What the heck is the NBN deal all about?

Today I am about to attend a talk regarding the NBN deal and I have to admit that I still don’t have a firm stand regarding the supposed bribery and corruption that went along the said deal.  I am still at a limbo on who and what to believe.  For one, there are many claims and coutner-claims that surround the issue.  But what I am certain about is that I am to bound to believe the side or party who can and will produce solid evidences regarding the issue.   So far, all we have are testimonial claims and evidences, which canot be a solid ground to decide upon the matter.  Hearsays or testimonies can very well be corroborated.

Despite the current plight of the country on the issues on the NBN deal, we, as citizens, are duty-bound to know the issues surrounding the country’s present struggle.  We must be informed and make a firm stand on the issue.  We should not rely on what people or congregations say we should believe.  We must personally know the issues and assess it based on our own set of values, beliefs, and understanding.  As part of that duty, I am posting below the timeline, from Inquirer, of what happened during that deal.  I hope that this will help in assessing the issues and, at the very least, being informed about it.

LENGTH AND BREADTH OF THE BROADBAND DEAL:

JULY 12, 2006 — The Department of Trade and Industry executes a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) International Investment Ltd. to cooperate in the development and implementation of various investment activities in the Philippines, including the National Broadband Network (NBN) project.

JULY 13 — President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announces at the Clark Special Economic Zone the creation of a cyber corridor covering the cities of Baguio, Cebu, Davao and Manila and Clark. The corridor will host call centers and outsourcing companies and will be supported through additional digital infrastructure.

AUG. 1 — Ms Arroyo names Ramon Sales, head of the government’s Information and Communication Technology (ICT) as “focal personâ€? or coordinator for the Cyber Corridor.

AUG. 7 — ZTE Corp. submits to the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT), an attached agency of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), a proposal for the NBN Project.

SEPT. 4 and 6 — ZTE writes to CICT regarding clarification on the project proposal and incorporating the suggestions of CICT.

SEPT. 8 — China Eximbank, through its general manager, Li Xiaoping, writes the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) informing that they are ready to exchange opinions and explore cooperation opportunities after China Eximbank and ZTE held discussions resulting in the conclusion that they may be available for transaction on the NBN project.

OCT. 23 — CICT endorses ZTE’s proposal to the NEDA for further evaluation and action.

NOV. 21 — Secretary Michael Defensor wrote to Minister Bo Xilai of the Ministry of Commerce, People’s Republic of China, to verify and confirm the interest of Chinese companies in arranging a comprehensive solution, to include financial and technical support, for the development and implementation of the NBN and Distant Learning projects of the Philippine government.

DEC. 2 — Chinese Ambassador Li Jin Jun informs Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor through a letter that the Chinese government intends to support the NBN project and that China has designated ZTE as the contractor.

JAN. 2, 2007 — The DOTC receives a letter from Amsterdam Holdings Inc. (AHI) dated Dec. 5, 2006 informing the DOTC of its project, Orion Network, and requesting a favorable endorsement to NEDA. Also mentioned in the letter is a request for the government to designate the DOTC as the project’s coordinating agency.

JAN. 3 — NEDA requested the DOTC with TelOf (still under CICT) to take the lead in the preparation and implementation of Cyber Corridor projects taking into consideration the requirements of concerned end-user agencies. NEDA also requested for the submission of the necessary NEDA-ICC documents to facilitate processing of the project particularly the IP-based National Broadband Network Project

FEB. 13 — Executive Order No. 603 was issued by the President transferring the TelOf and all other operating units directly supporting communications from the CICT to the direct control and supervision of the DOTC.

FEB. 14 — NEDA refers to the DOTC for assistance and recommendation on the possible reconciliation of three similar proposals: 1) the Cyber Education Project (CEP) of the Department of Education (DepEd), 2) the NBN project endorsed by CICT (ZTE project proposal) and 3) the build-own-operate (BOO) NBN project of AHI.

FEB. 19 — DOTC/TelOf officials and personnel attended the meeting at NEDA Board Room to discuss the technical details and concerns on the NBN project.

FEB. 26 — ZTE submitted to DOTC copy of their NBN proposal which they have submitted to CICT and was subsequently endorsed by CICT to NEDA.

FEB. 27 — DOTC received another letter from NEDA dated Feb. 20, 2007 requesting for the submission/endorsement of a reconciled project proposal in view of the Feb. 13, 2007 joint NEDA-ICC and Cabinet meeting wherein the DOTC was instructed to sort out possible overlaps on the Cyber Education project of the DepEd and IP Based National Broadband Network Project of the DOTC/TelOf.

MARCH 1 — DOTC/CICT submits to NEDA the evaluation made on the three project proposals and recommends the implementation of a single government IP platform.

MARCH 1-20 — ZTE submits to the DOTC a revised NBN proposal with technical solution, project feasibility report, price summary, etc.

MARCH 23 — The DOTC endorses to NEDA the revised NBN proposal of ZTE.

MARCH 26 — The NBN project is presented to the joint ICC Cabinet Committee and ICC Technical Board meeting for deliberation and approval.

MARCH 26 — Ambassador Li Jin Jun writes a letter to Ms Arroyo, conveying that the Chinese government will fully support the NBN project of ZTE and the Distance Learning project of the DepEd.

MARCH 26 — AHI offered to build the NBN for the government for $242 million, questions the DOTC’s alleged bias for ZTE that offered to build the same facility under a $262-million government-to-government loan agreement. (Reported March 27, 2007).

MARCH 29 — The NEDA board approves the implementation of the NBN project.

MARCH 30 — ICT technical working group recommends the direct contracting mode in the procurement for the supply of equipment and services for the NBN project.

MARCH 31 — DOTC officials award the contract to ZTE, saying that AHI’s unsolicited proposal lacked complete documentation necessary for it to be considered.

APRIL 10 — BAC for ICT, considering RA 9184 and the recommendation of the TWG-ICT, have resolved to recommend that the procurement for the supply of equipment and services for the NBN project will be undertaken thru direct contracting and to refer the matter to the GPPB and NEDA for approval.

APRIL 16 — DOTC writes to GPPB and NEDA requesting for opinion and approval of the procurement process for the implementation of the NBN project, respectively.

APRIL 16 — TWG submits evaluation report and recommendation on the technical aspect of the draft as input for DOTC Legal Office’s final review.

APRIL 20 — Secretary Romulo Neri of NEDA writes to Minister Bo Xilai of Ministry of Commerce and Chairman/President Li Rougu of China Eximbank endorsing the NBN project for loan financing of the People’s Republic of China under the Preferential Buyer’s Credit Facility of China Eximbank.

APRIL 21 — Transportation and Communications Secretary Leandro Mendoza and ZTE vice president Yu Yong sign the $329-million NBN contract in Boao, China, in ceremonies witnessed by Ms Arroyo.

APRIL 24 — The GPPB advises DOTC that an opinion from the Department of Justice (DoJ) may prove relevant in the DOTC’s final determination on whether the NBN contract is entered into pursuant to Section 4 of RA 9184 mandating observance of executive agreements or Section 50 of RA 9184 on Direct Contracting.

MAY 28 — DOTC requests the Department of Finance to facilitate the availment of a soft loan from the China Eximbank.

MAY 31 — DOTC requests for opinion from the DoJ on the following issues: 1) whether or not the proposed NBN project can be considered an executive agreement by virtue of MOU signed between GRP (DTI through Secretary Peter J. Favila) and ZTE and subsequent “exchange of notesâ€? between representatives of GRP and GOC and 2) granting the NBN project is deemed to be an “executive agreement,â€? would the mode of procurement fall under EO No. 423, s.2005, on alternative mode of procurement (direct contracting) or under the last sentence of Section 4 of RA 9184.

JUNE 20 — Communications Assistant Secretary Lorenzo G. Formoso III discloses at a business forum the loss of the two “sovereignâ€? contract documents — one for ZTE and the other for the CEP.

JUNE 21 — The DoJ requests for clear and legible copies of the following documents: 1) letter of Ambassador of China Li Jinjun to Presidential Chief of Staff Michael T. Defensor dated Dec. 2, 2006; 2) contract for the Supply of Equipment and Services for the National Broadband Network Project between the DOTC and ZTE Corp. and 3) the Loan Agreement with the China Eximbank.

JUNE 26 — The Senate calls for an investigation of the broadband contract, saying that ZTE has been involved in “questionable dealsâ€? in other countries.

JUNE 27 — Mendoza says the NBN contract with ZTE is still subject to review by the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance.

JULY 11 — DOTC submits to the DoJ the requested copies of 1) letter of Ambassador of China Li Jinjun to Presidential Chief of Staff Michael T. Defensor dated Dec. 2, 2206 and 2) the reconstituted NBN contract.

JULY 26 — Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez issues an opinion that says that the contract is an executive agreement and does not need to go through a public bidding.

AUGUST — Iloilo Vice Gov. Rolex Suplico asks the Supreme Court to nullify the ZTE contract for being unconstitutional and to stop its implementation.

AUG. 6 — The President’s legal adviser, Sergio Apostol, says the project cannot be implemented because the contract is nonexistent, having been stolen in China shortly after the signing.

AUG. 7 — Trade Secretary Peter Favila says the supposed ZTE contract is just a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or Memorandum of agreement (MOA) and not a supply contract.

AUG. 9 — DOTC confirms it has signed a reconstituted supply contract with ZTE.

AUG. 25 — The Philippines and China sign a $1.8-billion loan agreement, allegedly including an amount for the NBN project.

AUG. 27 — Favila says $400 million of the $1.8 billion is not meant for any particular project like the NBN.

AUG. 28 – Nueva Vizcaya Rep. Carlos Padilla lodges a criminal complaint against Mendoza and two assistant secretaries of the DOTC at the Office of the Ombudsman for allegedly “giving undue advantage� to ZTE.

AUG. 29 — Padilla, citing a column by Jarius Bondoc in the Philippine Star, tags Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos Sr. as the poll official who allegedly lobbied for the ZTE broadband contract. Padilla says Abalos played golf with ZTE executives in Shenzhen and at the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club in Mandaluyong City just weeks before the contract was signed.

AUG. 30 — Abalos admits that he and some ZTE officials were golfing buddies and that ZTE executives paid for his trips to China. However, Abalos maintains that he never helped the company to win the deal. Abalos says he and ZTE officials met with Finance Secretary Margarito Teves at Teves’ house in Alabang, Muntinlupa, “one afternoon last year,â€? but adds that the NBN project was not discussed.

AUG. 31 — Teves confirms that he was introduced to ZTE officials at a meeting with Mendoza and Abalos and that they talked about the NBN project.

SEPT. 1 — Abalos says he called Teves and that the latter supposedly apologized for saying that Abalos was present when the project came during a discussion in Wack Wack.

SEPT. 5 — Romulo Neri, former NEDA director general and now Commission on Higher Education head, neither confirms nor denies that he was offered P200 million to support the NBN project. (A Newsbreak report would later say that Abalos offered Romulo P200 million so that NEDA would “helpâ€? with the ZTE deal.)

SEPT. 9 — Ms Arroyo talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao about the controversial NBN project on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Sydney, suggesting that Favila and Chinese Commerce Minister Bo Xilai work together to resolve the issue.

SEPT. 10 — AHI asks the Supreme Court to compel Malacañang to give it a copy of the contract won by ZTE. AHI also seeks for a temporary restraining order on the implementation of the government’s deal with ZTE while its petition is pending.

– AHI cofounder Jose “Joeyâ€? de Venecia III says at a forum that the supply contract with ZTE is overpriced by about $130 million to cover “commissions.â€? He describes Abalos as appearing to be the “captainâ€? of those who were brokering the ZTE deal. De Venecia says Abalos offered him $10 million in December 2006 to back off from the project.

– ZTE denies bribing government officials to bag the $329-million contract, saying that its initial offer of $262 million grew to $329 million because the government’s requirements changed.

SEPT. 11 — Acting on the petitions of Suplico and AHI, the Supreme Court issues a temporary restraining order on the implementation of the NBN project.

– Sen. Panfilo Lacson calls the President the driving force behind the deal with ZTE as he came out with a “reconstitutedâ€? copy of the supply contract.

SEPT. 12 — Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile says the “reconstituted copyâ€? Lacson presented was merely a supply agreement and that the more binding contract, the financial agreement, has not yet been approved.

In a letter to the blue ribbon committee, Mendoza begs off from attending the Senate hearing on the NBN project, saying that the two pending cases in the Supreme Court seeking to block the ZTE deal prevent him from speaking out on the matter.

SEPT. 14 — De Venecia says in an affidavit dated Sept. 11 that he was wiretapped by Abalos to monitor his conversations with ZTE officials and that it was Abalos himself, in a fit of rage, who admitted the offense sometime in February. Abalos denies the wiretap allegation and says that his lawyer is preparing to file several libel charges against De Venecia.

De Venecia says that a “mystery man� is part of the cast of characters behind the $329-million contract, but says he will reveal the person’s identity only if asked at a proper legal forum.

SEPTEMBER — De Venecia says he has received threats from powerful persons, including one that supposedly came from Mendoza’s camp. Mendoza scoffs at this allegation, calling it a “fairy tale.â€?

SEPT. 17 — The President’s husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, boards a plane for Hong Kong on the eve of the Senate hearing on the NBN deal.

SEPT. 18 — De Venecia admits to the blue ribbon committee that the “mystery manâ€? is the President’s husband.

De Venecia says it was at the “reconciliation� meeting in mid-March at Wack Wack that Arroyo, whom De Venecia assumes was asked by Abalos to talk to him when Abalos failed to talk him out of the project, shoved a finger at him and told him to “back off.�

Other personalities present at the meeting other than himself, Arroyo, Mendoza and Abalos were Jimmy Paz (Abalos’ chief of staff), Quirino de la Torre (Abalos’ security staff), Ruben Reyes and Leo San Miguel.

In his testimony, De Venecia quoted his father as saying that Ms Arroyo asked Abalos during a golf game in Shenzhen in October last year why ZTE could not just undertake the project the way AHI had proposed (at no cost to the government).

The First Couple and Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., during a 10-city visit in China, were invited by the ZTE president to play golf. Abalos was one of the guest players.

SEPT. 19 — Arroyo, through his lawyer, confirms that he met with De Venecia at Wack Wack, but says it was “a purely chance encounterâ€? that did not include his barking at the businessman to “back offâ€? from the NBN deal.

Arroyo says that he merely “reminded� De Venecia that his being the Speaker’s son made it inappropriate for him to get involved in government contracts. The President’s husband denies that Abalos was at the meeting, saying that only he, De Venecia and Mendoza were present. De Venecia says Arroyo’s version of the meeting was “totally false.�

SEPT. 20 — Mendoza confirms at the second Senate hearing that the meeting took place and reiterates what Arroyo had declared through his lawyer that Arroyo did not raise his voice.

Mendoza even describes Arroyo as “mild-mannered,� while portraying De Venecia as someone who dogged him and went to see him in his office “several times� to follow up on his firm’s unsolicited NBN proposal.

After the hearing, Mendoza tells reporters that it was the Speaker, the younger De Venecia’s father, who aggressively lobbied for his son’s firm to bag the contract.

Favila says he is open to modifying or even rescinding the NBN deal and says he will talk to his Chinese counterpart, Trade Minister Bo Xilai, to discuss other options to undertake the NBN project, including its “cancellation or abrogation.�

SEPT. 22 — The President suspends the NBN project “indefinitely,â€? but senators say they will continue the probe despite the suspension.

SEPT. 24 — Ms Arroyo allows Neri, who failed to attend the Sept. 20 hearing due to “intestinal flu,â€? to attend the Senate probe. Earlier, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said Neri was part of the President’s official delegation to the United Nations General Assembly that is scheduled to leave for New York the next day, but Neri himself later told reporters that his trip had been canceled.

SEPT. 25 — The President discloses at a meeting in Malacañang that she had the NBN project “discreetly investigatedâ€? and found that the reports of bribery tainting the project were “uncorroborated.â€?

SEPT. 26 — Neri admits at the Senate hearing that Abalos offered him P200 million in exchange for giving the approval on the NBN project. Neri says he mentioned the bribe offer to Ms Arroyo, who he says told him to decline it.

De Venecia reiterates his earlier claim that Abalos offered him a $10-million bribe, which the Comelec chair vehemently denies. Abalos also denies brokering the NBN deal for ZTE.

Add comment March 12th, 2008

National ID System: For the Go or Forego

The case of Ople vs. Torres in 1998 paved the way to the feasibility of a National ID System. The case centers around the validity (constitutionality) of A.O. No. 308 (National Computerized Identification Reference System). It was found to be unconstitutional for posing a threat to the right to privacy. The court says that to be valid, it must be narrowly focused and a compelling interest must justify the law’s intrusion to individual rights. Moreover, intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards, which is lacking in the proposed system.

(Here is how a National ID System usually works)

Now, in a command conference in Camp Aguinaldo, the AFP has made a recommendation to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to revive the National ID System. AFP spokesperson, Lt. Col. Bartolome Bacarro said, “The recommendation for the revival of the national ID system is to accelerate accomplishing the [President’s] marching orders given to the AFP [to eradicate the communist insurgency by 2010].�

PGMA expressed her favor for using the National ID System to “provide services to our citizens”, particularly on government departments like Social Security System (SSS) or the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth). The main point of its implementation would be on having a greater coordination between government agencies, with the end of overcoming the threat to our national security.

However, Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno said that it is not possible to implement it within the year because we are not prepared, at this moment, to use a consolidated singular ID. It would take some time to complete the system analysis of all ID schemes, but we are getting there. Hopefully, this recommendation will be approved and the law will be perfected in no time.

Add comment January 8th, 2008

DOJ website hacked: NBI is now on the hunt

A felon is a felon, whether it be against a private individual or the government!

YEZ! Last thursday, Jan. 3rd, some felons greeted DOJ with a big surprise for the New Year. For a few hours, visitors of the Department of Justice’s website saw Wizard of Enchanted Kingdom, instead of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez.

 There was no major disruptions in the operations of DoJ, but the incident remains to be a great mockery and an on-the-face insult to the department. If hackers can access even the government department’s websites, how much more private individual’s websites.This poses as a warning to different business establishments as well who uses the internet as a means of a selling point or keeps record or uses the worldwideweb as a means of communication. Important files on the net may no longer be safe and we all have to be cautious.

The DoJ website was hosted by PLDT, who has promised to investigate the event as well. As of now, the NBI is also conducting their own probing and hunt for who is liable for the hacking. Note that hacking is punishable under Republic Act No. 8792 or the E-commerce Law. As Sec. 33 of the said law provides:

“SEC. 33. Penalties. - The following Acts shall be penalized by fine and/or imprisonment, as follows:

(a) Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar information and communication devices, without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or information and communications system, including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption,destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic document shall be punished by a minimum fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;…”

Add comment January 4th, 2008

MACBOOK PRO STOLEN on CHRISTMAS! 40K REWARD

(I’m posting this to help the victim..to what’s the least that I can do)

STOLEN: Macbook Pro 2.4GHZ, 2GB RAM, 120GB HDD - SERIAL # W8732099X92
WHEN: DEC.23,2007
WHERE: Tagaytay City
REWARD: P40,000 for recovery and information leading to recovery
CONTACT: MARK DE LOS REYES, 0917-893-2392

My sister’s Macbook Pro laptop was stolen last DEC. 23 from our home in Tagaytay. Someone had taken her laptop from a table inside our house while it was charging. Charger, and case were taken as well. My sister is supposed to graduate this coming year and all her work files were in that computer. (my christmas gift to her was an external hdd for her to back up her files, but unfortunately the laptop was stolen before she could use it.) Her thesis and a lot of her design work remains inside, so the laptop’s contents are more valuable to us than the actual laptop. The computer is passworded, so it is likely that the person who has it will bring it to a store or shop to have the hard disk reformatted.

Please spread the word among technicians and other apple stores so that this laptop may be found soon. My sister’s career depends on it.

Hopefully we can all still have a happy new year.

-Mark De los Reyes
0917-893-2392
timdlr@gmail.com

Add comment January 3rd, 2008

Media ‘processing’ - Rightful or a Violation of a Right?

The recent Trillanes coup (attempt) gave rise to but another controversy that the State is now faced with. Right after the surrender of Trillanes and his supporters, the police force proceeded in gathering all the media people involved, or were together with Trillanes’ team, inside the Manila Peninsula Hotel. The policemen explained that it was for a short inquiry or processing, to verify the media people’s identity and/or participation with the coup (attempt).

It must be noted that before the said processing, the media people were forewarned and asked to leave the premises for their safety and to easily facilitate the negotiation and/or arrest of the group of Trillanes. But the media people did not listen and chose to remain inside the Manila Peninsula, for some personal or competitive purposes. In that light, the media people became instruments to obstruct, or at least make it more difficult, for the police force to execute its plans in order to end the nuisance at once.

The press plays a very important role in the society. It shows to the world what is truly happening in a micro and/or macro prospective. It influences the way people think and perceive things. It can even create a certain culture or belief, if it wishes. It can also serve as a cover up for protection by some accused. And the latter is exactly what the policemen wish to avoid in heeding for the media to move out of the premises.

To some people, the media’s act was heroic and shows true dedication in the service of nation in showing what is happening to the world. But to some it is pitiful, in sane, or worse, a conspiracy to protect the accused. As a dear Constitutional Law professor, Dean Andy Bautista, has mentioned, “It is just like in a burning house! We cannot absolutely deprive the owners of the house to go inside and save some belongings, but as a rule of duty, we must do so for their protection. Now if they insist in doing so, they may do so, but not without taking the risk for themselves.” The media people, in insisting to stay inside the Manila Peninisula during the coup (attempt), should bear the hassle of any processing, inquiry, or whatever procedure that the police enforcers may require them to undertake. That is not just for their own safety but more for the nation’s security, knowing that some Magdalo can very well be in a disguise as a media man, simply to effect an escape. I am sure that a true dedicated serviceman wouldn’t want someone (an accused) to use his/her name (service) as a means of escaping liability from the State.

So now we come to the famous question of whether the holding made against the media people constitutes an arbitrary detention or a violation of the freedom of the press and a deprivation of their right w/o due process of law. Due process of law, as well as the equal protection of the law, is provided for in Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

Section 1: “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”

Due process, as contemplated by the law, can either be ‘Procedural due process’ or ‘Substantive due process’. Procedural due process requires a step-by-step procedure of how a law (or a thing) shall be implemented, and faithful execution according to the prescribed procedure is tantamount to compliance with due process. On the other hand, Substantive due process is the absence of arbitrary laws and questions the very essence or substance of the law itself, as whether it is just or not.

Without a doubt, the policemen has complied with the proper call of procedure in dealing with the media men. The processing is applied to ‘all’ members of the press, without distinction as to who is famous or not (shame to those who were even proud of being able to escape from this process). Now, the last question is whether there was an actual need for the said processing, it is ’substantial’ and just? I personally believe that the police enforcers had a reasonable ground to conduct the said processing. It is paramount to public interest that they assure that they are not setting free the people liable to the distress that just occurred. The main consideration for the act is the general welfare of the community, especially those within the surrounding vicinity. Hence, there is no violation of due process, whether procedural or substantive.

I would like to end this with a call on the press for a balanced judgment. It was obvious from the interviews with Trillanes how their group push and pursued on using the media as a means to get the sympathy of the people and/or as a cover (protection) from the armed forces. For a couple of times, they insisted on the fact that the present administration is willing to sacrifice the media people just to get what it want. By mid of their act, they were firm on their stand that they will not surrender, no matter what. And at the end of the day, they moved on to say that they will surrender since their conscience cannot take it, to put the media peoples’ lives at stake, as compared to what the administration was willing to sacrifice. On the other hand, many believe that the real reason behind the surrender was the fact that no one heeded their call. They received only a minimal support, if not none, that is not sufficient to actually bring their mission to success, and so they surrendered and gave the lame excuse of ‘for the sake of the press’, again to gain sympathy and the side of the press. Whereas, in the first place, they are the ones who put not just the press but the whole nation at stake. They put at stake the slowly growing and recuperating economy back to zero. Investors were threatened, tourists were frightened, citizens were sacrificed. How can one call for a positive change if he himself is the greatest contributor for a nuisance. Clearly, everyone must rethink things out.

Add comment December 2nd, 2007

Trillanes walks out to march along Makati..

Inquirer reports today…

MANILA, Philippines — (UPDATE) Detained Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and other officers accused of leading the July 2003 rebellion walked out of their trial Thursday and marched through the streets of Makati calling for the ouster of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The walkout began shortly after the trial resumed after a brief recess. Brigadier General Danilo Lim, who himself is detained and facing coup d’etat charges following an alleged failed coup attempt in February 2006, was pulled away by several soldiers from the witness stand.

Trillanes and Lim said they were calling on the Filipinos to withdraw support from the government because the President has corrupted its institutions.

“We are joining the people… because the President continues to violate the Constitution of the Philippines repeatedly,� Lim told DZMM’s Teleradyo program, adding they were “calling for the removal of an illegitimate President.�

Trillanes, Lim and the other accused soldiers were joined by civilians, including a group of militant farmers and opposition figures led by former vice preisdent Teofisto Guingona.

It was not clear if the prisoners’ guards had joined the protest, but they marched along with the accused.

Add comment November 29th, 2007

Citizen Joseph Ejercito Estrada

“Former ‘The King’ action star turned President turned Jail-man, now a free Citizen of the RP”

The life of Mr. Joseph Ejercito Estrada is full of surprises and the whole Philippines witnessed the ups and downs he went through in life. From being the famous action star, he entered the world of politics, which made him and broke him, at the same time. I, personally, pity the plight that he had to go through. Many believe that Estrada is, indeed, a good man but was too kind and gullible, thus, was swayed easily by people surrounding him.

He was born in April 19, 1937. His birthplace, Tondo, is one of the poorest parts of Manila, the capital of the Philippines. Took up Engineering at Ateneo de Manila. He was expelled. His family was displeased with his dropping out of college and his involvement in a street gang that they forbade him from using his family name, thus, he adopted the surname “Estrada” (Spanish for ‘road’) as a last name.

He used to work as an ambulance driver before trying his hand on acting. When he entered the showbizness, he often played heroes of the downtrodden classes, which gained him the admiration of a lot of the nation’s many unschooled and impoverished citizens. This later proved advantageous to his political career. He was the first actor to be inducted in the FAMAS Best Actor Hall of Fame of the Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences in 1982. He also became a Hall of Fame awardee as a producer. A double feat that no one has ever achieved such so far. He played the lead role in more than 100 movies, and was producer of over 70 films.

Estrada entered politics in 1967 by running for mayor of San Juan. He came to be known as the ‘Man of the Mass’. He had a heart for the poor and the downtrodded loved him, making him win as the President of the Philippines in 1998. As a President, he faced a lot of criticisms. A lot of people questioned his capabilities to run the country, some even attacked his personal capacity and background, but one thing is for sure, he did really won the 1998 election with the mass support he got. Later in 2001, he was accused for corrupt practices with his involvement in some jueteng money and was imprisoned for six years until his final verdict, which affirmed his conviction last Sept. 12, 2007.

Sandiganbayan declared him not guilty on the count of perjury but was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on his plunder case and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua (or imprisonment of 20 to 40 years, carrying with it the accessory penalty of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon ~ Art. 41 of RPC)

Upon the imposition of the final verdict against the former president, Estrada even told the AFP that he was resigned for the latest drama in his presidency, the last and best performance of all. While the prosecution’s lead counsel Dennis Villa-Ignacio (by beloved professor in Criminal Law 1 at the Ateneo Law School, Rockwell) proudly asserted: “It shows that our judicial system really works.This is the last chance for the state to show that we can do it, that we can charge, prosecute and convict a public official regardless of his stature.”

However, another episode arose from the supposed ending of Mr. Estrada’s story. He was recently granted pardon by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and again many people criticized the grant given to him. From the standpoint of SP Villa-Ignacio, he told us once, in class, that he has no problem with the grant of pardon if ever, it is up to the President. For them, they have proven that there is still justice and that what’s most important is that the money that Estrada got from illegal transactions be recovered and be given back to the the sovereign, where it truly belongs. After all things said and done, the end is yet to be uncovered. We all have to be part of this ending, not by doing protests and creating noise that put no end to controversies, but by starting peace within ourselves. If the real players in the battle can forgive and time can heal, who are we to play the judge. I am no Estrada fan nor a supporter. I was one among the first who condemned and hated him from the day he stepped his foot at Malacañang. But nothing has happened, and nothing will happen if we’ll all stay in one corner and gnashed our teeth in dismay for the government or for the people in the government. We’ll have to step up and take our own roles as part of this State. Mind you, but we all have a role to play (or at least a role not to play). Everyone simply wants peace and order for the nation.

Oppositions may play an important role at times but too much oppositions brings out nothing. Our government is being crippled by too much criticisms that it is no longer able to do its job, which the people elected are well capable of doing, but they can’t because of too much politicking, publicity, criticisms, etc. The People Power we had, indeed proved a lot about the sovereign’s capacity to oust an unwanted or improper official. But even that power, when put into abuse as a threat to all officials, becomes evin in itself. We scare away good servants. We drive away sincere public service. And worst of all, we throw justice away to the pit of greed and self-interest. I am not saying that we should all forgive Estrada and put behind the wrong things he has done to the country. But it might be helpful to look forward than backwards, and help each other to move on and sail the country back on its way. IT IS TIME TO GO! As the former Pres. Estrada has gone away from his jail. It is time for the Philippines to head on from the bad memories of the past. We must all take our role and take the lead…on our own little way.

 

Add comment October 30th, 2007

Is America Ready for a Woman President? (Cory=Slut)

Add comment October 5th, 2007

Gomez vs. Ventura and Board of Medical Examiners (54 Phil. 726)

[G.R. No. 32441. March 29, 1930.]

DOMINADOR GOMEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HONORIO VENTURA, Secretary of the Interior of the Government of the Philippine Islands, and the BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, defendants-appellees.

Jose Varela Calderon, for appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for appellees.

SYLLABUS

1. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; CHARGES AGAINST PRACTICING PHYSICIANS. — The law (sec. 12, Act No. 3111) does not require that the charges against practicing physicians be preferred by a public officer or by any specified person; it even permits the Board of Medical Examiners itself to require its executive officer to prefer said charges. From the wording of the law we infer that any person, including a public officer, may prefer the charges referred to. The fact that the charges were filed by the assistant fiscal of the City of Manila does not deprive the Board of Medical Examiners of jurisdiction to hear said charges and to take the proper action according to law.

2. OPIUM; OPIUM LAW. — The matter contained in section 9 of the Act No. 2381 (Opium Law) as to prescriptions of opium is not foreign to the end pursued in said Act, and in view of the provision of said section it cannot be maintained that Act No. 2381 includes more than one subject. The provisions contained in that section are simply details and means conducive to the ultimate purpose of said Act, which details and means need not be stated in the title of the Act for the very reason that, properly speaking, they are not foreign matter.

3. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; POWERS. — The powers vested in the Board of Medical Examiners to suspend or revoke a physician’s certificate of registration and the authority granted the Secretary of the Interior to confirm or reverse the decision of said board of examiners, partake of a quasi-judicial character, that is, involve the use of discretion. For this reason, the exercise thereof cannot be reviewed by mandamus, which is the nature of this cause on is merits.

 

D E C I S I O N

ROMUALDEZ, J p:

In this cause, the plaintiff prays for judgment, as follows:

“1. Annulling and setting aside the aforementioned investigation proceedings, and particularly the decision of the Board of Medical Examiners of the Philippine Islands dated March 30, 1926, forever revoking the plaintiff’s license to practice medicine and surgery.

“2. Ordering the defendants to restore the plaintiff to his status before the investigation and the decision of March 30, 1926, that is, as if there had never been an investigation and an adverse decision.

“3. Ordering said defendants to issue in favor of the plaintiff a license for the practice of medicine and surgery in the Philippine Islands, such as he had prior to the investigation and adverse decision.

“4. Granting the plaintiff any other proper legal remedy.” (Pages 5 and 6, bill of exceptions.)

The defendants answered with a general denial and prayed that the complaint be dismissed. After trial the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint with costs against the plaintiff.

Counsel for plaintiff contends that the court below erred:

“1. In holding that Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix of the City of Manila was authorized to appear and institute administrative proceedings against Dr. Dominador Gomez before the Board of Medical Examiners of the Philippines.

“2. In not holding that Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix, of the City of Manila, had no personality nor power to institute administrative proceedings against Dr. Dominador Gomez before the Board of Medical Examiners of the Philippines.

“3. In admitting in its decision that section 9 of Act No. 2881, known as the Opium Law, is valid.

“4. In not holding that section 9 of Act No. 2381, known as the Opium Law, is unconstitutional, and therefore null and void.

“5. In holding that section 9 of Act No. 2381, known as the Opium Law, is in force.

“6. In not holding that section 9 of Act No. 2381 has been repealed, even on the supposition that it was valid.

“7. In rendering the judgment appealed from.

“8. In denying the notion for avoidance, and for a new trial, filed by the appellant.”

The first two assignments of error relate to the validity of the charges against the plaintiff, preferred by Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix of the City of Manila, who, according to the plaintiff is not authorized by law to file charges with the Board of Medical Examiners, which therefore acquired no jurisdiction over the matter.

According to section 780 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3111, the procedure to be observed in revoking a certificate of registration is the following:

“Proceedings for revocation of a certificate of registration shall be begun by filing a written charge or charges against the accused. These charges may be preferred by any person or persons, firm or corporation, or the Board of Medical Examiners itself may direct its executive officer to prepare said charges. Said charges shall be filed with the executive officer of the Board of Medical Examiners and a copy thereof, together with written notice of the time and place when they will be heard and determined, shall be served upon the accused or his counsel, at least two weeks before the date actually fixed for said hearing.” (Sec. 12, Act No. 3111.)

The law does not require that the charges be preferred by a public officer or by any specified person; it even permits the Board of Medical Examiners itself to require its executive officer to prefer said charges. From the wording of the law we infer that any person, including a public officer, may prefer the charges referred to in the abovequoted provision. Wherefore, the fact that the charges were filed by Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix of the City of Manila, does not deprive the Board of Medical Examiners of jurisdiction to hear said charges and to take the proper action according to law.

The appellant contends in his third and fourth assignments of error that section 9 of Act No. 2381 is null and void on the ground of unconstitutionality, since said section is foreign to the subject of said Act, in violation of section 3 of the Jones Law prohibiting the enactment of any bill embracing more than one subject and providing that the subject be expressed in the title of the bill.

Our opinion is that the matter contained in section 9 of Act No. 2381 is not foreign to the end pursued in said Act, and that in view of the provision of said section it cannot be maintained that Act No. 2381 includes more than one subject. The penalty provided in said section for the physician or dentist who prescribes opium for a patient whose physical condition does not require the use of said drug, is one of the means employed by the Legislature to attain the purpose of Act No. 2381, which is, to prohibit unnecessary use of opium; it is one of the details subordinate to the purpose in view. Such punishment is not the end contemplated in Act No. 2381, but, as we have just said, it is a means employed to regulate the use of opium.

In passing said Act No. 2381, the Legislature merely exercised the police power expressly granted by the Act of Congress of March 3, 1905, for the protection of the health, comfort, and general welfare of the people of the Philippine Islands.

“ID.; ID.; POWER OF PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE TO LEGISLATE UPON THE SUBJECT. — The Philippine Legislature is expressly authorized by the Act of Congress of March 3, 1905, to adopt legislation upon the importation and sale of opium in the Philippine Islands. The purpose of such legislation was to protect the health, comfort, and general welfare of the people of the Philippine Islands. Such legislation was an exercise of the police power of the State.” (United States vs. Wayne Shoup, 35 Phil., 56.)

And, as we have stated, the provisions contained in section 9 of Act No. 2381 relative to physicians and dentists, are simply details and means conducive to the ultimate purpose of said Act, which details and means need not be stated in the title of the Act for the very reason that, properly speaking, they are not foreign matter.

“The general purpose of these provisions is accomplished when a law has but one general object, which is fairly indicated by its title. To require every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishment of this general object to be provided for by a separate act relating to that alone, would not only be unreasonable, but would actually render legislation impossible.” (Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, pp. 296-297.)

“The constitutional requirement is addressed to the subject, not to the details of the act. The subject must be single, the provisions, to accomplish the object involved in that subject, may be multifarious. . . . None of the provisions of a statute will be held unconstitutional when they all relate, directly or indirectly, to the same subject, have a natural connection, and are not foreign to the subject expressed in the title. As very frequently expressed by the courts, any provisions that are germane to the subject expressed in the title may properly be included in the act.” (I Sutherland on Stat. Const., par. 118.)

In order to hold that section 9 of Act No. 2381 is unconstitutional on the ground alleged by the plaintiff, the violation of the constitutional provision must be substantial and manifest. It is not so in the case at bar.

“2. To warrant the setting aside of statutes because their subjects are not expressed in the titles, the violation of the rule must be substantial and plain.” (Posadas vs. Menzi, Decision of the United States Supreme Court, page 388, No. 11, May 15, 1929, United States Supreme Court Advance Opinions.)

At all events the validity of this Opium Law, Act No. 2381, has already been upheld by this court, not only in the above cited case, United States vs. Wayne Shoup, supra, but also in the subsequent case of United States vs. Jao Li Sing (37 Phil., 211).

Passing to the fifth and sixth assignments of error, wherein counsel for appellant contends that even granting that section 9 of Act No. 2381 is valid, it was repealed by Act No. 2493 and later by section 780 of the Administrative Code, we note, first, that there is no express repeal of section 9 of Act No. 2381. Secondly, it cannot be held that it has been impliedly repealed, for the reason that the provisions of section 9, Act No. 2381, are neither contrary to, nor incompatible with, the provisions of section 780 of the Administrative Code, as amended. Upon this point, we approve and adopt the following statements made by the trial judge:

“Counsel contends, in support of the above, that Act No. 2493 being complete, and ‘covering the field’ by implication repealed all laws relating to the practice of medicine, powers of the Board of Medical Examiners and allied matters; hence, the said law, expressly providing the causes for revocation of medical licenses, necessarily excluded all others, even though embodied in prior enactments.

“Act No. 310 provided that the Board of Medical Examiners could revoke licenses for ‘unprofessional conduct,’ without defining the term. Act No. 1761 (the Opium Law) provided that illegally prescribing opium should be cause for revocation of medical licenses. Clearly, the Opium Law did not repeal Act No. 310. Act No. 2381 — also an Opium Law — in its section 9, repeated the provision as to doctors and dentists. The repetition did not repeal Act No. 310. Act No. 2493, section 11 (Ad. Code, sec. 780), provided that certificates of physicians are revokable for ‘unprofessional conduct,’ without defining the phrase. In other words, so far as revocation of licenses is concerned, Act No. 2493 is a mere reënactment of Act No. 310. The reënactment of the said portion of Act No. 310 did not repeal section 9 of the Opium Law. If said section 9 has been repealed, it must be by Act No. 3111, which amends Act No. 2493 (Ad. Code, sec. 780), by an addition after the words ‘unprofessional conduct’ of the following:

“‘The words “unprofessional, immoral, or dishonorable conduct” as used in this chapter shall be construed to include the following acts: (1) Procuring, aiding or abetting a criminal abortion; (2) advertising, either in his own name or in the name of any other person, firm, association, or corporation, in any written or printed paper, or document, of medical business in which untruthful or improbable promises are made, or being employed by, or in the service of any person, firm, association or corporation so advertising, or advertising in any obscene manner derogatory to good morals; (3) habitual intemperance or addition to the use of morphine, opium, cocaine, or other drugs having a similar effect; (4) conviction of a crime or misdemeanor involving dishonorable conduct; and (5) willfully betraying a professional secret.’

“It cannot be seriously contended that aside from the five examples specified there can be no other conduct of a physician deemed ‘unprofessional.’ Nor can it be convincingly argued that the Legislature intended to wipe out all other forms of ‘unprofessional’ conduct theretofore deemed grounds for revocation of licenses. The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius should be applied only as a means of discovering legislative intent and should not be permitted to defeat the plain indicated purpose of the Legislature. It does not apply when words are mentioned by way of example, or to remove doubts. (See Cyc., 1122.) If, therefore, there exists ‘unprofessional conduct’ not specified in the laws, with more reason does the criminal use of opium remain a specific cause for revocation of license.” (Pages 11, 12 and 13, bill of exceptions.)

As to the seventh and eighth assignments of error, we find the judgment appealed from correctly rendered, and the motion of avoidance and new trial properly denied.

As the Attorney-General correctly observes, the powers vested in the Board of Medical Examiners to suspend or revoke a physician’s certificate of registration and the authority granted the Secretary of the Interior of confirming or reversing the decision of said board of examiners, partake of a quasi-judicial character, that is, involve the use of discretion. For this reason, the exercise thereof cannot be reviewed by mandamus, which is the nature of this cause on its merits.

“As in the case of courts and judicial officers, it is a rule of general application that mandamus will, not lie to review or control the acts of executive officers and boards of state and federal governments in respect of matters as to which they are vested with discretion. In other words, they cannot be compelled to act or render a decision in any particular way, and this is so, even though the exercise of this discretion requires the construction and interpretation of statutes. Where public officials exercise their discretion, it is said that their conclusions, although disputable, are impregnable to mandamus.” (38 C. J., 659-660.)

That this action is really a mandamus proceeding, appears clearly from the terms of the complaint filed herein.

Finding no merit in the assignments of error, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Villamor, J., reserves his vote.

Add comment September 21st, 2007

Manila RailRoad Company vs. Insular Collector of Customs

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 30264. March 12, 1929.]

MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, defendant-appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for appellant.

Jose C. Abreu for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. CUSTOMS DUTIES; TAXATION; CLASSIFICATION OF DUST SHIELDS UNDER THE TARIFF LAW. — Dust shields are classified for the purposes of the tariff under paragraph 197 of section 8 of the Tariff Law of 1909 as detached parts of vehicles for use on railways and not under paragraph 141 of the same section of the law as manufactures of wool, not otherwise provided for.

2. STATUTES; TAX LAWS; BURDEN OF PROOF. — The burden is upon the importer to overcome the presumption of a legal collection of duties by proof that their exaction was unlawful. The question to be decided is not whether the Collector was wrong but whether the importer was right.

3. ID.; ID.; CONSTRUCTION. — It is the general rule in the interpretation of statutes levying taxes or duties not to extend their provisions beyond the clear import of the language used. In every case of doubt, such statutes are construed most strongly against the Government and in favor of the citizen, because burdens are not be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed, beyond what the statutes expressly and clearly import.

4. ID.; CONSTRUCTION OF GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROVISIONS. — Where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment.

D E C I S I O N

MALCOLM, J p:

The question involved in this appeal is the following: How should dust shields be classified for the purposes of the tariff, under paragraph 141 or under paragraph 197 of section 8 of the Tariff Law of 1909? These paragraphs placed in parallel columns for purposes of comparison read:

“141. Manufactures of wool, not otherwise provided for, forty per centum ad valorem.”

“197. Vehicles for use on railways, and detached parts thereof, ten per centum ad valorem.”

Dust shields are manufactured of wool and hair mixed. The component material of chief value is the wool. They are used by the Manila Railroad Company on all of its railway wagon. The purpose of the dust shield is to cover the axle box in order to protect from dust the oil deposited therein which serves to lubricate the bearings of the wheel. “Dust guard,” which is the same as “dust shield,” is defined in the work Car Builders’ Cyclopedia of American Practice, 10th ed., 1922, p. 41, as follows: “A thin piece of wood, leather, felt, asbestos or other material inserted in the dust guard chamber at the back of a journal box, and fitting closely around the dust guard bearing of the axle. Its purpose is to exclude dust and to prevent the escape of oil and waste. Sometimes called axle packing or box packing.”

Based on these facts, it was the decision of the Insular Collector of Customs that dust shields should be classified as “manufactures of wool, not otherwise provided for.” That decision is entitled to our respect. The burden is upon the importer to overcome the presumption of a legal collection of duties by proof that their exaction was unlawful. The question to be decided is not whether the Collector was wrong but whether the importer was right. (Erchardt vs. Schroeder [1984], 155 U. S., 124; Behn, Meyer & Co. vs. Collector of Customs [1913], 26 Phil., 627.) On the other hand, His Honor, Judge Simplicio del Rosario, took an opposite view, overruled the decision of the Collector of Customs, and held that dust shields should be classified as “detached parts” of vehicles for use on railways. This impartial finding is also entitled to our respect. It is the general rule in the interpretation of statutes levying taxes or duties not to extend their provisions beyond the clear import of the language used. In every case of doubt, such statutes are construed most strongly against the Government and in favor of the citizen, because burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed, beyond what the statutes expressly and clearly import. (U. S. vs. Wigglesworth [1842], 2 Story, 369; Froechlich & Kuttner vs. Collector of Customs [1911], 18 Phil., 461.)

There are present two fundamental considerations which guide the way out of the legal dilemma. The first is by taking into account the purpose of the article and then acknowledging that it is in reality used as a detached part of railway vehicles. The second point is that paragraph 141 is a general provision while paragraph 197 is a special provision. Where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former, the particular, enactment must be operative, and the general language are not within the provisions of the particular enactment (25 R. C. L., p. 1010, citing numerous cases).

We conclude that the trial judge was correct in classifying dust shields under paragraph 197 of section 8 of the Tariff Law of 1909, and in refusing to classify them under paragraph 141 of the same section of the law. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed in its entirely, without special taxation of costs in either instance.

Johnson, Street, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Add comment August 2nd, 2007