiver over to you for you to sign.
See, usually, the signing of the waiver means that you are going to stay in jail until the preliminary investigation. A lot of law enforcement people don't admit this publicly, but this waiting in jail until the preliminary investigation often takes quite a lot of time... and the suspect hasn't even faced the court yet.
If the suspect doesn't sign, well, the prosecutor is forced to file a complaint before the court with what little evidence he has... and good luck to him. If he doesn't file a complaint but he and the cops don't let the suspect go -- that's an Article 124 violation right there.
Also, the signing of the waiver often means that you are waiving your right to file cases against those who arrested you. So, if the cops have violated your rights or you've been subject to police brutality but you sign the waiver knowing full well that you're waiving your right to file cases against the cops... good luck to you, man.
Bottomline -- and I'm quoting this directly from the FLAG post -- is that you should take note of these:
You must be informed in a language known and understood by you of the reason for your arrest, and you must be shown the warrant of arrest. All other warnings, information or communication must be in a language known and understood by you.
You must be warned that you have the right to remain silent and that any statement you make may be used as evidence against you.
You must be informed that you have the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer of your own choice.
You must be informed that if you have no lawyer or you cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for you; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person on your behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon a petition by you or by one acting on your behalf.
Whether or not you have a lawyer, you must be informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of your lawyer or unless you have validly waived any of your rights.
You must be informed that you have the right, at any time, to communicate or confer by the most expedient means (telephone, text message, radio, letter, or messenger) with your lawyer, any member of your immediate family, any medical doctor, priest or minister you choose or one chosen by your immediate family or lawyer; you must also be informed that you have the right, at any time, to be visited by and confer with duly accredited national or international non-governmental organizations.
You must be informed that you have the right to waive any of your rights provided you do so voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently and you understand the consequences of your waiver.
If you waive your right to a lawyer, you must be informed you must waive your right in writing and in the presence of your lawyer, otherwise you must be warned that your waiver is void even if you insist on your waiver and you choose to speak.
You must be informed that you may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that you do not wish to be questioned and that once you make such indication, you may not be interrogated, if the interrogation has not yet begun, or the interrogation must cease if it has already begun.
You must be informed that your initial waiver of your right to remain silent, your right to counsel, or any of your rights, does not bar you from invoking yours rights at any time during the process, regardless of whether you have answered some questions or volunteered some statements.
You must also be informed that any statement or evidence obtained in violation of any of the above procedures or guidelines, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, is inadmissible in evidence.
These required procedures were made clear by the Supreme Court in People v. Mahinay (G.R. No. 122485, February 1999); the cops know this -- and so should you.
Keep your cool, folks. What a lot of people don't realize is that being under arrest is not the big deal that the media often puts it forward to be.
In fact, the arrest is where most law enforcement officials fail -- and why a lot of criminal cases are bungled.
Speaking of bungling, the FLAG post (really, I keep asking myself why I haven't seen the primer being circulated much), speaks of a few other scenarios where the cops pretty much make a mess of things. I'll let these speak for themselves:
(a) A common practice of investigating officers is to present a person arrested with a confession already drawn up and ready for signature, then to intimidate the suspect into signing the statement without reading it. And since uncounselled confessions have been disallowed under the Constitution, the investigating officers now have lawyers who are ready to assist you during the confession, to make everything legal and valid. Remain firm, but respectful. Insist that you would like to get your own lawyer, and ask for the opportunity to get in touch with your lawyer. Since they now know that you know your rights, the chances that you will be manhandled are reduced.
(b) If you have not been informed of your rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel of your choice, the arresting officer or employee or the investigating officer who fails to inform you of your rights is liable to suffer a fine or a penalty of imprisonment, or both. If the arresting officer or employee or investigating officer has been previously convicted for a similar offense, s/he shall suffer the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification.
(c) If the arresting officer or employee or the investigating officer or anyone acting upon their orders or in their place, fails to provide you with competent and independent counsel if you cannot afford the services of your own counsel, s/he is liable to suffer a fine or a penalty of imprisonment, or both. If the arresting officer or employee or investigating officer has been previously convicted for a similar offense, s/he shall suffer the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification.
(d) Whoever obstructs, prevents or prohibits your lawyer, any member of your family, any medical doctor or religious minister, from visiting and conferring privately with you, or from examining and treating you, or from ministering to your spiritual needs, at any hour of the day, or, in urgent cases, of the night, is liable to suffer the penalty of imprisonment and a fine.
Take note of those, friends. Know your rights.
Alrighty, folks, that's that. Our next post will deal with what to do when you're behind bars and are awaiting trial.
Yes, friends, despite all the movie and TV misinformation that we grew up with -- you know, bad movies and the like -- we have to be aware that the enjoyment of our rights can only be curtailed after due process has been served. Consti 3:1 -- keep that in mind. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Later, friends... I have to find out how much more I've pissed off my pals in law enforcement. Or their bosses.
Tee hee hee.
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
(P.S. Miss Mary Grace M., do send me the survey form so I'll be able to decide yes or know, if that's okay? Thanks.)
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Request Express (or, songs the jester-in-exile would love to hear Lea do renditions of)
Full disclosure, folks: I'm not much of a Lea Salonga fan. Heck, in my younger days I avoided her music if I could help it. Yep, I've even professed to go for Debbie Gibson's Eponine instead, Les Miz being a personal favorite among the Broadway stuff I grew up with.
Dunno why that's been so -- I think that her I am But a Small Voice turned me off all those years ago and I never got over it. In some way I also blame Lea for the rise of the birit queens -- after all, they can't really match Lea's star quality, so they make it up for it by screaming their lungs out and thus have been assaulting our eardrums for far too long.
(Okay, that was tongue-in-cheek. Sorta. Heh heh.)
However, after watching her sing Bayan Ko in a fitting tribute to a very special woman (of whom I will always associate the sight of sunflowers), I've become fond of Lea. Hey, what can I say, love at first sight can and does happen. Teeheehee.
Thus, when theater blogger Gibbs Cadiz wrote a post about Lea asking for requests for songs she'll be performing in a December concert, I felt that maybe I should put in a request. Kind of like a thank-you for Lea's honoring Tita Cory with her voice. Now, I'm sure most folks identify Lea with those classics and ballads and pop standards that she's performed over the years, but since Gibbs did say "the unlikelier the better", I felt that maybe it won't be a long shot to request for the female vocal music I gravitate to.
What can I say? I love 90's-era music and such. Most of these requests will be stuff I've loved having on heavy rotation -- maybe I should make myself a mix-CD soon. Hmmmmm.
Haha. Well, maybe some of the songs here are just for the hell of it. Heh heh.
Anyway, here's what I'd be requesting Lea (actually, I already sent one song request, but this post is a little wish list), in alphabetical order by artist, limiting one song request per artist:
Okay, I better stop now before I spend the rest of the day and night adding to this wishlist.
Maybe I'll add more later, who knows?
Thanks for the heads-up, Gibbs!
Dunno why that's been so -- I think that her I am But a Small Voice turned me off all those years ago and I never got over it. In some way I also blame Lea for the rise of the birit queens -- after all, they can't really match Lea's star quality, so they make it up for it by screaming their lungs out and thus have been assaulting our eardrums for far too long.
(Okay, that was tongue-in-cheek. Sorta. Heh heh.)
However, after watching her sing Bayan Ko in a fitting tribute to a very special woman (of whom I will always associate the sight of sunflowers), I've become fond of Lea. Hey, what can I say, love at first sight can and does happen. Teeheehee.
Thus, when theater blogger Gibbs Cadiz wrote a post about Lea asking for requests for songs she'll be performing in a December concert, I felt that maybe I should put in a request. Kind of like a thank-you for Lea's honoring Tita Cory with her voice. Now, I'm sure most folks identify Lea with those classics and ballads and pop standards that she's performed over the years, but since Gibbs did say "the unlikelier the better", I felt that maybe it won't be a long shot to request for the female vocal music I gravitate to.
What can I say? I love 90's-era music and such. Most of these requests will be stuff I've loved having on heavy rotation -- maybe I should make myself a mix-CD soon. Hmmmmm.
Haha. Well, maybe some of the songs here are just for the hell of it. Heh heh.
Anyway, here's what I'd be requesting Lea (actually, I already sent one song request, but this post is a little wish list), in alphabetical order by artist, limiting one song request per artist:
- Turn Back Time, Aqua
- Fast Car, Tracy Chapman
- Feelin' Love, Paula Cole
- When You're Gone, The Cranberries
- Here With Me, Dido
- Tourniquet, Evanescence
- Respect, Aretha Franklin
- Alone, Heart
- Wishing I Was There, Natalie Imbruglia
- Time After Time, Cyndi Lauper
- Why, Avril Lavigne
- Why, Annie Lennox
- Do You Sleep, Lisa Loeb
- You Oughta Know, Alanis Morissette
- Sober, Jennifer Paige
- All Mine, Portishead
- Piano in the Dark, Brenda Russell
- No Air, Jordin Sparks
Okay, I better stop now before I spend the rest of the day and night adding to this wishlist.
Maybe I'll add more later, who knows?
Thanks for the heads-up, Gibbs!
Friday, August 07, 2009
The Jester-in-Exile Offers His Sympathies...
... to Filipino artists, writers, and musicians everywhere, of whom he holds in great esteem.
The necrological service should be ongoing right about now.
Requiescat In Pace
GAWAD PAMBANSANG ALAGAD NG SINING
(NATIONAL ARTIST AWARDS)
1972 – 2009
PAGDADALAMHATI NG BAYAN PARA SA GAWAD PAMBANSANG ALAGAD NG SINING
(NECROLOGICAL SERVICE FOR THE NATIONAL ARTIST AWARDS)
Agosto 7, 2009
2pm – 5pm
Lamay: CCP Front Ramp
Prusisyon: Plaza Roma hanggang NCCA
Libing: NCCA
P R O G R A M A
(P R O G R A M)
PAGTITIPON
Kung saan magtitipon ang mga nagluluksang Pambansang Alagad ng Sining, mga artista, pangkulturang manggagawa at ang mga nakikiramay sa CCP Ramp
PROSESYONAL
Ng nga Kababaihang Nakaitim Na May Lulang Korona ng Bulaklak
LUPANG HINIRANG
Pangungunahan ni Bituin Escalante ang pag-awit ng “Lupang Hinirang”
PAMBUNGAD
Pagpapahalaga ng Pambansang Alagad ng Sining Salvador Bernal sa layunin ng pagtitipon
PARANGAL
Pagpapahalaga ng Pambansang Alagad ng Sining BenCab tungkol sa birtud ng Gawad Pambansang Alagad ng Sining
PAG-ALAY NG BULAKLAK AT HIMIG
Pag-alay ng bulaklak ng mga dumalong Pambansang Alagad ng Sining habang tumutugtog ang musikerong si Renato Lucas sa cello
BALAC
Balagtasan ng mga makata ukol sa usaping “Paano Kumatay ng Pambansang Alagad ng Sining”
PAYASO
Ihahayag ni Juana Change ang kanyang panig na pinamagatang “National Artist na Ako! – Have Mercy on Us!”
DALIT
Ipagdadasal ng lahat ang Gawad Pambansang Alagad ng Sining at mananalangin na iadya sa mga budhing masasama. Pamumunuan ng Pambansang Alagad ng Sining Virgilio Almario habang sumasagot ang Lahat ng sabay sabay.
MANIPESTO
Babasahin ng Pambansang Alagad ng Sining Bienvenido Lumbera ang Panawagan at Paninindigan ng mga Artista, Pangkulturang Manggagawa at ng Nakikiramay na Bayan.
RESESYONAL
Isasakay ang Korona ng Bulaklak sa auto-punebre at hahanay ang mga sasakyan para sa motorcade patungong Intramuros
PRUSISYON NG TAUMBAYAN
Magtitipon ang lahat sa Plaza Roma at magpuprisyon patungo sa Tanggapan ng National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA).
LIBING
Ililibing ang Gawad Pambansang Alagad ng Sining sa paanan ng Tanggapan, iiwan ang Korona ng Bulaklak at magtitirik ng mga kandila.
Pinapayuhan ang lahat na magsisidalo na:
Ito ay nagsisilbing imbitasyon at maaring ipalaganap sa lahat ng mga nagmamahal sa Sining, Kultura at Katotohanan.
Photo credits to Azrael, Komikero for the program.
The necrological service should be ongoing right about now.
GAWAD PAMBANSANG ALAGAD NG SINING
(NATIONAL ARTIST AWARDS)
1972 – 2009
PAGDADALAMHATI NG BAYAN PARA SA GAWAD PAMBANSANG ALAGAD NG SINING
(NECROLOGICAL SERVICE FOR THE NATIONAL ARTIST AWARDS)
Agosto 7, 2009
2pm – 5pm
Lamay: CCP Front Ramp
Prusisyon: Plaza Roma hanggang NCCA
Libing: NCCA
(P R O G R A M)
PAGTITIPON
Kung saan magtitipon ang mga nagluluksang Pambansang Alagad ng Sining, mga artista, pangkulturang manggagawa at ang mga nakikiramay sa CCP Ramp
PROSESYONAL
Ng nga Kababaihang Nakaitim Na May Lulang Korona ng Bulaklak
LUPANG HINIRANG
Pangungunahan ni Bituin Escalante ang pag-awit ng “Lupang Hinirang”
PAMBUNGAD
Pagpapahalaga ng Pambansang Alagad ng Sining Salvador Bernal sa layunin ng pagtitipon
PARANGAL
Pagpapahalaga ng Pambansang Alagad ng Sining BenCab tungkol sa birtud ng Gawad Pambansang Alagad ng Sining
PAG-ALAY NG BULAKLAK AT HIMIG
Pag-alay ng bulaklak ng mga dumalong Pambansang Alagad ng Sining habang tumutugtog ang musikerong si Renato Lucas sa cello
BALAC
Balagtasan ng mga makata ukol sa usaping “Paano Kumatay ng Pambansang Alagad ng Sining”
PAYASO
Ihahayag ni Juana Change ang kanyang panig na pinamagatang “National Artist na Ako! – Have Mercy on Us!”
DALIT
Ipagdadasal ng lahat ang Gawad Pambansang Alagad ng Sining at mananalangin na iadya sa mga budhing masasama. Pamumunuan ng Pambansang Alagad ng Sining Virgilio Almario habang sumasagot ang Lahat ng sabay sabay.
MANIPESTO
Babasahin ng Pambansang Alagad ng Sining Bienvenido Lumbera ang Panawagan at Paninindigan ng mga Artista, Pangkulturang Manggagawa at ng Nakikiramay na Bayan.
RESESYONAL
Isasakay ang Korona ng Bulaklak sa auto-punebre at hahanay ang mga sasakyan para sa motorcade patungong Intramuros
PRUSISYON NG TAUMBAYAN
Magtitipon ang lahat sa Plaza Roma at magpuprisyon patungo sa Tanggapan ng National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA).
LIBING
Ililibing ang Gawad Pambansang Alagad ng Sining sa paanan ng Tanggapan, iiwan ang Korona ng Bulaklak at magtitirik ng mga kandila.
Pinapayuhan ang lahat na magsisidalo na:
Magsuot ng panluksa
Magdala ng itim na payong
Magdala ng kandila
Ipaalam kung maaring magsama ng mga kabayan sa sasakyan papuntang Intramuros (car pool)
Photo credits to Azrael, Komikero for the program.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Sunflowers
I had just turned eight years old several days before, when EDSA happened and the Marcoses fled. Baguio in February enjoyed the sight of sunflowers in full bloom, and save for the red alert status of the military camps of the city my childhood memories do not include the tension that must have gripped those who were on Epifanio delos Santos Avenue that fateful week in 1986.
I remember the petty arguments of my fellow children at the public elementary school I went to -- those who parroted "Marcos pa rin!" were shouted at with "Laban! Laban!" (fortunately we were all friends enough not to engage in fisticuffs over such things) -- and I remember how some of the kids made a fad out of carrying the bright yellow flowers picked from the bushes along the sidewalks.
I remember growing up through the troubled Aquino presidency. I remember how she was derided by the elders as "Calamity Cory". I remember how she was laughed at for her perceived ineptitude. I remember how we kids were being told to shut up because we didn't know how good it was in the days of the fallen dictator.
But I remember the words of one old man, a retired Army sergeant who had seen combat in Bicol and Mindanao, a man that officers treated with the utmost respect for his courage under fire. He spoke quiet words that brought an ashamed silence to those speaking ill of the president: "No addadapay daguiti Marcos, kayayo aya nga agsarita ti dakes kadakuwada?"
She was not perfect, our Corazon. She herself knew it, and she was humble about it. To my mind, it is this humility that uplifted her above her shortcomings. She recognized that the power she had was from the people -- and to the people she returned it, stepping down from the presidency with dignity and grace, leaving office as she entered it: a widow and an ordinary citizen. Called to greatness she was, and reluctantly did she accept her role -- but with all willingness to return it to the country when her time was done.
There are no sunflowers that I can see on this rainy day. No matter.
In my mind, sunflowers bloom for her. In my heart, sunflowers always will.
I remember the petty arguments of my fellow children at the public elementary school I went to -- those who parroted "Marcos pa rin!" were shouted at with "Laban! Laban!" (fortunately we were all friends enough not to engage in fisticuffs over such things) -- and I remember how some of the kids made a fad out of carrying the bright yellow flowers picked from the bushes along the sidewalks.
I remember growing up through the troubled Aquino presidency. I remember how she was derided by the elders as "Calamity Cory". I remember how she was laughed at for her perceived ineptitude. I remember how we kids were being told to shut up because we didn't know how good it was in the days of the fallen dictator.
But I remember the words of one old man, a retired Army sergeant who had seen combat in Bicol and Mindanao, a man that officers treated with the utmost respect for his courage under fire. He spoke quiet words that brought an ashamed silence to those speaking ill of the president: "No addadapay daguiti Marcos, kayayo aya nga agsarita ti dakes kadakuwada?"
She was not perfect, our Corazon. She herself knew it, and she was humble about it. To my mind, it is this humility that uplifted her above her shortcomings. She recognized that the power she had was from the people -- and to the people she returned it, stepping down from the presidency with dignity and grace, leaving office as she entered it: a widow and an ordinary citizen. Called to greatness she was, and reluctantly did she accept her role -- but with all willingness to return it to the country when her time was done.
There are no sunflowers that I can see on this rainy day. No matter.
In my mind, sunflowers bloom for her. In my heart, sunflowers always will.
There Are Not Words Enough.
We are home again, in a country we can once more call our own. We have won back our country and won it with bravery, sacrifice, honor, and distinction. This night marks our true independence. We owe no one for our freedom but ourselves.
It is not for me to thank the Filipino people; it is for all of us to welcome ourselves home. Mabuhay ang Pilipino.
- from Cory Aquino’s victory statement, February 8, 1986
I grieve with thee, Philippines.
(Hat tip to MLQ3 and inquirerdotnet.)
Paalam Po, Tita Cory
January 25, 1933 - August 1, 2009
We must embrace pain and burn it as fuel for our journey. - Kenji Miyazawa
And so we shall. We shall not forget you, nor that you brought us back into the light. Rest now, it is our turn to do the fighting.
Au revoir, Madame President. Do give our respects to your husband.
Respectfully yours,
the jester-in-exile
To the Aquino family, to her friends, and to a nation who has lost through Cory Aquino's passing so much, the jester-in-exile humbly offers his sincere condolences.
May she rest in peace, and may our hearts find ease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
